1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd 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, JUNE 17, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

8271 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Wildlife Act (Bill 55). Hon. Mr. Rogers

Introduction and first reading –– 8271

Division

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 53). Hon. Mr. Williams

Introduction and first reading –– 8271

Oral Questions

Revenue-sharing with municipalities. Mr. Nicolson –– 8271

Committee on Crown Corporations. Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 8272

Mr. Howard

Tax increases. Mr. Stupich –– 8272

Auctions of Crown land. Mr. Hanson –– 8272

Housing foreclosures. Hon. Mr. Chabot replies –– 8273

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Human Resources estimates. (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

On vote 49: minister's office (continued) –– 8274

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. King

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Mussallem

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Barber

Mrs. Wallace

Ms. Brown

On the amendment to vote 49 –– 8291

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Hon. Mrs. Jordan

Division

On vote 50: ministry programs –– 8294

Ms. Brown

THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, visiting

in the gallery today is a special education class who have come all the

way from Rimbey, Alberta. There are four senior high school students

from the junior-senior high of Rimbey, and they are accompanied by

their teacher, Ms. Dolly Martin.

MR. REE: Mr.

Speaker, In the precincts today we've had 33 grade 5 students from the

great constituency of North Vancouver–Capilano. They're students of

Capilano Elementary School and they're under the guidance of their

teachers, Cam Shields, Phyllis Chen and John Lewis. Also accompanying

them are two parents, Carol Zamis and Jim Walker. I'd ask the House to

welcome them to Victoria.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr.

Speaker, not yet in the gallery but in the precincts today are 57

students from Lord Selkirk School in Vancouver. They're under the

leadership of Ms. Corrie Ridgewell. I'd ask the members to welcome them.

MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon, again, from that sleepy

little community of Telkwa, we have Mayor Maxine Douglas and Alderman

Paul Hamoline. As well, from that lovely little community in the

northern part of our province, we have Mr. Lloyd Gething and Mr. Craig

Miller with us this afternoon. I'd ask the House to make them all

welcome.

Introduction of Bills

WILDLIFE ACT

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

intituled Wildlife Act.

Bill 55 introduced and read a first time.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. NICOLSON: Division.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, this is a very unusual request. What we will do is call

for the division, but without prejudice to the reserved decision which

we will bring. We will have to do a little research on this one.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

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

bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill

53 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

REVENUE-SHARING WITH MUNICIPALITIES

MR. NICOLSON:

I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Speaker.

Municipal property taxes for all commercial and business taxpayers have

skyrocketed because the minister has confiscated $63 million in revenue

sharing grants from the municipalities. In view of the financial

situation faced by the business community in British Columbia, has the

minister decided on any form of emergency financial assistance to the

municipalities in order to help them ease this provincially imposed

burden of horrendous property tax increases?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, the amount of money that has been granted from the

province to the municipalities through the revenue-sharing program has

increased by 292 percent since this government took office. Last year

alone the increase was approximately 23 percent; the preceding year it

was about 21 percent. Now the change this year did affect the

municipalities to some extent. For example, in the case of Vancouver,

when they had already adopted a preliminary budget, they maintained

that they had to find a further $7.5 million or increase their budget

by that amount. They did not, however, mention the fact that they were

relieved of approximately $6 million in welfare payments. What they

did, in any case, was reduce their budget by $7.5 million — they found

the money. And I think this can be and is being done by responsible

municipal people throughout the province.

The revenue-sharing program, Mr. Speaker, is without a doubt the finest in the whole of North America, and it will remain so.

MR. NICOLSON: When the minister appealed his tax assessment, did he think of appealing the taxes of all small business?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, we fortunately live in a country where people are

permitted to make decisions for themselves. I made my decision, and I

clearly stated in my constituency that everyone who thought that their

assessment was too high should likewise appeal, and many did. Some

didn't, and I wish they had, and perhaps they wish they had. Certainly

that opportunity is available to us as individuals. It's our right and

we should take advantage of that right.

MR. NICOLSON:

I'd like to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs if he has taken any

action to get the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) and the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) off the backs of small business.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, in the case of the constituency represented by myself and

the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), thanks to the Minister of

Education and the Minister of Finance, the mill rate for educational

purposes was reduced from 64 mills last year to 55 mills this year. I

wish the member would do his homework.

[ Page 8272 ]

COMMITTEE ON CROWN CORPORATIONS

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I'd like to address a question to the chairman of the Committee on

Crown Corporations. Was the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) ever in

attendance at a meeting of the Committee on Crown Corporations at which

wine was served?

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, to the minister, the answer is definitely yes.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I have a supplementary question to the chairman. To the best of the

chairman's knowledge, did the member for Skeena consume any of that

wine?

MR. KEMPF: Again to the minister, the answer is yes.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Would the chairman tell me if the member for Skeena ever contacted him,

either personally or by mail, to inquire as to who paid for that wine,

or did he give it any thought?

MR. KEMPF: I can't say whether the member for Skeena ever gave it any thought. He certainly did not contact me.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I'd like to know, on behalf of the members of the Legislature, on how

many occasions and on what dates the member for Skeena wined and dined

at the taxpayers' expense.

MR. KEMPF: In order that my answer be absolutely correct, I'll take that question as notice.

MR. HOWARD:

I have a supplementary question for the chairman of the Crown

Corporations Committee. On the last of those occasions, when we

consumed British Columbia wine and not French Pouilly-Fuisse, is it not

a fact that the Chairman said in secrecy: "Thank God the general public

can't see what we're doing"?

MR. KEMPF: The answer to

that question is absolutely not. I would remind that member a vote of

the committee was taken as to whether we would consume wine or not.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: May we now proceed to question period.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

TAX ASSESSMENTS

MR. STUPICH:

I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The Minister of

Municipal Affairs said that the school mill rate dropped from 57 to 55.

He didn't point out that the assessment rolls have doubled. My question

to the Minister of Finance is: has the government embarked upon a

deliberate plan to destroy small business in the province of British

Columbia?

AUCTIONS OF CROWN LAND

MR. HANSON:

I have a question for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. The

second in a series of auctions of 65,000 hectares of Crown land

designated for agricultural development was held yesterday in Prince

George. The auction was picketed by farmers because the prices paid in

the first auction were far in excess of agricultural land prices

because of the timber on these lands. Can the minister explain why

these auctions of Crown land for agricultural purposes have been set up

in a way that denies the legitimate farmers in the Prince George area

access to these lands?

HON. MR. CHABOT: These open

auctions of agricultural land were made available for disposition to

British Columbians, not to a select few. The disruptions that took

place at that particular auction were caused by members of the Prince

George cattlemen's association. The auction and availability of

agricultural land, be it in Prince George or anywhere else in this

province, is not restricted to a select few. It's made available to

British Columbians who have been residents of this province for two

years. That auction was our attempt to make agricultural land available

in the Prince George area to as broad a

section as possible of the

people of this province.

MR. HANSON: I'd like to

point out to the minister that the auction was established in a way

that was entirely selective. At yesterday's' auction, ministry

officials, at the last moment, changed the rules to demand a $1,000

deposit to bid. Can I ask the minister why people were obliged to put

down $1,000 before they were entitled to bid?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

It's quite obvious that.... We have regional offices here, and regional

offices are given as much flexibility as possible. The regional office

came to the conclusion that there were going to be some problems

associated with the Prince George cattlemen's association. In order to

overcome those problems, they used that flexibility and demanded a

$1,000 deposit before bidding take place to ensure that bidding would

be as straightforward as possible.

I want to remind the

member about land availability. For approximately 10 years there was a

moratorium in British Columbia on agricultural land. In many areas

agricultural land was made available only to bona fide farmers. They've

had an opportunity to establish an economic unit within those periods

of time. I've told the B.C. Cattlemen's Association and the B.C.

