1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1433 ]

CONTENTS

Speaker's ruling

Schedule for Committee of Supply — 1433

Mr. Smith — 1433

Mr. Speaker — 1433

Hon, Mrs. Dailly — 1434

Routine proceedings

Mincome Protection Act (Bill 63). Mr. Bennett. Introduction

and first reading — 1434

Oral Questions

Burke Mountain housing project study. Mr. Bennett —

Funds for Vancouver City College. Mr. Gardom — 1434

Dumping of surplus eggs. Mr. Wallace — 1435

Municipal impost fees. Mr. Curtis — 1435

Stock market manipulations. Mr. McGeer — 1435

Inquiries into other colleges. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1436

Leasing of office space in McLaren Building. Mr. Bennett — 1437

Park acreage at Cosens Bay. Mrs. Jordan — 1437

Local workers for Hydro projects. Mr. Phillips — 1437

Government-owned aircraft attached to Highways dept. Mr. Morrison —

Committee of Supply: Department of Human Resources estimates. On vote 109.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 1438

Mr. McClelland — 1441

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1446

Hon. Mr. Levi — 1447

Mr. Gibson — 1448

Hon. Mr. Levi — 1451

Mr. Gibson — 1454

Hon. Mr. Levi — 1454

Mr. Wallace — 1454

Hon. Mr. Levi — 1459

Mrs. Jordan — 1463

Hon. Mr. Levi — 1467

Ms. Brown — 1468

Mr. Fraser — 1470

Mr. Rolston — 1470

Mr. Gardom — 1472

Hon. Mr. Levi — 1473

Appendix — 1474

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I would

like to introduce to the House Mr. B. Posthuma, consul-general

for Belgium in Vancouver. He was your visitor for lunch today

and is visiting our parliament. I would ask everyone to welcome

Mr. B. Posthuma.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): I would

like to introduce to you today two people very important to me. They hail from

out of Edmonton and they are my brother and his wife, Archie and Ann Nimsick.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like the

House to give a welcome to another good Conservative from the

interior. Seated in the Members' gallery today is the

vice-president of the Kamloops Conservative Association, Mr.

Don Cameron.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the

House to welcome a number of visiting government agents. They

are Mr. James Dunsmuir from 100 Mile House, Mr. Lyman Sands

from Penticton, Mr. Martin Leith from Port Hardy, Mr. Thomas

Dobson from Port Alberni, Mr. Stan Carting from Prince George,

Mr. Howard Harding from Prince Rupert, Mr. Laurie Marshall from

Princeton, Spence Tatchell from Quesnell, Mrs. Esther McParlon

from Fort St. James, Mr. Bert Manson from Kelowna and Mr. Rod

Carmichael from Fernie.

Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today a group of senior

secondary students from Port Coquitlam, accompanied by their

teacher, Mr. Planidon, and I would ask the House to welcome

them.

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

would ask leave to table a report: the Burns Lake Project — a

report to the Legislature.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, before we begin, I was asked by the Hon.

Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) to look at the question of a list or

schedule for debate in the Committee of the Whole House. Looking at the

schedule

that was presented apparently by some Member — I believe one of the Whips —

certainly it is not to be found in any formal way in any document or of any

use other than as a matter of notice to anyone as to what the intention of the

government may be on any day. I can see no other official use of it at all.

I would point out to the Hon. Members that under the rules

of supply, which have priority over all other business, and if

you look at the subject of page 699 of May , 18th edition, you

will see that the initiative still is vested in the Crown as to

what votes are put into committee each day when committee is

called.

In the circumstances there's nothing in our rules that is

objectionable that I can find in any authority — and I received

no help on this from any of the Members — as to the prerogative

of the Crown to submit votes as they choose each day. In the

past we often had changes made, but usually they were

alphabetical, as I recall it in my years here. But I see

nothing in the way of the rules that prohibits it being done in

the fashion in which it's being done in committee.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, the House

Leader and the Premier of this province have referred to this

particular memorandum as the

schedule of the order of debate on

the floor of this House. The other thing I think should be

looked into is the fact that the schedule, or the memorandum,

that was given to the Members of this House by the government

Whip indicates a specified time for the debate of each Minister

as they come up. Now I realize that it may be the government's

prerogative to change the order of calling Ministers...

MR. SPEAKER: The House Leader can do that, as you know.

MR. SMITH: ...but surely it's not the prerogative of a

Member of this assembly to determine in advance the amount of

time that will be allocated for the debate of the estimates of

any one particular department.

MR. SPEAKER: I think I made it clear — I hope I did — that

no Member can dictate what the House does; the House itself

will decide. When motions are put before the House, the House

will decide. If the House Leader, who has the initiative when

it comes to supply, puts forward a vote, then that will, in

committee, be the order of business. When the House rises from

committee and reports back to the House itself, at that stage

that terminates the business for the day.

Now when the House does that, it is not up to any individual

Member but to this House to decide on the motion to report back

to the House. What I'm trying to say is that the House is still

the master of its own destiny, but it must take each motion as

it comes. Of course, as I pointed out, the House decides on the

motions that are before it.

[ Page 1434 ]

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I

just want to reiterate, as House Leader, that I'm certainly

willing to listen to any suggestions from the opposition.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): We sent the Premier a

letter.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We haven't seen it yet. You've sent it to

the Premier, have you? Well, I would like to receive them

personally.

Introduction of bills

MINCOME PROTECTION ACT

On a motion by Mr. Bennett, Bill 63, Mincome Protection Act,

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

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

House after today.

Oral questions

BURKE MOUNTAIN

HOUSING PROJECT STUDY

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I

see that the Minister of empty office space isn't here today,

so I'll address my question to the Minister of Housing. Could

the Minister tell the House if he has read an environmental

study into the Burke Mountain housing project proposed by

Dunhill Development Ltd.?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Member, I've not

yet read the study.

MR. BENNETT: Does the Minister intend to make this study

public?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I'll take the question as notice, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. BENNETT: Just a further supplemental then.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I've not read the study.

MR. BENNETT: Does the Minister support the position of a

member of Dunhill, a Mr. Werner Paulus, in saying that the

study will not be made public at all? Could the Minister assure

this House that the study will be made available to the public

who are interested?

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member had that question really, in effect,

taken as notice because the first question would have to be answered, I would

assume, and then you would follow with that as a supplementary.

MR. BENNETT: The second question was asking if he supports

the member of Dunhill who has said that this will not be made

public.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think it's somewhat hypothetical until

he returns with an answer to your first question.

MR. BENNETT: Oh, no, no.

MR. SPEAKER: But he apparently is not responding and I

presume he will answer at a later date.

MR. BENNETT: Why doesn't he hide like the Minister of Public

Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley), and not come in?

FUNDS FOR VANCOUVER CITY COLLEGE

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question to the

Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker, concerning the critical

situation facing Vancouver City College. I'm informed, Madam

Minister, that the college was promised for the 1975-76

operational year funds at the 1974-75 level plus some extras,

but to date they have not received any written allocation and

their own figures that were furnished in December of 1974 have

not been accepted by you.

I'd ask the Hon. Minister if she's aware that her department

has tendered a budget that will have the net effect of reducing

student enrolment by 1,211, reducing faculty and staff by 77

and completely eliminating the first year of the Vancouver

School of Arts. They say in their telegram that the

consequences of these cuts would be disastrous to the school

and art education in B.C.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I'm very aware, Mr. Member, of the

comments made by the Vancouver City College council. The

problem is that my department and the college council are

working, trying to get the accurate statistics on their budget,

if we do not get the facts which are needed.

In my opinion, at this time the facts have not been made

clear to the department. If we cannot come to an agreement or,

rather, if we cannot get the specific details of their budget

which we're asking for, I may have to consider a public inquiry

into the operation of Vancouver City College.

MR. GARDOM: Is it the position of the Hon. Minister that the

budget, as furnished, is inaccurate?

[ Page 1435 ]

HON. MRS. DAILLY: It's incomplete. We cannot get the

accurate figures.

MR. GARDOM: Is the Hon. Minister aware of the fact that the

college today is running on a daily deficit basis?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We can't tell that yet.

MR. GARDOM: Is it the policy of the Hon. Minister to inflict

a 10 per cent cutback on this institution?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think the Hon. Member can ask questions

as to what government policy is on a matter of this sort, if

you look in May.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We have no intention of curtailing

services at that institution.

DUMPING OF SURPLUS EGGS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of

Agriculture, with regard to a report by Mr. Ron Floritto, the

head of a major egg-producing firm in British Columbia, to the

effect that there will shortly be another great surplus of

eggs: is it a fact that surplus American eggs are being dumped

in Canada at prices below the cost of American production?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker,

I'm not aware of any undue quantity of American eggs entering

the country right now at any price.

MR. WALLACE: I know that the Minister had a meeting in

Ottawa, at the same time as the energy conference, with CEMA

(Canadian Egg Marketing Agency) and I wondered if there was any

discussion of this issue. If, in fact, there is to be a

surplus, can we try and forestall the recent episode of

millions of eggs being destroyed by trying to cooperate with

the national government, perhaps in producing milk powder for

countries that we've already made a commitment to help whose

people are starving?

HON. MR. STUPICH: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPAL IMPOST FEES

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister of Municipal

Affairs. Yesterday the Minister responded to questions relating to alleged delays

in municipal approval of housing developments. The Minister has also been reported

elsewhere on the subject of impost fees charged by municipalities. I wonder

if the Minister was correctly quoted as follows: "They charge a big impost fee

(that is, municipalities) for developments they don't want, and for ones they

want they don't charge any fee." Is that a correct statement?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): No, it's

not a correct statement. I don't have any questions to

answer.

There aren't all that many municipalities that charge impost

fees, and I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't charge impost

fees. What I was saying is that in some cases — and I might say

they are very few in number — impost fees are not standardized.

In some developments they may be high; in a similar development

somewhere else they may be low. I was saying they are not

standardized impost fees within a municipality and between

municipalities.

MR. CURTIS: Was there no suggestion, then, of manipulation

by a council?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I didn't suggest that. It's all in the

eyes of the beholder when reading the reports.

MR. CURTIS: It's so nice to have the Minister answer

questions. He has an almost hypnotic effect when he does so. He

nearly puts himself and other to sleep.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you try to get out of your trance and

continue? (Laughter.)

MR. CURTIS: Yes. Has the Minister directed his department to

determine any ways in which the municipalities of this province

could derive a fair share of increased wealth which is created

through the rezoning process?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Yes, we're working at that right now and

we will be having some outside economists help in trying to

come up with some fair plan that this might be done. I would

hope that by the end of the year we'll have something to report

to the Legislature, but at this stage we have nothing to

report.

STOCK MARKET MANIPULATIONS

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): I was disappointed

the Attorney-General was unwilling to follow up the situation

disclosed in his CLEU (Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit)

report about manipulations on the stock market. My specific

question is whether or not his department has completed its

investigation of the Cornat takeover, as requested by the

Member for West Vancouver–Howe

[ Page 1436 ]

Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams).

