1988 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 3223 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Point of Privilege –– 3223

Tabling Documents –– 3223

Oral Questions

Abortion. Mrs. Boone –– 3223

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Harcourt

Ministerial Statement

Vanderhoof pulp and paper mill. Hon. Mr. Parker –– 3225

Mr. Miller

Presenting Petitions –– 3226

Guaranteed Available Income For Need Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 72). Second

reading

Mr. Cashore –– 3226

Mr. R. Fraser –– 3227

Mr. Barnes –– 3227

Mrs. Boone –– 3231

Mr. Harcourt –– 3231

Ms. A. Hagen –– 3233

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 3235

Cooperative Association Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 65). Committee stage. (Hon.

Mr. Couvelier) –– 3235

Mr. Stupich

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Hon. B.R. Smith

Election Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 28). Second reading

Ms. A. Hagen –– 3238

Mr. Stupich –– 3240

Mr. Jones –– 3243

Mr. Blencoe –– 3246

Appendix –– 3248

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 1988

The House met at 2:12 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We have with us today a very fine

gentleman. He's my Member of Parliament — and an excellent

representative at that — also the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and

a good friend of British Columbia, Hon. Tom Siddon. I would ask the

House to welcome him.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I have some bad news. One of our

most distinguished British Columbians, George Clutesi, passed away on

Saturday at the age of 83 –– I think we're all aware that this

outstanding artist, writer and actor, who was also a fisherman, a fish

buyer and a pile driver, is the author of Son of Raven, Son of Deer ,

which he published in 1967, and Potlatch , which he published in 1969.

He was an actor in I Heard the Owl Call My Name and Dreamspeaker . He

received an honorary doctorate at the University of Victoria and the

Order of Canada in 1971. He was a patron of the arts who received Emily

Carr's painting equipment.

It is a terrible loss to the people of British Columbia, and I'm

sure we will send a unanimous message of condolence to his family. The

ceremony, which takes place today at 1 o'clock in Port Alberni, is

being attended by Bob Skelly.

HON. S. HAGEN: I certainly would agree 100 percent with what

the Leader of the Opposition has said, noting that the doctor was a

writer in residence at the University of British Columbia. I guess the

positive aspect is that all of these writings are left with us and will

be of benefit to us and our children, and to our children's children. I

would like to pass on the condolences of the government to his family

and note his passing with a great deal of respect.

[2:15]

MR. SPEAKER: I will forward to the family the proper condolences.

MR. PELTON: On your behalf, Mr. Speaker, I would like the

House to welcome two gentlemen here this afternoon, Mr. Mark Edmonds

and Mr. Barry Hooper. They're here representing Alley Estates for

Coquitlam, British Columbia. Can we welcome them, please.

MR. BARNES: I'm very pleased to have present in the gallery

this afternoon my wife and fairly recent bride, Janet, with our friend

from Toronto, Peter Roberts, who is employed with the Department of

Immigration as an adjudicator. I would ask the House to make them both

welcome.

MRS. GRAN: In the House today we have Dr. James Hitchman and

the Canadian-American studies class from Western Washington

University in Bellingham. Would the House please make them welcome.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I rise on a matter of privilege at the earliest opportunity

available to me. Yesterday in question period the Leader of the Opposition I

believe misinterpreted an order-in-council, and I refer to the Blues, Mr. Speaker,

of Tuesday, March 1, afternoon sitting. I would like to quote the Leader of

the Opposition from yesterday's Blues:

"Yesterday the Premier told this House: 'We certainly

don't dictate to people what it is they do with the moneys we provide

them for welfare or such other assistance.' Mr. Speaker, last week

through order-in-council his government restricted British Columbians

on social assistance from paying for an abortion. Is the policy of the

government the one that was adopted by order-in-council last week, or

is it that which the Premier articulated yesterday?"

The Premier answered the Leader of the Opposition:

"Either he hasn't read the order, or he's taken this

from some misquote in one of the newspapers, perhaps. I can't tell

where he got the information, but that's certainly not what it was."

Mr. Speaker, having been told by the Premier that he was incorrect,

and I indicated to him across the floor that he was incorrect, he

proceeded, upon leaving the House, to say to the news media —

specifically the 6 o'clock news hour on BCTV last night, which is seen

provincewide — and I quote from that news hour, taken from the

videotape:

"It's clear that the Premier and the minister of human

services today were misleading the House and the people of British

Columbia when they said that people who are on GAIN can do what they

want to with their funds to receive funding for an abortion. Clearly

they can't."

I realize that in the heat of the debate — and this debate does get

heated and emotional at times — people are liable to say things that

they may not mean, and that's understandable. But accusing another

member or members of misleading this House is a very serious charge.

I look to you, Mr. Speaker, for direction, as I am not sure of the

technicalities of a motion of privilege; I will take your counsel in

that regard. It would seem to me that the Leader of the Opposition, if

he feels he is correct, should stand in this House now and repeat the

charge that the Premier and I deliberately misled this chamber.

Alternatively he should stand in his place here and now and apologize.

MR. SPEAKER: Hearing no further representations, I can only

say to the member that, although the member may well have a grievance,

there really is no question of privilege.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled the annual report of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia for the fiscal year 1987.

Oral Questions

ABORTION

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Premier. In light of the expert

legal advice received by the B.C. Health Association advising it to

carry out its public responsibilities found in

section 4 of the

Hospital Act, is it still the policy of this government to penalize

publicly funded hospitals by withholding funds for therapeutic

abortions, unless the service is paid for in advance?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: If it's a question of policy with respect to matters of health, I'll defer to the Minister of Health.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, where it involves non-medical

procedures such that aren't covered by the medical plan — and these may

cover a number of items, also

[ Page 3224 ]

foreigners that come in, where perhaps cash upfront or cash

receivable is required — we leave that up to the hospital. Our policy

is that we do not fund out of government funding from MSP for abortions.

MRS. BOONE: Supplementary to the minister. Mr. Minister, you

stated in this House that hospitals would have their global budgets

reduced by the amount of therapeutic abortions, and yet the Hospital

Act clearly states that no hospitals shall refuse to admit a person on

account of his indigent circumstances. This is a vital law. British

Columbians all over require proper health care, including abortions,

and this says that they cannot be denied those services. How does this

minister reconcile this law with the government's policy as you have

stated before this House?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, we're asking the hospitals to in

fact put all these moneys that they collect for these services that are

not covered under the MSP into a special fund, and they can deal with

that as they desire or as they see fit. So in other words, we are not

putting that into the global budget at all; it will be a separate

account. If they feel that they want to collect as a receivable rather

than collect upfront — and there are many items that come under this

category — that's up to the hospital.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Minister, has your policy then changed?

Because you stated in this House that hospitals that were acting on the

basis that they were not collecting the money upfront would have that

money deducted from their global budget. You stated that in this House.

Have you now changed that policy?

HON. MR. DUECK: To deal with it more effectively, we have

told the hospitals that we will not fund for abortions. That's our

policy. However, to make it easier for them, they perhaps could keep

that fund separate and then deal with it as they would like, because

they're an autonomous body.

MR. CASHORE: My question is to the Premier. The Premier and

the Minister of Social Services have both indicated to the House the

importance of the independent role of the superintendent of child

welfare as lawful parent of children in care. Will the Premier confirm

that the superintendent of child welfare has an arm's-length

relationship with this government — that the interests of a child in

care are of paramount consideration and are not to be tampered with by

the government?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the superintendent of child welfare works independently of government.

MR. CASHORE: Supplementary to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Has

the government issued a directive to the superintendent of child

welfare stating that no abortion-related expenses can be met via the

GAIN act and regulations for children in care?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'll defer to the Minister of Social Services.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam has the same problem as his leader in

interpreting order-in-council 266. If you will read the order, Mr.

Member and Mr. Leader of the Opposition, it does not mention the

superintendent of family and child services, nor does it mention

children in care.

MR. CASHORE: I want to point out that I have order-in-council

266, and I also have operational directive number 59, which relates to

order-in-council 266. I bring to the attention of this House that I

also have a February 1988 government directive — I have it in my hand —

which went to the superintendent of child welfare, among others. I

quote from it: "No abortion-related expenses can be met via the GAIN

act and regulations. This includes both income assistance recipients

and children in care."

Mr. Speaker, my question is: how can the Premier reconcile his earlier denial

that no directive exists with the facts just presented?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I had deferred it to the Minister of Social Services, and I'll do so again.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, what I said was — and I'll

still stand by it — was that the order-in-council does not mention the

superintendent of family and child service. The order specifically

states.... I'll read it so that the House and everyone is aware of the

order:

"1.

Section 29 is amended by adding the following

subsection:

(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this regulation,

the director shall not authorize payment for health care services under

section 2 (

a) or (

b) of

schedule F, or for health benefits under

subsection (3) or

section 4 of

schedule F, unless the payment is for

(

a) a service that is an insured service under the Medical Service Act,

or (

b) a service that would qualify the recipient for benefits under

the Hospital Insurance Act."

MR. SPEAKER: I just might suggest to both members — I guess

the member's not going to answer — that I allowed the minister and the

member to extend the question and extend the answer. I think some of

these points you're bringing up would be better served in a committee

somewhere or in estimates, rather than in question period.

MR. SIHOTA: Again to the minister — because it's obvious the

Premier doesn't want to answer these questions. The directive that we

have says: "No abortion-related expenses can be met via the GAIN act

and regulations. This includes both income assistance recipients and

children in care." It's small wonder that there's confusion over what's

happening with the government on its policy on this issue. My question

to the minister is whether he is denying that this directive exists.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: What I'm denying is that we have

interfered with the superintendent of family and child service and her

responsibilities as the guardian of these children. We have merely said

in the directive that such procedures will not be funded under the GAIN

act.

MR. HARCOURT: Does it exist? Yes or no.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: To the Leader of the Opposition, only he would look at a piece of paper and ask me if it exists.

[ Page 3225 ]

[2:30]

MR. SIHOTA: First of all, let me make it clear to the

minister.... He knows of this directive; the directive has been sent to the

superintendent of family and child service. It's very clear from the

directive. The purpose of this directive, obviously, is to deny

abortion coverage to those people who are on GAIN and who are covered

under the GAIN act and regulations. Is the minister denying that that's

the intent of this directive?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It's quite plain that the directive is to

spell out what can be paid for under the GAIN act as this

order-in-council amends that act. It's quite clear. It's clear to me

that the directive is that abortions cannot be funded under the GAIN

act, and that's why I read the order to you. It's very plain to me. The

MR. SIHOTA: If anyone's having trouble, it's the minister

who's having trouble defending his government's policies. That's what

is happening.

Let's ask something of the minister that might be a little easier.