Federation of Agriculture that the time has come for all British

Columbians to have an equal opportunity of acquiring agricultural land.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The scope of the question should not be exceeded by the answer.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the decision to demand a $1,000 deposit was made half an hour before the auction took place.

have another question. In view of the total hostility of the

agricultural community in Prince George towards his policies, has the

minister decided that the timber on these lands should be auctioned

separately and that the land itself should be disposed of for

agricultural purposes to farmers after that?

[ Page 8273 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the minister will take actions to make sure that

there are no further disruptions when we make agricultural land

available in the Prince George area.

MR. HANSON: Is the action going to be to bar legitimate farmers from attending these auctions, and to hold these auctions in private?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Legitimate farmers have never been denied the opportunity of acquiring

additional land. They've had that ten-year opportunity to acquire

additional land, and they now have to compete equally with other

British Columbians. They'll continue to have that right to compete

equally with other British Columbians. No longer do they have special

privileges.

Mr. Speaker, now I'd like to answer a question that I took as notice a little while ago.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

HOUSING FORECLOSURES

HON. MR. CHABOT:

On May 25, 1982, the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) asked

about foreclosure writs on housing in British Columbia. The statistics

I'll give you are for 1982 as well.

Before a foreclosure

writ is issued there must be serious default on loan payments. The

latest statistics available by the Canadian Bankers Association, which

includes seven chartered banks but not the Bank of Montreal or the Bank

of British Columbia, indicate that arrears of three months or more on

mortgage payments for the quarter ending March 31, 1982, are as

follows: Atlantic provinces, 0.53 percent; Quebec, 0.83 percent;

Ontario, 0.57 percent; Manitoba, 0.70 percent — the worst in the west,

I might say; Saskatchewan, 0.69 percent; Alberta, 0.53 percent; British

Columbia, 0.40 percent; Northwest Territories, 0.92 percent. British

Columbia has the smallest number of mortgages in arrears in Canada.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Who's the highest in the west?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Manitoba is the highest in the west.

The

ratio of accounts in arrears to the total accounts, at the end of

April, 1982.... I gave you the statistics for March 31 before I'm

giving you now the end of April 1982, which are the latest statistics I

have. It was 0.41 percent — not much of an escalation — which is still

the lowest number in Canada.

This information is based on a

total of 119,814 mortgages, which is 25 percent of all the mortgages in

British Columbia. I have also examined the British Columbia

government's portfolio of second mortgages, and foreclosure action

there is low. The number varies from 10 to 20 per month on a total of

38,000 second mortgages outstanding, and no particular trend is

apparent.

The B.C. Central Credit Union has surveyed other

credit unions and conducted a telephone survey of other major lenders,

and advised that foreclosure actions have been initiated, which does

not constitute actual foreclosure. The estimates provided are as

follows: major credit unions have launched 200 foreclosure actions in

1982; major banks have launched 200 foreclosure actions in 1982; other

credit unions and banks have initiated 200 foreclosure actions; trust

companies have initiated 200 foreclosure actions this year, for a total

of 800. The foreclosure actions are often initiated by referral to a

lawyer for many of the mortgage accounts, but only a small proportion,

generally between 10 percent and 20 percent, proceed to the point where

a homeowner may be forced from his or her home. Most foreclosures are

the result of economic conditions, loss of employment, or social

factors such as marital breakdown, rather than higher interest rates at

the time of mortgage renewal.

Lenders review cases on an

individual basis and make every effort to reach a satisfactory

agreement with the homeowner regarding a revised payment

schedule or

the sale of the home. Lending institutions, be they credit unions,

banks or trust companies, attempt in every way possible to prevent

foreclosure from taking place. I want to repeat that foreclosure

actions do not constitute actual foreclosures, and that the number of

foreclosures that actually takes place is a small percentage of the

number of actions. The most accurate source of foreclosure statistics

is the files of the supreme court. These files contain information on

the number of foreclosure actions started and subsequent court orders

to finalize foreclosure proceedings; that is, Supreme Court judgments

for foreclosure and orders absolute for possession. I have requested

this information, although it might not be available for three or four

weeks due to the need to search individual files in court registry

offices across the province. As soon as I have secured this information

I will make it available to the House.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, the length of the answer to this question is perhaps a

good indication that this kind of question maybe should be put on the

order paper and replied to on the order paper. It's difficult for the

Chair to anticipate on a general question of this nature just how long

the answer might be, and I did allow this one because the time of

question period had already expired.

On a point of order, the Minister of Energy.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, when you're considering that kind of thing, you might also

consider that part of the reason that answers to questions need to be

lengthy after having been taken as notice is that the House is now

allowing supplementary questions at the time that a question is taken

as notice. So we're required not only to answer one question but

perhaps several questions. The answer is necessarily more lengthy, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Skeena seeks the floor on a point of order.

MR. HOWARD:

I have a point of order which relates to a bill which was introduced

and given first reading earlier today, and which I think initially may

require guidance by Your Honour as to proceedings in the future. I'm

talking about the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1982, Bill 53.

haven't counted the number of separate acts that are sought to be

amended in this bill, but there are innumerable ones; there are quite a

few — for instance, the Library Act, the School Act, the Health Act,

the Gas Act, the Ministry of Labour Act and so on. A bill of this

nature, Mr. Speaker, always — in the past, at any event — has placed

the House in

[ Page

8274 ]

an awkward position as to being able to make a

decision on second reading, because there may be provisions in the bill

with which one agrees and provisions with which one does not agree.

What does a person do in that instance?

There is a mechanism

of some sort that allows for the division of a bill into component

parts. The point of order that I want to raise and seek guidance from

Your Honour on, perhaps on a later occasion, because this is set down

for second reading sometime after today, is how we might be able to

proceed to have the House make a determination or Your Honour make a

determination to divide the bill into parts, so that the House can make

the appropriate and correct decision about the various parts.

MR. SPEAKER:

We will inspect the bill and see where there is any departure from what

is the normal form, and perhaps even have some recommendations.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

On the same subject, in the relatively limited time that I've been in

this House since 1966, this has been the procedure that has been

followed.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, the purpose in

raising this point is not so much to challenge what the practice might

have been, but to indicate that the practice is inappropriate,

regardless of how long a time it has existed, and whether or not we can

take some other course of action.

MR. SPEAKER: If

there is to be a departure from the practice of the House, the

Speaker's hands would be tied. In that instance, the House would need

to express which way it wants to go in that regard.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 49: minister's office, $262,008.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

May I just refer to one of the questions that remained unanswered from

this morning. I was hoping that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr.

King) would be in the House, but let me just put it on the record; I'm

sure he'll read it. He was concerned about Eagle Rock Ranch in his

constituency, and there was a suggestion that we should do, within the

ministry, an assessment of that ranch — which we have done. I asked

that he give me some time to get the report on that, which I believe

may have been sent to him already. At any rate, let me read it into the

record:

"There were six children placed in this program by our ministry.

They're all difficult-to-manage children who cannot yet adjust to regular

community based resources. Our regional staff have investigated the incident

of the use of physical punishment with an older child placed by the Ministry

of Attorney-General in this resource. They are satisfied that it was an isolated

incident. The region has established clear expectations with the resource operator

and defined acceptable standards of care. Those standards reflect the recently

adopted ministry discipline policy which states that the use of physical punishment

is an unacceptable form of discipline."

would like to reiterate that these types of wilderness resources are

for extremely difficult young people. They do present a very difficult

challenge for those who have them in their care.

The region

has established a

schedule of bi-weekly monitoring and review sessions

with the resource to ensure adherence to the standards, contract and

plans for the children. My ministry tells me that they're satisfied

that these are being adhered to. Again, I will certainly commit to the

member that we will monitor it very closely.

MR. GABELMANN:

I have four brief points. The minister and I were involved in a

relatively heated debate this morning. I find this always happens when

I enter into the Human Resources estimates, and rarely in any other. I

wonder why that might be.

The minister referred to an

exchange of correspondence between the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms.