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): The answer is no.

While we've looked at the takeover machinery and we're very

interested in trying to improve that in conjunction with other

provinces, we also looked at the matter — without suspicion,

but nevertheless looked at the matter — of the takeover in

terms of whether there was insider manipulation of any kind.

The reports I have to date are that there were not such insider

manipulations, but I can't say that the matter is

completed.

MR. McGEER: The investigation has been going on for several

months now and I wonder if the Attorney-General can give some

idea of when it will be completed and if the report will be

made public.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I'll take that up with Mr. Irwin

right away.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): The leader is ahead of

me. I would like to defer to him.

MR. SPEAKER: I think he has already been recognized once. I

try to recognize one person first.

The Second Member for Victoria.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, well.... (Laughter.)

INQUIRIES INTO OTHER COLLEGES

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the....

Thanks very much. (Laughter.)

A follow-up question to the Minister of Education: may I ask

the Minister whether she is contemplating an inquiry into

colleges other than Vancouver City College, which she mentioned

earlier today?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Not at this time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, may I ask her then whether

she is satisfied with the procedure which these other colleges

follow — which she obviously dislikes so much in the case of

Vancouver City College?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: If I can clarify this — it is a reasonable

question the Member has asked.

When our department officials have met with the other colleges to date to go

over the budgets...certainly no college is ever happy. There is just so much

money that can be given for college expenditures. This government is doing the

very best it can.

In the case of Vancouver City College, we have had a number

of meetings with their officials, and we cannot seem to get the

facts of their particular budget made clear. The statements

being made right now by the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Mr. Gardom) very much concern me because, in our opinion, some

those statements are being made without a true picture of the

budget being made available to us. When I say "true," I

don't mean in any way that it has been falsified, but an

accurate detailed expenditure has not been outlined to us.

Because we have reached this point — unless we can get this

cleared very shortly — I believe I will have to suggest that

there be a public inquiry into the operation and the budget of

the college.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the

Minister. I thank her for her statement that this is a unique

situation that does not apply to other colleges in the

province. May I ask her whether she is willing personally to

meet with the college officials whose practices and procedures

her department dislikes so much? Is she personally willing to

have a meeting?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I don't think that at any time I said I

disliked the practices and procedures of any college council. I

think that is a very strong misinterpretation of what I

said.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You're going to have an inquiry. You must

be happy.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: It is not a question of dislike; it is a

question of trying to get something settled properly.

Certainly, before I would move on this major step of a public

inquiry, I would meet with the college council.

MR. SPEAKER: We've had quite a lot of time on this subject

and other people require questions answered.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! One for the First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey, who hasn't been previously recognized,

followed by the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of

Education: would this public inquiry she is recommending be an

inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act with the commissioner?

Is that what the Minister was telling the House?

[ Page 1437 ]

HON. MRS. DAILLY: As I haven't yet made this recommendation

to cabinet, I cannot answer that.

LEASING OF OFFICE SPACE

IN McLAREN BUILDING

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Public Works

confirm to the House that on April 1, 1974, his department

leased approximately 30,000 square feet of office space in the

McLaren Building on Manor Street in Burnaby at an annual cost

in excess of $6 a square foot?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I

would be pleased to take that under advisement to check the

lease and report back.

MR. BENNETT: While checking the lease, could the Minister

also confirm that this leased space sat empty for the first six

months of the commencement of the lease and that right now 45

per cent, or approximately 13,500 square feet, still sit empty

— at a cost of $130,000 for empty rental space in this building

alone? I wonder if the Minister, when he is advising on other

buildings that have been asked about since March 21, could

advise on the high cost of empty space in this building. It

would buy a lot of hot lunches in B.C.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I would be pleased to take this as notice,

but not the implication that you have given.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A growing scandal.

Empty-space scandal.

PARK ACREAGE AT COSENS BAY

MRS. JORDAN: To the Hon. Minister of Recreation and

Conservation. Does the acreage acquired at Cosens Bay, more

commonly known in Vancouver as the Coldstream Ranch, cover the

entire area recommended a few years ago by the parks

branch?

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation):

Thank you very much for that question, Madam Member. To give

you an exact figure, I will take that as notice.

MRS. JORDAN: While the Minister is taking that as notice,

would he please advise us when he brings his answer in whether

or not other acquisitions are pending regarding this particular

piece of land?

LOCAL WORKERS FOR HYDRO PROJECTS

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would like to direct a question

to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, as a director of British Columbia Hydro

and Power Authority. Can the Minister advise whether local people will be given

priority in filling jobs created by the Hydro project such as the Site 1 on

the Peace River and the Pend-d'Oreille?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I think that belongs to the Department of

Labour, but I'll take it as notice.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would you check and see if there are — I'm

given to understand there are — stipulations in the contracts

that local people do be given priority.

HON. MR. LORIMER: We always try to give local people the

jobs on-site.

GOVERNMENT-OWNED AIRCRAFT

ATTACHED TO HIGHWAYS DEPT.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, my question is

addressed to the Minister of Highways. Does the Highways

department have any aircraft attached to its department which

are owned by the British Columbia government?

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): No.

Orders of the day

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

HUMAN RESOURCES

On vote 109: Minister's office, $116,576.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): A point of order, Mr.

Chairman. We've had some discussion the last couple of days

about revising schedules — altering things. I wonder whether

the government House Leader could now indicate whether the

government has any proposals for change or whether we're going

to simply continue along the...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I don't....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...lines that we have.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! This is not a point of order of

procedure. This would be a matter that should be taken up

separately, privately, with the....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, no, no, no. Every Member of the House

should know what's going on, surely.

[ Page 1438 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There is a vote before us and

the Hon. Member should be....

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): It's a point of

order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's kind of splitting hairs, Mr.

Chairman.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, I'm

quite prepared to answer the Member who's asking the question,

if that's permissible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I simply want to say that the

schedule

will continue until we've had time to look over the

recommendations which you have sent in and, hopefully, from the

other party Members too.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the comment

of the government House Leader. As my letter was merely three

pages, I wonder whether at the end of the day we could have a

meeting of House Leaders, Whips, party leaders....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This is not a matter to be

discussed in committee. Would the Hon. Member...?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I'll recognize someone wishing to speak

on vote 109. As I say, there is no point of order.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): On a point of order,

Mr. Chairman. We're going through this at a Gabelmann gallop.

(Laughter.) I can't remember when we last passed a vote in this

House. Mr. Chairman, this is unprecedented.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: I think the House Leader...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: ...if she is unable to get....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member please state his

point of order in reference to the rules of the House?

MR. McGEER: I think, Mr. Chairman, the House is collapsing

in terms of its effectiveness as a means for conducting public

business.

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

speak to some point of order contained in the rules of the...?

MR. McGEER: I think you should begin to take this pretty

seriously, Mr. Chairman. We're not passing votes; the House is

getting nowhere; the traditions of the house are being

destroyed before our very eyes and the House Leader...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There is no point of order.

MR. McGEER: ...is not prepared to meet with the other

leaders of the parties or with the Whips.

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

seated? There is no point of order.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): I'll attempt to

keep this short so that I won't have to....

AN HON. MEMBER: Why the podium?

HON. MR. LEVI: My arms aren't long enough, and I am standing

up, if you haven't noticed. (Laughter.)

I said in September, 1974, that I'd be making a series of

reports available to the Legislature and to the public over the

next year in respect to the various programmes we are

providing. The reports will cover such items as services to

seniors, services to children and services to welfare

recipients. These three areas of service cover the substantial

portion of the expenditures of the department. The report I am

making today looks at the situation in respect to services to

young people.

In September, 1974, there were over 10,000 children in the

care of the superintendent of child welfare and the three

children's aid societies. Forty per cent of these children were

Indian children. In the Vancouver area alone, there were over

2,000 children in care; almost half of them didn't even come

from the lower mainland area. Because of the policy of

apprehending children and failing to make adequate planning for

their return to their homes, large numbers of these children

became completely disconnected from their families and

proceeded through a series of foster homes, were handled by an

ever-changing number of social workers, and, in many cases,

going in and out of numerous residential treatment centres. Of

course, there was always the one last catchment area — Brannan

Lake School for Boys, or the Willingdon School for Girls. For

the older ones — the 14-, 15-, 16-, and 17-year-olds — there

were Oakalla Prison, the Haney Correctional Institute, New

Haven Borstal School and the

[ Page 1439 ]

penitentiary.

These facts provided the ingredients for needed change. In

September, 1972, I announced that Willingdon girls school would

be closed down by March 31, 1973. I stated that we were

prepared to assist every community in the development of

services for children by providing staff and money. I further

stated that children must be kept in their own homes, and

services must be provided to see that this can happen. If it is

not possible to keep children at home, then they should be kept

in resources within their community. Only as a last desperate

measure should children be removed from their community to

facilities that provide special treatment programmes.

This was not an idle or quickly developed response to the

question of how to deal with children who have been in trouble

with the law, have come from troubled families, could not fit

into the regular school system or could not take advantage of

the services and the facilities that are available to most

other children. This was a policy based on a commitment to

change, and based on an approach that had been suggested to

this Legislature many, many times in the past.

A succession of NDP and CCF Members of the Legislature,

people like Ernie Winch, Dorothy Steves, Lois Haggen, Arthur

Turner, Bob Strachan and Dave Barrett, argued the case for

children and for their families. These individuals were

responsible for bringing to the public's attention the

philosophy of dealing with children and families in their own

communities. But there had to be a commitment from the

government. During the 20 years of the Social Credit government

there was no commitment to such a philosophy, no commitment to

the needs of people in distress.

It has always been our feeling that if the challenge to

change is provided and the finances are made available, then

the people who work in the field will meet this challenge, and

this they have done. It has not been easy, and in no way is the

job anywhere near completion.

We have had to break the inevitable circle of damaged

children from the damaged homes who have gone through a

succession of resources away from their communities, and who

time and time again wind up in one of the three negative

systems: the prison system, the welfare system and the mental

hospital system. It is our feeling that we have broken this

circle, and we have done this by providing preventive

programmes and by broadening the scope of treatment

programmes.

As a government, we are aware that children are dealt with through a number

of departments. For years we have defined children according to the administrative

process invented to deal with them. As far as I am concerned, children are children

and young people are young people. Any attempt to categorize these young people

is doing a serious disservice to them and is not in keeping with the kind of

empathy of which mankind is capable.

Following this reasoning, services delivered through the

department to children can be viewed as ranging along the

continuum of aid. Troubled families may avail themselves of

counseling services or the new special-services-to-children

programmes. Extra help can be given to a child in the family

who is getting into trouble with the law or school. Children

who must leave their home for a short period may be placed in

foster homes. If they have extraordinary needs creating unusual

demands on foster parents, they may be placed in a therapeutic

foster home. Where foster homes are scarce and children in our

care need more constant attendance by adults, they can spend

time living in group homes. Residential treatment centres are

resources for children who have had particularly damaging

experiences and who are in need of help from us.

