1991 Legislative Session: 5th 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)

TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 1991

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

13079 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Bill 12). Hon. Mr. Veitch

Introduction and first reading –– 13079

Tabling Documents –– 13079

Oral Questions

Information leaks from office of the Attorney-General. Mr. Sihota ––

Resignation of former Minister of Finance. Mr. Sihota –– 13079

Expo lands. Mr. Cashore –– 13080

Island Highway expansion plans. Mr. Couvelier –– 13081

Music '91 contracts. Ms. Pullinger –– 13081

GST on furniture and appliances. Mr. Peterson –– 13081

Royal Vancouver Yacht Club parking lot. Ms. Marzari –– 13081

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Social Services and Housing estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Jacobsen)

On vote 52: minister's office –– 13083

Ms. Smallwood, Ms. Marzari, Mr. Rose, Mr. Blencoe, Mr.

Cashore, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Michael, Mr. Barlee, Hon. Mr.

Weisgerber, Mr. Miller, Mr. Zirnhelt

Pension Benefits Standards Act (Bill 6). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Rabbitt) –– 13108

Mr. Rose

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No – 2), 1991 (Bill 15).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 13109

Mr. Sihota –– 13109

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 13110

Forest Amendment Act, 1991 (Bill 13). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Richmond) –– 13110

Mr. Miller

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Social Services and Housing estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Jacobsen)

On vote 52: minister's office –– 13111

Ms. Edwards, Ms. Smallwood, Mr. Michael, Ms. Marzari, Mr. Blencoe, Ms. Pullinger, Hon. Mr. Richmond

On vote 53: ministry operations –– 13137

Ms. Smallwood

Supply Act (No – 2), 1991 (Bill 16). Hon. J. Jansen

Introduction and first reading –– 13142

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

MR. BARNES: Id like to ask the members to join me in

welcoming a good friend from Brockendale Art Gallery who is with us

this afternoon, Mr. Thor Froslev. I'm sure he will enjoy his visit

listening to the deliberations today in the House, so let's make him

welcome.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yesterday I introduced a son of the

assistant deputy minister in my ministry who was visiting the House. To

provide equal treatment today, Id like to introduce his other son,

Michael Travers, who is here with his friend Britt Hoeffer. I'd like

the House to welcome them, please.

MR. BARLEE: I'd like to introduce two sets of visitors. One

is my wife, who has been my helpmate for many years, Mrs. Kathleen

Barlee from Osoyoos, and the other is Mr. and Mrs. Bob Ellis from the

very scenic town of Oliver, British Columbia.

MR. HUBERTS: In the House today we have some guests from the

United States: Glen and Esther Martin from St. David, Arizona, a little

place just south of Tucson, along with their two children, Tammy and

Travis. Would the House please help me welcome them.

Introduction of Bills

ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT

Hon. Mr. Veitch presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill

intituled Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In speaking briefly to this legislation it

establishes a comprehensive framework for providing access to

government information and the protection of personal information held

by government. It confirms the government's commitment to openness and

accountability, which are two fundamental aspects of our democratic

society. In addition, it assures the people of British Columbia that

the privacy of their personal information in government records will be

protected.

Specifically the bill will give the public the right of access to

information in government records except in limited circumstances, give

individuals the right of access to their own personal information in

government records except in limited circumstances and give individuals

the right to request correction of their personal information held in

government records. It will protect personal information from

unauthorized correction and disclosure and will establish an

independent review mechanism by providing the appointment of an

information and privacy commissioner with the power to make binding

recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation attempts to balance the public's right to

access with the legitimate need for confidentiality in certain circumstances.

The legislation meets the standards of access and privacy protection in other

Canadian jurisdictions and adopts the principles set out in the March, 1991,

report of the ombudsman on this particular issue. The questions raised in balancing

the rights of access with the needs of confidentiality are very complex. The

interest groups concerned with these issues have asked for the opportunity to

present their views before the legislation is passed. For that reason we do

not intend to proceed with this bill past first reading during the current session.

The bill will be distributed widely, and the public will be encouraged to submit

their comments over the next six months.

Bill 12 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Hon. Mrs. Gran tabled the twenty-second annual report of the business done in pursuance of the Pension (College) Act.

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation for the year ended March 31, 1991.

Oral Questions

INFORMATION LEAKS FROM THE

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

MR. SIHOTA: I have a question to the Attorney-General, Mr.

Speaker. Janet Perotti, a campaign worker for the Premier, went to the

Premier and expressed her concern about leaks emanating from the office

of the Attorney-General. On that basis the Premier, as is my

understanding, went to the Attorney-General and asked him to plug leaks

within his ministry.

With that background, will the Attorney-General now confirm to the

House that the Premier pressured him to terminate employees in his

office, with the intent to plug those leaks?

MR. VANDER ZALM: Who leaked that information to you?

MR. SIHOTA: You know, Bill, don't you?

HON. MR. FRASER: It is with great pleasure that I confirm to the House that no such pressure was exerted.

RESIGNATION OF FORMER

MINISTER OF FINANCE

MR. SIHOTA: Question again to the Attorney-General. Did your

department render to the Premier a legal opinion that investigated the

matter of the former Minister of Finance, the member for Saanich and

the Islands, and did that opinion indicate that although there was "a

technical breach of the provisions of the

[ Page 13080 ]

Financial Institutions Act, " that breach did not justify firing?

HON. MR. FRASER: The opinions rendered between a solicitor and a client, of course, are confidential. That is the case in this instance.

MR. SIHOTA: Those opinions were rendered to the Premier and

the Attorney-General. They were paid for by the taxpayer. They were not

opinions secured by the Premier in a private capacity. Therefore they

are not protected by that privilege.

Let me ask the Attorney-General the following question: did you

receive an opinion from the law firm of Russell and Du Moulin that

indicated there was no violation of the law concerning matters that

involved the former Minister of Finance?

HON. MR. FRASER: Again, solicitor-client privilege prevails.

MR. SIHOTA: Are you saying, Mr. Attorney-General, that the

solicitor-client privilege applies to the letter from the law firm of

Russell and Du Moulin? Am I to understand that that is your position?

HON. MR. FRASER: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. I said that when we

secure opinions from any firm, it is our property. It's a

client-solicitor privilege.

EXPO LANDS

MR. CASHORE: My question is to the Minister of Lands and

Parks. On May 3, 1990, the Minister of Crown Lands responded to a

question from the first member for Vancouver East regarding the ongoing

liabilities of the government with regard to the Expo lands. Yesterday

that same minister said that his ministry is not responsible for the

lands, but he was not able to inform the House who is responsible. Can

the minister tell the House when his ministry lost responsibility for

the Expo lands, and who now has responsibility for administering the

Expo lands contract?

HON. MR. PARKER: This ministry never had responsibility for the lands. It was handled by Economic Development and the Crown corporation.

MR. CASHORE: It would appear that when we look at this

cabinet and try to find out who has responsibility for the Expo lands,

the lights are on but nobody's home. This minister just said that it

was not his responsibility, but I just informed the minister that he

answered a question in that capacity just over a year ago.

My question is to the Minister of Environment. Officials in the

Ministry of Government Services have told me that while they are

generally responsible for administering government contracts, this is

not the case with the Expo lands. They've told me that the Ministry of

Finance is responsible for the financial aspects of this deal, while

the Ministry of Environment is responsible for the environmental

aspects. The question is: can the Minister of Environment tell the

House by what deadline the province must finish the required cleanup of

the Expo site in order to satisfy its contractual obligations to

Concord Pacific?

HON. MR. MERCIER: Had the member been clear about what he

wanted to ask yesterday, we might have been able to help you yesterday.

The problem with the....

Interjection.

HON. MR. MERCIER: Would you like to hear it answered?

The problem was with the question. There are seven or eight

contracts involved, and the member did not specify which contract he

was operating under. But I'd like to help with the answer.

The sale agreement was the responsibility of a Crown corporation,

and the title did get conveyed through that agreement to the purchaser.

Concurrently there were additional contracts, which I have to mention

so that the member can then decide which one he was referring to.

[2:15]

There is a contract for the hazardous waste treatment studies, which

is between the Ministry of Environment and six private companies. In

addition there is a soil remediation, investigations and planning

contract between the ministry and the soil remediation group of

consultants. There are only a couple more. There is a contract for soil

remediation and construction management between the Ministry of

Environment and Sandwell and Concord. There is a protocol agreement

between Concord and the Ministry of Environment with respect to parcel

8. The final soils agreement between Concord and the Ministry of

Environment on behalf of the province, depending on which part of the

project you're talking about.... I really think there's information in

the public domain. If the member had read it and the brochure that was

provided, he would have seen the description of the process and how

long it's intended to take. If you can't see it in that, because of the

nature of the details of the contract, then you could just ask through

notice of a motion, and I would provide the answer.

MR. CASHORE: The public wants to know the details of all of

the contracts and deadlines. The question was: what is the deadline for

those contracts to be fulfilled?

My next question to the minister is: can the minister tell the House

what financial penalties the government faces if it is not able to

finish soil remediation on the Expo site by the stipulated time?

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, if the member wished to do a

real service to the public, he would start dealing with accurate

statements. If he had asked me these questions a few weeks earlier,

before making misstatements, I would have been able to have helped.

The answer to the question is tied somewhat to all of these contracts. There is no penalty in effect at this

[ Page

13081 ]

time. The

schedule is being met at this time, and there are no delays due to environmental issues at this time.

ISLAND HIGHWAY EXPANSION PLANS

MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Transportation and Highways. It's my understanding that the minister

has referred expansion plans for the Island Highway to a committee of

the Capital Regional District. In view of motions from the View Royal

council and the Central Saanich council regarding safety issues — View

Royal's concerns relating to the area between Millstream and Helmcken

Roads, and Central Saanich's relating to the Island View intersection —

I'd be interested in the minister's comments regarding how we are to

deal with the emerging safety issues, given the current paralyzation of

the process.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the member is correct: we did

enter into an agreement with the Capital Regional District to form a

committee that would look at the various transportation issues in the

Capital Regional District. That committee is made up of representatives

from the communities the member mentioned, as well as the other

communities in the CRD — also B.C. Transit, B.C. Ferries and the

Ministry of Transportation and Highways, We have a very clear

understanding that if there is an issue of safety which it is felt

should be dealt with on an emergency basis, the issue should be taken

to the committee. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways would

respond if it is the recommendation of the committee.

MUSIC '91 CONTRACTS

MS. PULLINGER: I have a question for the Minister of

Development, Trade and Tourism. When did the minister conclude his

investigation concerning conflict of interest in the awarding of

security contracts for Music '91?

HON. MR. DIRKS: At the present time we are looking at all the contracts and how they were awarded.

MS. PULLINGER: Will the minister confirm that a former

associate of a firm known as Intrepid Security was engaged by Music '91

to approve security contracts for events?

HON. MR. DIRKS: As I said earlier, we are looking at all the contracts and how they were awarded. Certainly we'll look at that as well.

MS. PULLINGER: Will the minister confirm that he was approached five weeks ago with this issue of conflict?