If it's the government's position that the superintendent is at arm's

length and independent of government, then why send this directive to

the superintendent?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: As I said yesterday in the hallway, and

I'll say again today, the people on income assistance are entitled to

exactly the same health care as everyone else in this province. Every

necessary medical procedure will be funded by the GAIN act, and they

are entitled to no more and no less health coverage than anyone else.

It's very plain, and the order-in-council spells it out.

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Minister of Health. Last week

the Minister of Health said that his personal views on abortion are not

the views of the government, and the Premier has publicly said that it

is not his personal views at issue here. Will the minister tell the

House — given that it's not his or the Premier's views that have

influenced the government's policy on abortion — who in the government

has decided on a cash-up-front abortion policy for women in this

province?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, the point I made was that the

views expressed by government are not necessarily the views of

individual members. The policy of this government is that we do not

fund abortions. That was the point I was making.

MR. HARCOURT: Yesterday the Premier told this House that his

government's order-in-council of February 16, 1988, which takes away

medical coverage for abortions from British Columbians on GAIN, would

not restrict these women from paying for an abortion. Would the Premier

confirm that this order-in-council and the directive we've just

discussed take away medical coverage for women on social assistance

seeking an abortion?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, it doesn't.

MR. HARCOURT: I'd like a repeat of that answer. It does not take it away?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The order does not take it away.

MR. HARCOURT: Would the Premier then explain why, after

removing medical coverage for women on social assistance, he believes

that he hasn't restricted access to an abortion?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We did not remove medical coverage, Mr.

Speaker, and this has been explained a number of times. I would again

urge the Leader of the Opposition to read the order or have someone

read it to him and explain it.

MR. HARCOURT: I have read the order; I have understood the

order. I have understood the directive; and it's very clear from the

minister's answer that you are excluding women from abortions in this

province. Why can't you just say yes? Have the courage to say yes, you

are restricting.

Would the Premier tell this House which necessity, out of those

sparse funds that people on GAIN receive. he is going to advise women

on social assistance to go without: housing, food, clothing for the

children — or an abortion?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I will defer to the Minister of Social

Services, but we do not in any way advise people on social assistance

how they must handle their funds. If they seek advice in that regard,

it'll be at their request, and we would certainly be ready to assist. I

would like the Minister of Social Services to expand on that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I concur with what the

Premier said, but I still find it hard to believe that the Leader of

the Opposition cannot comprehend order-in-council No. 266. I would

repeat to him my challenge earlier. If he is so convinced that he is

right, then let him stand in this House right here and now and repeat

the charge he made in the hallway last night that we are deliberately

misleading this House.

Ministerial Statement

VANDERHOOF PULP AND PAPER MILL

HON. MR. PARKER: I rise today to make a ministerial statement to the members of the Legislative Assembly.

I'm pleased to advise you of an initiative which will lead to more

jobs for British Columbians, the development of provincial resources

not presently being used in the area which provides those resources and

a tremendous boost to the local economy of the Vanderhoof area. Alcan

has announced today that it will be encouraging forest products

companies to pursue an opportunity to establish a pulp and paper mill

in the Vanderhoof area. A recently completed study has indicated that

the company can supply long-term power at an attractive cost from the

present surplus being generated at Kemano. This fact, along with the

region's supply of high quality wood chips, could lead to a world-class

TMP newsprint mill in the area. Such a mill would represent an

investment of some $350 million and would create about 200 direct jobs

and another 250 indirect jobs.

MR. MILLER: I certainly had no advance notice of the statement to be given today by the minister. I would say, as a

[ Page 3226 ]

general statement, since I don't know the details of this particular

initiative, that the members of this side of the House always welcome

economic development initiatives that will be beneficial to this

province — and that goes without saying.

Having said that, I think there are a number of things that must be

considered in terms of looking at this area, particularly — and the

minister is aware of this — given the high level of concern for

environmental issues in that area. I would certainly hope that there is

adequate time for those issues to be considered prior to approval being

given to the construction of a TMP mill. There is a general concern

expressed in the province with regard to the consistent supply of wood

fibre to the pulp mills. We see a situation in the lower mainland, for

example, where a company is asking the government to stop wood-chip

exports so that they can be redirected to a domestic mill. There is

some uncertainty in terms of the long-term availability of fibre in the

province. Certainly that's a question that has to be looked into as

well. I'll conclude by saying, as I did at the outset, that we do

generally welcome economic development initiatives.

Presenting Petitions

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I'd like to

present a petition. The petition is on behalf of my constituents to the

Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture (Hon. Mr. Reid). This

particular petition was put together by the Richmond Community Concert

Association. It pertains to the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra. I'd like

to read it out. It's a brief statement:

"We, the undersigned members of the Richmond Community

Concert Association, heartily support the musicians of the Vancouver

Symphony Orchestra in their efforts to get the music started again. We

acknowledge the fact that the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra is vital to

the cultural life of not only the city of Vancouver but the province as

a whole. We deserve a well-funded, full-strength symphony orchestra. We

therefore urge you to do everything in your power to support the

Vancouver Symphony Orchestra."

This is signed by some 159 Richmond residents who belong to the association.

MR. SPEAKER: I suggest to hon. members, when they're

presenting petitions, that it might be very worthwhile to check the

standing orders, and also maybe consult with the table, to make sure

that the proper form is instituted.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call adjourned debate on Bill 72 in the name of the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond).

GUARANTEED AVAILABLE INCOME FOR NEED

AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

(continued)

MR. CASHORE: Just to recap, when I adjourned debate

yesterday, I think the gist of the comments on second reading of both

Bill 71 and Bill 72 was that this is very welcome legislation. We see

this legislation coming forward in a very open spirit on the part of

the government, a spirit that invites input not only from the

opposition but from the entire community.

In that spirit we are offering comments on this legislation, which

fundamentally we believe to be very appropriate in its intent and which

we very much wish to support. We do see some problems, and yesterday we

did canvass the problems that we see with Bill 71. But the major

problem that I have with Bill 72, which is enabling legislation with

regard to the GAIN act, is that I am concerned it will not deliver the

effect or the consequence that the government hopes it will deliver —

or, as indicated, that it believes it will deliver — once it is

implemented.

In order to put that into some kind of focus, I would like to refer

to the three points that the Minister of Social Services made in

introducing the bill, which he expanded on in some detail to indicate

the purpose of the bill: number one, to ensure that family breakdown

does not impoverish dependent family members; number two, it would

relieve single parents on income assistance of the struggle to secure

what is rightfully theirs; number three, it would promote financial

independence.

Looking at those purposes and the way in which the legislation is

drafted, if I were giving marks for those three assignments, I would

have to give number one, to ensure that family breakdown does not

impoverish dependent family members, a C-minus; the matter of relieving

single parents on income assistance of the struggle to secure what is

rightfully theirs, I would give that a B. And to promote financial

independence I would give a D — I do not think it's going to achieve

that goal. I say this in the context of remarks made yesterday by some

members of the House when we were trying to make the connection between

the good intent of this bill and the reality of poverty in our society,

a reality that on both sides of this House we wish to address. I

suppose that unless we have experienced hardship and poverty, it is

difficult to know exactly what is being experienced out there.

[2:45]

We often see, as the tip of the iceberg, those people who, under the

stress of poverty and with other problems, are breaking down and

burning out and turning to substance abuse and other tragic

consequences. I think it has been statistically demonstrated that

people who grow up within the crucible of poverty are more likely to be

having very severe problems in later life: problems in getting off the

welfare syndrome, for instance; problems in motivation; problems in

dealing with those crutches that are unfortunately available such as

substances that can be abused when people need to escape from it all.

But that is only the tip of the iceberg, Mr. Speaker. I think that

the vast majority of people growing up in single-parent families

benefit from some very positive values which are shown in the

sacrifice, often of the mother, in those family circumstances — and,

indeed, on occasion the sacrifice of the single-parent father who has

responsibility for a family. And it's unfortunate that so often all we

see is the tip of the iceberg and not those really heroic and

worthwhile efforts that are taking place on behalf of those in our

society who are getting by on very little.

In my own childhood, my mother was left with three children between

the ages of two and eight — and it was not through a family breakup; it

was as a result of death in the family. But having seen in retrospect

the kinds of circumstances she had to deal with during those years and

the impact that that made on her life — and recognizing the contribution

[ Page 3227 ]

she was able to make because of the kind of person she was — I think

that there's a real affirmation within the intent of this bill that

persons in those circumstances do require the kind of support that

enables them to enable that character existing within them that can

raise and care for their children to be manifested in a way that helps

them come to terms with the complexities of the world that we're living

in. And it's a much more complex and difficult world than the world

that I grew up in. Because of that, we look upon this legislation as

extremely important.

We have made the point that there is a very fine line between those

single parents who are heads of households who are on income assistance

and those single parents who are heads of households who are the

working poor — people of very limited means but who do not qualify for

income assistance. This bill needs some amendment, some assistance in

being able to — deal with people who are on that borderline.

Just to give you an example, the Minister of Social Services and Housing is quoted in the Friday, December 18, 1987, Times-Colonist

with regard to his enthusiasm for this bill. I'll just quote a bit from

the

article that leads up to a statement that the minister made:

"'Single parents on welfare who are missing support payments

can turn the struggle over to the director and be assured of support,'

said Social Services Minister" — and then it names the minister. "'It

does relieve that single mother on welfare from having to worry about where

that extra $200, $300 or $400 is coming from."'

When I first saw this bill, I made some rather hasty

interpretations

of its meaning — generally positive — but on reading it more carefully,

I have realized that really, unless I can have an explanation to the

contrary, the bill does not provide for payments of $200, $300 and

$400. What it provides for is a payment of $100.

To its credit the bill provides that, for instance, for a woman on

income assistance, should the partner who has departed and who owes

money default, that mother would not lose that $100 support payment

each month. That is commendable.

But one thing that it does not do, which I think is extremely

bothersome and I'm extremely concerned about, is if, for instance, a

mother finds herself in the situation of being a member of the working

poor and a period of 12 months has gone by without any support payments

coming thorough, and then that woman, say in her second month on

welfare, is entitled to the benefit of perhaps a lump sum payment of

$2,000, the fact is she will not receive $200 or $300 or $400. What she

will receive is $100. She will not have the benefit of that cumulative

payment that should be rightfully hers.

Mr. Speaker, I say it should be rightfully hers — and I really do

hope the minister can hear the point that I'm making here — because

during the time prior to coming on to social assistance, presumably in

anticipation that this court-ordered payment is going to come through,

she has perhaps bought a used washing machine for $200, gone into debt

in order to get some clothing for her children, etc., finds herself on

income assistance, and the second month the money comes through, but

she can only receive $100 because of the way in which the GAIN act and

this amendment are administered.

I think that is a real concern. As a matter of fact, if it's a

person who is a parent and has dependents, the entitlement is to keep

$100. If it's a person who is left alone but has no dependents, the

entitlement is to keep $50.