The point I would stress is that children come in and out of

the temporary residences in their communities as needed. They

must not be labeled "foster children" or "group-home children."

Their stay in any care facility should not pigeonhole them for

the rest of their lives.

We have available options, and I want to describe the

departmental programmes for children.

Foster homes. The foster-home programme is the backbone of

the department's service to children in the province. There are

presently approximately 6,100 children in 4,100 homes. This

number varies from day to day, depending on the needs of the

children in the communities. Departmental — expenditures for

foster homes in 1974 amounted to $12 million,

Group homes. There are 114 group homes in the province,

including those in the City of Vancouver, serving 733 children.

The group home is intended to provide the best form of

alternate care within the community for children who cannot

remain in their own homes or do well in available foster homes.

Last year the total cost of the operation amounted to $4

million.

Receiving homes. Thirty receiving homes in the province

provide 219 beds, at a cost of $1.5 million. These are

short-term, temporary residences for children taken into care

until they can be returned to their families or appropriate

long-range placements have been effected.

Reception and diagnostic centres. There are 13 reception and

diagnostic centres in the province with a maximum capacity of

145 beds. Such centres are staffed by professionals who attempt

to set tip a programme for each child and a plan for his or her

future. Again, reception and diagnostic centres are viewed as

short-term, temporary facilities, where appropriate long-range

plans can be made on the basis

[ Page 1440 ]

of an on-site professional assessment. Expenditures on these

centres during 1974 amounted to $2 million.

The present government has expanded the number of reception

and diagnostic centres in the province, attempting to make them

available as crisis resources at the local level. Formerly

children often had to be shipped off to the lower mainland for

service if they were not doing well in their own homes or in

foster placements.

Therapeutic foster homes. The programme was introduced on a

pilot basis, and is designed for those children who require

individual attention on a one-to-one basis in a private home.

Many of these children have severe emotional and physical

handicaps which make it virtually impossible for them to

function in other resources. At present there are 55 children

in 51 homes. Departmental expenditures for this programme in

1974, the pilot project, amounted to $0.5 million.

Residential treatment centres. In the residential treatment

centre programme there are 33 non-profit centres funded in

British Columbia with a maximum capacity of 625 beds. These

facilities are professionally staffed and provide a clearly

defined treatment programme for severely disturbed youngsters.

Departmental expenditures came to $10 million in 1974.

Alternate school programmes. The alternate school programmes

grew out of a number of LIP projects which provided an

alternate school situation in a facility outside of the regular

public school classroom, the children ranging in ages from 12

to 18 years and who were not in school for a variety of

reasons. Many of the children had come to the attention of the

courts and some had been in custody. The programmes, staffed

with people with teaching experience and child-care support

staff, offer a mixture of academic subjects and a range of

alternate activities such as field work, arts, crafts and

vocational or employment experiences.

At present there are 50 such programmes in British Columbia

providing services to over 1,000 children. Most of these

programmes have been established for school dropouts from the

secondary school, at a cost of $772,000. In addition we are

involved in providing support services to in-school programmes

at a cost of $225,000. These programmes are primarily based in

elementary and junior high schools with some 600 students

involved.

Special services to children. This programme was introduced in April, 1973.

It is intended to make available support services for needs of children in a

variety of settings: their own homes, the school system, the day-care system

or any programme in which children may be involved. This programme makes individuals

available on a short-term contract basis either at the time of crisis or, in

some cases, prior to a crisis in a child's life. In that sense it is designed

both as a preventive and a treatment programme. All applications for service

are made through the local office of the Department of Human Resources.

An initial survey of the people being served in this

programme indicates that the programme is focusing primarily on

those young people who are defined as being problems, from 10

to 16 years of age. The most significant area of referral to

the programme is from teachers. The survey data indicates that

of the children in the programme in the fall of 1974 who were

behind academically for age and ability at the time of referral

to the programme, or were labeled as behavioural problems, a

significant number showed academic improvement at the end of

the contract period. Departmental expenditures for this

programme in 1974 were $4.5 million.

Day care. It has been said that the ultimate form of

treatment is prevention and that if prevention is to be

effective, it must be made available very early in the lives of

children. In day care services in the province there are now

facilities for 22,000 children. There are 260 group day care

centres operating and another 25 are planned. There are 28

centres catering to children under the age of three years.

Apart from the enriched type of care that the children receive,

some very young children are being identified as potential

problem children and are being helped earlier.

As of December 1, 1974, nearly 13,000 children in British

Columbia were receiving provincial day-care subsidies that were

determined by the income level of the family. There are 38

special-need centres that provide special programmes for 850

physically or mentally handicapped children. These centres

provide a chance for disabled children to socialize regularly

with other children and offer a much-needed break for parents

who are often exhausted by the constant supervision and 24-hour

care that they must provide for their disabled children. Other

handicapped children of the province can find places in regular

group centres. Extra support is available in the form of grants

for equipment or therapists. Department expenditures for day

care in 1974 were over $10 million.

I want to talk about the integration of service in

Vancouver. For the past year an integration process has been

proceeding in Vancouver, involving what was formerly the

Vancouver Children's Aid Society, the Catholic Family and

Children's Service and the Vancouver City Welfare and

Rehabilitation Department. In respect to children's services,

staffs have been merged with the social assistance and

rehabilitation staffs in 12 local offices. All special services

operated by the children's agencies have been merged, and the

central administration has been reduced by 40 per cent, making

more staff available to work directly with families and

children at no

[ Page 1441 ]

extra cost. A detailed reassignment of staff into teams has

been completed, and the system began to operate on March 18,

1975, as an integrated, local, community-based system.

In respect to children, because of the reassignment of staff

less children are actually being taken into care. But in some

areas — for example, the Vancouver South area — there has been

a doubling in the amount of family work, family counseling. One

of the other advantages of the integration process has been the

reduction in the central approach and making more services

available in the local areas through the 12 local offices.

Social services were integrated in 1973 in the Victoria area,

Kelowna, Penticton, Kamloops and Chilliwack.

One other function of the family and children's service of

the Vancouver Resources Board has been its programme with

transient youth. In the summer and fall of 1974, transient

repatriation operated out of the youth

section of the Vancouver

Resources Board. Very few people were repatriated. In October,

1974, a specific policy change was made, in that children from

other provinces would be repatriated. A short-term 48-hour

holding unit was approved by myself at the request of chief Con

Winterton of the City of Vancouver in order that children could

be repatriated.

In 1973 there were 1,199 transient youths seen by the youth

section and 288 were repatriated. In 1974 there were 782 youths

seen and 416 were repatriated. This policy must be considered

preventive in that large numbers of young people were removed

from high-risk involvement with drugs, prostitution, theft and

other criminal activity.

Community programmes. In 1974 the department funded 291

community projects offering services to children, families,

senior citizens and other people with exceptional problems.

Grants from the department to community projects offering

services expressly for children and families totaled $365,000

in 1974. The list of grants made to the 20 organizations

throughout the province are listed in the appendix to this and

it is being made available to all of the Members.

I want to say that the number of children in care of the

superintendent of child welfare at the year end 1974 was 9,800.

This is a reduction of approximately 450 from the March 31,

1972, figure of 10,274. During the same period the number of

children in British Columbia between birth and 19 years of age

was increased by approximately 15,000 There are now nearly one

million children in British Columbia.

I have outlined about a range of services to children

developed by this department since September, 1972.

Prior to September, 1972, there was no special-services-to-children programme.

During the past year, in excess of 1,600 children have received service throughout

the province.

Prior to September, 1972, there were no therapeutic foster

homes in the province. Today 55 children are cared for and

receive specialized treatment in 5 I therapeutic foster

homes.

Prior to September, 1972, there were 2,300 children

receiving day-care services in the province. Today 22,000

children are in day care and 13,000 of these children are under

the income-tested subsidy programme.

Prior to September, 1972, them were 57 group homes in the

province. That figure has been increased by 100 per cent and

today we have 114 group homes.

I have listed in this report new programmes that have

developed in order to meet the needs of children. As we have

said, we still have a long way to go. We do have to come to

grips with the providing of resources for a small number of

so-called hard-core young people, and there is no question that

anyone should be allowed to ignore the laws of the land or the

rights of people.

In closing, let me say this. In all my years of travel — and

I have lived in many cities and three different countries

around the world — I have never witnessed such an outcry of

bitterness against young people as we have seen in this

province during the past few months. We are a prosperous

people, yet some have to decide to isolate a small group and

vent a stream of venom on them. Let me say that all of these

children are the children of the communities. They do not

belong to the government; they belong to you and to the

citizens of this province. In the past we have moved large

numbers of children from their homes, from their communities,

so that it has been virtually impossible for them ever to

return to their communities and to their families.

We are committed not to do these things which have failed in

the past. We have to be innovative and courageous in our

planning for children. It must be remembered that problems of

young children did not suddenly happen after September, 1972.

These problems are the living legacy of the indifference and

the ineptness of the Social Credit government that put people —

its very old and its very young — second to blacktop and

resource giveaway. The New Democratic Party committed itself to

changing this and we have done so.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, thanks to the

Minister's prepared statement, which all of us could have read,

we now have only three hours in which to discuss this most

important portfolio worth $516 million — $172 million an hour

is what that Minister gets. The opposition again is not given

the opportunity to discuss fully the estimates of a most

important department because of the closure rules which are now

in effect in this House.

[ Page 1442 ]

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

the vote, please?

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Chairman. In response to some of

the statements made by the Minister in his prepared, written

statement, I can't agree with the Minister when he says that

the programmes with reference to young people, particularly

young offenders who can be classified as hard core, can be

considered to be working. I have seen no evidence of any

programmes in this province to deal with those kinds of young

people.

Admittedly, they are a very small percentage of the problem.

Nevertheless, they are an important percentage of the problem

and one which is causing not bitterness and venom but extreme

concern in the communities in which these young people are

living. Mayors, aldermen, police, judges and parents in

virtually every community of British Columbia have expressed

their concern.

Not long ago a group of very concerned individuals, both

elected and non-elected, from the Minister's own department and

other related departments in the lower mainland, met in Port

Coquitlam to talk about this very problem. Over and over again,

the theme was the same: we must have some kind of facilities

with which to deal with those young people who are causing this

concern in the community. Never once — and I've read all the

minutes from those meetings and certainly all of the reports

given by the various people involved — was there any venom

expressed. It was solid concern by solid citizens in the

community who wanted to see something done for young people who

are in serious need of help. Not venom. That's an irresponsible

statement, to say to the people who are charged with keeping

law and order in their communities and charged by the people

who elected them with keeping the peace in their communities

that they are full of venom because they wish the Minister to

do something about what is a small but very hard-to-handle

group of young people.

I think the Minister has copped out in this regard. I think it's a serious

problem which is disturbing more and more of the people of our province today.