HON. MR. DIRKS: By whom, Mr. Speaker?

MS. PULLINGER: Will the minister confirm that a majority of the contracts awarded by Music '91 for security purposes were awarded to Intrepid?

HON. MR. DIRKS: The fog seems to be very thick over there. I

have said that we are looking at all the contracts and how they were

awarded, and I leave it at that.

MS. PULLINGER: Will the minister confirm that he's

investigating conflict of interest in the food services contract

allocation and the contract to hire musicians and other acts?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I think it is just prudent management to look

at the whole scenario and all the contracts that were awarded.

Certainly we are in that process now.

MS. PULLINGER: Can the minister explain why the former associate of Intrepid has not been removed from his position?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Let's hang them first, and then we'll give

them a trial. Obviously you have to do the investigation before you can

take any action.

MS. PULLINGER: Will the minister confirm that he has already apologized to the security people about the allocation of this contract?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I did talk to the people from Intrepid, and I

did say that we would look at the awarding of those contracts. I've

said nothing to him that I haven't told the House right now.

GST ON FURNITURE AND APPLIANCES

MR. PETERSON: I'll direct my question to the Minister of

Labour and Consumer Services. In view of the reports that furniture and

appliance prices have actually increased since the imposition of the

GST, rather than decrease as suggested by Ottawa, what steps has the

minister taken to investigate this situation on behalf of British

Columbia consumers?

HON. MR. RABBITT: The GST is a federal jurisdiction. The

provincial government does not have a specific role to play, although I

have been keeping track of what the effects are. The member is

referring to the consumer information office's latest press release,

which indicated that across Canada prices have gone up. In British

Columbia we have not received any complaints, but I will confirm that

we will continue to monitor it.

ROYAL VANCOUVER YACHT CLUB

PARKING LOT

MS. MARZARI: A question to the Minister of Lands and Parks.

The Royal Vancouver Yacht Club in Vancouver has applied to build a

members' parking-lot under the adjacent park — Hastings Mill Park. This

use is not

[ Page 13082 ]

consistent with the provincial government's

requirements when it granted the land to the city in the first place.

Has the minister decided to preserve Hastings Mill Park by refusing to

give approval through OIC — or whatever mechanism you intend to use —

to the construction of this private parking-lot for the yacht club?

HON. MR. PARKER: The property in question was Crown land

granted with covenant to the city of Vancouver. Through public process

the city of Vancouver has requested a variance on that covenant to

allow the construction of an underground parking-lot and the

replacement of the surface area to parks board requirements. They have

made their request to the ministry to modify the covenant. We have

taken that under consideration, met with some concerned citizens and

suggested to them that if they really take exception to the decision of

the parks board and the city council of Vancouver, then they should

lobby the appropriate groups — namely, the parks board and Vancouver

city council — and undertake to change their minds. In the meantime, to

accommodate them, this ministry will not raise the OIC for at least 90

days.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to practice

recommendation No. 3 in the standing orders, I am advising the House of

the following

schedule for the remainder of this week. I have been

unable to reach an agreement, as suggested in standing orders, with the

opposition House Leader, although I hasten to point out that he was

most cooperative. Therefore I have no alternative but to advise the

House accordingly.

At 9:30 this evening we will call the question on the estimates of

the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. At that time,

approximately 18½ hours will have elapsed in debate on these estimates,

in addition to the extensive debate during interim supply. Over the

last four or five years the average amount of time spent on this

ministry's estimates has been about nine hours, so that amount of time

is approximately double the average over the last four or five years.

It is the government's intention to conclude the business of this

House by Friday, June 28, 1991 at 1 p.m. Therefore votes will be called

on the following bills before that time.

There has already been ample opportunity for extensive debate on the

ministries included in the supply bill, and it is our intention to

provide sufficient time for members to debate the other bills if

required. If it appears to the opposition that the time allocated is

not sufficient, then I ask them to please let me know as soon as

possible, and we can discuss the possibility of extending the sitting

hours further than has already been done.

The bills that will be voted upon are Bill 13, the Forest Amendment

Act, 1991; Bill 15, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2),

1991; and Bill 16, the supply bill covering the Ministries of Health,

Education, and Social Services and Housing. With cooperation, Mr.

Speaker, the business of this House could be concluded tomorrow without

any difficulty.

All members will recognize that the supply bill is merely an

administrative function confirming those spending estimates that have

been debated at length by the whole House for over 50 hours and already

passed by the House sitting as Committee of the Whole.

Consequently, I am advising the House at this time that tomorrow we

will sit from 9 a.m. until noon and from 2 p.m. until 10 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is being viewed by the Chair

as a ministerial statement. If there is a response, I will accept one

response.

MR. ROSE: We're very concerned about this turn of events, Mr.

Speaker. It is true that I have been approached a couple of times for a

consultation by the government House Leader — a charming fellow —

knowing full well that if we didn't cooperate, we were going to get it

through closure anyway.

We don't feel, since we didn't even sit here until May, that we have

had sufficient debate on estimates. Just going back a few years.... I

don't know what he said were the total hours that we've had so far; I

think he said something like 50 in total on three. Well, in 1977 we sat

262 hours for estimates; in 1978, 126 hours; in 1979, 209 hours; 1981,

216 hours. We have always gone over, except for one time when we went

less than 100 hours. So we don't think that we've had sufficient time.

We're here to work. The fact that we came here late is really not the

responsibility of the opposition. It was an example of turmoil and

chaos within the ranks of the government, and that's why we're late.

[2:30]

So we have no intention whatsoever of cooperating in any way with

the guillotine, no matter how friendly the executioner happens to be.

We have important public business. I'm told that after an interim

supply bill of something like $5 billion, we're going to be asked

sometime this week to approve a $10 billion addition, which is about f

if teen-sixteenths of the total budget. Cut and run again. The Ben

Johnsons of the legislative set.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: They've got lots of dopes over there too.

We thank the minister for his friendly little notice. I want to tell

him that if he gets his estimates and his supply bill, he's going to

pay for it.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would ask leave of the House for the

Select Standing Committee on Health, Education, Social Services,

Housing and Women's Issues and the Select Standing Committee on

Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services to sit this

afternoon.

Leave granted.

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

[ Page

13083 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

On vote 52: minister's office, $337,553 (continued).

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm just going through my head trying to

decide what issues I should eliminate, because the government will be

calling closure. Should I eliminate the issue of infant development

programs....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry to interrupt you, hon. member. Hon.

members, the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley is trying valiantly to

make a point here, and we're making so much noise that she can't be

heard.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I apologize for not being altogether focused

on the next item on the agenda, because I'm going through in my mind

what issues in my estimates files — that a number of people have asked

me to deal with — I should not deal with in this session. Should it be

the infant development program, with its massive waiting-list of

families trying to decide whether they should adopt out those children,

because the community programs aren't in place? Should I eliminate the

emergency shelters issue in this province, where families cannot be

accommodated by those resources? Shall I eliminate the drug and alcohol

counselling or the programs for teens, where we've already seen that

over 53 percent of all those children living on Vancouver streets are

suffering from significant drug or alcohol abuse situations, with a

ministry that is not delivering those programs? Shall I eliminate the

issue of information of sexually transmitted diseases and whether the

ministry is living up to its responsibility as a parent to provide that

information and training to kids living on the streets? Shall I

eliminate the issue of child abuse counselling and its effect on the

children and families of this province? Or should I eliminate the

issues of poverty, of school lunch programs and of the number of

children and women lining up for food because of the policies of this

government?

Quite frankly, I am having some difficulty trying to decide what

issues that we have yet to discuss should be cut off because this

government wants to get on with its personal political agenda. Should I

eliminate the issues of the family initiative projects, community

development workers, family support workers or transition houses? The

list goes on and on. This government is in its fifth year and has yet

to resolve many of these significant issues and show some sort of

indication that they are dealing with the people's business.

I want to start by asking this minister about the infant development programs.

I know the minister was not in the House when I raised this with the Minister

of Health, so I'm going to go through some of that information again for

him. One of the programs — and I have a list of a number in the province — impacted

by the tremendous population growth in this province is in south Surrey. At

this time they have 56 infants on their waiting-list. They need at least two

and maybe three staff members to deal with the impact.

I want to talk to the minister about the lives of those families and

children on those waiting-lists. One infant's first name begins with

"R." The boy is seven months old and has alcoholic parents. He was

referred in January, 1991. R has fetal alcohol syndrome and is multiply

handicapped. He's been on the waiting-list for four months. I wonder if

the minister has any idea what it's like for a family trying to deal

with an infant with fetal alcohol syndrome and the fact that the infant

cries and cries and cries. The decision that the family has to make is

whether or not the community is going to be able to support them in

raising the child.

Another child, D., is a very small premature baby, now seven and

half months, who was referred from Royal Columbian Hospital as a

very-high-risk-baby. The family is Vietnamese, and they've been on the

waiting-list for four months.

Another infant is a little boy whose first name starts with D. At

three months of age, this infant was diagnosed as hearing-impaired and

then as having Down's syndrome. The parents were in crisis, needing

help with the decision of whether to keep the baby or put it up for

adoption. Genetic testing finally revealed that the condition is not

Down's syndrome, but anomalies on the eighteenth and twenty-first

chromosomes. The infant development program has visited twice to help

with that family's crisis, but the family is still on the waiting-list

— waiting to see whether they will be eligible and whether the program

can support them and their infant.

Another little boy, transferred from Burnaby, has Villaret's

syndrome, a rare but pervasive handicap condition. He is now 15 months

old and has been on our waiting-list for four months. A little girl

whose initial is N. Is referred because of a severe seizure disorder

which became manifest at seven months of age. Strong medication is

required to control the seizures, and she has been on the waiting-list

for three months. Another little girl with neonatal abstinence syndrome

is in foster care in Aldergrove — another Vancouver child. You see, Mr.

Minister, a lot of the children that are NAS are ending up in the

suburbs in foster care, but there are no programs for them. She's

already demonstrating severe behavioural difficulties at 16 months of

age. She's been on the waiting-list for two months.

Another little girl has parents who are mentally handicapped. They

could use home support services provided by the infant development

program. Because of their high caseloads and long waiting-list, this

little girl unfortunately will be placed on a lower priority, and it is

unlikely that she will be seen by that program. The list goes on and

on. I wonder if the minister can tell us, given the fact that your

community programs have been cut by over $1 million, what kind of hope

these families have?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: First of all, to keep the record straight,

my ministry programs have not been cut. Where there have been

adjustments in the amount of money allotted to a particular program, it

is only because that program was underutilized in the past, and there's

no point in putting more funding into a

[ Page 13084 ]

particular program than what will be used. It's

better to allocate that to another program that will need and can use

the funding.

On the matter of the infant development program, I appreciate the

difficulties that families have in dealing with these young children.