I think when we get into the committee stage we will also want to

seek further clarification with regard to the earnings exemption. I

think we'll need some explanation with regard to whether or not that

earnings exemption will provide any benefit, should such additional

payments come through. My understanding is that it will not, that the

parent would have to be employed.

I must say too that I do not expect the minister to be able to give

a full response to some of these points at this time. I know that we

will have the opportunity to canvass them in more detail during the

committee stage.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I believe this legislation, as I said

yesterday, is very much a step in the right direction. I think it can

be so much better, and I look forward to participating in the process

that will enable it to be precisely that.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, it's my great pleasure to address

this bill and to commend the government for coming forward with a bill

of this nature. I thank the member opposite for reminding us of the

purposes of the bill, and I would like to stress in a philosophical way

my complete support for the direction that the government is taking

with respect to this very important social question.

There is simply no doubt that spouses abandoned with children

entitled to support should get it, and if they're not able to get it

with means of their own, the government should provide some assistance:

or the taxpayers through the government should provide assistance to

people in this circumstance. There's simply no question.

Rather than just talk about the $100 or $200 that the minister

talked about, it strikes me that if the award to a spouse is $1,500 or

$2,000 or whatever and she doesn't get it, we will still take her case

as well. So not only will the taxpayers be relieved of an enormous

financial burden which we now accept; the families who are entitled to

support and who have been awarded support by the courts will get it,

and those who are supposed to pay maintenance costs will pay them.

I think the direction of the bill is philosophically correct. I

think the move of the minister in this case is correct. Certainly, when

it comes to society's obligation to help those who need help, there is

no question in my mind that we should do it.

I would hope that as a result of bills like this one and Bill 71,

the access that some non-custodial parents complain about will be

addressed by those receiving maintenance payments and that there will

be a great relief of stress between the two disagreeing former spouses

on the question of access because of the maintenance payments being

assured. If that takes place as an extra benefit to the bill, then I

will not complain about what might be minor shortcomings, and I will

not complain about the purpose of the bill whatsoever. I commend the

minister and the government for putting forward this bill and the

accompanying bill.

MR. BARNES: Yesterday on Bill 71 I was commending the

Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) for introducing the maintenance

enforcement act, because clearly those of us who have to address our

constituents daily know that the problem of errant spouses, male or

female — usually men — not assuming responsibility for their offspring

in instances where there has been a separation or a divorce is a very

[ Page 3228 ]

serious problem. Although there are those men who are not

indifferent toward this responsibility, they do have difficulty getting

redress through any existing system with respect to access, the kinds

of privileges that one who loves his children would expect, like

visiting time and opportunities to share in a loving way.

Quite often what happens when there is a breakup is that there is a

lot of bitterness, anger and vindictiveness and a host of other

emotions and irrationality that happen between two people, leaving the

child at an extreme disadvantage. Because of this difficulty between

the adults, it was necessary for the legislators to realize that we had

to be concerned about other parties besides the parents: the children.

Because of this, the opposition critic agreed that there was a need for

more enforcement in terms of the administration being able to

effectively ensure that the errant spouse was contributing to the

maintenance of his offspring.

So we were happy about that. We know the difficulties with a mother,

for instance, attempting to use the court system in order to pursue a

husband who uses every means at his disposal to disguise wealth, to

give the appearance that he can't afford to make contributions, etc.

[3:00]

However, having expressed support for the government's initiative,

Bill 72 makes one wonder about the government's motives, because the

GAIN act is now going to become a take-it-away piece of legislation. On

the one hand we have the Attorney-General diligently pursuing the

spouse who refuses to accept responsibility for the maintenance of his

offspring, which is the Attorney-General's department — enforcing a

maintenance order through the court system. On the other hand we have

another minister, the Minister of Social Services, who is out there

ready to grab the dollars as soon as they come in under some concept of

repayment to the Crown for, moneys expended during the time when a

person on social assistance may have been unable to get maintenance

payments from a spouse.

This is the issue, and I haven't heard the minister mention this

term that I'm about to talk about once in all the months and years that

he's been Minister of Social Services and Housing. He has yet to say

one word about what the bottom line should be with respect to these

people that he is concerned about and has a duty to ensure receive

adequate maintenance support. There should be a piece of legislation

before us as well, perhaps another bill....

As far as they go, these bills make sense. It's understandable that

the Crown would want to recover any moneys due, but these moneys that

the Crown wants to recover should be based on certain limitations:

"provided that a, b, c and d...." For instance, provided that the

subject who is the objective of the action in the first place is

receiving at least a minimum standard — something we call a poverty

line; in other words, that line below which no one under the

responsibility of Social Services and Housing should fall. This

government has deliberately avoided discussing the poverty line. It has

deliberately avoided seriously discussing the implications that

recipients face when they don't have sufficient economic resources to

function adequately in society.

I wonder if members of the House really address this issue seriously

and have any idea what the numbers look like. We talk about the poverty

line. What are we really talking about? The poverty line, I'm sure,

represents amounts of money.... For instance, the maximum basic income

assistance rate for a single person is $430. The poverty line suggests

that under normal circumstances a person living in a metropolitan area

— in the lower mainland, for instance — would need $754. It does vary

from region to region, but only slightly; probably plus or minus 1

percent. Not a significant amount. The maximum amount is $430 for a

single person. That isn't the amount you receive when you first start

out; it's probably after three months or so.

The minister can clarify that. Is that right off the bat?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes.

MR. BARNES: Okay, right off the bat. I recall that a few years ago it was $350. You've raised it a bit.

Still, the target should be the poverty line. Now there's the Stats

Canada poverty line, the Social Planning and Research Council of B.C.

poverty line. There are a number of poverty lines all over the

province. We all realize they're only guides, but they are actuarially

and experimentally based on substantive fact, an experience that has

been measured over a long period of time. So it's not like we're

talking about some airy-fairy idea. We know just as much as a business

person knows. Anybody who is venturing into any business whatsoever,

including the privatization program that the government is talking

about, wants a certain amount of return on their dollar. It's called

margin of profit, the amount of money you want before you'll make an

investment. We know how important that is.

We've been talking a lot about the quality of life and the value of

life and the sanctity of life. But when we get down to this government

program called a GAIN act and we're looking at $430 for an individual,

when right across this country it's recommended that it be $754 for one

person, how do they manage? What happens to that person? That's a

valid, reasonable question. What are we doing? We don't get answers to

that. It's sort of like when we ask the minister: "What is your policy

with respect to the superintendent of child welfare?" It's arm's

length; we have nothing to do with it. Yet we're sending out directives

telling them what they can't do, but we don't tell them what they can

do or how they can effectively achieve their objectives, which we as

members of this Legislature should be duty-bound to ensure are met:

goals, services to people.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Two people receive $732. The poverty line suggests that those two

people should receive $1,257. Three people receive $871 from this

government. The poverty line suggests it should be $1,509. Four people

receive $973 from this government. The poverty line says it should be

$1,760. I know some of those people out there are going to say: "$1,760

being given away by the taxpayers? Those people should be out

working. What is this? We can't afford this. There's got to be some end

to this." Be that as it may, the point is, where do they go? I would

far rather see the government have strategies that would allow people

to participate in the economy with some hope of being able to raise

these moneys through their own initiatives, but we don't see those

programs in place. Let's deal with the reality. The reality is that X

number of people continue to be unemployed, to be underemployable and,

for whatever reasons, not to be able to fit into the market and the

workplace — be it a question of training, education, skills; you go on

and name it. We've generally hovered around 12 to 15 percent in this

province for

[ Page 3229 ]

years, and it will continue, based on the fiscal strategies of this government.

So there's no reason for optimism, but there is some need for us to

recognize the problem. I'd like the minister, when he speaks, to stand

up and say,"Yes, you're quite right; this is desirable; this should be

the goal; these should be the objectives," and to try to recognize the

realities of what it takes for a person to live on welfare.

We've been over this a thousand times, what is involved in living on

welfare. We know what it's like when you don't have sufficient funds.

We've talked about the hungry children. I must say, I hesitate to talk

about the hungry children in the schools, because I don't want to be

accused of playing politics on the backs of these young people and

their families. But the reality is that these people are in fact

hungry; they are without the resources they need. We are not addressing

this issue, and this is what makes it such a despicable disgrace when

the Premier stands up and talks about the sanctity of life and doesn't

even address those who are alive — let alone that we haven't heard a

word from him about militarism and spending money on warfare and just

about every other thing you can imagine. Where are those people, the

freedom fighters there?

We've got people alive who are selling their bodies on the streets,

trying to survive. Many of these are mothers, the ones we're concerned

about with this legislation. We're not addressing these issues. We're

playing games; we're cynical; we're shameful.

Social workers in this province know that these are the facts, but

where are they? Handcuffed, afraid to speak out, worried about their

jobs, worried about being privatized and sold off to the highest

bidder. Child abuse teams have been destroyed in this province.

Hundreds of social workers have been laid off. Support programs have

become a thing of the past, yet this government says it can't afford

it, it doesn't have the money to give these people, this meagre money.

What do you think they're going to do — put it in one of those banks in

Hong Kong? They're going to spend it on food, clothing and shelter, to

try to give their children an education, and they're going to try to

spend it on some amenities and on letting them know that this is a

bigger world than just a parochial community. They are concerned about

tomorrow, the twenty-first century.

We've got to begin to enlighten our people and to care. This

legislation doesn't address that. It addresses maintaining those people

in their state of poverty forever. It's a generational thing, a

hard-core thing that never, ever changes. When we consider the

government's policies and the direction it's going in, we know that

they are perpetuating a situation of classism in this province. I think

it's about time we stopped it.

The poverty line should be the bottom line, and any good business

person knows that. The bottom line for business people is the margin of

profit. They know that unless they can get a good deal on a particular

scheme, there will be no deal, and the government knows that. In fact,

the government is so anxious to negotiate, it is usually willing to

write off, to forgive, to give away community resources, to let the

resources go at fire-sale prices, to forgive taxes for ten years, or

any number of things like that. They do all kinds of things to

negotiate a deal, because they know that's the way it is with business

people. They want profit. No altruism, no nice guys: "We want a

return." What about these people? What about these British Columbians?

What about these citizens? What about their rights?

I can assure you that we in the opposition will not accept these

double standards any longer, and I can tell you personally — since it's

becoming more and more appropriate to speak personally these days —

that I certainly will not rest until this government begins to

recognize its responsibilities to these people. The poverty line has to

become the bottom line; it is going to have to be recognized.

I don't want the minister to dare stand up and tell us: "We can't

afford it. As soon as things get better, we'll do something about it."

Please don't do that, because I'll have to ask you to talk about the

Coquihalla. I'll have to ask you to talk about the construction of the

Coquihalla and that half a billion dollars that you guys spent without

authority and that nobody knows what happened with. Not even the

Minister of Finance knows anything about it. Hundreds of millions of

dollars, and it still isn’t over. They're still talking about more.