Brown) and her district supervisor in Port Hardy. Unfortunately,

because the rules don't require that you tell the whole truth, you

didn't. The Nanaimo Times carried the story which, probably because of

editing and space problems, was incomplete. It led to a certain

impression which the member for Burnaby-Edmonds clarified and cleared

up in a letter to the district supervisor in Port Hardy. That was

responded to in a letter from the district supervisor to the member for

Burnaby Edmonds. He says, among other things: "Your interest in and

concern for this district office is very welcome. The confusion created

by the reporting of your comments in the Nanaimo Times is unfortunate. I received a clipping of the Times

prior to receiving your November 10 letter, so I was relieved to learn

from you that your impressions of this district office were not as

reported in the Nanaimo newspaper." But you didn't read that part to

the House.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, I did.

MR. GABELMANN:

My apologies, Mr. Chairman, I'm in error. She did read that part of the

letter, but my point is that she didn't accept that the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds had been totally misquoted in the Nanaimo Times , and she attempted to make a federal case out of it. That's my only point.

The

fact is that very productive meetings were held. I might say just in

passing that as a result of the stability that has been instilled in

that office in the last little while, which came about as a result of

numerous requests from me and others, we now have a very good

functioning office up there. We have some stability and some good

people. I want to say that I wish I hadn't had to say the things I had

to say on the floor of this House in the last two sets of estimates

before those kinds of changes were made. I just wanted to make it clear

that the whole exchange relating to Port Hardy and the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds, as raised by the minister, is simply a result of an

incorrect newspaper story. To try to make a political issue out of that

is really quite underhanded.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: On a

point of order, I appreciate that people get heated in debate; I

frankly don't think this is a debate that we need to get too heated

about. But I resent the term "underhanded" and I ask the member to

withdraw.

[ Page 8275 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, the minister has taken offence at a word which is

unparliamentary. I ask the member if he would be good enough at this

time to withdraw the word that he used.

MR. GABELMANN:

A lot of softball players would be amused by the term "underhanded"

being unparliamentary. If "underhanded" is.... I'll say deceitful, if

that will please the minister more, Mr. Chairman. I'll withdraw any

words the minister doesn't like, if that will allow me to say anything.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It does allow us to continue in a parliamentary manner, hon. members, which is really why we are here.

MR. GABELMANN:

The second thing I wanted to raise in response to the minister's reply

was that I had made a point this morning saying that I didn't think

that the proliferation of lawyers in child-apprehension cases was a

good thing. I said that the model established by the labour movement

under the Labour Code, where lawyers were phased out, would be a good

model to look at for child- apprehension cases too. I cited the case of

one child who had five lawyers fighting over him. The minister took

those comments to say that I agreed with the Attorney-General's denial

of legal services to children when other people in the case have

lawyers.

Mr. Speaker, we're not allowed to say in this House

what we can say outside. If I were outside I would use a word starting

with the letter "I" to describe those comments, but I can't do that in

here. I'm really offended by the kind of response that that minister

makes to comments that we make in good faith. The whole question of

whether there should be a proliferation of lawyers in child

apprehension is an important issue. It's a good point, but what does

the minister do with it? She distorts it and makes it into a totally

different issue and then says I'm on the side of a terrible policy that

the Attorney-General has introduced.

MS. BROWN: It's deliberate distortion.

MR. GABELMANN:

It's nonsense. It's what makes this particular estimate debate so very

distasteful every year, because we can't have an honest exchange of

legitimate viewpoints. They might be at variance — fair enough — but we

seem to be able to have them with a whole variety of other ministers. I

had them with the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) the other

day, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) and with others. But

never ever are we able to do so with this minister in these debates,

and I wonder what the cause is of that. I wonder if it isn't because

the minister wants to make everything she touches a political issue

rather than a public issue. These questions are public issues that the

public cares about, and we do not want the minister's political

intervention in the way that she does it. Mr. Chairman, I get pretty

angry about that, I might say.

There are two final things I

want to say before I sit down. I wonder why she didn't answer my basic

question. Did she agree with the recommendations of that report which

recommended that the infant development program go into the Health

ministry? Does she agree with the recommendations of that same report

that suggested that the CHANCE program should go into Education, as the

Education minister has agreed? She had no comment whatsoever to those

legitimate questions of public policy.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

The premise is only correct if it is what the member for North Island

wants to accept. He wants to accept the premise that the

Attorney-General is not going to be providing services for children in

the province. You see, I know that the Attorney-General is providing

those services, will provide those services and has a commitment to our

Ministry of Human Resources to provide those services. So, Mr.

Chairman, you see that the tremendous concern that the member for North

Island expresses is really just a pig in a poke. It isn't even a point.

the Attorney-General does provide services for children — and he has

committed himself to doing so — then all of this feigned upset on the

other side of the House is absolutely and totally incorrect. The

Attorney-General has done just that which those two members at least on

that side of the House this morning, save and except the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), have been making their point about. There

has to be some kind of accountability in legal services throughout the

system. We only get our people from the Ministry of the

Attorney-General. We have no legal services of our own; we pay the

Attorney General's office for legal services.

It has nothing

to do with politics; it has something to do with service,

accountability and responsibility. I say again that the member is

really trying to fly some kind of an argument which will suit his own

purposes, I suppose, when he's speechifying. What we're concerned about

here on this side of the House is getting services to those young

people.

The member for North Island asked two other

questions. One was in reference to the infant development program and

the other one was in reference to the CHANCE program. I think I did

answer the question about the CHANCE program yesterday, because the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds brought that program up. I don't think we

are concerned as to which ministry actually takes care of that program.

It was initiated by our ministry and, as you pointed out, it is an

excellent program. I would think that because of the kinds of

responsibilities that the aides have within the classroom, that failing

under our ministry in terms of help — not educational help but personal

aid help.... That should still continue under our ministry.

Inasmuch

as the infant development program is a little different than that.... I

really am very proud of that program. I am not in any way disputing

that it could fall under the Ministry of Health quite easily and could

be well administered under that ministry. It's nothing that we're

holding onto tenaciously; it's just that it was started under our

ministry and therefore we continue with it. We will take that concern

under consideration.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I had

asked the minister a question this morning which she responded to, and

I heard her on my office speaker. I'd like to conclude dealing with

that matter of Eagle Rock Ranch, and hope my colleague will defer

briefly for that purpose. Mr. Chairman, the minister did provide a

report to me in response to my concern about the administration of

Eagle Rock Ranch. She wrote back on May 19:

"My regional staff and my executive director concur that

the owner of Eagle Rock Ranch, Mr. Victor Calvert, appears to be genuinely interested

and

[ Page 8276 ]

concerned

about this program for youth. At present, with the removal of older

youths on probation who were placed at Eagle Rock Ranch by the

corrections branch, and by limiting the number of placements to a

maximum of six children ages 13 to 16, my staff believe that continued

placement of children at the ranch is appropriate."

This

morning the point I was making was whether or not an investigation had

been conducted into the allegation of physical violence. In her

response this morning the minister took that point well and accepted

that the allegation was a serious one and that that aspect of it should

be investigated. At the same time she indicated that the person who had

made the allegation was someone who had been fired from the

institution....

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, please, I did not say that.

MR. KING:

Well, the minister said words to the effect that sometimes a

disenchanted employee makes allegations that are questionable. That was

the inference I took from it.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I said there are human elements....

MR. KING:

Human elements.... . and indicated that it was the case of a

disenchanted employee. That's what I took from it, anyway. The point

is, Mr. Chairman, that I do not presume to prejudge the allegations

made, nor do I think the minister should stand in judgment of that

person making the allegation.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: What person?

MR. KING:

Mr. Dufour, who made the allegation that Calvert had used violence on

the children. When the minister responded this afternoon she drew

attention to yet another document, which I am not in receipt of. I

received her report but it certainly didn't contain this information,

which she's kindly sent me a copy of, I presume. Much to my horror, Mr.