It's undoubtedly a very severe problem and a very difficult situation,

but the government has responded very well. In 1989-90 there were 1,990

spaces, and the budget was $2,690,000. In 1990-91 there were 2,055

spaces — a 3 percent increase — and the budget was $3,080,000, a 14

percent increase. In 1991-92, this year's budget, we have 2, 200 spaces

— a 7 percent increase — and a $3.56 million budget, a 15 percent

increase over the past year.

In addition to that, we have a respite program for the parents of

these children. There are 1,300 children being served, and the budget

for that is $4.6 million.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm interested in the minister's figures,

because according to your budget, which we are currently debating in

your estimates, community projects — and I assume this is one of them —

have been cut back by $1.3 million. The fact is that it's a false

economy. When we're dealing with issues such as the infant development

program, it's very clear that if the money were put into programs like

this to allow families to stay together and provide parents with the

support necessary to keep those children, the ministry itself would not

have to be dealing with children being put into the care of the

ministry on a voluntary basis, and certainly it would not have to be

put into a situation where it is becoming clearer that families are

unable to support these children.

The minister has indicated that there has been an increase in the

program. With the waiting-list on this one program growing — in this

community in particular, and I suspect elsewhere — from an average of

30 infants to 56 now, can the minister make a commitment now to fund

preventive and supportive programs as a priority, and will he

reconsider this cut in the overall budget by $1 million?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: This program is not under community

projects, so it's not included there. The community support services

budget for '91-92 shows a 12.7 percent increase in funding over '90-91,

which works out to $30.21 million.

[2:45]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I am looking for a specific commitment, Mr.

Minister, and quoting numbers off your sheet isn't helping. What is

very clear is that the families having to deal with these children on a

daily basis need to know, before they make their decisions about their

infants, whether the ministry is going to support their needs in their

community. Will you make that commitment?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I think we do a very good

job of providing services to people requiring this program and the many

other programs that we put out. Our policy is that we provide the best

service w can, but we recognize that there is a limit on how many

resources we have for any one particular program. As the numbers I have

read out now indicate, the budget for this particular program has

increased substantially over the preceding years. I think that shows

that the government and the ministry appreciate the need for the

program. We are doing what is necessary to meet the increasing demand;

we will continue to do that. But I am not prepared to say that we will

expand the program without limitation, because we have to balance our

funds to provide a lot of other programs as well. We recognize the

importance of this one, but all of the other programs we provide are

very important too.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I've been very reluctant to argue in this

debate for more money for any one program; I've been very reluctant to

argue for more money generally. I have argued throughout the debate for

more efficient and more effective spending, and I will continue to do

that. But in this particular issue, I want to do more. I want to argue

the point that, very clearly, this is a resource that needs to be dealt

with and to be given the attention and support it deserves.

I want to talk about some of the breakdown of infants and why their

families end up as clients for infant development programs. We read

last year, in support of this program, a letter from a family whose

infant was premature and spent a number of months in Children's

Hospital, and about how that family was trying to deal with learning

how to help that infant. I learned something from their letter. I

learned that a premature infant who is in an incubator for a number of

months.... Even when they are strong enough and able to sustain life

outside of that incubator, because that infant has been in that kind of

environment for so long, you can't hold the infant. An infant who has

been in an incubator for that length of time.... When you pick that

infant up, the infant goes rigid and screams, because they are unused

to being handled. I began to imagine what it was like for a parent —

perhaps with other children at home — not knowing how to deal with that

new life that was part of their family, and the stresses involved with

having to try to come to grips with that kind of impact. As a mother, I

couldn't even begin to imagine trying to deal with that.

I'm looking at the numbers here.... These are old numbers, so I

expect that they have increased significantly since then. These numbers

were in a brief by the infant development program in April 1989. They

talk about the kinds of situations they find in dealing with infants

and families' needs. A significant number of the children suffer from

either fetal alcohol syndrome or neonatal abstinence syndrome. These

are children who have been born addicted either to alcohol or to drugs.

A number of those children have been put up for adoption; a number of

those children are in foster homes. A number of those foster homes have

not had the necessary training to deal with a drug-addicted infant.

Again, I want to make an appeal to the minister as strongly as

possible that these kinds of programs — programs that support families

in raising those infants.... This is the first chance for those babies;

let's

[ Page

13085 ]

make sure that it isn't the last chance for those

babies. Let's not write off those families and those babies. I believe

that support for those programs is not only the best possible spending

option for government but, as I said, is also possibly the first chance

those children have to live a long and productive life.

I want to go on and talk about children who are a little older. This

has to do with a comment the minister made a little earlier about

children in care, in foster care in particular, and the support. Id

like to go back in on this. If I understood the minister correctly, the

support that the minister is committed to providing for the transition

from age 18 into adulthood for those children currently in foster care

is to allow those families to continue their relationship in some

fashion with those children.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I too have seen the children who the

member opposite talks about. There are children with alcohol syndrome

and with a drug dependency syndrome. As the member opposite may well

have done, I visited Dr. Segal's ward at Sunny Hill Hospital, talked to

Dr. Segal for some time and saw the children who were being cared for

there.

It's hard to stand and look at children who are so sensitive that

even light is more than they can tolerate when they're first born. They

spend their time in a dark room because the light causes stress for

them. The difficulty that's experienced in trying to feed those

children — it takes hours for them to consume what another little baby

would consume in a few minutes; the difficulty that the children have

as they're growing up and the care and special attention that they

need.... Those children, particularly the ones affected by the drug

syndrome, show no outward appearance of the severe emotional problems

they have, and for all intents and purposes they are in every way

normal, beautiful children. I was told how they cry for hours too. When

they are born they begin to cry immediately, not for milk and food that

most babies cry for but for drugs, because that's what their little

bodies crave.

It is a sad situation — no question about it. The program that we

have has served well and is very good. I can say to the member opposite

that I am so pleased with the program that if I had more money to put

into some program within the ministry, this is one that would certainly

have favoured consideration. But we face a limitation. We can do so

much. We have allocated a continually increasing amount of resource for

the program, and I am sure we will continue to do that in the years to

come.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I wonder if the minister can make some comments about the support for foster children reaching the age of majority?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The notes that I have on that.... The ministry is

committed to assisting and supporting children in care who would take responsibility

for and be involved in planning together their transition for independence.

The ministry is currently developing policy to improve services to assist children

in care to achieve maximum independence when they turn 19. If the member wishes

to ask specific questions on that, perhaps my staff can assist me in what is

happening at this time. The program is in the development stage. It was last

fall, if my memory is correct, when the deputy talked to me about the need for

this type of a program. The feeling was — because the ministry does in fact become

the parent to the child that is no longer able to be with its family — that

we would also extend the same kind of care and concern for the well-being of

that individual when he or she reaches the age of 19 to help with the transition.

The ministry has been developing a program, as the notes suggest, to carry that

out. I may be able to provide you with more detail. The note that I have here

says that after-care policy will be considered in legislative review. So it's

a program that we are developing.

MS. SMALLWOOD: If I understand that last comment, can we look for some changes in January 1994?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: No, it's anticipated the program should be ready within a year, not three years.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm sure that the minister is not referring to

the election and the New Democrats coming to government and showing

some real leadership in this issue. But what I want to emphasize for

the minister, since he's indicated that his staff are reviewing this

issue, is that for a lot of families — and in particular the children

in care — the whole trauma of finding themselves in care, regardless of

the reason for that situation, often impacts the children in such a way

that they are a number of years behind most children in school — if

they manage to make it that far. For a number of those kids, even with

the support of a good foster home, this means that at the age of 18

they may not have finished their grade 12. For a number of foster homes

that I have heard from it causes a great deal of distress for them to

understand that there will no longer be support for the child in that

home.

If the ministry is looking at those kinds of issues, I would ask in

particular that the ministry consider continuing support, on a

short-term agreement perhaps, so that the family can stay together.

Many families that don't have to deal with the trauma of separation and

all that is entailed in a child ending up in care find that this

transition to adulthood takes a much longer time than just reaching the

magical age of adulthood. Many children need the support of their

parents for a number of years, and I see no reason why a foster home

should not at least have a transitional program in place.

I know that other members want to deal with some other issues, so we'll move onto those and perhaps come back later.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, that's exactly what the

program that is being developed is for. It's exactly what was described

by the member opposite.

[3:00]

MS. MARZARI: On Saturday, May 4, Frances Bula wrote in the Sun: "If you can find it, you can't afford it.

[ Page 13086 ]

If you can afford it, it's no good. If it's good, you can't get it." This is referring to child care in British Columbia.

Child care in this province is in a state which is not shared by any

other province in this country. Every other province has decided to

take a stand on child care administratively, financially and fiscally

Every other province in this country has decided to pull itself into

the twentieth century. We are the province that stands out there in

left field — or right field, we should say — resisting the twentieth

century.

We are the only province in this whole land that doesn't support its

child care centres by offering them — as they are small businesses — a

direct operating fund to help them through the end of the month. We're

the only province that doesn't view its child care centres as an

investment in the future of the children. In this province we continue

to operate our child care system in an ad hoc, unstructured,

interministerial way with five ministers involved without rhyme or

reason.

When a parent needs child care, that parent is faced with a barrage

of regulations, rules, subsidies that may or may not arrive, and

eligibility requirements. That parent is faced with a deficit of good

licensed care in this province. We have approximately 20,000 to 25,000

licensed spaces in this province, a fact we canvassed with the Minister

of Health last week. Yet we have about 300,000 children who ostensibly

could benefit from safe, licensed care.

A parent is faced with not being able to find a space very often,

and eligibility requirements that often make it impossible to access

decent child care at a price they can afford. A parent is often faced

with the frustration and despair of having to go from unlicensed space

to unlicensed space wondering where the next babysitter might come

from. It's not a healthy way for a good chunk of our population to

live. I refer to the mothers. It's not a good way for that demographic

unit in our population, called mothers of young children, to conduct

their lives.

This government will say: "Why are those mothers out working in the

first place? They should be at home with their families. Why do they

have children if they're not going to be in the home taking care of

those children?" My point to you is: get real! Give me a break. What we

have in this province right now are statistics that read as follows:

the percentage of B.C. working women with school-age children in 1971

was 45 percent; in 1989 it was 75 percent.

All those jobs this government claimed they created were very often

low-income and at the marginal end of the workforce. Granted those are

jobs — and those jobs are filled by women.

In fact, 62 percent of women in the workforce in British Columbia

right now have preschool children What that translates into is a huge

demand on perhaps 300,000 women who more than occasionally are single

women looking for child care so they can go to their job or seek

employment each day. What does that translate into? The statistics I've

got are those your government has pulled together over the last few

years. They show that from zero to 36 months there are 61,821 children

in this province needing some kind of non-parental care. The number of

licensed spaces is 3,107. That puts 57,000 — almost 58,000 — children

in some form of non-licensed care in this province. As I say, that

could be a relative, the grandmother or the nice woman down the street.

But that's almost 60,000 kids from zero to three years of age whose

mothers are in the workforce and who do not have safe, licensed child

care. That's what I would call a demand. That's what I would call

pent-up anger and frustration on the part of 61,000 mothers — parents

who might be looking for something better than what they've got.