The Minister is aware, I am sure, of the survey which was done in Surrey with

regard to juvenile delinquency, and he knows that that survey showed that these

youngsters who were repeated offenders were not young people from broken homes

or foster homes; they were people from good homes who needed some kind of help

because they somehow got on the wrong path. The figures from that study are

very alarming. It showed — and I've said this before but I think it bears repeating

— that in 1974 there were 1,325 offences committed by young people under 16

years of age, compared to only 1,935 by all adults in that same year. I would

suggest that those kinds of figures are going to point to some very serious

societal problems in the future if nothing is done to look after those kinds

of young offenders.

Unfortunately, nothing does seem to be being done. I

appreciate all of the efforts the department is putting into

the rehabilitation of young people in their communities. I

think that's admirable and commendable, but those efforts are

going to fail in the long run if the government doesn't

recognize and give more than just a simple little paragraph in

that report to the real problem of that hard-core element of

juvenile offenders. Without some action to deal with those

people, all of the other efforts in all of the other areas

could be open to failure.

More and more people are asking you to agree with this

principle that they must be dealt with in some kind of

structured environment, whether it's in their own community or

not. But they can't be sent and forced back into the same

community which spawned their problems. They've shown already

that they can't deal with their community; they can't deal with

their family surroundings, perhaps; they can't deal with the

society in which they have been living. We can't send them

right back into that community. Yet that's what we're doing. We

see evidence day after day after day of young people who are

picked up — some of them three times in the same day — for

committing offences, and yet just let go back into the same

community that they've proved they can't handle. There's got to

be something better than that, and it must be structured

because these young people don't have the emotional makeup to

deal with completely unstructured society within their own

community or anywhere else.

I was given a lot of criticism in this House a while ago for

asking a question of the Minister of Human Resources about the

possibility of a youngster or youngsters being kept in the

Empress Hotel because there was no place else to keep them. The Minister never

answered my question; he just said there was no evidence in

some out-of-date public accounts. Regardless of whether or not

there were youngsters kept in the Empress Hotel, I have no doubt that there have

been youngsters kept in other facilities similar — perhaps

motel facilities — because there hasn't been anywhere else to

keep those youngsters. There's been no place to put them, and

no opportunity for those youngsters to get the kind of treatment they need. That's

the problem. As I mentioned before, the meeting of mayors and

people involved in community services in Port Coquitlam — from

all over the lower mainland — made it very clear that that was the one concern

among all of them: some kind of facilities with which to deal

with these people.

If I can quote from a couple of articles, an editorial in

The Province says: "Whether Mr. Levi likes it or not,

juvenile delinquency is a real problem. His idea of tackling

the problem seems to deny that it

[ Page 1443 ]

exists, "

Judge David Hart, who presides over the juvenile courts in

Burnaby, New Westminster, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam and Port

Moody, says that he laments the government's closure of

juvenile correctional institutions. He agrees with the closure,

but he says they were never replaced with anything and it

leaves in limbo the hard-core juvenile delinquents who need

secure confinement with provision for psychiatric assessment

and treatment and full provision. Even the young people

themselves, in many instances, agree that there needs to be

some kind of structured environment where this hard-core group

can be sent.

In an interview with 26 inmates of the Vancouver juvenile

detention home, a third of them said that the correctional

system is too slack and too easy. Those are the young people

themselves.

Dr. Sue Stephenson of the University of B.C., a

child-psychiatry professor there, says: "I have definitely

concluded that there is a need for some kind of closed

institution for the really hard-to-manage kids."

Mr. Chairman, I could repeat this same comment from

literally dozens and dozens of people in the community who

aren't spewing venom but are concerned about a serious problem

which exists within the community. So don't give us that

nonsense about venom from a group of people who are interested

in trying to help a group of youngsters who need help.

The point is that there aren't any real facilities to deal

with the minority of young people who are considered to be

hard-core delinquents, and that means we are not living up to

our responsibilities to these young people.

I'd like to move on to a report that the Minister tabled

with this House last night — the annual report for 1974 of the

B.C. Alcohol and Drug Commission. The B.C. Alcohol and Drug

Commission was formed two years ago this month. It took the

commission a full year just to identify some problems that were

in the community — problems that should have been clear and

identified in studies and reports, task forces, committees and

commissions over many, many years in British Columbia. But the

first year was spent in collecting salaries and identifying a

list of the problems.

Once again, the top priority of those problems that were

identified a year ago was the development of preventive

programmes for young people. I'd suggest that the Alcohol and

Drug Commission has only proved again that it's a failure. It

hasn't done anything in the province really worthwhile except

give us another glossy report which doesn't begin to recognize

the problem and certainly doesn't being to deal with the issues

which are glaringly obvious in British Columbia, particularly

in connection with the abuse of both hard and soft drugs.

Instead, after two years of collecting salaries and doing

nothing, the operative statement in this report would seem to

be that our initial stance, and that which we are continuing to

espouse, is one of cautious but careful planning. In other

words, let's not do anything and nobody will rock the boat,

we'll continue to collect our salaries, and nothing will get

done in this province.

Because the B.C. Alcohol and Drug Commission doesn't seem to

have taken any real recognition of the most serious heroin

problem in Canada, I can only conclude that the commission is

still soft on drugs, and that it should be abolished as quickly

as possible and the whole problem turned over to the

Attorney-General's department, because the Minister of Human

Resources has failed in his obligation. I called for the

abolition of this commission a year ago and I have no

hesitation calling for the abolition again.

The only real approach to deal — and this is unfortunate —

with the heroin problem in British Columbia is happening

through the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit which is at least

attempting to do something through law enforcement to restrict

the supply of heroin to addicts in British Columbia. But there

is no follow-up by any other department of government, and

certainly none by the B.C., Alcohol and Drug Commission. If

anything is happening to restrict drug abuse in this province,

it's sure through no fault of the drug commission.

Mr. Chairman, one of the other parts of the report that I

find most frightening is the plan to move responsibility for

narcotics and alcoholism programmes to the community resource

boards. I think this is the most frightening proposal we've

ever heard. I understand that according to the report,

negotiations are underway right now in Prince George, Kamloops,

Trail, Coquitlam and Victoria for moving the existing narcotics

addiction foundation and alcoholism foundation grants operation

under the resources boards or Health department auspices.

The Health department we could buy, I think, but if we're

going to put the responsibility for looking after the needs of

heroin addicts and alcoholics under a group of people who are

generally politically oriented, and are cells of the government

in many cases, then we're going to fail.

AN HON. MEMBER: In Langley?

MR. McCLELLAND: Langley?

Mr. Chairman, the community resources boards don't have the

expertise and certainly don't have the emotional or physical

responses within them to deal with this kind of question.

If we establish drug clinics through the resources boards,

we might as well throw up our hands and say: To hell with all

the attempts to clean up the heroin

[ Page 1444 ]

problem in this province! We might as well accept forever

that Vancouver and the lower mainland will always be known as

the drug capital of Canada.

I would like to ask the Minister if it is true that five of

these units are going to be set up in the lower mainland area.

Will methadone be distributed in all of the units? Will

methadone be distributed by a central agency — the one on

Broadway or somewhere like that? Will any of the units be

non-methadone units? Are there any plans by the Minister to

experiment in British Columbia with a heroin-maintenance unit

anywhere in the province? I'm asking you if there are any plans

like this.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you in favour of it?

MR. McCLELLAND: No, I'm not in favour of it, Mr.

Chairman.

Is it true that the City of Kamloops has refused to allow

the establishment of a drug clinic there?

Mr. Chairman, I am personally convinced that the Province of

British Columbia is going the wrong way absolutely. The

Minister and other people connected with his department have

said that previous programmes haven't worked. Well, they

haven't tried them. In 20 or 30 or 40 years of studies and

talks and negotiations, nobody has really tried any programmes.

Certainly we have had programmes tabled in this House. One, the

Matheson report commissioned by the Attorney-General's

department not very long ago, was just shelved, presumably on

the insistence of the Minister of Human Resources. We haven't

tried any of these approaches, so we can't say in all honesty

whether they have worked or not. Similar programmes have been

tried in other parts of the world and have worked, but not

here. We pass the buck.

I am not saying that it is only the province. The federal

government bears a lot of the blame for this — in fact, perhaps

the majority of the blame because they refuse to recognize that

there is a problem in British Columbia, for one thing.

Unless we start to crack down — I still say that we need to

try a hard-line approach, and I make no apologies for that — I

think we will always have the kind of heroin addiction problem

that faces British Columbia today.

The social workers: non-approach hasn't worked in the past

and it isn't going to work in the future. In fact, I would say

that many of the social workers involved in these programmes

are contributing to the problem rather than helping.

We have to recognize, for one thing, that we must look after

the chemical and legal effects of the drug. It is not good

enough just to approach it only from the sociological point of

view.

I would like to move on to some more general comments about the Minister's

department. I would say that this Minister has been most irresponsible in the

accountability of his department and in the expenditures of British Columbians'

money. I suggest that he has shown that he hasn't been competent to handle the

expenditures of the taxpayers' money. The estimates in that department, Mr.

Chairman, are up to $516 million this year, compared to estimates of only some

$304 million for the 1974-75 fiscal year. That is a colossal jump: $250 million.

We know that it includes, of course, the famous $103 million or $104 million

overrun to which the Minister has admitted. The Minister has shown that he has

no regard for restraint and certainly no regard for accountability, at least

in the past.

It isn't good enough, as some of the Members and the

Minister have said, to point to the places the money has been

spent. I have no quarrel that the money was spent in places of

need in most instances, although I suggest that because of the

increase of bureaucracy in not only the Minister's department

but in every other department of government, a lot of that

money was wasted in turning the wheels of government without

ever getting to the social services. A lot of that $516

million is just going to go to keep the government bureaucracy

grinding along rather than going to the people who are really

in need in this province and want the services of this

government.

It is not good enough, nevertheless, just to say: "Well, we

spent the money on good programmes." If the cupboard is bare,

Mr. Chairman, there won't be any programmes. Once the money is

gone, you might as well forget about servicing the needs of

British Columbians.

Unless the Minister starts to understand the need for

budgeting, what, after all, is the need of going through all

these estimates, of going to the problem of delivering

estimates to the Treasury Board unless you really mean that you

want to budget with available money that you have, given the

kind of economy that exists at the time? Unless you start to

understand the need for budgeting, the cupboard will be bare.

Where are we if we don't have any money? If the money goes, so

do the services.

What happens this year if we get another $ 100 million

overrun? We're talking then not of $516 million but of $616

million, a 100 per cent jump from the estimates of one year

ago. Mr. Chairman, that's not good enough.

The Minister has now said, presumably because of the

criticism he's been given because of his lack of

accountability, that he will cut back. In an

article in The

Province on Saturday, March 22, 1975, the Minister is

quoted as saying that no new major programmes will be started

in his department in the 1975-76 fiscal year, and that

evaluation is going on to determine if cutbacks in existing

services and programmes are necessary. Cutbacks! If there

aren't

[ Page 1445 ]

going to be any major programmes started and if there is the

possibility of cutbacks coming in existing programmes, why the

big increase in the budget? What's that for?