Chairman, I find that the investigation does in fact confirm that

physical violence took place.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

cannot accept, now that we have the proven allegation that physical

violence was visited upon one of those children, that that person is an

appropriate operator of any youth facility in this province. For the

life of me I can't understand why it is that Mr. Victor Calvert, who

had no previous experience whatsoever in terms of youth containment

facilities, social work, or anything else, having been proved to have

lost his temper and physically abused one of the children, should still

have a licence to operate that facility. I think that's totally

unconscionable. I think the minister should have withdrawn that licence

immediately and withdrawn the children from his supervision. The report

says the staff are satisfied it was an isolated incident. I think

anyone that has so little control, who is in such a sensitive position

— supervising children.... If he lost his temper once and physically

abused a child, I don't think the minister, her staff or anyone else —

certainly the public of British Columbia — would be prepared to say

that that was just an isolated incident and we should leave him in

charge. I think the public would take the opposite point of view. He

has proved himself incapable. He has proved himself unreliable, and he

should be removed. This operator, Victor Calvert, is a huge individual

— I understand he's around 270 pounds. A man of that size who would

lose control to the extent that he physically abused a child in his

care, when he is receiving handsome payment from both the Ministry of

Human Resources and the probation service of the province, who has so

little regard for children and so little regard for his

responsibilities as to use physical violence, is incompetent and

untrustworthy, in my view, to continue as the custodian of children.

I'm

appalled that the minister took such a bland position on this thing. I

wonder why, in the report I received from her on May 19, there was no

reference to the fact that the serious allegation made was indeed true.

That's not what she said this morning. She said: "Well, sometimes there

is a human problem." I don't want to attribute improper words to her

but I certainly got the inference that maybe the man that made the

allegation against Calvert was disenchanted because he'd been fired

from the institution. That's what I took from it. I think any

fair-minded person would have taken that understanding. But here is an

investigation, here is a report, a memorandum dated June 16 to John

Noble from Mrs. Valerie Mitchell, coordinator of contract services in

family and children's services, which in fact confirms that there was

physical violence. I ask the minister to take another look at this

situation.

I want to say — and the minister may accuse me of

being political — that it's common knowledge, and it's been talked

about in Salmon Arm, that Victor Calvert is the former Social Credit

constituency president. He's well known, and there is nothing wrong

with that, except that the community also knows that there is a serious

allegation here. And now that it has been confirmed, if that man is

allowed to stay, it's going to took like political patronage of the

worst kind.

Interjection.

MR. KING: It is.

Look, justice has not only to be done; it has to be seen to be done.

And by gosh, when we're dealing with young children who are already in

very sensitive circumstances, the last thing they need is some big hulk

like that physically abusing them. So I ask the minister to think very

seriously about finding another institution for those children. I don't

know Victor Calvert personally — I know of him — but I do not feel very

comfortable about leaving children from anywhere in the province in

that institution, once having had it confirmed that the owner and

operator lacks the control to the extent where he's already visited

physical violence upon one of the children involved. I would much

prefer and I would rest much easier knowing that we had a more stable

and secure person in charge of that facility.

Mr. Chairman,

I have some questions regarding the summer employment program which, I

understand, is now in the charge of the cabinet committee which the

minister chairs. I want to ask the minister something about the

criteria for qualifying programs under this summer employment program.

Do those applications come to the cabinet committee first of all, or do

they come through the regional offices of the Ministry of Labour? What

is the approval system for applications? Can the minister answer those

questions for me, please?

[ Page 8277 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

May I just respond regarding the wilderness ranch which we've been

speaking about. You're making assumptions on a couple of things. First

of all, you're referring to children, and we're taking about.... I

don't want to leave the impression with even our colleagues in the

House today that we're talking about tiny children. We're talking about

a resource for very difficult older children.

MR. KING: They're 12 to 16, aren't they?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: They are 16, 17, somewhere around that age.

MS. BROWN: Is it okay to beat them up?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

No, I'm not saying that. Mr. Chairman, I hope that I'll be allowed to

respond. I have no problem in going back on this case and seeing where

it's at. I can only take what my staff gives me; I don't interfere with

their decisions. My staff have given that assessment of that program

and they absolutely intend to have it monitored. We will be very

pleased to take another look at it. I have no problem with that, and I

don't think that the political persuasion of any of these operators

dealing with very difficult problem youngsters has any reference to the

service. I truly don't. It has not made any difference in my assessment

of group homes or services throughout the province. I can't imagine how

it could enter into that.

The program on summer employment

was given to the joint committee on employment, but from the criteria

there is a publication which shows who can hire and where the moneys

can go for summer employment. In particular, they cover agriculture and

small business. They can apply through the offices of the Ministry of

Labour throughout the province. I can have the criteria for you in a

short time, but that's all published through the Ministry of Labour.

MR. KING:

I accept her statement with respect to no political inferences. I

didn't raise it with innuendo in mind or to make that allegation. I

raised it because it is a well-known fact, it's on the table and it's a

matter of public record in terms of who Mr. Calvert is. The minister

knows as well as I do that you can't escape some public deduction in

this kind of thing. I think it's important that she has another look at

it. Putting that aside, the essential element is the welfare of the

children. She accepts that, and I certainly do.

With respect

to the employment program, why this departure.... The applications

previously came in through the Ministry of Labour's regional offices,

and there was an approval system. I'm trying to find out what happens

after those applications come in. Do they come to the ministerial

committee for final approval? Does the ministerial committee have any

staff of their own in terms of designing programs and the approval

system, or is it simply a policy committee that has set the program up?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

The answer to the first two questions is no. The explanation of it is

that it is a policy committee. The Minister of Labour and the Minister

of Education are on that committee and have particular reference to

this program, together with all our other colleagues on that committee,

because of their association with their particular responsibilities. It

was the input of those ministers and the collective ministers on the

committee which spelled out the program. Then it was given to the

Ministry of Labour for implementation. They have the expertise; they've

done it for many years. For many years our student program has been one

of the best in the country, as it is this year.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Before recognizing the member, the Chair is in a bit of a quandary.

Naturally we don't want to frustrate debate with respect to the hon.

member's line of questioning, but could it be established for the Chair

where this line of questioning might be the most appropriate?

MR. KING:

I think it is because this is a ministerial responsibility. She chairs

the Cabinet Committee on Employment Development, and I don't know what

other opportunity in the Legislature one would have to question her

duties in that regard.

I want to thank the minister for

congratulating us on introducing the youth employment program back in

1973, at which time it was funded to the tune of $20 million a year,

increasing in 1974-75 to $30 million a year. We're talking about a $10

million program now, which is a major cutback. Can the minister

explain, if she is so satisfied with the way the program is working and

the Ministry of Labour's custody of the program. why the cabinet

committee has been established at all'? What was the problem? Was the

Minister of Labour having some difficulty with the program?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

No, that's certainly not the problem. The Cabinet Committee on

Employment Development is assessing a fair number of programs that were

either established before, are ongoing or may not be ongoing, if that

decision is made. It is also addressing new initiatives. There is some

financing made available through the budget for new initiatives, and

the committee is responsible for negotiating and looking into the new

bridging program. Part of that discussion took place last week in the

estimates of the Ministry of Forests. The committee is also responsible

for new initiatives. It’s as simple as that. It has the expertise of

the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), the Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. Smith). the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Hewitt), the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland, ) the Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). I think I

have covered all of them. As you see, it's a very good committee that

has the capability of addressing various items, and it will hopefully

in the future be initiating some very interesting ones which the House

will be addressing in due course.

MRS. DAILLY: Some

of my colleagues may want to carry on with some questions on the

minister's role in chairing he employment committee, but I would like

to return to her basic function as Minister of Human Resources.

want to deal with just one area today. I have a couple of specific

questions for the minister regarding a matter that I consider to be of

very grave concern not only to me but to thousands of other citizens in

this province. This matter was brought to my attention by a constituent

who came to my office several months ago in considerable distress. His

complaint against the ministry, or shall I say the minister, concerned

an invasion of his privacy, and I'm referring here to the group that

was handled in a very strange, unusual manner.