Well, we don't want to get away from the subject. I just want to

tell you: don't talk to me about what we can afford and what we can't

afford, because we know better than that, don't we, Mr. Speaker? We

also know that the budget deficit in this province has gone from —

what? — $4.4 billion, or something, in 1975 to well over $22 billion or

$23 billion, and it's going up all the time. Look at that minister; he

has a lot of fun in this House. But he knows we're being bankrupted. He

knows we're going in the wrong direction. I'm not going to try to cast

any aspersions, because I'm sure all those members are doing their very

best. Despite the handicaps that they are working under, they're doing

their best — starting right at the top.

[3:15]

The poverty line means a lot to those people. I must say that it was

with some reluctance but with some enthusiasm that I accepted the

challenge in the beginning of 1986, when I went down and experienced

the poverty line with those people in the city of Vancouver in the

downtown east side. I was asked to do it as a legislator, because about

18 or 20 or so adversarial community organizations were desperately

trying to find a way to communicate to the provincial government, to

the politicians, that they were simply insensitive and didn't

understand what they were saying, and that they for some reason had

just become so used to dismissing their demands and appeals and

representations that they just threw up their hands and didn't want to

hear it. So this ELP, the End Legislated Poverty organization, a

coalition of some 18 or 20 community groups, challenged the legislators

in this province to go down and live on welfare. They said: "Please

come down. Try it for just one month. We'll give you" — in my case —

"$350. We will indicate to you what normally happens when a person on

social assistance is granted these moneys, and what they have to do

with it."

They didn't get anything other than an acknowledgment from the

government, as I'm sure Mr. Speaker will recall. The government did

thank them for their challenge, and I think they indicated that they

would get back to them. To this day, some two years later, they haven't

gotten back to them. I still don't think it's too late, Mr. Minister of

Social Services. I know you have at least gone down on a few short

excursions. But it's not too late for you yet to go down there and

experience personally what it's like. Go through the steps, day by day,

hour by hour; live with it. Meet the people. Find out what the reality

really is. Find out what you can get in the way of accommodation for

$200. See what you can do. In this case, now that you've raised it for

a single person to $430, you have $230 left. But see what you can do by

the time you

[ Page 3230 ]

buy some transportation, budget for your food — three meals a day —

try to buy some clothes if you need them. Maybe see if you can afford

to find out what's going on in the news by buying a paper, to pay for

the telephone, be able to take in a movie or maybe entertain a couple

of friends for coffee or tea or give your kids a treat on their

birthday or have them go to their friend's birthday party. If there's

something going on locally or if it's across town, it involves another

expenditure. Take a look at all these day-to-day things that a person

has to address when they're living on a budget — a budget, remember,

which in the first place is generally about 50 percent of what it

should be. Twice $430 would be $860. The poverty line is $754. So

that's less than $100 from being 100 percent short. It should be

doubled. That's generally the way it is. These rates that we provide

for people on social assistance in this province are about half of what

they should be.

Here is the sinister point that I'm making about giving with one

hand and taking away with the other. The A-G goes out; he apprehends;

he corners; he enforces. He uses the courts in order to get the errant

parent, the spouse, to come forward with the amount of moneys that have

been deemed his duty, through the courts. What does the Minister of

Social Services do? He says: "Under our guidelines and rules, although

you may have received through the maintenance program something like

$400 or $500, we can't let you keep all that money. We can only let you

keep $100." I want you to stand up and correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm

wrong, stand up and say: "No, that is not correct."

Until a person reaches the poverty line.... I agree with you, Mr.

Opposition Member. In a case, for instance, Mr. Member, say a mother

and her child are receiving $732 a month, and there's a maintenance

order which would bring her upwards to the $1,257 that she requires —

perhaps not all the way, but let's say she gets $300 which would bring

her to $1,032, still $257 short. Stand up and tell us on this side of

the House why, in a case that, recognizing the fact that there's not

enough money in the first place, the Crown would not invoke the rule of

keeping $100, and all the rest of that goes into general revenue? We

would recognize that for whatever reason we can't afford to pay, 100

percent, all of the maintenance that a person requires.

That is one of the issues that the voters are concerned about. We

don't want to stay paying 100 percent of what a person requires. You

destroy their incentive. You take away the motivation to help

themselves. We heard all those arguments and you know they're good

arguments; but why not take the enterprising spirit? That's where they

make free enterprise, as we call it, work. Why not show a little

enterprising spirit when it comes to these people? Why not say: "Look,

we're going to help you out and give you a couple of bucks" — which is

about what it amounts to in reality — "but we're not going to put any

restrictions on you. We know that the target should be a minimum

standard. We'll give you startup money like we do with businesses and

tell you to run for it. Go for it yourselves."

Give them a chance to go out and get a job and make up the

difference. Then if you want to penalize, do it after they get to the

poverty line but not before. Don't take away this money that the A-G

has gone through all this effort to try to raise to help these people,

and say: "All you can keep is $100." It looks like the government is

becoming a pimp through the back door. It doesn't look right and it

isn't right.

One of the things that I found out down there on the welfare thing

was something that I had difficulty discerning for years listening to

the former Minister of Human Resources, the Hon. Grace McCarthy, now

minister of trade, when she used to stand up in this House and say:

"We're going to get the investigators down there. We're going to find

all those crooks and people who are cheating and stealing money from

the government."

It hadn't really ticked on to me how bad off those people were in

the first place, but now that I've come to understand what is

happening, sure, the hon. minister was right. The only thing is, she

wasn't interpreting the horrible reality that a lot of them have to

live under. Anybody with any sense at all can see that they aren't

getting enough money.

I don't have to mention the fact that the only place you could ever

find shelter, based on the shelter allowances that this government

provides, would be in a certain

section of the city and certain

sections of the community. You are predestined to live a certain way.

Everything is predetermined for you because these dollars force you

into a category, and that's where you stay unless you get an awful lot

of help or get lucky and can maybe take a few of those dollars and buy

yourself a lottery ticket or two and hope. That is the government's

main carrot: buy lottery tickets. They get all the money back anyway

and maybe one out of a thousand or so will win a couple of bucks.

I still haven't said to you what I really want to say about the

fraud thing that the minister used to talk about. I happen to agree

that something's got to go on. There's no way you can tell me that all

these people are living within the regulations of the GAIN act. You

can't tell me that everybody's reporting to their social worker and

saying,"Look, I just made a couple of extra bucks beyond what is

allowed and I thought I'd report it," when they're 100 percent short of

what they need.

So what do they do? They keep their mouths shut. If they get an

extra 50 bucks, they probably need ten times that much. What are they

going to do? Tell it to the social worker so the social worker can keep

it? I know they've raised it up now so they get the first $100 or so

and they go out and work. The minister will clarify that when you go

out and work the government gets some and you get some and there's a

kind of a convoluted formula that they use. But the point is, I'm

saying they shouldn't be taking money away from people until they reach

the poverty line. When they reach the poverty line, then you start to

sell off the dollars. Let's give people a chance to get out of the

situation they're in.

Another thing is that the government has another screwed up policy about shelter

allowances for these people. It says: "You are allowed X number of dollars

from your welfare cheque for housing. You spend anything less than that amount

of money on your housing and we'll take it." You can't go out and

negotiate and say: "Well, I found a place that is as good as a $300 facility

for $150, so I can keep the difference." The government says: "Oh

no, shelter allowance is X; if you don't need it, we'll take it."

What kind of enterprising spirit are you encouraging there, if a person is willing

to go and shop around and put pressure on these landlords and make them smarten

up? Landlords know that the thing is fixed. They know they can get that money

for any old kind of shack and run-down facility.

The point I want to make, in closing, about fraud is that it is a

term that I think the minister and the members of this Legislature

should come to realize is very real. Yes, technically, people are

probably misrepresenting income. They are probably receiving gifts and

doing a number of things,

[ Page 3231 ]

like some other people we know will do, and they don't always come

out in the public disclosures or whatever. We don't want to name any

names, but we just know how it is.

But when it comes to people on welfare — who I have shown very

clearly are living on far below the amount of money they need — fraud

has to be thought of in terms of survival. And that's a term that I

found was being used by the anti-poverty federation. This is a term

that they came up with right across the country. They began to

acknowledge that yes, indeed, there was probably a lot of technical

fraud. It's called survival fraud — people trying to make ends meet.

What kind of psychology do you create by forcing people into an

untenable situation where they know they can't make it, you know they

can't make it, we all know they can't make it, and we just say: "Well,

that's just too bad." It's sort of like saying: "Well, you know, our

policies.... We don't want to fund abortions, and I don't care what

your problem is. Good luck. We just aren't going to deal with it." It's

irresponsible. And I think that the government has to take some

responsibility for the consequences.

Ignorance is one thing; not knowing is another. But when you know,

when we're presenting the case — we've presented the case time after

time to this government — when people are lobbying the government,

coming out with the facts, showing the consequences of what happens to

young people who do not have sufficient nutrition in order to live....

It goes on and on. This government's policies are crippling people, are

crippling society, and when the minister talks about a crumbling

society, piece by piece, he should think of what he's doing with his

own hands by his own legislation through his own cabinet.

MRS. BOONE: This bill, from what I can gather from it, is

basically backing up Bill 71, which we agree is a long overdue bill and

has been required by this province for many years to try to ensure that

women receive adequate income from spouses, that they have the

necessary assistance so that they can survive and live decent lives.

For far too long there's been a situation where people have not lived

up to their expectations or to their commitments, and they have, gotten

off virtually scot-free.

This

section here applies to those people on GAIN, and we don't see

a very large problem with this bill. However, there is a problem in

that it takes away from the person who is the sufferer. If somebody is

receiving perhaps $1,000 in back pay, they will only be receiving $100,

because the rest of it will be going to the province to make up. It

seems to me, at a time when people are trying to survive, when people

are trying to live decent lives, to feed their children, to put clothes

on their back, that we are once again punishing those people who can

least afford it.

It's similar to the situation that we had recently with the

handicapped allowance, where handicaps were given a pension by the

federal government, and then the provincial government turned around

and took it back and said: "Well, that's fine. We don't want you to

have any of this extra amount. We will just take that back, put it into

our coffers and deduct it." So their basic standard of living doesn't

rise. That is the main problem with this section, because it does put

some responsibility onto the Crown, and it does put the responsibility

onto people to assume the responsibilities. But it takes away again

from the family, from the woman who is responsible, who is trying to

live with a family under very meagre means.