Nevertheless, that comment from the Minister that there will

be no new programmes started and that existing programmes could

be cut back after evaluation is a clear admission by the

Minister that what I said about bare cupboards is happening

right now. The Minister and Treasury Board must obviously be

worried that the money is dwindling and that there may not be

the money available to make the services available. The waste

and irresponsibility are starting to catch up with the

Minister.

HON. MR. LEVI: Identify the waste.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'd suggest that the waste is

rampant all the way through his department. He has admitted

himself that loose....

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, there's a waste right there — the B.C.

Alcohol and Drug Commission, which has done nothing in two

years. It's a total waste of public funds, Mr. Chairman.

The Minister himself has admitted that loose policies were

the cause of at least part of the $100 million overrun. If that

isn't a waste, I don't know what it is. Waste is all over. All

you have to do is just look anywhere in this government and

you'll find waste in every department. There's never been the

kind of rampant spending spree on behalf of the Ministers of

this government in the history of this country. At the same

time, the Premier is in Ottawa preaching restraint to the Prime

Minister of Canada. My God! What hypocrisy!

So the Minister admits that loose policies were the cause of

much of this $100 million overrun.

The people who need the services are the people who suffer —

the people who need the services but can't get them because of

the poor stewardship of their tax money. So how is the Minister

tightening up? Well, he's running ads in the papers for a

programme manager:

"Salary: $27,000 to $31,000. An important new position

available in the Department of Human Resources for a qualified

person to advise the Minister and Deputy Minister on all

matters relating to the financial status of the department, to

develop and maintain adequate accounting and related systems,

to supervise the preparation, analysis and presentation of

financial and statistical reports, to co-ordinate the

preparation of the department's annual estimates and special

financial investigations and other related duties."

It requires a high school graduate, Mr. Chairman, with sound

knowledge of business practices.

Have you lost confidence in the people in the people in your

own department? Is that why you have to advertise for a

programme manager? Have you lost confidence in the Finance

department of this government, which I assumed is supposed to

oversee the spending priorities of all departments, including

yours? Is it now the policy of this government to establish a

similar position in every department? Are we going to pile 18

programme managers on top of all the other policy consultants

and information officers and flacks of all kinds, or just those

departments which are riddled with loose policies?

It's a typical socialist solution, Mr. Chairman, to bad

management and incompetence: when in trouble, reach out and

cook up another bureaucrat. That's the solution this government

has to bad management and incompetence.

The government has copped out in so many areas and no less

in the Human Resources department. The icing is on the cake,

though, proving both incompetence and a lack of ethics.

Concerning the Minister's actions when he joined the picket

line at a Vancouver radio station last week in direct defiance

of a court order...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McCLELLAND: ...direct defiance of the law, deliberately

flaunting his disregard for the laws of this land.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member well knows that

if the Hon. Member wishes to make any charges against the

Minister it should be done by a substantive motion rather than

in estimates. Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the

vote and administrative responsibility?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, again incompetence on the part

of the Minister following the discovery and disclosure in this

House that the Minister had accepted a $200 gift following the

1972 election, again breaking the law of the land....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to

withdraw any imputation of wrongdoing. The Hon. Member well

knows that the proper procedure is to put a substantive motion

on the order paper if he wishes to make a charge. Would the

Hon. Member withdraw the imputation against the Minister?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the document is tabled in this

House.

[ Page 1446 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair is requesting that

the Hon. Member obey the rules of the House.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the documents were filed

in this House. They have never been denied by the Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I am asking the Hon. Member to

withdraw any imputation of wrongdoing against the Minister at

this time. Would the Hon. Member do this, please?

MR. McCLELLAND: I'll withdraw, Mr. Chairman. But I must

repeat that this Minister has lost the confidence and respect

of every thinking British Columbian.

I must say again that it might be a good idea if this

Minister would save his old friend and former colleague, the

Premier of this province, the embarrassment of having to remove

him from office by announcing that he will step down from his

cabinet position before it costs the people of B.C. another

$100 million.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Chairman, let me

say this about the Minister: nobody has ever impugned his

honesty, and I know the word "gift" was withdrawn in connection

with that matter. It was an election contribution. The

difference between an election contribution, which every Member

in this House understands, and a gift to the person which he

uses personally is a wide difference. It seems to me that there

is no doubt in the minds of the people of British Columbia that

the honesty and integrity of this Minister is paramount and

unquestioned. I regret that that kind of imputation should be

made against him. It won't be believed by the people; it should

not be believed by the people.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. the Attorney-General confine his

remarks to the vote, please?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Okay. No charge was ever laid. So,

again, I regret the remarks.

In connection with the vote, this Minister has tackled the problems of young

people in this Province of British Columbia with wholehearted dedication, with

heart and intelligence and sympathy. He freely admits there are problems left

over that we have not been able to solve as yet. We can't do everything in two

years. He has freely admitted that the problem of the few youngsters.... Fortunately,

it's few — in this province there might be 100 or 150 who are, as he used the

word — and I don't like to use the word — hard-core delinquents. I don't like

to use that kind of language about children, but there are problem kids who

commit crimes and they're on the run. They are very badly disturbed children.

We recognize that that's the kind of problem. It's something that's before government

— we have the Berger report.

We know we haven't accomplished everything, but the amount

that this Minister has accomplished for children in this

province is epoch-making and it's certainly a first in Canada.

I am sure that when this Minister goes to the conferences of

other Human Resource Ministers across Canada, as he very often

does, that among that group the eyes of respect are turned on

the little Minister from British Columbia.

MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I would

like to ask the Attorney-General whether he is telling this

House that it's perfectly acceptable to accept campaign

donations for your own personal account.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. No point of order.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: As a matter of fact it is perfectly

legal under the election Act.

MR. McCLELLAND: It is, eh?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. I don't say that's the best way. If

it wasn't in a situation between two campaigns or something, I

would say it was not in order for you to do it. But it's not

illegal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: If that's a legal opinion, I would hate to

have you for my lawyer.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's okay. I would hate to have you

for my client. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): No wonder we have so much

hate in this province, so much problem in this province. There

is nothing but hate coming from the Attorney-General.

My point of order, Mr. Chairman, is: are we to assume from

the statement of the Attorney-General — and I won't say the

honourable Attorney-General — that it is common practice among

NDP candidates to put campaign money...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: ...in their personal bank accounts?

[ Page 1447 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I didn't say that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order. Would the Hon.

Member be seated, please?

MRS. JORDAN: How many other NDP campaign funds have gone

into personal bank accounts?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. LEVI: I would like to deal with some of the

questions raised by the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland),

particularly in relation to his comments about alcohol and

drugs. If I could be assured by the Member — and of course he

doesn't have to do it — that he had taken the trouble, which I

am reasonably sure he hasn't, to meet with the Alcohol and Drug

Commission to discuss with them the programmes that they are

doing, and to go to Vancouver to the detoxification centre and

to go to Victoria to the detoxification centre, and to visit

the methadone clinics....

Some Members do — come and see me and tell me about the

kinds of things you think we should be doing. But you haven't

done that. Really, what you have done is a repeat of what you

did last year.

MR. McCLELLAND: The problem is just the same.

HON. MR. LEVI: Oh, yes, we know the problem is the same, and

you come from a party that decided not to look at the problem

at all. We did. Right at the beginning we decided to look at

it. Right at the beginning. But if you feel that there are some

magic solutions to this, then you must make them available to

us because we are not aware of any magic solution.

I think you did an extreme disservice to all of the people

who work in this field — not just the commission, but the

people who work in the field. Somehow you have got it in your

mind that a social worker is one kind of an individual and the

rest of the world is something entirely different.

I spent 17 years in the corrections field dealing on a

day-to-day basis with this problem, and I can assure you, Mr.

Member, that there are no overnight solutions.

Take a look at the State of New York. In a period of eight

years they spent $1 billion doing exactly the same things they

had done for years, and then they rejected everything.

What the commission has attempted to do, first of all, is to get the mess —

the mess that your people left in terms of the funding of programmes — in order.

They have trained, and by June they will have completed training, all of the

people who are presently working in all of the projects that are listed and

described at the back of this book. That happens to be pretty important work

in this field, It is first of all to build a core of staff that know what they

are doing. It is not a process where you just give money out to anybody who

says they want to do good. They have to be trained.

I regret that you have not taken the trouble to go talk to

the Alcohol and Drug Commission. If you have some solutions,

then tell us about them. Tell us about your solutions. In this

book they have described in the report the solutions that they

are attempting. They are low profile. You cannot wave a magic

wand out there and raise expectations with people and expect

that something is going to happen overnight. Certainly the

problem is being tackled from both ends, through what CLEU is

doing and through what the Alcohol and Drug Commission is

doing.

Did you notice in the report the kind of trouble they are

having in trying to develop facilities in places like Victoria

and Vancouver? We want to get into the community. We can't even

get the zoning in order to get the facilities built. If we do

not solve this problem in the community by involving the

community, we simply are not going to solve it, unless you have

some vision in your mind of locking up 10,000 to 15,000 drug

addicts. If that is what you have got in mind, that's where all

the budget will go and nowhere else.

Now, on another subject, you read out an advertisement; I

can't remember the title of it.

MR. McCLELLAND: Programme manager.

HON. MR. LEVI: Programme manager, yes. Let me tell you about

the programme manager. That, apparently, is the new name for

what was a departmental comptroller. That's what it is, a

departmental comptroller.

In the organization under the previous government this

department did not have a departmental comptroller. It had a

departmental comptroller who was responsible for five or six

departments. We came to the conclusion that as the budget got

larger and there was more action, we had to have our own.

That's exactly what that is, the ad that you read: a

departmental comptroller to watch the expenses and the budget

of the department that will spend this year $516 million. But

that you could have asked. You could have come to see me; I

could have told you directly what it was. But somehow you have

worked in something else there.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: Oh, estimates — but you haven't discussed any

estimates. You pick up a report, you scan through it, and

that's the way you do it.

I was the critic on the other side of the House....

[ Page 1448 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: That's when we got it from the printers. You

got it as soon as we got it from the printers.

But the thing is, you can do your work. I used to do the

same work that you are supposed to be doing. I didn't read from

editorials in The Province and the Sun . You've

got to get into the library and dig out some information.

You've got to talk to people, visit projects, find out what

they are doing. You don't go anywhere. You read papers and you

quote from the Sun .

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: Oh, and there's another expert sitting there.

She can tell you all about social services. You didn't last

very long as a critic. What did you have — one session at it?

Then they moved you.

You have to do your work in this business. I was over there

and did it. If you are that interested in it, do it. It's

available.

I checked to see whether you had asked around the department

for information. You haven't sought any assistance from the

department. We've got staff all over the place prepared to sit

down and tell you exactly what is going on, but you haven't

asked that. That's what I used to do, but you haven't done

that. You read from papers and you read from The Vancouver

Sun.

AN HON. MEMBER: What have you got against The Vancouver

Sun ?