From ages three to six we have another 60,000 children — double that

for the number of parents — who are looking for group or family care.

That's where we have the most licensed spaces in our province, almost

17,500. But there's still the difference from 59,000 three- to

five-year-olds in non-licensed care. In other words, parents are going

out to the neighbourhood, advertising in the newspaper and looking for

someone to mind the kids.

For the over six- to 12-year-olds — these are kids in school — we

have 173,815 kids who need care. These are very often the kinds of

programs you find in the school after school is over. There is no

reason why every school in our province shouldn't have a good quality,

licensed after-school program that keeps the kids safe, active and

thinking until 5:30 or 6:30 p.m., depending on when parents come home

from work.

The fact is that we have only 8,889 licensed spaces. Think of all

those schools in our province that don't have an after-school program.

That's less than 10,000 spaces, leaving 165,000 kids with no place to

go after school, other than perhaps an unlicensed space — the woman

down the street.

We were talking this morning about kids on the street and about

child neglect. We were talking this morning about what goes wrong. Let

me suggest to you that part of our problem is that there are 165,000

kids between the ages of six and 12 in this province right now without

anybody there for them after school in a licensed place — in the school

possibly.

The question then becomes: how do we create a system of child care

in this province that reflects the real needs — the twentieth-century

needs — of working parents, most notably the real phenomenon of working

mothers that has occurred in the last 40 to 50 years? How does this

province, after the need has been proven by the statistics here and by

the anger of the parents involved in trying to find child care, begin

to develop a worthwhile, comprehensive system of child care? How does

it go about the business of building the spaces or creating the spaces

in existing schools to actually meet the need? Well, this province has

decided, traditionally, just to stick its head in the sand, to take an

ideological position that moms should somehow be at home, that children

should be at home with their moms, and therefore there's no other

question asked.

Because of the relentless pressure — obviously from working parents

— gradually and very painfully over the last 30 years some program has

been put together by hook or by crook. Piecemeal, band-aid solutions

have been found. Different ministries have been

[ Page

13087 ]

dragged into this pot, this little jigsaw puzzle

that's been created, and so now we've got ourselves 20,000 to 25,000

licensed spaces. But it's not good enough, Mr. Chairman. There have to

be ways that we can do a better job on this score.

I want to know from the minister what the real budget is for child

care in this province right now, separated out from special-needs

children — the real budget for what this province is putting towards

the development of a child care system. I would like the minister to

address the issue of subsidy rates for parents who cannot afford the

full cost of child care but are prepared to go partway — given what

they earn — to help pay part of the cost. I'd like to know the

minister's stance on the subsidy rates to parents who can't afford the

full cost of child care. And finally, I'd like to know who's in charge

this year. What is this government's policy du jour on child care? Is

the Ministry of Social Services going to carry the load? Is it

transferring the load over to the ministry for women? Where does the

buck stop for child care in 1991?

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The comments by the member opposite

clearly indicate that the job isn't done until there's a space in

society for every single child raised within the province. If you have

so many hundred thousand children, you have to have so many hundred

thousand spaces available, so that everyone is accommodated. I don't

know what the final objective of the members opposite would be, but I

guess if the process continues far enough, parents in this whole

exercise will become redundant altogether, because their children will

be cared for in almost every facet by the state. The state would own

the children of the province and be responsible for them.

I think that the paramount responsibility for looking after children

is the family's. Families make the arrangements to look after their

children. I know there's a need for day care centres in many areas, and

there's a considerable amount being done about that One of the ways it

is being done is in cooperation with employers to put day care centres

in the buildings where women work, so that they can have access to

their children during the day. That's one of the acceptable ways that

have been used. The other is that communities can get together to

organize and establish day care centres; they're not prevented from

doing that.

[3:15]

There are 17,200 children in the province that the government

provides with either full-time or half-day subsidies. The cost to

British Columbia for this year for that part of the program is $50.29

million. There's an additional $12.1 million set aside for this year

within the Ministry of Government Services to take care of some

additional programs. That will be announced very soon. Some of the

concerns that the member opposite discussed will be partly answered by

that.

The subsidy growth in the budget over the last three years. The year before

last, the subsidy for day care was $33.55 million; a year ago it was $47.78

million; this year it's $50-29 million — a steadily increasing budget. The

member makes much of unlicensed day care versus licensed day care. That's

a debate I remember going through in detail a year ago. The member's position,

of course, is that any unlicensed day care is inadequate day care. That's

not so at all. In fact, many parents in the province choose the unlicensed day

care. They prefer that as their first choice for having their children looked

after, because unlicensed day care predominantly provides care for one or two

children and is often close to the home. It may be done by a family member,

a friend or relative — someone that the mother knows.

There's a lot to be said for unlicensed day care. To suggest that

everyone has to be licensed, employing somebody from the public sector

in order to administer it, is not right at all. That may be the choice

that the members opposite would like to go with, but certainly it's not

the way we think we need to go. That's not the way a great many of the

parents in British Columbia feel they want to go, either.

MS. MARZARI: It's interesting, for a government that's

prepared to spend $30 million on a racetrack for perhaps I percent of

the population, that they're not prepared to see the need for a

comprehensive child care system which affects 50 percent of the

population — that is, working mothers. In fact, it affects the 62

percent of working mothers with preschool-age children and the 75

percent with school-age children. I find it difficult that any level of

government would find that 3 percent or maybe I percent of the

population would get subsidies for yacht clubs by not collecting taxes

on foreshore leases or on parkland being handed over — which is

happening in my neighbourhood at great expense to the community and the

taxpayer — and not spend at least the equivalent dollars on child care

centres in that same neighbourhood, when there are so many more people

directly involved and needing that service.

The minister says that we don't have to provide a licensed space for

every single kid that seems to need it. We require a licence for every

car that drives on the road. We require that everyone follows certain

rules and procedures when they get involved with government. We require

licences for all kinds of activities, from getting married to buying a

dog. Yet when it comes to child care and the provision of a service, we

decide that.... The minister said it: for many parents it's a first

choice. I'd suggest to the minister that it's an only choice for most

parents.

If you just reread the statistics I've put forward today, the number

of licensed spaces compared to the number of spaces that are required

is barely one in ten — not even one in 20. It's absolutely true. I'm

sure I'm going to get a lot of mail from parents — mothers basically —

who run unlicensed spaces, telling me that they run a quality service.

And they do. There is no doubt that there are a number of women in our

community who break their backs for kids in their community, minding

them and taking care of them — the neighbourhood moms. They're

terrific. But why aren't they being supported? Why aren't they being

[ Page 13088 ]

given the little assistance that they might need to

upgrade their toys? Why aren't they being inspected to make sure that

stuff that they don't even know about is being properly looked at — a

faulty furnace, an area that might need extra ventilation.

There are all kinds of things that can be done by government — not

with a massive amount of money — that can really upgrade and assist in

the development of quality standards of care for 300,000 kids. That's

what we're talking about here — 300,000 children.

I have to come back to my original point. Our province is seriously

behind the rest of this country in recognizing the nature and the

magnitude of what we're looking at here. Perhaps because our province

has such a large problem on its hands that it wants to step back from

it and not understand that it is huge, you still have the idea that

we've got a small problem here and that you can deal with it with

band-aid solutions.

The fact that the women's ministry has come onto the scene has given

us some temporary respite. The Women's Programs minister has set up a

task force that has produced one of the better documents in this

country on child care and child care needs. This document really is a

blueprint for what child care could be in this province. It was put

together by people who know their business — experts here in B.C. who

know what to do.

The city of Vancouver has hired some of these experts to develop a

comprehensive, half-decent child care program that recognizes the real

needs of people in Vancouver. They're not hiding from the facts They're

laying it right out and saying this is what the nature of our problem

is, and this is what we have to do about it — with a blueprint.

You have a blueprint. The Women's Programs ministry has provided you

with one. The question is: what's the minister going to do with the

blueprint that's been provided? Has the minister set up a special

committee to find out how his ministry can contribute to the

development — administratively and financially — of a comprehensive

child care program?

Let me break that question down. Has the minister started to

contemplate the provision of child care monthly operating funds to see

centres through their budget crises? Has the minister decided to invest

more in the capital construction of new child care centres?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The answer to the last one is, I believe,

no. We provide a lot of assistance to day cares. I sign letters, and

very often cheques are sent to assist day cares to renovate their

facility or to buy furnishings or different things that they may

require to make the facility better and more serviceable. We're always

pleased to help, and we make a donation to them for that purpose.

The situation that the member opposite talks about is a

philosophical approach. The member asks why the government wouldn't do

such nice things as helping somebody fix their furnace and check their

ventilation system. I suppose that government could send somebody in to

check somebody's furnace and fix their ventilation system and sweep

their floor and vacuum their rugs, too. The government could take over

everybody's lives. I suppose that's what the members opposite would

have government do.

It's our belief that government should only be involved where it

needs to be involved; and when government is involved, it should be

involved as unobtrusively as possible in people's lives. The biggest

luxury that we could give to the citizens of this province is the

opportunity for them to choose how they will spend their own money,

rather than thinking that we should take the money from them and spend

it on our behalf because we know how to spend it better than they do.

The fact is that the people would welcome the opportunity to make their

own choices.

People do not have to have government beside them holding their hand

all the way through life in order for them to make it through and be

able to develop a good, wholesome society. They can do that very well

without government, because on a prorated basis, government is really

no smarter than the rest of the population. The rest of the population

has the facilities and the needs. They understand the community, they

understand the problem and they can take care of it better. So it's

best we leave some things for the communities themselves to do.

Where we need to help, we will help. But we will not intrude to the

point of saying that we know we are the only ones who can do this and

that we know what your needs are, whether or not you agree with it. "If

you're a mother who likes to have your child in an unlicensed day care,

that might be all right in your view. But we, big government, know

better than that. It should be in a licensed facility, because people

in licensed facilities have all the necessary experience, training,

instructions and facilities. So that's where you're child has to go." I

don't believe in that. I think government should stay out when they

don't have to get involved in people's lives.

There is a need for more daycare spaces, and they'll be provided as

time goes by. That's not only a responsibility of government, but

government can perhaps help. We've had a task force, as you mentioned,

and that task force is being reviewed. This ministry is participating

in that review, along with all the other ministries involved. When that

review is completed, action will be taken according to the decisions

made following the review of that particular task force's

recommendations.

There was $55 million allocated over a three-year period for that,

and there's $12.1 million of that in the budget this year. So we are

moving in that direction. But I don't believe that government is the

only one that has a responsibility. It can belong to the employers, the

communities and also to the parents. Let's not think that government

should be the only one that knows how to do everything in society.

MS. MARZARI: That's strange — Lord of the Flies

revisited. I'm sure that the minister has absolutely no trouble with

seatbelts in cars. I'm sure he has no trouble with putting up traffic

signals at corners — red lights, green lights. I'm sure he has no

trouble with lifeguards at beaches. I'm sure he has no trouble with

[ Page

13089 ]

education systems and kids going to school between

the ages of five and 16 or 18. I'm sure he has no difficulty with the

medicare system. I'm sure the minister has no difficulty with any laws

that we have right now which support the common wisdom of the people

that have elected us to do our jobs. I'm sure that the minister would

not undo any of the institutions that we have created for ourselves as

citizens. That's what we're here for. This is an institution, just like

a secondary school, a hospital or a local clinic. This place is an

institution that's been put together by people like us to do the

people's will.