[3:30]

If you'd listened to the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Barnes), you would have heard the stories that people go through and

the problems that people have. I think we all see those people in our

constituencies in our daily lives — women who are struggling, trying to

put together a life, not just for themselves but for their families,

and who find at every turn some kind of blockage. When every sign of

glimmer at the end of the tunnel comes through, they suddenly find that

that glimmer is in fact the train that's coming and bearing down on

them.

We constantly find that women are not able to receive the proper

funding, so they aren't able to increase their standard of living so

that they are not able to develop as a family unit. I have some really

grave concerns as to what's happening. I am glad to see that the

government is addressing some of these problems, that people will be

given some assistance and will be made to live up to their

responsibilities.

I would dearly like to see some of this money that is coming into

their hands going back into the families of those people who are having

such a rough time out there. Women throughout this province constantly

have a difficult time in obtaining a proper education for their kids

and, in my area, sometimes in obtaining such basic things as clothing.

I've asked the Minister of Social Services and Housing to address

this. I sincerely hope that he does address this in the estimates and

that we do see some differences, so that people in my area are allowed

some differentiation so that they can provide proper winter clothing,

which, as you know, children grow out of on a yearly basis. There is no

provision for that.

Such meagre things as these are big problems to people who are

living on GAIN. I am happy to see this legislation, which will help

them out, but I would dearly love to see legislation that would allow

the windfall that will be coming back by way of picking up this money

from somebody who was not making their payments able to be held back,

to be kept by the woman in question so that she could provide some

added things for her family, so that she might be able to go out and

purchase a new winter coat for herself or her kids, so that she would

be able to provide some little extras.

Those extras aren't there for people who are living on GAIN. It's

hard for me to imagine, although I see them in my constituency a lot of

times, what it would be like to have to determine whether you were

going to spend money on clothing or to pay for food for lunches. Those

are the realities of people out there who are living on GAIN. I would

really like to see the government addressing those problems, addressing

the problems of people who are living in poverty in this province, and

dealing with this act not on the basis of merely filling the

government's coffers and taking up the payments there, but also putting

money back into the pockets of the lower-income people, who can least

defend themselves.

MR. HARCOURT: I would like to make a few remarks on Bill 72.

I may say that making spouses accountable for the maintenance of their

families is an issue that I have felt strongly about ever since I was

called to the bar as a lawyer in 1969 and operated a storefront lawyer

program and helped set up the legal aid system in this province. In

that sense, as you have heard from our very able human services critic,

the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, that accountability is

something that we don't disagree with as the caucus of the New

Democratic Party.

[ Page 3232 ]

The feeling is that it's a small step, but only that. In the right

direction, which should encompass a broad range of programs,

initiatives and attitudes that are supportive and positive in bringing

about something that is very near and dear to New Democrats: that is,

the equality of women. That is what I would like to talk about in

regard to this particular bill, because it's unfortunate that it's not

part of a broader package of programs, initiatives and attitudes that

could help tens of thousands of women and their families to have the

dignified life that we all would hope for in British Columbia.

There are a number of barriers that the ministry has not taken

action on to bring about that equality for women and a dignified way of

life for women and their families. So we find it difficult to give more

than lukewarm support for the bill, because it hasn't come forward as

part of an exciting, broadly-based package to assist the many women

throughout this province who could do with those initiatives to help

them become self-sufficient and productive members of our society.

In particular, I would like to talk about the GAIN rates that in

this province are well below the poverty line — 50 percent below the

poverty line. They're far too low — among the lowest in the country —

and have not kept up with the cost of living since 1982, Mr. Speaker.

So it's very difficult for women with families to be able to carry out

their financial responsibilities to themselves and their families.

This doesn't create the sort of incentive to do that at all. I note

that the minister, when he first commented on this initiative — and I

quote from the Times-Colonist of Friday, December 18 —

said: "It does relieve that single mother on welfare from having to

worry about where the extra $200, $300 or $400 is coming from."

If you read the act, Mr. Speaker, it limits women with dependents to

$100 — which they're already entitled to in terms of extra income. So

it really doesn't advance women's economic situation at all. As a

matter of fact, it may act as a disincentive because once those women,

through signing over their rights on the maintenance agreements, do

that and supply information about their spouse, the funds go directly

to the ministry under that assignment. They may keep the $100, but then

there's no incentive for them to go out to part-time jobs or to

makework programs that can help them learn job skills or other skills.

think that's a retrograde step, because we want to see people working.

We believe that people want to work and should work, that it's innately

within us to want to work. The vast majority of people, except a few,

feel the same way.

The funds should be available to cover the extra cost of clothes,

transportation, cosmetics — all the extra costs of going out and

seeking work and maintaining that work. So we think that is something

the ministry has not addressed and which we would hope to see in the

estimates coming forward in the near future.

The other area we don't see addressed is the question of training

and educational programs for women. We have a smattering of programs,

little pilot projects here and there, but nothing of real substance

where we see reports back to this Legislature of tremendous gains for

women through a whole series of initiatives like increasing the support

payments, the ability to get to and from job interviews and jobs. We

don't see a comprehensive program to get the tens of thousands of women

who are in this situation of being on social assistance into the job

market.

The lack of support programs in terms of training and education and

a proper child care system in this province are tremendous impediments

to women who want to leave the home and go to work. There's a shortage

of properly licensed and available child care facilities — way behind

the demands of the women of British Columbia. We don't see anything

there so far for the women of British Columbia, and again we hope the

minister would be addressing that in his budget estimates coming up in

the near future.

We see a disappointing program coming from the federal government,

nowhere near what's required for women. It's just a shuffling around of

existing tax systems and incentives, rather than a bold move to help

bring about equality for women finally in this country and this

province.

The question of transportation: this government has made it more

difficult for women — and it's mostly women workers, schoolchildren and

seniors who use our bus transportation systems — to afford

transportation. With the transportation system that I happened to be

one of the directors of in greater Vancouver for a number of years,

because the government cut its funding 35 percent over a three-year

period, from 1983 to 1985, we had to take the totally unpalatable step

of cutting back service, particularly late service mostly for women who

work in restaurant and service industries, making it even more

difficult for them, and more expensive because we then also had to

increase fares from 75 cents to $1.25 per ride. That made it even more

difficult for the very women and children that we feel should have a

dignified way of life and equality.

Even if a lot of the women on social assistance do get off of GAIN

and off of social assistance, the minimum wage in this province is

among the lowest in the country and hasn't changed for years. We think

that that should be addressed, because we think that the imbalance

between people on GAIN and the working poor is a great cause of social

dissension, and we don't like to see that. We like to see people

receiving a fair day's wage for a fair day's work.

Even more important, we have a situation where women in this country

and province have been discriminated against as a class in terms of

pay. We don't see anything coming forward from the minister in terms of

a pay equity bill. We would hope that he or the Attorney-General (Hon.

B.R. Smith) or the Minister of Labour (Hon. L. Hanson) would be coming

forward finally with a pay equity bill that guarantees equal pay for

work of equal value — and not one that just sets out an altruistic

principle, but that backs it up with the resources required to help

bring about equal pay for work of equal value in this province.

So those are a number of the positive, practical reforms that could

be brought about to help the women of British Columbia who are on GAIN

and social assistance to become what I would hope we would all desire

in this House: productive members of society working in jobs that they

enjoy and that contribute to society, paying taxes to our society and

enriching our society and their children and their families by having

those kinds of opportunities.

When I look back 20 years to when I came out of law school in 1968

and started the first storefront lawyer program in this country, I

worked with mostly women — because it's mostly women and children who

are on social assistance — and I saw the degrading bureaucracies, the

regulations, the orders-in-council that the minister and I were

talking about yesterday and earlier today in question period. When I

see the barriers that we place in the way of the poor, it seems almost

[ Page 3233 ]

that people are worse off today than when I was a storefront lawyer

20 years ago. We've gone backwards in our treatment of the poor, and

poor women in particular. I think that's a shame.

[3:45]

I would hope that we would, in a rich and bountiful province like

British Columbia, be able to advance the standard of living for our

people, and particularly poor people. I would hope that we would be

able to see coming from the minister, instead of this very small step

to make spouses more responsible for the maintenance of their families,

a whole range of these very exciting and positive initiatives that we

would be prepared to give bipartisan support to in order to bring about

a very important principle, true equality for women and children in

this province.

MS. A. HAGEN: I've just been reminded that the Minister of

Social Services and Housing has a time-frame for this afternoon and

that he may wish to make some comments, so I had intended that my

comments would be brief and I will certainly keep that agenda in mind.

The minister himself and members on this side of the House have

spoken at considerable length about this initiative. The bill was

tabled in December and, in the opening of second reading, the Minister

of Social Services and Housing and the Attorney-General have expressed

an apparent willingness to be open to amendments and improvements to

this bill. I would hope that in the discussions we are having under

second reading, some of the suggestions that have come from members of

this House might in fact be leading in that direction.

No matter who we are — lawyer, social worker, ordinary person — we

know people who have been affected by the experience of families

breaking up, having to deal with the care of families under single

parenting and, in the case of many people, having to rely on social

assistance, but this is, for families in our province, a tremendously

frustrating and difficult and often very unhealthy experience. These

bills address our need for one of the ingredients of dealing with

people's financial security — namely, the maintenance that comes from

the absent spouse — to be an orderly and reliable process. I think we

have to look at both bills, Bill 71 and Bill 72, in that regard,

although we are at this time discussing Bill 72,

There are just two points that I want to make this afternoon, and I will try to do them very briefly.

There is no question, statistically, that single parents are

terribly poor. Single-parent families make up 40 percent of the social

assistance roll. Sixty percent of single-parent families across the

country are poor, many of them working poor, many of them moving in and

out of social assistance. They may have a job for a time. They may be

on unemployment insurance for a time. In fact, a number of the

government's programs around what is called JobTrac are cognizant of

that kind of rolling status of people who are single parents. They have

training. They have some jobs, maybe jobs that are assisted with wage

subsidies. They may have some permanent employment for a while. They

may very likely at times be in and out of a need for social assistance.

In looking at Bill 72, we know that the maintenance payments that

are now going to be mandatorily collected by the provincial government on

behalf of social assistance recipients are in fact intended to offset

the cost of social assistance, with one exception, and that is what I

think is called the prescribed amount: the $100 that may be retained

over and above social assistance rates. As this bill goes into

operation, I think we're going to find that by virtue of this orderly

and reliable process the director of maintenance payments may very well

have available to him arrears which have been owing to the

single-parent mother, who has in fact been seeking to have a delinquent

spouse pay up those amounts. It's my understanding that those arrears,

when they come in a lump sum, will simply go into the ministry's pot

rather than being available in any way to the social assistance

recipient, except for the $100.