HON. MR. LEVI: Let's talk for a minute about young

people.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): What an arrogant,

conceited...!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member for

North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) to withdraw those very

unparliamentary terms.

MRS. JORDAN: Which one — that he is arrogant or

conceited?

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, I don't mind the second.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Both terms.

The words clearly are offensive to another Hon. Member, and

I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the terms.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, the second one. I don't mind being

conceited, but I'm not arrogant.

MRS. JORDAN: For the moment I'll withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member proceed?

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

under the new arrangements we have in this House, opposition

Members are forced into the very cruel dilemma in each

department of very ruthlessly selecting out the kind of topics

that they can talk about out of an entire portfolio.

The one that I'm going to talk about under the Minister's

estimates today is the topic of Indian affairs. I'm going to be

as brief as I can and try not to use up the allotted 30 minutes

in the hopes that there might be some opportunity for brief

follow-up questions after that, if the Minister sees fit to

reply.

The whole question of Indian affairs in the province in

1975, I think it's fair to say, is in a great turmoil. There

are very many varied and important matters which are before the

government and before the Indian people. I have here a

commentary by the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs on the so-called

Kelly report, and they go through matters ranging from land

claims and cut-off lands, through hunting, trapping and

fishing, economic development, the activities of the

Departments of Agriculture and the Attorney-General, the

question of the applicability of sales tax to Indians in

British Columbia, the applicability of the land tax to

non-Indian interests in any reserve lease holds, the question

of mineral royalties on Indian land minerals, the question of

tuition fees and curriculum content in the educational system,

language instruction, municipal affairs, Department of Human

Resources, Indian housing, insurance, highways and health

services. I think this partial list indicates the very wide

range of concern that the Indian people have with this

government.

But there are two basics I would suggest to the Minister —

two basic facts that must be borne in mind whenever we debate

this Minister's responsibility for Indian affairs. Those facts

are there:

First of all, there exists, and has existed for many years,

a basic and fundamental feeling of grievance, a feeling which

has been growing in recent years. I think the Minister would

acknowledge that.

The second thing is that the people of Canada, largely

because it has been largely a federal matter, have acknowledged

a sense of responsibility with respect to the Indian people of

this country — currently in terms of hundreds of millions of

dollars per year largely distributed in the form of handouts of

one kind and another. Increasingly, the Indian people are

turning to provincial governments for redress of some of their

grievances. Increasingly they and the public are becoming

impatient of jurisdictional questions when it comes to

fundamental human equity. Now in the context of

[ Page 1449 ]

today there are some differences over what has been

happening for the last century, since the time of

Confederation.

The Indian people, certainly in British Columbia, have been

going through a re-awakening process, particularly over the

last decade. The feeling of not being ready to stand up for

their rights, the feeling of being beaten into the ground that

they obtained for so long is being replaced by a feeling of

dignity and pride in the Indian culture and a readiness to

demand their rights — not simply to request them as has been

the case for so many years, but to demand them.

The other side of it, on the part of the provincial

government, has been some extraordinarily fast footwork and

sidestepping of responsibility that the Indian people have the

right to expect this government to assume, on the basis of the

philosophy of this government, its fundamental concern with

people on the basis of campaign promises and NDP platforms over

the years which have expressed a sympathy to the Indian people,

and which, now that that government is in power, are not being

carried out.

I mentioned the sense of grievance and I mentioned the Kelly

report. I want to quote...it's really a second-hand

quotation; it's a newspaper quotation of the Kelly report, but

it relates to that sense of grievance:

"If there is no effort by the provincial government to meet this long-standing, pressing problem now,

then there will be very little basis for the native Indians of

B.C. to believe that this government represents fair, equitable

administration of laws and justice.

"The lack of settlement of the Indian land question has been the basis of suspicion of all Indians

towards the attitude of various provincial governments since

Confederation." I think that's a fair statement, Mr.

Chairman.

"For this reason this recommendation should be given the highest priority. B.C. controls 95 per

cent of all land in B.C.," — the provincial government does —

"and any land settlement must involve the provincial

government."

There's another articulation of the sense of grievance. So

what's going on? Let's look at just some of the headlines. I

won't read all the clippings because the Minister may not like

newspaper clippings, according to what he said earlier on

today.

"Levi Ignores the Reality." This relates to the Nishga case

and the lack of readiness of the provincial government to

become involved in that negotiation.

"A Minister Plays Mule. 'Mule-ish' is the word for Human

Resources Minister Norman Levi's behaviour over the Indian land

claims question."

Another one: "Mr. Levi's Blind Eye."

Here's another one relating to the Premier:

"Barrett Concerned Over Indian Land Revenue." I would have

preferred to see the headline saying: "Barrett Concerned Over

Indian Rights."

Another one: "Levi Passes the Buck on Indian Land Claims." That is the feeling

that you get when you meet with Indian people in this province, like the Indian

Cut-off Land Action Committee, a feeling frustration and lack of action by the

government, a lack of deliverance on their promises.

The two fundamental grievances out of that long list that I

read to the committee relate to the cut-off lands and the B.C.

land question. The second is by far the larger and more

complex. The first, while not lacking in complexity, is capable

of relatively simple solution relatively quickly in my belief.

I make that representation to the Minister, I'll give a very brief history of the cut-off lands. In

1912, the federal and provincial governments entered in an

agreement called the McKenna-McBride agreement, which provided

for the establishment of a commission to examine the adequacy

or sufficiency of Indian reserves as related to the size of the

Indian bands living thereon. The commission had the power to

recommend additions or confirmations or deletions, but just to

recommend. In particular, the commission did not have the power

to act without the consent of the Indians. No Indians were

consulted in setting up the royal commission that flowed from

the McKenna-McBride agreement, but the province was very much

involved. The province appointed two out of the five

commissioners, two were appointed by the federal government,

and the fifth, the chairman, was chosen jointly. That gentleman

was, in fact, the ex-chief justice of Saskatchewan of that day.

There were no Indians on the commission.

From 1913 to 1916 that royal commission travelled the

province hearing evidence from chiefs and band spokesmen,

Indian agents, white business groups and others, and on their

recommendations cut-offs were made from 35 reserves totaling

about 36,000 acres. When the legislation finally came out of

the meat grinder of approval by the two governments, the number

of bands that were affected by cut-off reserves were 23,

some of the bands having more than one reserve affected. I have

a list of all of those cut-offs and the acreages if any Hon.

Members are interested.

Through this history, Mr. Chairman, You will see that there

is no question as to the involvement of the provincial

government in the history of this affair. It was party to the

agreement: it appointed two of the commissioners; it passed an

order-in-council which approved the McKenna-McBride commission

report.

We can examine how this process worked in a particular case.

Because I am most familiar with it, I have chosen the case of

the Capilano reserve No. 5 in my riding. The commission came

around to hold hearings, and the Indians had a right to be

reasonably

[ Page 1450 ]

relaxed about the hearings because part of the terms of

reference of the commission was

section 2(

a) of the

McKenna-McBride agreement, which provided that the commission

could only reduce the size of the reserve with the consent of

the Indians, in very specific language.

On June 17, 1913, the commission met the Capilano band

members at the Mission reserve in North Vancouver, which is not

the No. 5 reserve but another one of the band's. Here is part

of the verbatim transcript of the chairman speaking of the

lands: "They could not be sold, except with the consent of the

Indians. Of course, by that I mean the Indians interested in

the reserve."

On June 21, 1913, there was another meeting. The chairman

said the following:

"When the work of this commission is over and the land

becomes vested in the Dominion government, any sales which take

place, they will get the whole of it. The British Columbia

government will have no interest in the lands whatever."

That is an interesting statement, Mr. Chairman, because when

the lands were finally cut off, the land went to the provincial

government and the Indians did not have entire interest in it.

Rather, when those lands were sold or leased, they only had a

one-half interest in the proceeds.

Quoting the commissioner again in speaking of land which

might be cut off:

"But that land can only be cut off with the consent of the

Indians interested. For instance, if we should recommend that a

portion of this reserve should be cut off, it could not be done

unless you Indians here consent to it being done."

In 1916, Mr. Chairman, three years later, the commission

issued a report recommending that 132 acres of the Capilano

reserve No. 5 be cut off. The commission gave no reason for

their actions and did not refer to the fact that the band had

not consented to this cut-off, as was provided in that

agreement and as was the subject of so many assurances to the

band members.

Later on, the Province of British Columbia, in 1919, passed

the Indian Affairs Settlement Act,

chapter 32 of the statutes

of that year, empowering the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to

give effect to the report of the McKenna-McBride commission in

whole or in part.

In 1920, the Dominion government passed the British Columbia

Indian Land Settlement Act, empowering the Govern or-in-Council

to give effect to the report of the commission in whole or in

part.

section 3 of that Act — and it's a shameful

section — reads in part:

"The Governor-in-Council may order such reductions or cut-offs

to be effected without surrenders of the same by the Indians, notwithstanding

any provisions of the Indian Act to the contrary."

There is the whole disgraceful history in capsule form of

the betrayal that happened to the Squamish Indian band with

respect to Capilano reserve No. 5. I have here an indication,

Mr. Chairman, of the very significant portion of that reserve,

over a quarter of it, and some of the most valuable land — land

today certainly worth from $10 million to $20 million — which

was taken from the Squamish band.

Now with that history there was clearly a heavy provincial

involvement and a heavy federal involvement. I suggest to the

Minister that he can't hide behind the federal government in

this case. I want to quote from the Minister of Indian Affairs

of Canada, from The Vancouver Sun of January 10:

"Indian Affairs Minister Judd Buchanan called on the

provincial government again Thursday to participate in Indian

land-claim settlements."

A little later:

"...and Attorney-General Alex Macdonald told a TV

interviewer Thursday night that the provincial government will

continue to insist that Indian land claims are a federal

responsibility."

That's the same Attorney-General, Mr. Chairman, who

suggested to the Indian people that they take the provincial

government to court — which is a fatuous suggestion. He offered

the resources to take the provincial government to court. That

has done nothing, Mr. Attorney-General, but to fatten the

pockets of whoever was counsel in that case.

Here's a case of federal and provincial legislation, immoral

legislation but presumably legal legislation. The way to solve

that is by negotiation, not by lawsuits.

Continuing with respect to Mr. Buchanan and the newspaper

report:

"The cut-off lands were the subject of discussions Buchanan

held Thursday with representatives of the Union of B.C. Indian

Chiefs.

"'We indicated we were supportive of their position, that

we believed there is an outstanding wrong there to be

corrected, and we will do our utmost to assist the cause. As

far as the actual lands in question are concerned, they are

basically provincial Crown lands. It is not within our power to

provide the return of the lands, but we will be involved in the

process of negotiation. The federal government has made its

readiness very clear and the provincial government has not

responded as they should have done to date. '"

The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, under date of March 14, has

submitted to the Minister what they

[ Page 1451 ]

title "General Principles for Settlement of Cut-off Lands."