I'm saying that the people's will happens to include the 75 percent

of mothers in this province with school-age children that don't feel

safe or right about how their kids are treated everyday. Their kids may

be treated really great, but there is a huge percentage in this

province who are not asking for seatbelts, an education system or

another hospital. They're women, generally speaking — traditionally

invisible — who are asking for safe, proper, adequate, licensed care

for their children.

In doing so, they're asking for the choice. The minister said that

he was all out to deny choice, and that this side of the House wants to

drive children out of their houses and thrust them into child care

centres. This side of the House is looking for a menu of services that

are safe and licensed, that parents can feel secure that children can

grow and develop in while their parents are working outside the home.

invading the lives of people, but this so-called invasion is actually

an expansion of choice and is no more of an invasion than a properly

licensed car, a traffic light on a street, a school or a hospital. It's

on the continuum of care, if you see what I mean — not a residual

service we can treat with lottery grants, but a basic part of the new

twentieth-century structure of a society that relies more than ever

before on women in the formal workforce.

[3:30]

A remarkable thing.... I just wish the veil could be lifted from the

eyes of the other side of this House so they could actually see the

statistics and understand there are hundreds of thousands of women —

parents with kids, many of them single — who don't feel right about

what is happening and who feel that the system is not serving them.

I have a letter in front of me from a woman who has run the gauntlet

and got through the bureaucracy to find some child care assistance. She

writes a letter on April 15 of this year: "I send in a completed form

once a month to the Ministry of Social Services, who assist myself with

partial payment of my day care services." These are parents that are

prepared to pay what they can afford and appreciate being topped up to

what the child care actually costs. They're appreciative of this. It's

not available to many of them, because the rates at which the subsidy

kicks in are so limited. She says:

"As in any job, this person [who minds my child] has the

right to be paid on time. Every month it becomes a concern as to when this payment

will arrive. The lateness of these payments can and does cause emotional and

financial stress, irritation and/or loss of day care services.

"I know that I am not a 'lone' individual with the

major concern in reference to the day care payment issue. Whether it is

licensed day care, in-home or out, these people's positions are of

great responsibility and they have, once again, the right to be paid on

time. "I personally fear the beginning of each month when I will have

to start wondering what will happen this time."

I'm referring to parents who have managed to qualify for a small

subsidy in order to hold their jobs and have their kids treated

properly in licensed care. But what they are saying and what this

mother is saying on behalf of her child care worker is: when is the

government going to pay that subsidy? Does the government not realize

that it is dealing with small businesses that actually rely on

government input to stabilize their cash flow? What is the problem with

payment?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, could I have the date of the letter?

MS. MARZARI: The letter is dated April 15 of this year.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Okay, Mr. Chairman. If the letter is dated

April 15 of this year, I would appreciate a copy of it, and I would

like to check it out. We did a major review of that whole process

because that was a problem. If the ministry is going to pay a subsidy,

then people should be able to depend on the subsidy being there on the

due date. I would like a copy of that letter, because I would like to

check it out. I don't know how many thousands of these we process each

month, but there is a lot of them. But that's not an excuse. They

should all be done properly. I would like to look at it.

MS. MARZARI: I will ensure that the minister gets a copy of this letter today.

The minister has said he doesn't intend to put anything more into

the capital costs of building new child care centres. He will leave

that for another year to the lotteries, which might kick out $10,000

grants to the occasional centre as it attempts to build.

My question is not on capital. My next question has to do with the

financial accountability of the existing system that the MSS&H has

developed to ensure that the right people get the right treatment, and

that money is not being wasted in the provision of child care. I find

this a rather ironic position to be in, because the auditor-general, in

his most recent 1991 report, speaks to the systems that the MSS&H

uses to ensure that there's accountability both in the eligibility

requirements of parents applying for subsidy and in terms of child care

homes — licensed and unlicensed, I would imagine — that are claiming a

subsidy. You have two separate routines here. The financial assistance

worker has the responsibility of determining the eligibility and the

entitlement of the parent.

The auditor-general claims that "few guidelines have been provided

as to the nature and extent of the monitoring procedures to be carried

out, and our audit

[ Page 13090 ]

tests revealed a high rate of small errors in the

calculation of eligible income, exempt income level and subsidy

payable." The auditor-general goes on: "We therefore recommended that

the ministry strengthen its general control environment, particularly

in district offices, by improving supervisory, review and monitoring

procedures for approved applications."

As I said, I find this rather ironic, because at the very moment the

auditor-general is speaking to the 168 district offices of MSS&H as

they go in and interview parents as to their eligibility for child care

subsidy.... I note in the back of my mind that three pages earlier in

his report the auditor-general is talking about the relative paucity of

forestry supervisors out there collecting revenues from our forestry

resource. We might be blowing hundreds of millions of dollars a year by

not collecting on the timber cut in our province. I would suggest that

the magnitude is probably in the order of a hundred million to one in

terms of the dollars we waste by not collecting them on the forestry

side and the dollars we check to the nickel and dime on the MSSH side

in determining eligibility of a mother for a subsidy.

I would ask the minister what he has done to ensure these reviews —

the monitoring and evaluations — are tightened up. I ask not because

I'm a grinch, but because I believe that if you have standards and

rules, you live by them. If you don't live by them, a kind of cancer

creeps into your own system: exemptions here, sloppiness there, and the

system suffers. More importantly, I believe you live by your rules

because clients and citizens suffer in the last analysis if you don't.

From my knowledge of child care parents and of human beings, people

will take a lot in terms of regulation, but they detest unfairness in

the application of rules. I do, and everybody I know does. Parents

receiving a subsidy for day care, for example, are very aware of what

their neighbour is or is not receiving There is always that comparison

between parents who may or may not be on the eligibility list. Rules

have to be consistent and applied fairly, because people can live with

a great deal.... Also, it's important for everybody to be aware of what

those rules are and that they're not being bent by some whimsical

procedure. It doesn't give us a true picture of what the real situation

is. If people know what rules to play by, they know what they have to

fight. And when they know what they have to fight or can get angry

about, then maybe we can get some real change.

So I ask this question not because I want to see thousands of

financial assistance workers going over every nickel and dime's worth

of eligibility — I'd rather see the financial assistance workers out in

the forests cruising timber and making sure stumpage comes in, quite

frankly — but because I want to make sure that this ministry is

properly supervising and monitoring its own rules to ensure that they

are being fairly and consistently applied.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, we're dealing with the

situation in the Ministry of Forests and the control that takes place

there. Maybe it's a nice break for me to get up and talk about forestry

for a little while. I don't know, but I think the auditor-general was

saying that there's a possibility that there could be some missed

revenue — that's not to say there is, but there could be. I guess the

one way of ensuring that there isn't any lost revenue is to make sure

so many people are monitoring it so carefully that it becomes

mathematically impossible to have any slip-ups in the system. I have to

tell you that forestry — I want to talk about that for a little bit;

we're not on my estimates anyway — has a pretty good system. I was in

it for a long time, and I think every single piece of wood was

monitored pretty carefully from what I saw over a number of years. I'd

be surprised if there's any amount missing, but possibly in some places

there is, because it's a big industry.

Getting back to our own ministry, I agree with the member that it's

very important that the rules we apply be precisely the same for all

parties, and it isn't fair if one person providing a service gets more

than another one providing the same service. So we have to have careful

rules, and we're very aware of that. We try to maintain a system that

has as little discretionary power in it as possible, because

discretionary power makes for variances, and variances can make for

injustices and inequality between various groups.

A good example of that is in the foster home care, where foster

homes provide different levels of service to different people — one

level being more intense than another. We're looking at ways of dealing

with that situation to make a very fair system so that all are treated

exactly the same. That's something we will be talking about in the

future. But what we have done within our ministry on the cases that the

member opposite talked about is have training sessions for the staff to

advise them of the auditor-general's findings and of what needs to be

done in order to deal with that issue. The supervisors responsible for

the day care program have also had training to advise them on the

proper entitlement and how to make sure that the rules are applied

equally and fairly in all cases.

So I guess the answer to the question is that we have done the same

as any private business would do if they felt they were having a bit of

a problem with their control system: have training sessions with the

staff responsible in order to improve and tighten up the system.

MR. ROSE: I don't know just how much I should go into this,

because I intend to submit this letter later on to the ministry, and

I've found in the past that when I have done things like that, they've

been most helpful.

I think it's important, when we talk about discretion.... This

person claims that she was put through the wringer in an attempt to get

a few months of social assistance after she became a single parent and

separated. It's a question that I don't think is common, and I'm not

making a charge about the people who work in the ministry; nevertheless

I don't think it should happen. The woman says later on that she didn't

want to sound like a whiner. Essentially the story is that she was

separated, and then she took a first aid course and was able to get a

job. But apparently there was a lot of trouble filling out eligibility

assessments and getting

[ Page

13091 ]

her cheques, and she felt that she was put through the wringer.

[3:45]

Again, I think you have to be conscious in the ministry of the fact

that there may be some people who take advantage of it, but in your

efforts to maintain integrity in the system, to some people who perhaps

are embarrassed by asking for assistance in the first place, it comes

out as hounding or almost harassment. I think we have to temper these

matters when we're dealing with this. A worker tells her that she's

going to be able to get $200 to send her children for a one-week summer

camp, and then she's told a couple of days later that there's no

opportunity for that, because it's run out; the GAIN file was closed.

Then her medical coverage was cancelled as of June 30, and the day care

subsidy forms again — and another cutback. Probably to some of us these

things are not very important, but if you're on the tightrope of

insufficient funds and coping with a broken marriage and children who

can't understand why they can no longer get things, I imagine you could

get pretty emotionally uptight about it.

I don't want to express a lot of outrage, because I don't think it

is called for here, especially when I'm going to seek some discretion

on the part of the ministry and ask them to review the file. But I did

want to read part of her letter.

She says: "In closing I would like to state my finances exceed my

income." Well, that's a bad shake. It sounds like the federal

government. "As I previously mentioned, I don't want a constant handout

from the government. I have been with my present employer now for six

months and have a two-year contract."

But it's far from easy. I'm paraphrasing here. She says she believes

that as a taxpayer she's paying into this fund, and therefore she is

entitled to some of it. She's talking about the kids in summer camp and

also the cutback on her medical coverage. She asked me to intervene,

and if any further backup paperwork is necessary, she will supply it.

Anyway, I don't know how often that story is replicated. I will say

that I have had occasions in the past to call upon the ministry for

explanations and review. Usually I have been very impressed by the way

in which the deputy and others I've been in contact with have dealt

with these matters when they are brought to their attention. At the

same time, if I can ask the question: how does the ministry go about

making certain that they're giving out the taxpayers' money — and this

has to be done very carefully.... But on the other hand, how does the

ministry make certain that people are not hounded or harassed when they

are in need and asking for what is legitimately theirs — people who

want to work and are not just sandbagging it?