The first proposal that I want to make in this second reading debate

is that there be some consideration for retroactivity; a recognition,

for example, that people who have been without that resource — to which

they are entitled by law and which they have been expecting — very

often have had to incur expenses, perhaps debts, in pursuit of the

delinquent spouse in the courts and in having to deal with less money

than they are entitled to. If the ministry were able to have some

retroactivity in that lump sum payment, I think it would be very

helpful to the social assistance recipient. One of the things that I

know, from statements he has made in the House, is very much a concern

is the minister's desire to move people who are relying on social

assistance off that particular roll. The Leader of the Opposition has

just outlined many of the things that are necessary for that to happen:

child care, adequate income, all of those kinds of things. But the

arrears money that is coming in clearly belongs to that family, and I

think some means of dealing with retroactivity would be a "good faith"

addition to the legislation.

The other point I want to make is around the difference between the

mandatory program under Bill 72 and the voluntary program under Bill

71. Under Bill 72, a social assistance recipient is required, as I

understand it, to have the director of maintenance payments handle all

matters related to that person's maintenance payments. Under Bill 71,

single parents who are not on social assistance are able to do that

voluntarily. Again, because we are going to see people who do move in

and out of a social assistance situation, I think there is a great deal

of merit in making the program mandatory. Other members have noted that

jurisdictions which have successful programs have indeed worked with a

mandatory program. In the spirit of assisting people to have a

continuity of maintenance as they move out of social service, perhaps

into a job, get themselves established economically, the continuity of

having those assistance payments under the director of maintenance,

without any necessary additional process for the person to voluntarily

undertake to go forward and ask that this be registered and those

maintenance payments come to her under the director, would improve

these companion pieces of legislation.

To sum up, newly enrolled people in the program who are receiving

social assistance are not going to get the kind of benefit that they

should from the arrears that may come to the ministry, and I would urge

the minister to give some consideration to retroactivity. And the idea

of the program being mandatory is one that I, along with colleagues,

would again commend to the minister. I would hope that some of those

amendments might come forward as we move into committee stage of the

bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair advises all hon. members that pursuant to standing order 42, the minister will close debate on second reading.

[ Page 3234 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I'll be as brief as possible

in my comments, but I want to try to address some of the points raised

by some of the members opposite. Some of them are very good points. We

seemed to cover the full range of debate on family and child services

and welfare. We got into hungry children; we even got into warfare with

the second member for Vancouver Centre. I don't believe we have a

Minister of Defence, but if we do, I think you should refer your

comments to him or her. We got into every possible subject and a lot of

things that should be covered in my estimates rather than in this bill,

which is really a subrogation of maintenance payments to the ministry.

The member for Vancouver Centre made me promise not to talk about

affordability, and I said: "Okay, I won't." But I think I should

extract a similar promise that since he covered all these subjects

here, he won't bring them up again in my estimates. Maybe that's fair;

I don't know. He dwelt for a long time on welfare rates, and I know

that member feels very passionately about this. It's a subject that's

very close to his heart, and I understand that, and I sympathize with

that. It's a subject that's very close to me as well: the well-being of

people in this province, no matter what age and what circumstance.

He mentioned many of the welfare rates. I would just like to point

out, Mr. Member, that you always mention the lowest amount on the

scale, which is the single employable — a person who we hope won't be

on welfare for very long. We don't want him or her to be there for a

long period of time. You may make a good point that their payments

should be higher, but when I compare what we pay with the rest of the

country, we are somewhere around the median. We are not the highest,

and we are a long way from the lowest in the country. The case could

always be made that we should pay more, and others might make a case

that it's too high. We could argue that forever and probably never

agree on it.

I want to address a point brought up by the member for Prince George

and the Leader of the Opposition and others, and that is allowing this

welfare recipient, whose errant spouse we go after and collect the

maintenance payment that's due.... Several of you have tried to make

the point that the woman should be allowed to keep that amount of

money. If we did that, then we run into the point of where to cut off

that amount. I know the member has a number fixed in his mind that is

some poverty line which really doesn't exist, but it's a matter of

opinion.

If we started doing that, then where do you cut that off? If the

person started receiving $1,000 a month in support payments, and you

kept the single parent on income assistance, it would put her well

above the income of many thousands of people who are working. So what

we do is set an amount that a person should receive on income

assistance. As you point out, a single parent with one child gets $732;

a single parent with two gets around the $900 mark. I haven't got the

exact amount.

What we do is allow that person to keep $100, and that will not

change. The remainder of the money goes back into general revenue, and

we guarantee to maintain that person at that income level. We could do

it another way. We could allow her to keep the support payments — let's

say they were $400 a month — then just give her the difference to bring

her up to what a single mother on welfare would be making. Whichever

way you look at it, it's the same thing. If we start allowing her to

rise above the other people on welfare, then to me that is equally as

unfair as what you say we're doing is unfair.

One thing that we lose sight of sometimes — and I know a lot of you

over there lose sight of — is that we hope, if these people are

employable, that sooner or later they will get themselves off welfare.

But the support payments will still be there, so that if this person

gets even a low-paying job, or the take-home pay of $1,000 or $1,100 a

month, and has the $400 maintenance that her spouse is being forced to

pay, she has that as additional income. We must remember that this

person, hopefully, will not be on income assistance forever. Should she

get a job, she will then have support payments which she would not have

had before. It gets a little complicated.

The member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) said: "Why not make it

mandatory?" Well, for the purposes of this bill it is mandatory. This

bill deals only with those on income assistance, and this is the only

bill I can address. You are speaking of Bill 71, which is the

Attorney's bill. Your recommendation that it be mandatory is taken in

the spirit in which it is intended, but I can't deal with it under this

bill. It's not my act. The suggestion was made to the Attorney

yesterday that it be made mandatory, but all I can respond to is this

bill, and for the purposes of this bill it is mandatory.

The Leader of the Opposition talked about child care. Two points on

child care just for the record. I have to speak in round numbers; I

don't have the exact figure. But we spend about $33 million a year

supplementing child care for single mothers. That was increased by

quite a bit last year, but the total now is in the area of $33 million.

A great deal of money is put into supplementing child care for single

parents to encourage that single mother to get back into the workforce,

so if she does have to take a low-paying job she doesn't have to worry

about child care.

Secondly, to address another comment made by the Leader of the

Opposition, we are at this moment in negotiations with the federal

government regarding child care and the child care act for the whole

country. As a matter of fact, my deputy is in Ottawa right now trying

to finalize the negotiations vis-à-vis the federal government child

care scheme. Again, that is a very complex bill, but we are getting

very close to coming to an agreement with the federal government which,

when enacted, will increase the number of child care spaces in this

province over the next seven years up to, I believe, 22,000. So we

should end up with about 22,000 spaces.

One member over there mentioned that social workers were being laid

off. That is not true. We are not cutting back on the number of social

workers. We have moved a few social workers from one territory to

another as needed, but I don't want to leave the comment out there that

social workers are being laid off.

[4:00]

I also don't want to leave the comment out there, Mr. Member for

Vancouver Centre, that social workers fear for their jobs if they speak

up on the subject. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have had

social workers ask to come and talk to me personally. I invite them

into my office, and they can talk freely; I encourage them to do so,

and none of them have been reprimanded or have the threat of losing

their employment if they come and talk to me about subjects. And they

have come — not in great numbers, but a few have come freely and spoken

to me.

[ Page 3235 ]

The member mentioned going down and living on welfare. I commend him

for doing that. I know it wasn't easy. It's a tough way to lose weight.

I'm not making light of it; it was quite a gesture.

MR. BARNES: Emotionally too.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, I understand that. I personally just

don't have the time where I can take a month out of my life and go and

do it, but I did go down on the street two or three times and spent

some real time down there, not in a grandstanding fashion but

anonymously, and really found out what it was like. It's rotten out

there, there's no question about it. One way to find out is to go down

and see it firsthand with the probation officers, as I did, and with

the street workers. I commend those who are down there every night

working with these people. It's a job that I doubt many of us could do,

and it requires a tremendous amount of dedication.

But also, I'm doing something about it. We have a new program in

place, the first phase of it. It's not a be-all and end-all, and it

won't wipe out street crime, prostitution, dope pushing, etc., but it

will give these people another avenue, another place to go, and we may

save a few lives because we're out there and putting more people on the

street working with these very young teenagers, who are in probably the

most unfortunate circumstance of anyone in the province.

I'll give you full marks, Mr. Member, for being very concerned about

that. You and I talked about it in the hallway one day, and I

appreciate the remarks because they had an effect on me. They helped me

realize the severity of the problem, and as I looked into it deeper I

realized it was a terrible problem. We won't solve all the problems

overnight, but we're working on it.

I also called a meeting here with the people concerned about the

area you mentioned, the Main and Hastings area, and the Welfare

Wednesday syndrome — Mardi Gras, as it's called. We are already

starting to see some positive results. We've pulled in all the people

who really know that area: the Salvation Army, DERA, the Vancouver

police, May Gutteridge and her St. James home people, and the native

Indian people. The mayor of Vancouver came, as did Ald. Carole Taylor.

We are already starting to solve some of those problems down there. I

only bring these into this debate. Mr. Speaker, because they were

brought up by the member. I'm pleased that you're allowing me the same

latitude to address them.

I want to make a couple of closing remarks on this bill, and to come

back to the principle of it. What it really is is a matter of

responsibility, and making people in this province face up to their

responsibilities. I'm talking about those who have been ordered by the

courts to pay maintenance to children and are not doing so. This bill

will force them to face up to their responsibilities. We will have

reciprocal agreements with other provinces. We will have to, of course,

work through the Attorney-General and Bill 71. But we will ensure that

people on GAIN are receiving those maintenance payments either through

our ministry or, if they're not on GAIN, on their own. Moreover, to

repeat, when they get themselves off welfare and off GAIN, those

maintenance payments will still be there.

As a side effect — and this is not the principal purpose of the bill

— as a bonus, if you like, we will save the taxpayers of this province

a lot of money. I can't give you an accurate figure, because it's

impossible to pin one down, but millions of dollars will be saved for

the taxpayers, who are footing the bill for welfare recipients. I might

add that the bill for this past year just for GAIN was $903 million —

nearly a billion dollars; an awful lot of money. So the taxpayer will

be saved several million dollars by this.

There are many more things I could say about it, but I think I've

covered most of the points that were brought up by the opposition. I'm

pleased to see the support from the opposition, although some of it was

kind of back-door support. I've never before seen so much negative

comment for a bill you supported. But I appreciate that support.

As I said earlier, there are some House amendments that I will bring

in when we go to committee. They will be tabled with the Clerk. They

are minor amendments, but I want you to be aware of them. After second

reading is closed, I will table them with the Clerk, so that you are

aware of the amendments.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 72.

Motion approved.

Bill 72, Guaranteed Available Income For Need Amendment Act, 1987,

read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 65.

COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

The House in committee on Bill 65; Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

section 6.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. STUPICH: The effect of this amendment is to delete the

requirement that there be filed a statement of the purpose of the

association. That's what 6(

c) required. I'm just wondering, whether

there's some reason for deleting that or whether it was thought to be

redundant or just.... I don't know that it has any profound effect, but

I thought there must be some reason for deleting it, and I'm trying to

give the minister a bit of time to catch up.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The House amendment has been recommended

to us by the members of the cooperative movement themselves, and we

found it acceptable. I might

[ Page 3236 ]

point out that companies are not required to have a statement of purpose either.

MR. STUPICH: There's a difference between companies and

cooperative associations and societies. Cooperative associations and

societies and organizations like that all have a statement of purpose

in their constitution, but companies don't under the Company Act. The

minister apparently saw fit to put it in Bill 65 before us, and I'm

wondering why the co-ops feel that they don't want to have a statement

of purpose. Maybe it's there already in some other form, but I think

the minister must have been won over by the persuasive arguments of the

cooperative association when they said: "We don't want to have to

include a statement of purpose."

I'm a bit curious as to what sort of logic they used — I don't want

to say pressure but what kind of persuasion they used — on the minister

to persuade him that cooperative associations, which do have a

statement of purpose in their constitution, should not include that

statement of purpose in this instance. The answer is obviously a little

more involved than the question. It takes a bit of digging and it makes

me feel it was worthwhile asking it.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: As I understand it, the movement was

concerned that they might find themselves subject to legal

misinterpretations and confusions. We felt that insofar as the

superintendent himself was going to have some say in the approval

process, this would be a simplification. We don't think the amendment

presents any risk to ourselves as regulators or to the public so

affected.

MR. STUPICH: I was all ready to let it pass until the

minister said: "We don't think it presents any risk." When I think of

the many situations in which government regulatory bodies have let

people get into a lot of trouble because there wasn't sufficient

supervision — because they perhaps didn't think there was risk enough

to be any more persistent than they were — I wonder a little bit

whether I should press this further; but right now I won't.

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

section 9.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move an amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended approved.

section 10.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move an amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. STUPICH: As I read it,

section 10 is dealing with whether

or not a co-op is insolvent. It uses the words "if it is insolvent" —

that's the amendment — and previously "if it was unable to meet its

obligations."

I'm not sure which is putting more of a responsibility on the co-op.

It seems to me that a co-op or any organization might be in the

position of being unable to meet its obligations long before it became

insolvent, and if it was having trouble meeting its obligations, that

would run a red flag up the mast. Now it appears that they're going to

be able to get to the point in their business that they're actually

insolvent before anyone is aware that there's any problem at all. I

just wonder, is this making it easier for the co-ops? Did the co-ops

ask for this too because they wanted a bit more time to get into more

trouble before the government got after them?

[4:15]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This was an attempt to clarify. The word

insolvent is a commonly used word in bankruptcies and so it was

recommended to us that we clarify that matter, and we took no offence

at the suggestion. I might add that it then remains consistent

throughout the act in terms of the wording used.

Amendment approved.

Section 10 as amended approved.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 12 as amended approved.

Sections 13 to 19 inclusive approved.

section 20.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'm just a bit intrigued with

this. It reads: "by deleting the proposed marginal note." The marginal

note is not part of the legislation, and I'm wondering at an amendment

to the legislation saying that we're dealing with a marginal note,

which in terms of the legislation doesn't even exist. Maybe there is

something wrong with my

interpretation.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: We take the advice of our professional legal counsel on this.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: No, the individual I have with me this afternoon is the director of corporate affairs, Mr. Dan Perrin. He is not a solicitor.

[ Page 3237 ]

MR. STUPICH: I thought that would be the case, that the

minister would be taking advice, and I'm wondering whether the House

Leader or the Attorney-General might.... The amendment we're dealing

with right now reads: "by deleting the proposed marginal note."

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: No, a note is not part of the legislation. It's

put there for explanatory purposes and sometimes to mislead MLAs, but

it's not part of the legislation. How can we be moving an amendment

that deletes something that, as far as the legislation is concerned,

doesn't even exist? Maybe I'm way out.

We do have a lawyer on the scene. Right now I'd take advice from anybody. The House Leader....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The marginal note referred to in the bill

as printed says, "Directors: duties; conflict disclosure; and cessation"

as a title — at least that's the way I read it.

The amendment deletes that and substitutes: "Directors: certain

Company Act provisions...." Now maybe I've got that totally wrong, but

that's the way I'm looking at it now. We could actually stand this

down, Mr. Member, and get some.... Does the Attorney have a comment?

No. We could get some comment later, unless we have further advice.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: On consultation, we have determined that

it probably is a typing error in the description. What is meant there

is the heading, so rather than "marginal note," it should be

"heading" — which is what is changed. So I am grateful to the hon.

member for pointing out that oversight.

HON. B.R. SMITH: The heading is part of the bill; the

marginal notes are not. The heading, as I understand it, can be taken

into account by the courts when interpreting a bill, because it's in

the body, but marginal notes are not. They are simply the explanation

that legislative draftsmen put in for reference and the convenience of

members. If it's amended to "heading," then it will be effective and

will accurately describe what's being done.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we accept that, then, as a subamendment to the bill?

MR. STUPICH: I think what we're doing is simply changing the

wording and saying: "by deleting the heading." Is that what it is? All

right, that's fine.

Subamendment approved.

Amendment approved.

Section 20 as amended approved.

Section 21 approved.

section 22.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, looking at the last two lines of

section 22.1 of the amendment: " ... by striking out 'copy of the

balance sheet' and substituting 'certified copies of the financial

document placed before the annual general meeting'...." I suppose, again, it

was the cooperatives that persuaded the minister that it wasn't

necessary that there be a copy of the balance sheet. But that seems a

little strange to me that we would delete the requirement that a copy

of the balance sheet be included in the financial documents.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is

consequential to new auditing and financial reporting requirements

provided in the new

section 39 of the act. Cooperatives, like

companies, will no longer file copies of their audited statements with

the registrar. Cooperatives will continue to file financial statements

with the superintendent. This requirement is clarified so that it no

longer refers just to the balance sheet but to all financial statements.

MR. STUPICH: This

section also refers to certified copies.

Can they be certified by anyone? I note in the legislation they cannot

be audited by directors, but is there any requirement that an auditor

be anything other than not a director? Can anybody be an auditor other

than a director, and can those persons then certify the material that's

being presented?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The statements would be approved by an auditor, Mr. Chairman.

MR. STUPICH: So that means that anybody can be named at an

annual meeting: they could pick you up and say you're elected as an

auditor, or anyone else could be elected as a member of the

organization, anyone other than a director. I just want to make sure

that there's no requirement that there be anything other than —

somebody other than a director.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: For a reporting company, the auditor

required must have a professional status. For a non-reporting company,

the hon. member is correct.

Section 22.1 approved.

Sections 22 to 24 inclusive approved.

section 25.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 25 as amended approved.

Sections 26 to 30 inclusive approved.

section 31.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

[ Page 3238 ]

Section 31 as amended approved.

Sections 32 to 34 inclusive approved.

section 35.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 35 as amended approved.

Section 36 approved.

section 37.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 37 as amended approved.

section 38.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the second amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 38 as amended approved.

Sections 39 to 41 inclusive approved.

On the title.

MR. STUPICH: Just once again and very briefly, I compliment

the minister on the way in which he has developed this bill, bringing

it forward as a discussion paper almost in December, listening to the

co-ops. My only concern is, as we discussed in committee, that maybe in

some cases he listened a little bit too easily. Nevertheless, the

process has been good and very worthwhile. The co-ops appreciate it, I

know. I think the minister is to be commended for this.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I appreciate the kind words spoken by the hon. first member for Nanaimo.

I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 65, Cooperative Association Amendment Act, 1987, reported

complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the

House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill 28, Mr. Speaker.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) adjourned debate, but I note

that another member is going to continue.

[4:30]

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

(continued)

MS. A. HAGEN: Now that we have dealt with the hoist motion

and have not been successful in persuading the other side of the House

that it would be very timely to withdraw this bill from the floor of

the House to enable us to do a more comprehensive review associated

with the election boundaries issue and a revision, in a non-partisan or

bipartisan way, of election practices, we're back to looking at the

bill which the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch) has had on the

floor since sometime last spring.

In fact we've looked at a number of bills today that have been in

this House for some time. Unfortunately, in the case of this bill, I

don't feel that there has been the same responsiveness to public input

and debate that has been shown in respect to other bills, where

consultation has been an integral fact. This is a bill that is going

forward on the part of this government in a ramming way. That's another

part of the comment that I made the other day when I was speaking to

the hoist motion, when I called it a tinkering bill.

It's a bill that is ramming its way in the direction of many voters

in this province and, for the convenience that seems to sit with the

Provincial Secretary's perspective on how votes should be available to

people in the province, is there perhaps for administrative

convenience, perhaps for political reasons, but certainly not in the

interest of the voters of B.C. I don't think the Provincial Secretary,

if he is successful in shepherding this bill through the House, will

have a very comfortable time in the next election as he faces electors

in his campaign office, as we will, and has to claim that he is the

author of their difficulty if they're not able to exercise their

franchise.

It can't be stated too often that the right of people to vote should

be unabridged. Clearly, other jurisdictions, other provinces across

this land, have recognized that right. They have in fact recognized the

problems that people face in getting on the voters list, in spite of

all the efforts that many of us make to ensure that voters lists are as

comprehensive as possible. As in so many of the bills that come before

this House, there is little evidence that the Provincial Secretary and

the authors of the bill have looked at the kind of research that would

provide them with some up-to-date information about the nature of the

problem.

I would imagine that at various times jurisdictions have possibly

done some studies about voters lists. I'm not aware of studies that

have been done in this province, but there is one that was done in

respect to federal election law reform which looked at ways of

maintaining voters lists — either permanent lists, quasi-permanent

lists or lists that are prepared as the federal lists are presently,

through enumeration.

There's one particular paragraph in this study that I think gives us

some idea of the dimensions of the problems that we have with our

present list creation, with an enumeration that currently follows two

years after an election and which, if one of the amendments is put into

place, will follow three years after the election. This particular

document is an excerpt from the federal Conservative government's

"White Paper on Election Law Reform," released in June of 1986 — a very

current study. It comments about permanent lists, and our list is in

some way or other a kind of permanent list. It states:

[ Page 3239 ]

"One major problem with permanent lists, therefore, is

how to keep the information current. This could be a particular problem

in Canada, where there are no fixed election dates at the federal and

provincial levels, plus a high level of population mobility. The chief

electoral officer's 1975 report indicates that more than three million

changes of address would have to be recorded annually, in addition to

about one million other entries concerning new electors, changes in

names, deaths, emigration and so on."