I think, Mr. Chairman, that it is a reasonable initial

negotiating position on the part of the bands concerned. I'll

tell you the way I think it should be settled.

I think that lands currently held by the Crown provincial,

which were cut off, should be returned; that's point No. 1. I

think that lands now held by the Crown provincial in existing

public use — such matters again coming back to my own reserve

as the right-of-way for the British Columbia Railway, the

right-of-way for the Lions Gate Bridge and a

section used as

parkland for West Vancouver — should remain in those public

uses on the basis of negotiation with the band concerned for

appropriate compensation. I believe that there should be

compensation for existing private uses, including the large and

difficult problem of Penticton, with several thousand acres

involved, to be solved through either land or cash as

compensation — preferably land. That's the first fundamental

grievance, Mr. Chairman, the cut-off land.

The second I will deal with much more briefly, and that is

the B.C. land question. I deal with it briefly not because it

is less important but because it is more important. But we are

a further distance away from seeing the proper settlement in

that area. In British Columbia, as distinct from almost all of

the rest of Canada, the Indian people never surrendered their

lands to government through an execution of treaties.

The Indian people, therefore, claim that they still retain

aboriginal title and that this must be resolved by some kind of

compensation. Obviously this is an enormous question, but the

first step that has to be taken is an agreement by the

provincial government to become involved in the negotiations.

It cannot proceed without that. Where settlements will involve

land, the British Columbia government owns, as I quoted

earlier, 95 per cent of the land in this province. It must be a

party to those negotiations.

I would suggest to the Minister that a direction towards the

solution lies in the agreement negotiated with the James Bay

Indians by the Government of Quebec, to which agreement the

federal government joined itself in the payment of a percentage — I think it was 50 per cent — of the cost of that settlement.

I think that in British Columbia we should try for something

more extensive than 50 per cent; I think we should ask the

federal government to assume a much larger portion of the

responsibility than that. But therein, Mr. Minister, lies the

solution — in that direction. The essential first step is the

agreement to negotiate.

In

summary, Mr. Chairman, there is a longstanding sense of grievance here,

a sense of grievance which poisons the relationship between the Indian people

and the rest of the community — in particular the government. There is an acknowledged

responsibility by the public. I say let us meet that responsibility not with

the current system of handouts but in a way that satisfies Indian concern for

dignity, equity and honour, by a provision of assets which will make them more

independent, more able to look after their own needs and, at the same time,

settle these ancient grievances.

The government must act now. The Minister in this House

recently in response to questioning spoke about not recognizing

ultimatums. He had in mind the so-called April 1 deadline which

had been given to him by the cut-off land action committee for

some kind of response and a guarantee of a meeting. But when

you talk about ultimatums and deadlines, I submit to the

Minister that it was a year ago in this House that he told this

House that this was clearly a matter of great complexity and it

had to be subject to full and detailed cabinet consideration. I

agree, but I ask him: where is his sense of priorities if a

year later it has not received that full and detailed cabinet

consideration? Answers were promised; they haven't been

given.

I ask the Minister to reply to these two simple questions:

(1) Is he now prepared to set a date or period of time within

which cabinet will consider and come to a conclusion on the

provincial government's position on the issue of cut-off lands?

(2) Is he now prepared to specifically recognize that,

conditional on Ottawa's financial assistance to the province to

so do, the provincial government is prepared to join in

federal-provincial negotiations with the Indian people of

British Columbia on the B.C. land question?

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, before I get to the two

questions, I think it is important that we also speak to

broaden the subject. Today I tabled in the House the report

from the Burns Lake Native Development Corp. The Member

mentioned handouts — I don't think he was alluding to that.

MR. GIBSON: No, I wasn't.

HON. MR. LEVI: We took the position when we first came in in

relation to dealing with Indians that there were a number of

very pressing needs that had to be met, in the same way that we

were meeting the pressing needs of other people in the

province. We made all of the programmes available to Indians

that are available to all of the citizens of B.C. that

previously had not been made available to Indians. We first of

all looked at the economic and social development. The Indian

people as a group have met with more cabinet Ministers and more

times with the Premier.... It is my information from them that

not once were they ever able to meet with that cabinet over

there (when they were cabinet). They were completely

disregarded.

[ Page 1452 ]

It's important, Mr. Member, to realize that the cut-off

lands go back to 1912-1915. You gave an interesting history. Go

a little bit further back. Why was there pressure for cut-off

lands? Why was there pressure? The pressure was coming from the

communities and saying: "The Indians have too much land and

there aren't very many of them. Let's take some of the land

away." The government of the day proceeded to do something that

was completely illegal, because they didn't consult the

Indians. Then when it was all over they passed

an Act to make

an illegal Act legal. The government of the day in British

Columbia in 1923 went along with that action in relation to the

cut-off lands.

One of the things we did in respect to the unalienated part

of the cut-off lands was to say that those 18,000 acres that

remain will not be alienated. That is a policy that the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A.

Williams) is pursuing. That's not happening.

But let's look at the complexity of this thing. It's as

complex as your description of how the land claims question is

complex. You know, we met with the cut-off lands committee:

eight cabinet Ministers; the Premier was there. We had a long,

frank discussion. One of the things I said was that when we

came in we looked at the social and economic development

factors. We also looked at the whole province. All right,

you've raised the issue of the cut-off lands on the North

Shore. And the value of that land? I don't know what it is. You

mentioned perhaps $20 million. All right, there are 23 bands

that have to be looked at.

A year ago we had a situation at the Osoyoos band where the

band was concerned to bring the problem to the public, and they

did some picketing on the roads. It was a perfectly orderly

thing. But at the same time they served notice on a number of

people who were living in Okanagan Falls. In fact, half of the

town of Okanagan Falls is made up of the 71 acres that were cut

off from that land. That land was turned over by the previous

government to the Department of Veterans Affairs to develop a

Veterans Affairs housing project. A large number of those

people were very perplexed when suddenly they found themselves

in the middle of a dispute which they never knew about called

the cut-off lands.

The question isn't simple. It isn't a simple thing to say:

return it; let's straighten it out. After all, there are all

sorts of people living on these lands. There are values.

MR. GIBSON: I didn't say that.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, wait a minute. If not, we'll have to

negotiate for alternate settlement.

MR. GIBSON: Right, compensation.

HON. MR. LEVI: That's a long, complicated process, as

complicated as the long process which came about as a result of

the lands question.

MR. GIBSON: You have to start it.

HON. MR. LEVI: Look, we've met with the committee. We have a

committee which meets in terms of municipal taxation. Every

Minister in this cabinet has met with groups of Indians. The

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) was recently at the

conference in relation to the law and the corrections field in

respect to Indians. We'll probably spend in this past fiscal

year almost $30 million in grants and services to Indians.

Last week you saw — I was away at the time — the members of

the Pacific north coast cannery. They came down; they talked

to the press about the success of that development. No help

from the federal government — not one nickel from the federal

government. No assistance whatsoever in trying to get the

Indians free, away from the welfare system.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: Pardon? Who's got out of proportion? Our

other programmes? Yes, I'm sorry. Is the Minister of Housing

(Hon. Mr. Nicolson) there?

The Indian Affairs department has a housing programme. Yes,

they have a housing programme. For white people it's $49,000;

for Indians it's $11,000.

You know, on this island, under the Indian Affairs

department, the average number of people on reserves live in

houses with 17 to 18 people. That's your Indian Affairs

project. Don't tell me they have other programmes. They don't

have any commitment to assist the Indians to become part of the

economic and social development, part of the community.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the cut-off lands?

HON. MR. LEVI: We're doing it; we're meeting those

responsibilities. The Member the other night — he looks very

good on TV — got to the land claims question. He said that it

was very complicated, and the more you get into it the more

complicated.... But on the cut-off lands, we had a meeting

with them. There will be a report made to cabinet.

But in the meanwhile we're doing things like the Burns Lake

Development Corp. Let me just tell you what commitment we have

made on behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia to the

Indians in respect to that. They will receive this year, in

relation to that programme, $0.5 million for the development

fund, $450,000 for an equity participation and $296,000 for

operating expenses. They will receive

[ Page

1453 ]

from my department a programme to the value of $166,000 in

relation to social development. Tomorrow I'm going to join the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A.

Williams) in Burns Lake for the graduation of the people who

are going to be graduating from the various courses they've

been taking. That's a joint effort, a partnership between the

government and the Indian people, both the status and the

non-status, which has already brought an enormous amount of

pride.

You know, we simply cannot take a problem that is some 60

years old which involves every citizen in this province, every

citizen in this province.... They have to have input into this

kind of discussion as well. Everybody is involved in it. We

have to get to articulating about this. We're meeting with

them. We're constantly meeting with them. But there are no

overnight decisions that can be made on this matter.

In the meanwhile.... Well, what has the federal government

done? What has the federal government done? They have a land

claims commissioner. He's been working for about six years. I

caught him on TV last night.

MR. GIBSON: They're waiting for you.

HON. MR. LEVI: They're waiting for us?

MR. GIBSON: That's right.

HON. MR. LEVI: They've been in touch with us? The Minister

comes into town, goes to the press in Vancouver — never

mentions about coming to see us — and says: "It's a terrible

moral question; it's a moral dilemma," What's the matter

— can't he write? He hasn't written us that he wants to meet

with us. He keeps sending messages through the B.C. Union of

Indian Chiefs. All he has to do is to spend eight cents and

write to us.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEVI: Who, the new guy? He's never written to me,

to my knowledge.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: To my knowledge, the new Minister has not

been in touch.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Buchanan has never written to me on

anything but the housing question.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nor his predecessor?

HON. MR. LEVI: His predecessor wrote in April of 1973. His

predecessor, yes. Since then we have heard nothing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Members wait

until they are recognized to ask the question?

HON. MR. LEVI: I said in the House two or three weeks ago

that the issue is something that will have to have the full

attention of cabinet, but in the meanwhile the programmes that

we are continuing to develop with Indians will carry on.

We have to understand also, as I said to the group with whom

we met, that the complexities of this thing are not something

you pick up in a few minutes. It will take a great deal of

understanding before you can reach a decision — a great deal of

understanding. After all, this is a legacy of two Liberal

governments. All right.

We will continue to meet with them. There are other issues

they want to discuss which we are meeting on and are trying to

reach some form of resolution about. But let's not kid

ourselves that it is not something that is simply between the

Indian people and the government. It is between the Indian

people, the government and the rest of the people in this

province because they have an involvement in this question,

too, and they have to know what it's all about.

MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if

you would clarify for the understanding of the House exactly

what the procedure is now that we are operating under this

selective closure. The House will recall that yesterday the

Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) posed questions to a

Minister and was denied the right of following up on those

answers. Today the Chairman has allowed the Hon. Member for

North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) to have a latitude that

was not allowed yesterday.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the point of order, the

Chair is following the practice that I have always followed and

will continue to do so. I asked the Hon. Member to be brief in

his follow-up questions.