[ Page 8278 ]

I'm

referring to five people in this province, with nothing in common

except that they had attended a demonstration at which they complained

about the policies of that minister, who were singled out by her

ministry to be checked about a I matter of fraud.

I think

it's necessary to get this on the record because we're dealing with

something very serious here. To begin with, the particular person who

came to see me wasn't on welfare, and to my knowledge had never been on

welfare. At the time he came to see me, he was actively working. He was

absolutely stunned to find out that he was being investigated for

fraud. I feel it's necessary to go into this in the House today because

invasion of a citizen's privacy by a politician in this province is the

first step to Big Brother government. I accuse this Minister of Human

Resources of invading the privacy of citizens of this province through

her investigation of five people in this province who had nothing in

common but their attendance at a demonstration against that minister.

read through the ombudsman's report very carefully. Frankly, given his

comments and his report on conversations with the minister and her

staff, as well as conversations with some of the people who are under

investigation, he has been exceptionally kind to the Minister of Human

Resources, in my opinion. The end of this report is rather mild, sort

of saying to the minister: "There's nothing here that satisfies us, but

we don't want to see it happen again." I'm sure the ombudsman had great

difficulty dealing with the Minister of Human Resources if he had from

her the same evasiveness that we have to put up with here in the

Legislature. I think we have to give him credit for doing the best he

could.

I consider this exceptionally serious. I feel the

Minister of Human Resources purposely called for an investigation of

five people in this province on allegations of welfare fraud,

allegations that were never found to be true, simply because those

people showed up at a demonstration to complain against her policies.

What I find absolutely appalling is that to date the minister has not

officially and personally apologized to those people — unless something

has happened since I last heard. Do you know what this minister stated

when she was asked about giving an apology? She said she was prepared

to apologize for the member of her staff who had somehow leaked the

information to the people who were being investigated that they were

being investigated. Can you imagine it, Mr. Chairman? The only thing

that that minister saw wrong, that demanded an apology, was that one of

her staff members had the intestinal fortitude to say: "Hey, there are

people being investigated here and they haven't even been told."

MS. BROWN: They're not even on welfare.

MRS. DAILLY:

Well, two of them.... Even so — so the others were on welfare. Have

they no right, in a free province, to go and stand up at a

demonstration? This minister is leading us to Big Brotherism in this

province.

MS. BROWN: McCarthyism.

MRS. DAILLY:

McCarthyism. You tell me where a person has any right in this province

to have their privacy invaded by any minister of this Crown. And to

this date....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I'll ask all hon. members, including the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown),

not to interrupt the hon. member who is taking her place in debate.

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Chairman, to this date that minister has not even shown the public

of B.C. that she considers what she did to be wrong. The request to

investigate these five people, who just happened not to like her

policies, emanated from her own office. It didn't come from her staff;

it came from one of her own assistants — mind you, in her own ministry.

When that assistant was asked over and over again, "Well, how did you

get knowledge of the fact that these people had committed fraud?" do

you know what the person said? He said: "Well, we can't quite remember

how." The staff person was asked: "Well, haven't you got a record of

this allegation of fraud? Was it by phone call, by letter?" Do you know

that the staff member said no, they had no record. Not even being able

to remember how they received this allegation, not having any record of

it, that minister of the Crown allowed an invasion of the privacy of

five citizens of this province.

Mr. Chairman, I'm standing

here to ask the Minister of Human Resources to stand up now and

apologize to these five people for the invasion of their privacy. If

that minister does not apologize, it means that she is not worthy of

holding her position as a minister of the Crown.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

First of all, I'd like to, with the greatest of respect, tell the

member for Burnaby North that some of the allegations that she has made

in her comments today regarding a demonstration, and five people in the

demonstration, had nothing at all to do with the investigation of the

ombudsman, inasmuch as the people were not investigated by my ministry

because they attended a demonstration but because the office received a

complaint that they were fraudulently taking income assistance. We very

often get those kinds of complaints. In fact, we get a lot of anonymous

complaints, sometimes in writing, sometimes by telephone, and one thing

that the ombudsman's report brought out was that there should be very

clear direction in all of the offices in terms of reporting and where

reports come from, even when there isn't anything to say.

For

example, it's hard to say if an anonymous phone call — when you don't

have a name or a phone number or anything, and people won't give it to

you.... But let me just say that investigations have to be done. We

have an obligation to the people in our province to investigate every

complaint, and any allegation that our ministry investigates complaints

in a way that misuses that kind of information should not be abroad and

should not be made by either the member who has just taken her seat or

any member of this House or any member of the public. We are extremely

careful of how we handle those kinds of complaints, because very often

they are unfounded. I don't know what the percentage would be. We've

never done a study on the percentage, but it happens.

Just

recently I had one that was investigated. It was anonymous, and it was

about someone who went out at the same time every day. They obviously

were working and yet they were taking income assistance. It was an

anonymous complaint. We had it looked into. The party, indeed, was on

income assistance, but that same party had to visit someone who was ill

and did so at the same time every day, which

[ Page 8279 ]

looked like she was going to work every day. That's the kind of thing that we get.

Every

time that we have a complaint, the complaint is investigated. It was

not singled out as you said, and I wrote down your words. I want to

make it clear that cases were not singled out "by the minister," which

is the allegation made by that member who has just taken her seat.

First

of all, our ministry didn't investigate them on the basis of any

demonstration. We investigated on the basis of a complaint — an

anonymous complaint, but a complaint. When someone makes an allegation

such as the one about the lady who is supposedly on income assistance

and also working, the first thing we do is establish whether or not

they're on income assistance. I want you to be clear on this: if

they're not on income assistance we're not going to investigate them.

We have no power to investigate somebody who is not using governmental

funds. That's the only basis for a complaint to our ministry; that's

the only reason.

For example — I've just been given this

information — 4,662 cases were reported, resulting in 209 charges being

laid, and 913 cases were unfounded. That's easily 25 percent.

Approximately 25 percent are totally unfounded. In some cases charges

are not laid but they are perhaps checked; some even go off income

assistance. Those don't show up in the statistics. So the 209 cases in

which the charges are laid, together with the 913 unfounded ones, do

not add up to the total of 4,662 reported to us in one year.

Again,

our ministry did not go into this report on the basis that they

attended a demonstration. The only question asked, in order to identify

whether they should be investigated beyond the anonymous complaint,

was: are any of them on income assistance? Identify that first. If

they're on income assistance then we will pursue whether or not they

should be taking this assistance. Two were on income assistance and

three were not. Our staff have an unblemished record of pursuing their

investigations with total integrity, and I want to emphasize that. I've

had this ministry for three years and I've had these kinds of cases.

They're not happy cases to handle. One doesn't want to think that

anybody is cheating the system, but people come to us and tell us they

are and we have to follow it up.

The only difference in this

case, from all those that have come before me in these three years, is

that when the ministry tried to establish whether or not they were on

income assistance, they went a little further. That loophole, if you'd

like to call it that, has since been closed. The first complaint came

in late November, and by January there had been no response to the

memorandum that had gone out from the deputy minister. He asked to

update his memos, as we always do; if we have something that's

outstanding and somebody hasn't answered, we update memos. In order to

get a quick response to that memo, the staff sent out a Telex. That is

unusual, and we have a control over that at the present time. That

Telex went into several regional offices and was seen by somebody in

the ministry, who apparently then told one of these persons alleged to

be taking income assistance.