It's a tough question, and I don't expect a particularly good answer,

because I'm not sure I could answer it myself. I would like to hear the

minister's remarks on this and also his agreement that he will have his

deputy look into this matter as soon as possible so that I can provide my constituent

with an answer.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: We will certainly look into the matter. If we could just ask for a copy of the letter, we will check that out.

The member asked the question: how do we make sure that the rules

are applied fairly, and that someone is not harassed but is given what

they are entitled to? It's interesting, because we do get the odd

letter like that. Sometimes we get them because a social worker may

have made a mistake, and the person really did not get everything they

were entitled to. That has happened, and we correct that if it's

brought to our attention.

You have to appreciate that we have a lot of people working out

there in the field, and perhaps every particular case is not going to

be handled perfectly, so that will happen.

The other thing that happens is that people on social assistance

very often think they should be entitled to more than they get. I can

understand the feeling, because it is difficult to get by — I

appreciate that — and they maybe feel that what they get isn't

adequate, and that they should get a little more. That feeling really

shows up when they become employed and get some income. We allow

families to keep the first $100 they make, and then up to a certain

limit we allow them to keep 25 percent of what they earn after that.

But the rest of it we deduct. People look at that and think: "Gee, I

should be able to keep all I earn."

The reality of it is that we have another group of people out there

who have never come to government and asked for any help; they're out

there on their own working, and they too perhaps don't have very high

incomes. We have to make sure that we don't provide more benefits to

one than the other; otherwise we'd have to provide a subsidy for

everybody on social assistance. Trying to deal with that is a problem.

People feel that they're treated unfairly because we don't allow them

to keep everything that they earn. We have a program, and again we go

back to fairness. We try to make sure that everyone receives the same

amount of benefit. Whether they are unhappy about that or not isn't

really something we can change, because we're bound by the rules to do

it.

I have to tell you my personal view on this question of being

hounded in order to get social assistance. My personal view — and I

haven't even talked to the deputy about this, so he'll be quite

surprised — is that if I had my choice, in a perfect situation, I would

make it very easy for somebody to get social assistance. I would make

that very easy, because people come sometimes at night, in an emergency

situation, they need help and they need it now. They might not even be

in very good condition emotionally to deal with a lot of problems and

red tape.

I would make it easy. What I would do is have a protective

mechanism. I would have it that people tell us their situation, and

they would sign and agree that that's what their situation was. If they

were caught violating that, I would come down very hard on the

offenders. People who have used the social service system are not

taking away from government. It's not hurting me as the minister or the

people who work in my ministry. The people they are hurting are the

others

[ Page 13092 ]

who are in need. When you abuse the social service

system, you abuse the people who are in need of social assistance. I

would come down very hard on that, because it's a system that's

provided to meet emergency needs of people.

MR. ROSE: My colleague asked me if he'd come down heavy on

Fletcher Challenge too if they were creaming off the system. There

might be a double standard.

I think what concerns people a lot is that they feel that the

workers regard everyone with some sort of cynicism or even suspicion. I

think that sometimes it's like a schoolteacher who thinks that every

child in the class is capable of breaking the rules. On the one hand,

they get pilloried if they give in to cheaters; on the other hand, they

could be too tough sometimes on people who've just come for assistance.

On the matter of wages and allowing them to earn, we do that as a

program in other ministries. We have subsidized wages for people who

hire people. That's not unknown in government. If you employ a certain

group of people, you can get subsidized wages.

On the minister's suggestion that he would get them to sign a

declaration, that sounds like what they used to have in UIC. Maybe they

still do. There used to be great problems in dealing with UIC because

there was cynicism on the part of some of the UIC officers, who thought

that everybody really was a cheater. What they would do was get them in

to sign a declaration, usually written by somebody else, and then

they'd be cut off two weeks later because they'd agreed to something —

they'd condemned themselves out of their own mouth. If you ever

institute a system like that, if you should have that opportunity

anytime in the future, then perhaps you'd be on guard about that one.

The inspectors would smuggle certain phrases into these statements, and

we had a lot of trouble with those things, going back 10 and 15 years.

Thank you for your response, and I'll see that you get the letter.

MR. BLENCOE: I want to go back and talk a little about housing.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll get to that. To the member over there, I

heard your little speech about home-ownership last night — I think it

was last night. Mr. Chairman, the record is that this government has

killed home-ownership in the province of British Columbia, and I'm

going to do a little talking about that this afternoon.

I continue to hear deathbed repentance on the part of this

government and various ministers about all the wonderful things they're

going to do now on the eve of an election. It's just amazing what this

government is in favour of now on the eve of an election. After all the

various things they've killed or shot down, the people they've fired,

it's just incredible that we have this deathbed repentance by a

discredited government on the eve of an election. But I think the

people of the province are sophisticated enough to see through a

government that will promise anything, say anything and do anything in

an attempt to get elected again.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to the home-ownership question. To

back up a little, our side of the House, in terms of our policy and our

announcements on housing programs and policies, has been talking about

home-ownership, laying out the groundwork for a starter home program —

how we can help first-time homebuyers. We've been asking this

government to consider many of those programs, and there was deafening

silence on the other side. I can recall this minister and previous

ministers articulating our starter home program, better second

mortgages, cancellation of property purchase tax for the first-time

homebuyer, and a number of other policies we suggested, and there was

ridicule from the other side. "Oh, we can't do those things." Now

suddenly, in desperation, just a few weeks or maybe days away from an

election, they believe in all those things that some year ago or six or

nine months ago they were laughing at.

Let me just go over the record, Mr. Chairman, in terms of

home-ownership. This government says it suddenly believes in

home-ownership again. I recall that in this province we used to have a

$2,500 grant for the first-time homebuyer.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, perhaps you could control the

member over there who can't chew and walk at the same time. I don't

know what he's doing today, but perhaps a little control from the other

side. I know we're talking about home-ownership and that's offensive to

this government, but this side of the House believes in putting young

people in their homes. We believe in giving opportunities. I want to

remind that member from the Nelson area.... I forget the name of your

riding — the one that got all the lottery grants, 23 lottery grants in

an amazing period of time; a little bit of back-of-the-truck lottery

grants for that member over there. He was very good at that, the

minister who was in charge of lotteries.

[4:00]

Mr. Chairman, do you remember the $2,500 grant that was given to

first-time homebuyers — young British Columbians? But guess what? Who

cancelled that program? This government. That young couple with maybe

one or two children, when they were given the opportunity to buy their

first home, the provincial government said: "We'll give you a little

help." Who cancelled that important home-ownership item? Social Credit.

Where is that member from Langley who was talking last night about

Social Credit's belief in homeownership? You cancelled the program that

helped young people. There was a $1,000 first-home grant for new or

older homes for the first-time buyer. Who cancelled that? Social Credit.

We used to have a second-mortgage program for the first-time

homebuyer in British Columbia — a real second-mortgage program, not the

modified one today, which is basically just a loan guarantee. When that

young British Columbian goes to buy that first home

[ Page

13093 ]

and can't quite squeeze the little extra he or she

needs out of the bank — and don't get me going on the banks — the

government said: "We'll give you a hand on the second mortgage." Who

cancelled that real second mortgage program? Social Credit. Today it's

a modified second mortgage, just a loan guarantee of about $12,000 run

by the private sector — back to the private sector.

Do you remember who brought in the property purchase tax? Who

refuses to cancel that for the first-time homebuyer? We have

consistently said the first-time buyer — the young British Columbian

who wishes to enter the market for that dream of ownership — shouldn't

have to pay the property purchase tax of $2,000 or $3,000. But they

refuse to cancel....

Mr. Chairman, I have had news today that the interim Premier, who

was not speaking as the Premier yesterday — she said, "I'm speaking as

a leadership candidate" — said that she believes it should now be

cancelled for the first-time homebuyer. So the interim Premier, as a

candidate, was attacking her own government. That's an interesting

scenario, but only in British Columbia would we have that happen. She

says that her government is doing the wrong thing putting property

purchase tax on the first-time buyer, and she wants to cancel it. But

when you ask her in this House, that same interim Premier says: "Oh no,

my government won't do that." What a schizophrenic government we have

in British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, we should cancel the property purchase tax for the

first-time homebuyer. That's our policy. That would help home-ownership

in British Columbia.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

This government may talk about home-ownership, but I see no policies

about it, while this side of the House has developed policies and

programs.

The minister laughs. The minister, I understand, is about to

announce his leadership intentions. Save your $9,000, Mr. Minister.

It's a sinking party. Don't join the race. That's my advice to you, but

I'm sure you won't necessarily listen to it.

We have a program; we've announced it. We've been front and centre

with our program. We have also announced some strategies for

home-ownership. They are in various forms. One of the major ones is the

starter home program.

We've had debates and dialogue with the contractors and the private

developers on how we could start a no-frills starter home program,

trying to help those young British Columbians into their first home.

Those discussions have gone very well. We've announced all sorts of

other innovations to encourage home-ownership in the province of

British Columbia.

This government clearly has been reading some of the innovative things we've

been saying should happen in the province of British Columbia, which six months

ago they were ridiculing. Now they believe them. Now they want the people of

the province of British Columbia to say: "We've changed, and we believe

in those home-ownership ideas that you've been talking about, and we're

going to bring them in."

We even have an interim Premier, who was speaking not as the interim

Premier but as a candidate for Premier, saying that she wants to cancel

property purchase tax. They're a very schizophrenic bunch over there.

The record on home-ownership is not there. They haven't done

anything — very little for home-ownership. At least they could announce

cancellation of the property purchase tax for the first-time buyer.

Maybe they could do that.

I forgot a very important point, and the Chairman reminded me. I

recall vividly when Peter Thomas was appointed to head up the B.C.

Housing Management Commission. We went on a hunt for Peter Thomas

yesterday, you'll recall. We were trying to find out where he's hiding

these days. For those who don't recall the debate yesterday, I

basically was suggesting that Mr. Thomas can't be found in terms of the

leadership of the B.C. Housing Management Commission. We've had nothing

in terms of ideas and suggestions or policy to lead British Columbia

out of this awful housing crisis this government has got us into.

I recall when Mr. Thomas was appointed. I had a very brief

discussion on the telephone with him; he was all excited about all the

wonderful things he was going to do for the people of the province of

British Columbia. He said: "Hon. member from Victoria...."

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I can't use.... You know the rules, Mr. Member.

He said to me: "What sort of things should we be working on?" I

said: "Well, we're very interested in home-ownership concepts; how we

can encourage home-ownership and what policies we can put in place."

And he said: "What a great idea! We'll work on that. We'll come up with

some innovations and policies." I gave him a few ideas in the

atmosphere of trying to encourage home-ownership in an apolitical,

non-partisan way.

Well, I haven't heard from Mr. Thomas since. I haven't heard a word.