MRS. JORDAN: Further to the point of order....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will follow the rules as the Chair

sees fit, providing they are in order with the proper

procedure. Will the Hon. Member proceed with his additional

questions?

[ Page 1454 ]

MRS. JORDAN: I wonder if the Chairman would be willing to

present to the House a firm position on this. Perhaps the Hon.

Chairman wasn't here yesterday when this matter took place. I

am sure he can appreciate that if we have different rulings

under the same circumstance on every different hour or every

different day, when we are labouring under these most difficult

circumstances, it makes the position of the opposition and the running of the House even more difficult and more vague.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair will rule according

to the rules of the House and will try to be fair to

everyone.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I might just suggest to the Hon.

Member for North Okanagan that I certainly agree with the point

she is trying to make.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Sit down.

MR. GIBSON: Indeed, I hope that we can establish the

premise, Mr. Minister of Health, who has no reason to make that

kind of interjection....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: Hon. Members have the right to a couple of brief

follow-up questions. I think that's only reasonable....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member proceed with his brief

follow-up questions?

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your

ruling.

The Minister, in his defence of the government policy,

mentioned many of the good things that the government is doing

with respect to the Indian people in British Columbia, and I

commend him for that. My questions did not relate to those

things; they related to the fundamental grievances of land

claims in British Columbia. They were two very simple

questions, neither one of which the Minister answered.

The first one was: if the Minister doesn't like the deadline

which has been suggested to him by the Indian people, would he

set his own deadline? Would he give this House a date by which

time cabinet will have dealt with this question and be prepared

to make its position known?

Question No. 2: given a reasonable financial assurance from the federal government

that the province will be compensated and assisted for any share which we must

have in the settlement of the so-called B.C. land question, will the Minister

agree in principle, under that condition, to join in those federal provincial

negotiations? Those are the two questions, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. LEVI: On the second question, we have asked the

federal government to tell us in writing what they are prepared

to do and what responsibility they see they have in respect to

the land claims question. We have said that on a number of

occasions.

In respect to the first question, you were asking me if I

would give a date in terms of when the meeting will go on, in

terms of the cut-off lands. I think I said that I will make a

full report to cabinet. I hope that we can spend a great deal

of time discussing it, and that's very difficult when you are

in session and when you are doing this kind of thing.

In the meanwhile we are meeting with Indian people; I am

constantly meeting with Indian people on this and getting more

information than we previously had. I think that the one thing

I might say is that the kind of expertise that is available is

not actually available to us at the moment in this province.

Most of the expertise has been grabbed off by the Indian

people. They have most of the lawyers who know the situation —

most of the experts. We are trying to build this kind of

expertise, because you need to do that. But in terms of a firm

date, I think it is entirely up to the results of the

discussions on the report that I will make, or the discussions

that will follow the report I will make to cabinet.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Within six months?

HON. MR. LEVI: Within six months? I can't give you a date on

that. The thing is that we have met with the group; we will

probably meet with them again. The cut-off land committee has

been around this building, I think, for the last two weeks,

meeting with all sorts of caucuses. The thing is that I have to

make that kind of report. Meanwhile, we will continue to do

what we are doing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, Mr. Chairman....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair tries to be fair to

all parties and give equal time to all parties. The

Conservative Party has not yet been heard from. The Hon. Member

for Oak Bay.

MRS. JORDAN: The Member wasn't even in the House when I

tried to speak!

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I think I can

appreciate the frustration of the Member

[ Page

1455 ]

for North Okanagan because with the new system that we have,

apart from the fact that I don't sleep any more, I have to not

only have one ear to the speaker in my office and one hand to

write my speeches, but I need another hand to try and keep up

with what is going on generally.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Why don't you give your body to medical

science if that's the case?

MR. WALLACE: I must protest in the strongest terms the

circus that we are now indulging in and trying to carry out a

sensible debate on estimates. It is completely irrational, and

it is causing a very poor standard of debate. I have to try in

half an hour to cover the whole field of the Department of

Human Resources. If you take your full half hour, you feel that

you are being unfair to other Members of the opposition. If the

Minister chooses to answer, he takes up time. The next thing is

that we are criticizing the Minister for taking up time

answering questions, which is the whole purpose of estimates —

for us as individuals to question the government and have the

government Minister answer. This absolute farce in which we are

now indulging is really, I think, very regrettable. The sooner

we all stop behaving like children and get together in the

spirit of compromise, the better. I am ready to start right now

because I have had the most frustrating afternoon trying to

prepare these notes for this debate. This is a very important

debate, Mr. Chairman.

The people of British Columbia are very sympathetic to the

needs of those in society who, as the Minister states, cannot

help themselves and for no reason of their own require

assistance, using that in the broadest general terms. But there

has to be some clear explanation to the people of British

Columbia that the very large sums of money being spent in this

department are being spent judiciously and with adequate

supervision and, in effect, ensuring that the money that

should be justifiably spent on those in need does in fact reach

the predetermined goal.

The sums of money that are involved this year represent very

large increases over last year, even if we use the revised

estimate figure, the figure of the $100-million overrun. We are

now faced with an increase of 34 per cent. If you take last

year's original figure, it is 81 per cent. That is a fantastic

increase in money in one particular department, even though the

Minister, I think in fairness, has demonstrated many of the

legitimate areas in which more money needed to be spent. I

think it is quite fair to agree with the Minister that

certainly not all of this money by any means is going into

social assistance as such. He has outlined other

programmes.

But just let me pick a figure at random. The cost of

administration of Pharmacare is up 118 per cent according to

the figures in vote 110. Here again, Mr. Chairman, because of the crazy system by which we are

debating estimates, instead of being able to take a general

look at the department as a whole, you have to jump around and

refer to different votes because we may not get back to these

votes again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. WALLACE: The more one looks at this system, the more

absolutely frustrated one becomes. I have no surprise in

thinking that the voters in this province must wonder just what

kind of people they have elected — all of us, perhaps,

collectively — to represent their interests, when we can't even

agree to a sensible format for debating something as important

as $500-odd million in Human Resources money.

Anyway; I'll try to be very brief on this. If you look at

something such as the cost of administration...I have some

figures that we have taken the trouble to look at here. Central

administration, the Deputy Minister's office, is up by 32 per

cent. Personnel administration is up by 78 per cent. Office

support services is up by 60 per cent. Under programme

administration, we've got social assistance Mincome

administration up by 45 per cent, residential treatment

programmes administration up by 60 per cent, community

programmes administration up 45 per cent, Pharmacare

administration up 180 per cent. The total vote increase is 37.5

per cent. I have done that very quickly because time is a big

problem in this manner of debating the estimates.

The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that despite the well-motivated

spending of larger sums of money, many people in the province

are asking how efficient or otherwise the administration of

these funds is and to what degree the department is involving

more and more administrators who really in the long run don't

provide the actual service for which the money is being

provided.

I just feel the only way we can handle the debate today is

to pose a series of questions to the Minister and then we'll

complain because he takes a lot of time to answer them, I

suppose.

But in regard, for example, to social assistance, where the

overrun was $44.9 million, just let me ask one question. How

much of this was due to the increased use of family aides —

aides in the family home? I'm not sure of your precise

description of them. They're certainly not social workers. I'm

talking about the people with limited training who function in

advising families to various degrees. I'd like to know how much

of the $44 million overrun was incurred in providing these

aides because I understand that they have limited training,

they're not social workers and one has to ask the question: how

efficient or how risky might it be to have people of limited

training dealing with perhaps serious family

[ Page 1456 ]

problems, disturbed children and the like. And I wonder how

much cost was incurred in providing this additional number of

people.

The Minister mentioned in his press release on September 23

last year that the percentage of those on social assistance

defined as employable was 15 per cent. If there's one comment

we hear around this province, when you talk about the Human

Resources budget and one tries to discuss the various ways in

which the money is spent, there is a clear impression that many

people are on welfare who should not be on welfare. When we

determine that 14 per cent of the people on welfare are

designated as employable (in other words they're not

handicapped or sick or disabled in some way) one has to ask the

inevitable question of the Minister: is this percentage on the

increase, is it static, or is it less than last year? What

specific measures are being taken to either retrain or find

jobs or create jobs for that very significant percentage?

Fifteen per cent is a significant number in relation to the

fact that the overrun alone was $44.9 million. I'd like to ask

what criteria we are now using to establish whether or not an

employable person in fact could find a job or in some way could

be made a productive member of society.

The last question on that issue would be to ask the Minister

if he's satisfied with the system that's being used to keep

tabs on people who are not averse to trying to cheat the

system. I've noticed quite a few convictions in the press

lately. My impression is that the convictions are on the

increase. I would like to ask whether the Minister has any hard

data to show that the attempts at deception are on the increase

and whether he's satisfied with his department's system of

looking into these abuses.

In terms of the increased number receiving social

assistance, I wonder if this affects a particular age group.

We've talked in the House many times about the capacity of the

system of education to teach appropriate jobs or appropriate

types of training so that when the person leaves school or

college the jobs will be available. I wonder if we're any

further forward in trying to relate our educational programmes

to the jobs available. And I wonder if any great number of that

15 per cent were in the forestry and mining industries. We know

that unemployment inevitably has to take its toll in increasing

welfare rolls and I wonder if we have any specific statistics

to show just what effect the problems in the mining and

forestry industries have had in swelling the welfare rolls.

I'd like to talk very quickly about day care. The Minister released a statement

the other day, I think, dated March 27. I want to make it plain I favour the

general concept of day care. Again, I just want to talk about internal efficiency

and administration and budgeting. On this memo of March 28, 1975, the Minister

makes the statement: "No further applications for day-care capital or equipment

grants will be considered after December 1, 1975. Those not accepted will be

held and reconsidered after December 1, 1975." Now the Minister has talked about

day care and we had a demonstration here in the buildings today which related

directly to a cutback in day-care service of one kind or another.

I wonder if the Minister could answer a few questions. First

of all, how many applications are presently pending which will

not now be processed until December 1, 1975? How many day-care

applications had been approved prior to this memo of March 27?

And a very telling question that I hope the Minister can

answer: I've had people tell me that in applying for day care

the income figure which is used could be the net figure on a

person's paycheque after payroll deductions.

I have been told that if somebody, for example, in Powell

River deducts Canada Savings Bonds from the gross income all

the other various deductions are legitimate, but they are able

to put away so much a month into Canada Savings Bonds — the net

figure is considered to be the income figure on which the

day-care subsidy is calculated. I was looking into it in some

detail and find that certainly interest on loans, which can be

deducted from the payroll cheque, is also eligible for

consideration as a legitimate expense before you calculate your

net income as an employee.

My information may be wrong, but I was given it by an irate

citizen who works in the same neighbourhood as a person who was

making these various deductions and then showing the net income

to be really disproportionately low.

Of course, while I am in favour of the concept of day care,

I think we have to be very careful that it is not subject to

this kind of abuse where a person is misrepresenting what their

net income really is.

I wonder if the sliding scale of income used to calculate

subsidy has been altered in the last year. At the session last

year the M