We have now closed that

loophole. It was the first instance in three years, and no one would

have been worried about it because it was the first instance that a

Telex was sent, as far as I am aware. Our deputy minister might be able

to tell us, but I don't think there was another occasion. So I'm saying

that in my three years in this ministry the Telex system of going

throughout the ministry to identify has not been used before, and it

will not be used again in that way, because this has identified that

weakness, It also identified a weakness in that the very close code of

confidentiality within the ministry was not adhered to in this case.

One of the staff members in our ministry shared that information with

somebody outside the ministry. In this ministry, the code of

confidentiality is extremely sensitive and necessary. We're dealing

with people’s lives, and it's very important that we keep that code of

confidentiality.

But none of that would have been known....

This should be emphasized. I'm not suggesting that it should not be

known if we have an error in seeding a Telex. From that point of view,

I'm pleased that it was pointed out. But it was not anybody in this

ministry who made that knowledge available to the media. It was the

people, because they felt chagrined — I can understand their chagrin —

who went to the media. Our confidentiality was clearly breached by a

member of our staff, but I cannot take responsibility for members of

the public who want to do that. It was their course to make it public,

not ours.

You mentioned the ombudsman's report. The

ombudsman usually has no difficulty in being critical, as you say, but

in his very full investigation — and it was a full one that involved a

lot of time of our ministry staff — he found no evidence of misuse of

information for any purpose.

If you want to pursue the

demonstration that you referred to, I'd be very pleased to pursue the

demonstration, because I was there. In their public pronouncements,

they said that the one thing they had in common was that they were part

of a demonstration. We did not know that at the time this anonymous

complaint was followed up. It was only when it was made available to

the media and I read about it in the paper that I had any knowledge of

that at all. At that moment I did not connect it with any anonymous

complaint, because it was one of other anonymous complaints that had

come into our ministry.

I know that the member who has just

taken her seat would like to make a lot of this. I don't believe that

our ministry has acted in any improper way. We have a very strong, real

and needed responsibility when we're handling public funds to the

amount we have: that if we find someone who feels that those funds are

not being used properly, we should respond to that complaint, whether

it's an anonymous complaint or not. Part of the underlying reason for

it is on behalf of the taxpayers who feel that they should not pay

twice. They feel they should not pay someone who is already working to

take income assistance. That's a very strong feeling in people in this

province. I think that's true all across this world. After all, we

don't want to give to people who are trying to end-run and defraud a

system, and then leave people who are truly in need with less. That's

really what the result would be.

I hope the member will

accept that explanation. I don't see why she wouldn't. I can't

understand any reason, other than a political reason, why she shouldn't

accept that. If she refers to her colleague, who was the Minister of

Human Resources in the former New Democratic Party administration, he

will be able to tell her that all kinds of complaints come into the

office. They do in every office in the province, not just mine. We have

200 offices in the province, and they come in all ways and forms. We

follow up each and every one of them, I have to tell you that some of

them are rather wild. We feel we have to follow them up. Strangely

enough, even some of those wild ones result in charges being laid for

defrauding the system.

[ Page

8280 ]

MRS. DAILLY: The minister just took her seat. I've been here

a long time. We both were elected for the first time in 1966. It gives

you an idea how we're getting on. Something I've watched with this

minister for years is that whenever she's in trouble and has a basic

weakness in her argument, she filibusters. I've seen this year after

year. She goes on and on, hoping that by the time she finishes we'll

all be so exhausted from listening to her that we'll let the issue go.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we could refrain from personal allusions.

MRS. DAILLY: I didn't think she'd mind my referring to the fact that we both came in the same year.

The

basic issue here — and this is the tragedy of this minister; she

doesn't understand the basic issue — is the invasion of the privacy of

the citizens in this province by actions taken and condoned by that

minister. I said the ombudsman was mild. I'll read you what he said,

and then you'll have an idea of what I think he should have done when I

consider his statements mild. He said: "Among ministry officials I

missed in particular any honest or serious concern with or sensitivity

to the general and important value our society places on respect for a

citizen's privacy." He goes on to make some very serious comments, but

I find it so absolutely reprehensible that a minister of the Crown

would be part of such an investigation that I consider his remarks

mild. He also says: "My conclusion is that continuation of the

information search and its broadening were unwarranted, reprehensible

and improper."

MS. BROWN: That's an indictment.

MRS. DAILY:

Mr. Chairman, the minister does stand indicted. I do not accuse her

staff; I accuse the minister. This emanated from her office. The

minister keeps saying: "Remember that the ombudsman did not tie in any

connection with the demonstration." I realize that, but I do. As a free

member of this House, I hope I have a right to stand here on this floor

and accuse that minister of investigating these people because she

wants to intimidate anyone in this province, particularly those on

welfare, who dare to question her policies. There is nothing that

minister has said in that long, convoluted defence that changes

anyone's opinion on this side of the House.

May I say also

of many of the citizens of British Columbia, and of the people who are

victimized, that that minister was out to commence a reign of terror on

people who have the nerve to stand up and criticize her policies. If

that official in her department had not been able to have the courage

to release to those people that they were being investigated, my God,

Mr. Chairman, these kind of intimidations could be continuing under

that minister. But she has been caught.

I'm saying to that

minister that we expect an apology from her. All her fine words and

convoluted arguments don't destroy the basic fact that that minister

allowed to emanate from her office an unfair, unwarranted investigation

of five people in this province who happened to attend a demonstration

against her policies. We are not satisfied here, Mr. Chairman, and many

of the public — and, I can assure you, my constituents — are far from

satisfied. Can the minister not have the grace at least to stand and

apologize to those five people. If she did, Mr. Chairman, there is hope

that that minister understands what the basic issue is. No minister of

this Crown has any right to invade the privacy of a citizen of British

Columbia.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, let me

just say that all the words such as "reign of terror" are very

colourful, but they have absolute no reference to the case which the

ombudsman was investigating. If they want to talk about "reign of

terror," I will speak about the demonstration. Did it ever strike these

people on the Opposition side of the House that on the day of that

demonstration there were thousands and thousands of people downtown?

There were thousands and thousands of people all over the city of

Vancouver that day watching the demonstration. The demonstration

started on Burrard Street, three blocks or so away from the Hyatt

Regency Hotel. It ended outside the Hyatt Regency Hotel. It carried on

for many long speeches, with shouting and screaming outside the hotel.

Many of the fellow travelers of the members who have spoken on the

opposition side of the House were there. The candidates representing

the NDP were in that crowd. There were people who marched into the

hotel and took over the hotel, and then they came in where I was at a

conference.

The kinds of people who were there made

themselves very much known to the conference, where there were some

2,000 people, to the staff of the hotel and to the people outside the

hotel. They were very aware that they were there. For the member to say

that I singled out five people, that this is some kind of a

vendetta.... Let me tell you that those people were well known to

everybody who saw them, and they very much disgraced themselves in the

hotel that day. I'll just read you part of a letter from one of the

ladies who was a casualty of the demonstration staged by those people.

She says: "I was attacked by people aroused to a frenzy by the

organizers of the demonstration. I was taken by the throat. I was

kicked, punched, knocked to the floor. My clothing was damaged and I

was spat upon. Subsequent examination revealed cracked ribs and

numerous bruises." I can read some of the other descriptive language,

and I will if you'd like.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps, hon. members, we could return to the administrative actions of the ministry.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Well, Mr. Chairman, the member who has just taken her place wants to

attribute to this minister and this ministry a reign of terror against

people on income assistance in this province. This is very much related

to the statements that the member has made, and she made those

accusations against me. I'm going to tell you that the administrative

changes I made prior to this demonstration have made a positive

difference in the lives of those single parents. We have many success

stories out of that positive change. And I'm going to say that because

of those policy changes we have people today who are independent, not

dependent on the state. It is not for this side of the House to keep

people under the thumb of welfare and income assistance. Now it may be

the policy of that side of the House, because they certainly did not

want to understand that policy in any way, and they did try to deface

that policy in any way they could, so that they would rouse up people

to the extent that they demonstrated in that way.