Where has he been? There's been nothing from Mr. Thomas on

home-ownership; nothing at all. No policies, no strategies. It's been a

total disaster in terms of the leadership of the B.C. Housing

Management Commission. I'm not talking about staff; I'm talking about

the leadership, the judgment of this government in appointing Mr.

Thomas. I asked him for some leadership on home-ownership; it hasn't

happened. But now, as we get close to an election, they're discovering

home-ownership. They're reborn in terms of home ownership.

We all know what Mr. Thomas is really up to. I found another news

clipping on this. This is the gentleman that your government appointed.

I'm sorry that you have to take responsibility for this today. Instead

of developing home-ownership programs in this province and advising the

government what to do on cancelling property purchase tax for

homeowners, on a starter home program, better second mortgages or

[ Page 13094 ]

renovation grants for older homes — those sorts of

things — Peter Thomas has gone to Dallas, Texas, and moved most of his

British Columbia operation south. He says: "We want to be the company

people can invest in if they want to participate in the so-called flip.

It could be a three- or four-year flip, but it could be a two-month

flip as well." He said he prefers the U.S. attitude about real estate

development. He said: "Quality apartment buildings in Dallas are close

to full occupancy, so prices must rise."

This is the man that this government asked to develop policy on

affordable home-ownership for young, struggling British Columbian

families. He said: "I'll do that. We believe in that." What did he do,

as the leader of the B.C. Housing Management Commission, the

government's so-called answer to housing? He took off and abandoned

British Columbia. Instead of developing home-ownership programs here,

he's flipping them south of the line. He's left British Columbia high

and dry.

That's the kind of leadership this government represents. That's the

kind of thing they want to do on home-ownership. I heard this stuff

last night: "But what are you going to do about home-ownership?" It's

all flimflam, smoke and mirrors, and it's not to be believed, because

the guy who was supposed to be doing it is not doing it. He's doing the

exact opposite in terms of making home-ownership affordable in this

province. He's in Texas flipping properties. "We are the specialists in

flipping properties — a quick resale." This is the man who was supposed

to develop programs for affordable home-ownership and on how to use

Crown land in an effective way for young British Columbians to meet

that dream.

What a scandal, Mr. Chairman. This minister sits over there and, by

his silence, defends this kind of approach to home-ownership. I hear

the member from Langley...

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member's time has expired under standing orders.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, we are just getting into some

material that will probably be momentous in terms of the life of this

parliament. I would like to request that my hon. colleague continue.

MR. BLENCOE: The government may say I am revisiting an issue I sort of touched on yesterday. I've had longer to think about it.

It really is quite symbolic that the arm of government that's

supposed to be leading the way in the province for developing housing

programs and planning, policy and home-ownership.... Last night the

member for Langley got up and talked about the wonderful things they

want to do in home-ownership. I wonder if that member actually knew

that the man responsible for doing that is south of the line in Texas

specializing in flipping? I wonder if he knows that he's not in British

Columbia anymore doing any business or helping British Columbians.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're repeating yourself.

MR. BLENCOE: I think it bears repeating, Mr. Member, because

I think it's an absolute scandal, quite frankly. I think the people of

British Columbia deserve better. This government goes on television and

spends millions of dollars saying that they're serious about housing.

The man who is supposed to be showing leadership in developing the

programs has abandoned British Columbia and gone to Dallas to be the

specialist in flipping.

[4:15]

HON. MR. VEITCH: On a point of order, standing order 41

prohibits tedious and repetitious debate. This member is continually

going on and on about Mr. Thomas visiting people that Bob Rae drove out

of Ontario, and I object to it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure the member is well aware of the requirement for....

MR. BLENCOE: I ask the minister: are you prepared to continue

to allow Mr. Thomas to be the leader of the B.C. Housing Management

Commission?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Point of order. I just want to put on the

record that the person this member is attacking is someone who

volunteers his time at no charge to the people of British Columbia. As

the chairman of the B.C. Housing Management Commission he is charged

with pulling a committee together of very progressive people in the

community, people who are entrepreneurs and free enterprisers in their

own right. Quite frankly, the people of British Columbia are very

thankful for the time and effort that the Peter Thomases of the world

and others put into this commission at no remuneration for themselves.

They want to give of their time to improve the situation in British

Columbia.

For the member's benefit, it doesn't mean they are expected to work

full-time. We sincerely expect them to devote most of their time to

what they do for a living, whether that happens to be real estate or

whatever. We do appreciate the time that these people spend trying to

better the lot of the people in British Columbia. None of them would

appreciate this kind of personal attack, as our minister said

yesterday, when they aren't here to defend themselves — Mr. Thomas and

others. I want to put on the record that they devote a lot of their own

personal time, energy and thought to making this a better province in

which to, live. They do their best to give something back to the

community from which they've earned a good living.

I want to add one more point to the debate that when the opposition

says that they don't have adequate time to debate these estimates,

we're hearing the exact same arguments put forward by that member as

yesterday. You could play a tape of yesterday's debate in here, and

it's almost verbatim what the member has said today It shoots down any

argument they have of not having adequate debate.

MR. PETERSON: Listening to the member opposite's — the second member for Victoria's — debate

[ Page

13095 ]

when it comes to housing. I will give you my

version of the NDP's housing policy. Let me tell you how they provide

housing for people. It's simple. We have the experience of Ontario.

They bring in a huge deficit. They destroy business. They destroy the

economy. Do you know what happens then? Everybody leaves the province,

and there are all kinds of vacancies and real estate values plummet.

That's their solution to the problem. Let's face facts.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I appreciate the comments from the member

for Langley, but we have to be fair to the second member for Victoria.

He has made an important statement in this House: he has stood up and

talked in favour of private home-ownership. Let's give him credit; he's

come a long way. It wasn't a long time ago that his colleagues were

denying the right to own private property in British Columbia. Now. he

wants the people to have homes. You're getting there, Mr. Member. It

will take a while, but you're on the right track. Keep it up.

MR. BLENCOE: To the minister, I'm sorry I won't be at your

convention and can't vote for you, but it was nice of you to say those

things for me. Thank you, but I can't vote for you. You're the wrong

party, and you'll be over here very soon.

I have to respond to the House Leader, because I know he was the

minister at the time who appointed Mr. Thomas. We've had at least two

years of Mr. Thomas's leadership. When he was appointed, I was

supportive. I talked to the man and offered our help. I offered to

meet. We had a good discussion — once. The minister knows that it might

have been fully expected for us to say negative things about Mr. Thomas

being appointed. We gave the benefit of the doubt; we gave him the

opportunity. All I can say is that the man hasn't delivered. We haven't

got the programs. We haven't got home-ownership; we've got a crisis.

And he promised that, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: On a very serious note, I have staff here

and other staff waiting in the building to do estimates for the

Ministry of Social Services and Housing. If the members opposite are

not interested in debating the estimates of this ministry, then I'll

excuse my staff and they can go home and I can go back to my office and

do work. I have a lot of things there that need attention. Either get

with the estimates or else let's adjourn them and go on to something

else. You're not debating the estimates of the ministry, sir.

MR. BLENCOE: With respect to the minister, we're talking

about your office, about your responsibility and about how you deliver

housing. Much of the housing programs you've funnelled off to the B.C.

Housing Management Commission, and I'm making the point that the leader

of that is at best part-part-time in terms of developing programs.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, the House Leader is getting a little owly —

a little red around the gills. Take it easy. We know you want to cut

and run. We know you want to have closure. We know you want another $10

billion in your back pocket so you don't have to talk to the people of

the province of British Columbia. We know what that's all about. We

know that's why you're owly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we can get back to the estimates. Vote 52, hon. member.

MR. BLENCOE: We'll do our business. If we were here another couple of months we might get the work done, but they're going to cut and run.

Some time ago the minister talked about cooperation with local

government and municipalities. As the minister knows, calling for

cooperation is a two-way street.

I'm wondering if the minister is aware of the excellent proposal put

out by UBCM on provincial-municipal housing initiatives. It has got a

lot of recommendations in it, and from what I can see the government

has only responded to one of them: that is discrimination against

families. I'm going to go over this in some depth, but I'm wondering if

the minister could indicate if he is aware of this, and what work has

been done on this. I understand my colleague for

Maillardville-Coquitlam has to leave and has a couple of questions to

ask before he goes.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The document the member is referring to has been sent to this particular ministry. It may be with Municipal Affairs.

MR. CASHORE: I have two items I'd like to raise with the

minister. The first is with reference to a letter I wrote to the

minister on May 23 concerning the Mill Creek Village Estates housing

cooperative. To give a brief history of the situation, we go back to

the time that the Coquitlam city centre mall was being developed in the

early 1980s. At that time there was a mobile-home park in which many of

our citizens lived. When it turned out that the construction of the

mall was going to result in the loss of security of tenure for those

residents who were living there — a very appropriate kind of living for

a great many people of our society — there was considerable

consternation expressed in the media about what was going to happen to

those people.

In 1982 the provi ncial government purchased some land in Coquitlam north of

the Lougheed Highway in the southern part of Coquitlam. There was a

great deal of publicity at the time, given that a lease arrangement was

made whereby a company — I believe it was Taina — would operate a

mobile-home park on a lease basis and make pads available to what

became the tenants of Mill Creek Village.

This was a solution that seemed to be a good solution at the time,

and a number of politicians in the area received a great deal of

favourable publicity for having been able to put this plan together. It

turned out that, in retrospect, what was not made public was that in

this lease arrangement was a lease-to-purchase offer.

[ Page 13096 ]

The lease to purchase said that within a period of five years the

lessee could purchase the property at a predetermined price of $1.8

million. You can imagine the consternation of these good British

Columbian citizens who thought — by the publicity given to this through

the government earlier — that they had security of tenure only to

discover when they woke up one morning in August 1989 that the property

was on the market for $8.9 million.

This caused a great deal of difficulty for these people, because

they saw their hopes and dreams, which they thought had been resolved,

possibly going out the window. It's really tragic they were put through

this difficult situation. To their credit and showing that pioneering

spirit that many of them have applied during their lifetime of working

on behalf of British Columbia, they coalesced around forming a co-op.

They came up with a plan where they would actually offer to purchase

the land and operate it themselves as a co-op. They did receive some

cooperation from the present owner of the property to enable them to do

that.

As the minister knows, the federal government is responsible for

housing co-ops. Normally if this co-op was to go ahead, the guarantee

of the mortgage would come under federal policy. However, it has been

pointed out that after several attempts by MP Ian Waddell and others to

gain the support of the federal government in ensuring the mortgage to

enable this tenants' co-op to get off the ground, their request to the

federal government has been turned down. That in itself is very tragic.

The situation is this, Mr. Chairman. As I outlined in my letter of

May 23, given the fact that this government was a key player in the

process that led to these people genuinely believing that they would

have security of tenure on that site and not knowing that there was a

lease-to-purchase option, every effort should be made by this

government to support these people in their effort to secure that

property.

[Mr. Serwa in the chair.]