Taking a very simple proportion of those numbers of changes that are

predicted across Canada and assuming, let's say, a 10 percent

population figure for B.C. — that might be on the low side, but it

makes the arithmetic easy — it means that with the lists we presently

have we're looking at something like 300,000 changes annually for

people who are moving around, plus another 10,000 changes with people

coming of voting age, people dying, or other sort of technical changes

that need to occur. So no matter what we do with the lists that are

developed, we're going to have problems having a list that's up to date.

I want to comment too that although this amendment does move the

date of the annual enumeration to the third spring after an election,

it still leaves us very readily with 18 months that could follow on

that enumeration and an election date. I just take the date of the

enumeration that would occur at this particular cycle. The third spring

would, I presume, be the spring of 1989. We could very well not be into

an election until the fall of 1990, which is four years after the last

election. The minister shakes his head. In fact, although the pattern

in this particular province has been three-year elections, there did

seem to be a move to go with the pattern that is more consistent across

the land of four-year elections. So that kind of spacing between

election writs and the last enumeration could easily be 18 months,

which would simply expand the number of out-of-date registrations.

Let's face it, no matter what we do with the kind of list-making that

we currently are involved with, we're going to have lists that are out

of date. Because the enumeration doesn't take place at the time of an

election, we're going to continue to have a lot of confusion on the

part of the electorate about whether or not they are registered. In the

election period the onus is on individuals to go somewhere to register,

rather than having someone call at their door to ensure that their

names are on the list. That situation simply again serves to

disfranchise voters.

I want to emphasize again the voters who are disfranchised. We all

know who these people are; we’ve all talked to them in our campaign

offices during elections. Let's not fool ourselves; we are in fact

disfranchising people who are at a disadvantage already in the

electoral process. I'll just list them again, because we can't say too

often that the people most likely to lose their opportunity to vote are

people who are socially, economically, educationally, linguistically

not in the mainstream of society, who are moving into that mainstream,

who are undergoing difficulty or stress. These people are the new

voters, the young person coming in to vote for the first time; new

citizens whose language capability is still very limited; people who

are mobile, very often because of economic circumstances that have put

them under stress and at difficulty; renters, the classic mobile

population; and the many, many people who simply cannot read.

I would also like to comment at this time that one of the things I

have noted about the provincial election process, as compared with the

federal election process, is that the quality of advertising about the

whole process of voter registration is simply not as great. The ads are

smaller; they don't use colour or things that draw the eye; they tend

to be in small print rather than large print. They have not recognized

the need for good communication around that pre-election registration

process after the writ is dropped. So even where we do have processes

in place, many people are not going to see those ads or use them or

read them well.

I would certainly recommend that the Provincial Secretary and the

people who administer the Election Act look at the quality of

advertising we have in this province. The minister is nodding his head

and acknowledging that it is not of the quality we need to ensure that

people can carry out an orderly registration process.

We are going to be cutting off from the right to vote people who are

already not always able to participate fully in this process. The

minister shakes his head, but he can shake his head from now until

doomsday, and he will not change the veracity of that particular

statement: there will be people not able to vote by virtue of the

amendment that will cut out registration on election day.

We have talked about the numbers of people who fall into this

category, and it is interesting that those numbers increased

significantly in 1986 over 1983. I think they increased for a number of

reasons. They increased because we are seeing a province where people

are increasingly mobile, where there is an increasing ethnic mix and

where language and knowledge of custom is still a growing part of the

citizenship education of our new citizens. We are seeing it because the

enumeration is so out of sync with people's expectations. We are seeing

it because the process remains a complicated process of every single

one of the millions of electors having to sign an election registration

form whenever an enumeration occurs. All of these factors — no matter

how we look at how those lists are created — mean that there will be

people not registered to vote on election day.

The average in most ridings, I think, was something like 8 or 9

percent of the people casting ballots. It went as high as 16 or 17

percent in some of the inner-city tidings where the mobility and nature

of the communities is such that it's very hard for people to find

voters, and it's very hard for the communication to get to those people

— by vigorous campaign workers, by whatever advertising there is and by

people knowing where to go and how to exercise their franchise. What

section 80 provided was that safeguard, and what

section 80 should

continue to provide is that safeguard.

There is concern — and I think we've dealt with that concern — about

the misuse of

section 80. I want to put it to rest just one more time:

there has been no indication of abuse. We have an electorate we can

rely on to exercise their franchise with a conscientious and careful

consideration of who they want to vote for. All they want is to be sure

that they have the opportunity to vote.

I've done a bit of speculating about what

section 80 will mean in

terms of people being able to vote in my own riding. I would assume

that we are going to see, as a result of this legislation, something in

the order of several hundred people who will not have an opportunity to

cast a vote on election day. Those people are not the same people who

didn't register last time. What tends to happen is that once people

find out about the process, they are more careful, next time around, to

be sure they get on the list. There is a learning process that occurs

here, and it's a learning process that we want to

[ Page 3240 ]

encourage. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that what we're going to see

is a whole new group of people who are caught in the situation this

time around; only this time there will be no remedy for them on

election day. They will not have an opportunity to exercise a franchise.

It is inherent in the whole election process, in the setting up of

the administration through the chief electoral officer and in the

awareness we have that this is a democratic right, not a political

right, that the process should be a non-partisan one. I think we're all

aware that in 1972-74 the federal government set up a process that

involved all-party work on election reform and processes that were

extra-parliamentary, where recommendations came back to that House for

their action.

I think it's time, in the spirit of progressive reform, for this

House to take a move in that direction. We have now a good deal of the

machinery in place for that to happen. We've come a long way — I think,

having worked in elections for many years — to a more mature approach

to elections as a non-partisan process. We still have a way to go, and

I think that the Provincial Secretary would serve this House and this

province well if he were to move in consultation with all parties in

the House to set up such a process for dealing with election reform.

If that were in fact an open and consultative process, we would find

on both sides of the House — including the government side — many

people who are not very enthusiastic about the reform in

section 80

that is proposed by the minister. In fact, in conversations with

members opposite, I have shared some of my concerns on this amendment

and have heard back their concerns as well. I have no doubt that party

solidarity will prevail when the vote comes to the House, but we do

know that in certain issues it is important for us to have

opportunities to discuss ways in which we can arrive at the very best

legislation, the very best policy, that will serve the voters of the

province.

Once again, I want to urge the minister to move from what I consider

to be a very political agenda, an agenda that is, in fact, aimed at

disfranchising people and possibly affecting the election result. But

the most important issue is not the electoral result; it is that right

and ability of people to exercise their franchise without limit and

without any kind of abrogation of that availability.

In looking at the bill, there are a couple of other points which I

am sure would come out of a non-partisan and perhaps somewhat

extra-parliamentary consultation. One of them would be a reform that is

not addressed in this bill, a reform that would put the age at which

people have a right to vote in line with the federal legislation and in

line with the legislation in every other jurisdiction in Canada at this

time, and would give to people, then, the right to vote at 18 years.

There are also, I think, other matters that could come before such a

commission or committee of the House that would give advice to the

Provincial Secretary on the ways in which the administration of the

election procedures could be improved.

It is really sad to have before us at this time, however, a bill so

contrary to the progressive reforms we have seen and so contrary to the

spirit of some of the amendments that are proposed concerning the ease

with which disabled people will be able to vote and the opening up of

the vote to people who have left the prison system and are on parole.

It is sad for us to be in a retrogressive mood in the debate of this

particular bill, and the concentration has been on the determined

intent of the government to take away a right which, when it was

accorded, was accorded with the agreement and enthusiasm of all sides

of the House.

[4:45]

I would commend, then, to the minister his responsibility to the

voters of the province. I would remind him that all of us on both sides

of the House would welcome the continuing opportunity to be able to

advise people on election day that should they have been missed in the

enumeration procedures as they are proposed, there is still a means for

them to exercise their right to vote. I once again urge all members of

the House to recognize that we have a primary responsibility to voters,

not to a political agenda, not to an administrative agenda, not to a

regulatory agenda; a primary responsibility to voters to ensure that

they can choose the person that they would wish to represent them by

exercising their right at the ballot box.

One of the most progressive moves that could occur in these closing

days of this first session of the new parliament would be to see that

the Provincial Secretary had been struck with second sight, that the

road had been illumined for him, and that he would agree to change his

mind, perhaps to let this bill die, not to be resurrected without

processes that would allow for a more comprehensive and bipartisan

approach. The Provincial Secretary has the potential to be the author

of continuing reform. I would once again urge upon him to take that

leadership role in his position as a key administrator in this

government, and look to a change in the proposed bill that we have

before us today.

MR. STUPICH: I'm not going to repeat anything I said in

speaking on the hoist with respect to this bill. You can be quite sure

of that, because I didn't speak on the hoist motion. So everything I

say will be new for me, but probably everything that I say will have

been said before by someone, perhaps not in exactly the same way.

Most of the discussion has been about the proposed changes to

section 80. If the legislation proceeds as the minister has put it

forward, and with the amendments, we'll have a

section 80 such as it

was before the most recent changes.

Section 80 was part of the Election

Act machinery in the days when I first started running. One had the

opportunity of voting under

section 80 if one was prepared to swear

that he or she was registered and that it was some fault on the part of

the machinery that he or she was not on the voters list; in that case,

there was a mechanism for that person to vote. I think that's about

what we're coming down to in this case — much the same; well, similar.

There won't be many more people able to take advantage of it.

In those days it was used mainly not because it was believed that

anyone had registered and wasn't on the voters list, but it was used as

a way of dealing with people who insisted that they were registered,

even though their names couldn't be found on the list. They were told:

"Go and vote under

section 80, and then it will be checked." And

generally there was very little checking of those hundreds of ballots

under

section 80. I know that was my own experience in several

elections. In some elections we did look at them very closely to try to

find a registration card somewhere, and in some cases they turned up in

some quite unusual places. It was a different system then.

In the one election that I lost, in 1953, the difference between me

and the winner was ten votes, so you can imagine that we all looked for

those

section 80 envelopes, and tried to

[ Page 3241 ]

have some of them qualify — and some of them did; there were always

six or eight, or something like that. Generally they didn't make much

difference, because they were distributed in proportion to the vote.

When I won in 1963, again we looked at them very closely, because my

margin then was 19 votes, and it was still important to look at those

400 to 500 ballots cast under

section 80.

In 1966 it wasn't much different. There was a tremendous increase

proportionately — two and a half times. I had a lead of 45 votes that

time, and it was still important to look at the

section 80 ballots. But

very few of them were ever counted; some were, but very few.

Now we have a situation where some 150,000 — I think that was the figure you used — ballots were counted under

section 80.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Two ballots to a riding.

MR. STUPICH: I didn't say voters, I said ballots. Yes, that's

right, sometimes two. But 150,000 ballots. Even if you say that's only

100,000 voters, it is a very significant number.

It did create havoc on election day. In some polls there was no

opportunity for

section 80 voting, but there was a