Let me go

back to the way in which these allegations come to us. They are

anonymous allegations in some cases — this was — and any number of

people in the hotel or on the street that day could quite easily have

identified those people.

[ Page 8281 ]

don't know, but it's just as good a guess that they could have been

identified in that demonstration, and surely they were very clearly

visible — so visible that one girl was taken to the hospital. That's

not the lady I mentioned, but a younger girl. People were knocked down.

Even today as I attend meetings, even in these last few weeks.... I've

recently been to a Social Credit meeting where there were some of these

people who were at the annual meeting and convention where this

demonstration took place, and even now they talk about their incredibly

bad treatment by those demonstrators. They were completely out of their

organizers' hands, and they were very much known to all the people,

both inside and outside that hotel that day. If you want to talk about

the demonstration, we can talk about the demonstration, but the

allegation against those people, when it came into our office, was

completely divorced from that demonstration until it was made known by

the demonstrators themselves.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr.

Chairman, I do have a few questions for the minister, and I don't want

to change the tack of the debate too much, except that I'm a bit

disappointed in the minister's answer to that last question from the

member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). What the member for Burnaby

North was discussing was the result of a report from the ombudsman on

actions taken by the ministry. The minister went all around the

question, but didn't apologize for the actions that were taken in that

case.

Mr. Chairman, I want to identify myself with some of

the remarks of the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). I too, as a

rural member representing a large rural area in the province, have had

numerous occasions to deal with people in the Ministry of Human

Resources in their various district offices. I find that's very

difficult. There does seem to be a different atmosphere in that Human

Resources office. I believe that comes as directives and as policy from

Victoria here, probably from the minister's office. They will not

discuss individual cases in a free and open manner. As MLAs we're

likely to hear from people about examples where they've gone into Human

Resources and not been successful or not received the attention that

they think they deserve. Or perhaps they are angry about the attitude

of a Human Resources officer, and so they come and discuss these

matters with their MLA to see what we can do. Sometimes we can help and

sometimes we can't.

The other side of the coin, though,

before I get into two or three of the questions that I want to pose to

the minister, is this. I think that the minister might be interested in

knowing that from time to time we, as MLAs, hear of cases that have

been successful, in terms of the local Human Resources officers. I know

that I'm very appreciative of a number of cases, and I won't go into

all of them, but I'd like just to remark on one very recent case where

a young lady with a two-year-old child came into my office, and I

thought: "Oh, my God!" You know, the usual — welfare. As a matter of

fact, that was not it at all. She came in because she was looking for a

job, and just asked me, if I heard anything about anything, to let her

know. Then she went on to say that the Human Resources officer that she

was dealing with had not only assisted her in obtaining funds so that

she could survive and pay her rent and those things, but in fact had

directed her to night school courses. She's taking an industrial first

aid course to upgrade her capabilities; in fact she was very pleased

with the services in that case. As MLAs we hear of these kinds of cases

all too rarely. We only usually hear about the cases where somebody is

not satisfied with the service that they're getting. I understand that.

I want the minister to understand, Mr. Chairman, that I'm not knocking

the people who work at the local level in the Ministry of Human

Resources. Generally speaking, I get reasonably good cooperate where I

can, or where they can give me that cooperation.

If I do

have a criticism at the local level, it's that I think the Ministry

ought to allow. and should allow, local Human Resources directors and

workers a bit more discretion in making judgments if there is doubt.

The Ministry of Human Resources always takes the side, if I may say,

that the person's got to be wrong.

Whereas if there's a doubt — and I

certainly don't condone fraud — in serious cases I think the benefit of

the doubt should go to the applicant. As MLAs once again these are the

types of cases we're most likely to see in our offices, but if there is

doubt, the answer is: "No, we can't help you" — because of whatever

reason. These are the type of people we're likely to see.

would like to bring to the minister's attention — and I know that these

are constituency matters and we have serious, large matters.... Well,

this is not necessarily a constituency letter. It is from my riding,

but it's an example of the kind of thing that I suppose is happening at

the present time around the province. This is a very short and

articulate letter from a lady on the Sun shine Coast; in fact,

it is addressed to the minister. I don't mind using the name because I

have discussed this with this lady, but I don't know if she'd want her

name in Hansard or not. The point is, she makes three very

clear and concise points about her aged six and a half daughter, who

has had a lot of problems. She has attached the psychiatrists' reports,

and the assessment studies and reports, and all these things.

Here

is the kind of thing that is happening in this particular area. This

girl has been receiving speech therapy for the past two years; however,

the therapist has taken a six-month leave of absence, and there is no

replacement. This is in my Sunshine Coast Sechelt office, by the way,

if you're making notes. She goes on to say that as this girl of six and

a half, Melissa, will be going into grade 1 this coming September,

there's no chance that she will be able to compete or to keep up with

the other children in that class without speech therapy, for one thing.

She goes on to say: "I was counting on the CHANCE program, and it has

worked for Melissa in the past, but now I am led to understand that not

sufficient funding is available to provide this for School District 46,

Sunshine Coast."

I did read on page 27 in the annual report

from the ministry the

section dealing with the CHANCE program. It's a

good program if you do it. I read with interest two days ago the

minister's remarks in this House, where the minister explained how much

money they were spending and what the CHANCE program was supposed to

accomplish, and that's all very well. But if they abolish the program,

then what good is it? Here we have a prime example of a girl aged six

and a half — and there are others — who is probably going to fail and

find things very difficult for the next few years unless these programs

become available to her. The lady said towards the end of her letter

that the costs involved to provide her with success at this young age

are minimal when compared with the costs involved in trying to piece

together an older child or adult along with her family. This is

correct. If this young person doesn't receive the kind of attention and

care she should be having now, what will the cost to society be 10 or

20 years down the road'

[ Page 8282 ]

This

brings me to my second topic. I have correspondence between the

ministry and people in the Powell River area dating back to November 3,

1981. The request was very simple. Because of the caseload in the area,

we required a full-time Human Resources officer to work with the

mentally handicapped. For some time I was led to believe.... When I

first approached the ministry on this subject, I thought it would be

easy — no problem at all — because the requirement was there. After a

great deal of private conversation with people in the ministry, many of

whom agreed with the need for a full-time Human Resources officer, I

finally did receive correspondence from the minister. It essentially

said: "We agree with you. We have a person working out of Courtenay who

goes to the community from time to time to work with these people." The

fact is that this person from Courtenay, who is very capable, comes

over once or maybe twice a month for a four-hour period. What can you

do with the present 100-plus mentally handicapped? We have people who

come into the group home in Powell River from other parts of the

province. How can you expect one Human Resources worker to work with

that number of people and accomplish anything? She wouldn't even have

time to look at the records. I'm very, very disappointed in this

particular case, especially when I have the support of a number of

people within the Ministry of Human Resources. I'm asking the minister

to once again reconsider and think about providing a full-time,

competent person to work with the mentally handicapped in the Powell

River area.

Last but not least, I have a very short question

from a constituent of mine, who is quite active in working with

handicapped people in Powell River. It happens to be a relative, but

relatives have the right to write to the minister. She has a mentally

handicapped child. She said in her letter: "At Christmas all welfare

recipients receive a Christmas bonus included in their last cheque

before Christmas. This bonus is not extended to handicapped persons on

government assistance, which would appear to be nothing less than

discrimination." She goes on asking why the handicapped people are not

included with others who receive income from Human Resources. Perhaps

the minister could answer one or two of those questions. I really would

appreciate it.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I must rise in my place

today to speak about this ministry for a few moments. In years gone by,

a large part of my day was taken up with Human Resources problems.