I want to ask the minister if he has reviewed my letter and if he

could update the House with regard to any steps that he may have taken

up to this time to protect the interests of the people who live at Mill

Creek Village. In asking the minister to do that, I'm saying that in

this case I believe the case can be made that this government has a

moral responsibility, given its historic role in the circumstances that

now find these people in this very difficult situation. I would ask the

minister if he would respond to that.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'm familiar with Mill Creek Village. I

visited it when the problem developed. I was Minister of Labour at the

time. I met with the tenants and discussed the issue. There certainly

was a concern about the loss of that as a mobile-home park. It's well

located and is very convenient for the people who live there.

As I recall — and I'm going by memory — I think the municipality

would have been required to provide a zoning change in order to allow

anything to be developed on there other than a mobile-home park. The

municipality, to their credit, stated that they would not entertain any

zoning change of the property. I assume that's still the situation, but

I'm not quite sure.

I'm told by my staff that the letter the member speaks of has just

been received by the ministry, so it must have been a letter that was

sent recently.

[4:30]

AN HON. MEMBER: May 23.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I have no idea where that letter has been,

because the assistant deputy minister for Housing has just become aware

of it. We have not discussed it, nor has he made a recommendation on it

as yet. We will look at the proposal. Does your letter outline a

proposal for us as to how we might intervene or assist in this?

MR. CASHORE: I'd like to thank the minister for that answer.

Id ask him if he would just make note, in his preparation to deal with

my letter, that the residents of Mill Creek Village are not asking for

any financial support whatsoever, other than a financial guarantee that

would enable them to get over this technicality of securing a mortgage.

We're dealing here with very responsible British Columbians who have

served this province, who have paid their taxes and who are law-abiding

citizens. They deserve the support of this government in view of the

fact that this government and its predecessor have had a role in

bringing them to the situation that they now find themselves in. If a

request should come forward from the Mill Creek residents, I would

encourage the minister to arrange to meet with them again at the

earliest opportunity — given that estimates are going to be over pretty

soon — and discuss this situation with them firsthand. If there's

anything this government can do to help these people, it would be a

very creative, compassionate and responsible act.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn now to another issue relating to

my constituency. It has to do with the question of licensed family day

care. I do know this topic has been canvassed to some extent, but in a

situation in Coquitlam, Kathleen Kuryliw has waited over six months for

a Ministry of Social Services and Housing inspector to come and inspect

the day care she hopes to operate. Apparently, after her story had been

reported in the local media, there was a call from the ministry saying

that somebody would be along within a couple of days. The old thing

about the squeaky wheel getting the grease is apparent in that case.

Kathleen Kuryliw's situation has shown that,

whereas the support of

the ministry can be very worthwhile in coming out and inspecting these

facilities and being helpful to the people who are dealing with what is

an enormous gap in the need for day care spaces, and given the fact

that there's been a lot of comment from this government recently

stating that it supports licensed family day care, it's a bit amazing

that it would take that long to get an inspection when those places

could be made available for people in

[ Page

13097 ]

Coquitlam who are desperately looking for appropriate day care.

Kathleen Kuryliw tells us that there are a lot of unlicensed day

care spaces in Coquitlam. Unlicensed day care, as you know, doesn't

have training requirements, such as CPR. Certainly we would want our

children to be in the best available care when they are in those

circumstances. Why aren't enough resources being allocated in the north

Fraser communities so that Social Services can assess applicants for

day care licensing within a reasonable period of time?

I want to get on the record some other aspects of this situation:

the Smiles and Sunshine Family Day Care on Hammond Avenue in Coquitlam

has been waiting eight months for an assessment; Oxford Child

Development Centre in Port Coquitlam waited one year until finally

getting their assessment; another person in Port Coquitlam has waited

over six months and still has not received a visit. I should put on

record that these are as of May 17 this year. Birchland Child Care

Centre in Port Coquitlam received their assessment visit in February of

this year after a one-year wait. What is your ministry considering

doing to ensure that this roadblock is removed so that these people are

able to have their work facilitated in a timely way and those spaces

can be made available to the community?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I don't know why it has taken so long in

the Coquitlam area. I am concerned to hear that. I give the assurance

that I will have the ministry review that immediately — not only in

Coquitlam, but to see what kind of service is being provided in other

communities, because I'm concerned that such should be the case. There

is a need for day care, both licensed and unlicensed. We certainly do

not want to be a roadblock in making them happen. We do what we can,

and our purpose is to encourage them. Certainly it's not acceptable

that they are being delayed because of waiting for an inspection.

I want to point out that the inspection provided by the Ministry of

Social Services is a social inspection to deal with the qualifications

of the people providing the care: their understanding of how to handle

children, how to discipline children and so on. But the actual

licensing is done by the Ministry of Health. I'll have that reviewed

right away.

MR. BLENCOE: I want to go back to the document I referred to,

a major document on housing initiatives by the UBCM. The minister said

he hadn't seen it or heard anything about it. The document I have tells

me it was sent to the former Municipal Affairs minister, who is now the

Minister of Transportation; the former Minister of Housing; and the

minister himself, when he was in charge of Consumer Services. It's a

major piece of work by the UBCM on provincial-municipal housing

initiatives. I can't believe the government or the staff have not seen

it.

It's has 18 very good, solid housing recommendations, one of which you

have acted upon — about family discrimination. Maybe the minister does remember

now, and maybe the staff.... It's called "Provincial-Municipal Housing

Meeting — Proposed Initiatives, " put out by the Union of B.C. Municipalities,

dated March 29, 1990. It's been around a long time. It was circulated

widely. I was hoping to go through some of the issues here, because I would like

to know what staff have been doing to work on some of these recommendations.

I'd like to know if the B.C. Housing Management Commission has reviewed this

document and if there are any recommendations from it.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I think I do recall the document, Mr.

Chairman. I was Minister of Labour and Consumer Services at the time

and had met with the municipalities about housing issues. I remember

there was a document. It was a good document containing a number of

suggestions. Certainly you can ask us about the various issues, but I

don't have the document here, and my staff are not familiar with it. I

was not minister of this ministry at that time.

MR. BLENCOE: I don't know if the staff can answer it. I just

assumed, because it came from the UBCM and was probably the housing

recommendations of 1990, that you would be able to tell me what action

has been taken so far, what implementation there has been or what

administrative measures have been taken to consider it. I gather

there's nothing from the briefing, or anything from staff, that would

indicate that any of the work has been done. For instance, has Peter

Stobie at the B.C. Housing Management Commission reviewed this

document? It is a major document from the UBCM.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Just because we don't have a copy of the

document here doesn't mean that people at B.C. Housing Management may

not have reviewed it and be very familiar with it. But we don't have it

here, and the deputy responsible for housing is not familiar with it.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, this is very surprising, because I

was hoping to enter into a discussion with the minister and get advice

from his staff on where they're at and let the minister know that this

brief.... I just think it would be automatic for a government that's

serious about housing to have at its fingertips its reaction to this

very important document for housing in the province of British Columbia.

In a way it doesn't surprise me. The document is broken down into

municipal land use, and there are nine serious recommendations there,

then residential tenancy, shelter assistance, secondary suites and

housing programs.

Under municipal land use, there is the bonus zoning; I was going to

ask the minister questions about bonus zoning. I think he knows about

bonus zoning. It would help meet rental housing needs by providing

rental housing in exchange for increased density. Currently there is no

legislation or provision for legislation to allow that to happen.

I was going to ask the minister, through his staff, what work was

being done with other ministries to look at bonus zoning. I would

assume that the B.C.

[ Page 13098 ]

Housing Management Commission — Peter Stobie and

others — are on top of this. I hope so. There's the whole thing of

rental zones. I don't know what work has been done on that by the

ministry. This is all important planning stuff for housing in the

province.

There is a whole

section on rental housing contracts. This will be

used in association with development approvals, where rental housing is

provided in exchange for increased densities in order to secure such

matters as number of rental units, rent levels or formula determining

these.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I do recall seeing the

document, and the items the member has listed all come under the

purview of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. They're the ones that

deal with municipalities on zoning and changing of regulations

pertaining to zoning. Those items certainly have nothing to do with

Social Services and Housing.

MR. BLENCOE: This was the point I was making yesterday about

long-term planning strategy. You can't split these kinds of issues into

one ministry or specific.... One of the reasons we have the B.C.

Housing Management Commission is that they can study these things in a

unified approach. I hope somewhere along the line.... But we're not

going to, because we're going to have closure. We're going to shut down

this debate, and I'm not going to get the answers.

I would have liked to have had a report on the status of B.C.

Housing Management, Mr. Stobie and others in terms of analyzing and

making recommendations to government for action on these very important

items that could help us to solve housing problems in the province.

They talk about public hearing process problems, official planned

housing requirements, building code liability and control of

demolitions. They talk about prohibition of rental discrimination

against families with children, which is the one area they did take

action on.

There are some ideas here for housing programs: home ownership

demonstration projects; government land for housing — some suggestions

and policies; some social housing and provincial and municipal

initiative suggestions. I find it very frustrating that clearly I

cannot ask any specific questions, because there are no answers on the

other side. Again, I have to go back to the minister: what has the B.C.

Housing Management Commission been doing? I mean, this was a major

document. I assume there was an answer. Was there an answer to the UBCM

about this? Does anybody know?

[4:45]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I don't know if there was an answer or

not. If there was an answer to the document, it presumably would have

been from the ministry it pertained to; that would have been Municipal

Affairs. Virtually all of the issues you talked about, Mr. Member,

would be under the purview of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The

B.C. Housing Management Commission may well have discussed the items.

Certainly some of the items, such as Crown land, have been repeatedly

discussed and considered by Municipal Affairs.

MR. REYNOLDS: I would like to ask the minister a couple of

questions. But first of all I think it's interesting to listen to the

second member for Victoria talk about Peter Thomas of the B.C. Housing

Management Commission, who has probably forgotten more about housing

than that member will ever know, and has built a lot of houses and done

great service to the province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: Some member over there said: "More service to

himself." I would say that's not true. That's the trouble with you

socialists. You don't understand people who donate their free time to

society.

MR. BLENCOE: Peter gave you a call, I guess, eh?

MR. REYNOLDS: No, he hasn't given me a call, but I would defend Peter Thomas anytime.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: Also Murray Pezim. You'd better be careful. He

might not donate much money to your party this year. He usually gives

you a little bit every year to help you along. When your friend Mr.

Simpson phones him up for donations this year — through a lawyer's

office so they can hide where it really comes from — he may not give as

much. Nevertheless, those are great British Columbians you're knocking.

They like to knock all of those great British Columbians, who have

built this province.

Mr. Chairman, I really have a question for the minister. I want to ask the

minister about the councils in this province: namely, the one in Victoria, which

is a bunch of socialists. What have they done to help low-cost housing in this

province? How many times have they rejected zoning from people who want to get

zoning to build low-cost housing? Is that part of the problem the minister has

in getting more adequate, low-cost housing? Are there any statistics about the

number of councils, whether it's Vancouver or Victoria — the major cities

— that keep on rejecting...? How many units are being held up in this province

by people who want to develop