People were coming to me with their various problems at various times,

and it took a lot of time. Certainly members on our side — and I'm sure

the opposition as well — will tell you that the problems MLAs get have

been much diminished over the last three or four years. As a matter of

fact, they are almost non-existent. When I say that, it must mean a

remarkable turnaround in the policies of the Ministry of Human

Resources. The minister doesn't need my support, but I'd like to say it

the way it is. When we find a large ministry doing so much good for the

disadvantaged people, it should be told. It's not that we wouldn't like

to give them more — and I'm sure that the minister would be the first

to do it — but the money has to be stretched out.

magnificent job is being done. I think this House should recognize

that; I think that the opposition benches could make a little point of

that. We know it's not perfect, but it was so prevalent on our side,

surely it must be the same there too. We can all find areas where there

is not perfection and where things can be done, and I think the

minister should be told about these and should make corrections

wherever necessary and proper.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair.]

have a couple of things I'd like to know about. I had no problems at

all, except for one thing lately since the depression came in. I mean

the recession. Let's put it that way; let's not say depression. Real

depression is in the automobile business, but there is recession

everywhere else.

I want to say that I find difficulty among

people who need to get onto Human Resources while waiting for UIC. Now

it does happen, but I have had many complaints or many requests and

many pleadings that it doesn't happen smoothly enough and some of them

are really suffering in the exchange. If this is a fact, would the

minister look into it? I think it's important at this time that we

should defray as much suffering as possible. Most of them say to me:

"When my UIC cheque comes I'll be glad to pay it back, but in the

meantime I need some money." I think that a lot of them are being

looked after, but there have been cases where it has sort of crossed

and recrossed. I find that the main cause of complaint lately.

I'd

like to ask the minister about the distress line which, I think, was

put in three years ago. I hear no more about that. Is that an effective

program? Is it working? Do they correlate, and can they tell us what

constituency and what areas the most problems come from? What effect

has it had on the distress of children and women in this province? Has

the distress line been effective? I thought it was a great idea, but

I've never heard much about it in this House. I'd like to know what the

minister has to say about that. In this time of recession, is the

battering of children and women increasing, or is it about the same as

ever? I know it's a bad business, a terrible business, but do we hear

that because of distress, battering is more prevalent? Now if this is

the case, I think the minister should take note of that and take

countermeasures.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I would

like to raise a couple of issues related directly to her

responsibilities as the Minister of Human Resources and then ask a few

questions with respect to her position in the Cabinet Committee on

Employment Development.

I'm somewhat concerned that the

policy laid down some time ago, related to Human Resources assistance

and the eligibility for assistance for those people living on what I

suppose are red-circled areas such as the islands, is still in place.

People who live on islands like Denman, Hornby and Lasqueti in my

constituency are turned down when they are in a position like so many

other people in this province during this.... I will call it a

depression. Maybe the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) wants to call

it a recession. In this depression there are so many people who are

forced to turn to Human Resources assistance, but they're being denied

because of the location in which they live.

When there are

220,000 people looking for non-existent jobs, it seems to me that the

policy of the Minister of Human Resources should change so that people

who are living on those islands do qualify for assistance. It doesn't

help them to move from Lasqueti Island to Parksville or to Qualicum or

to any other place in this province, because there are no jobs for

them. Many times people can live at a cheaper rate on the islands than

they can in larger communities; and they have just as much chance of

finding a job on Lasqueti these days as

[ Page 8283 ]

they

do in Parksville or in Qualicum, I can assure you. Yet they are forced

to undergo the uprooting of their families, the cost of the move,

trying to find an alternative location because they must move into an

area that is considered one of high employment. Lasqueti is not

considered an area of high employment; therefore they are forced to

move into communities such as Parksville where there are people looking

for jobs by the score. And how someone who is eligible for Human

Resources assistance is supposed to find a job under those

circumstances, I don't know; it just doesn't make any sense. It seems

to me that at this point, in view of the absolutely impossible

situation as far as the finding of jobs is concerned, that policy

should be altered so that people can live more cheaply on some of these

more remote areas and still be eligible for Human Resources assistance.

Mr.

Chairman, the minister has discontinued funding for Pacific House,

which was an alcohol treatment centre and has now been closed. She was

providing funding for the people who went there for treatment at a rate

of $14 a day. That rate was reduced to $10.50 a day. I know that the

minister is going to say Human Resources is not responsible for alcohol

treatment, but it seems to me that if the Minister of Human Resources

has any concern for the people who are afflicted with alcoholic

problems and who had been receiving funding through her ministry, the

least she could do is continue the funding at the rate at which they

had received funding so that she could spend the time trying to

convince her cabinet colleagues that this, in fact, did not belong in

her ministry and belonged in another ministry. Once that alternate

funding had been found, then perhaps she could discontinue the funding

or lower the rate. What has happened now is that the facility has been

closed.

I know that Pideock House, the alcohol treatment

centre for men, did get some funding through the alcohol treatment

program under the Ministry of Health. That has not been the case with

Pacific House. It has been forced to close, and I think that's a

tragedy.

I have a few questions related to the employment development program, which the minister chairs.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Just a point of order. Questions pertaining to the minister's

responsibilities outside of the Ministry of Human Resources I would

have to rule out of order at this time.

MS. BROWN: On

a point of order, earlier this afternoon when there was another

Chairman in the chair, the ruling was exactly the opposite to the one

you are now giving. The members of the opposition would like to obey

the rulings of the Chair, but it doesn't really make it possible when

one Chairperson gives one ruling and another Chairperson gives another.

number of our speakers have already spoken on the minister's role as a

chairperson of this employment committee of cabinet. If the Chair is

reversing its decision and has changed its mind, maybe the Chair will

tell us whether we are going to have an opportunity to debate

schedule

B separately and then have an opportunity to deal with this. But just

to hand down a ruling which is completely contradictory to an earlier

ruling is not very helpful.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: On

the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, it is true that earlier, under

different chairmanship we addressed the employment committee inasmuch

as it was addressing youth summer employment. I simply referred to the

fact that the administration of the committee itself decided on the

youth program and that details of it of course would go over to the

Ministry of Labour. I'm quite prepared to answer general questions on

the committee itself. When it comes into details where another minister

such as the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), who has the

bridging program under his responsibility.... They were asked under the

Forests Ministry. as I indicated earlier, and should be more aptly put

to the .rests ministry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of

order, the Chair has no problem if the committee wishes to discuss

these matters as they pertain to this ministry, insofar as they must

relate to the administrative actions of the department. I have no

problem with that. If it's the wish of the committee, then so be it.

The minister doesn't seem to object.

On a point of order, the first member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER:

I appreciate your current commentary, Mr. Chairman, and would offer for

your consideration as well a debate that occurred in this committee

before you were elected here, wherein we established some time ago that

the person whose estimates we are debating is also, as it happens, the

Deputy Premier. It was ruled acceptable some time ago that we may

discuss her actions as Deputy Premier because, of course, her salary,

which vote is included in this general appropriation, also appears

under this figure. It has, in fact, been established in the committee

before that work as minister, as chairman of the cabinet committee and

as Deputy Premier is debatable under this.

Certainly the

general issue of debating ministerial estimates is the one under the

minister's vote that we follow, but I appreciate your comment, Mr.

Chairman. Our side is quite happy to abide by the tradition that has

been established for some time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am

advised, as I was not here, as you pointed out, that this was done

because the minister had no objection at the time. If that is the case

today, then let us try to stay within her purview as the Minister of

Human Resources.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I have

some questions relating to the $25 million program. She is the

chairperson responsible for this cabinet committee. Since $10 million

of that fund has already gone to the youth employment program to

replace another program that had been eliminated by government, and

another $10 million has been assigned to the bridging program under the

Ministry of Forests, I'm wondering how much money the committee intends

to devote to housing. It is listed under

Schedule B as one of the

projects that's going to be funded under that $25 million. Seventy-five

thousand dollars has gone to some dyking program and I assume that

they're going to continue making announcements with respect to the

disbursement of those funds. But I would like to know how much of that

$25 million of new money — that's all there is — is going into the

housing project. What kind of housing is the committee anticipating as

a result of that money.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Just

taking the last question, the $25 million account which you referred to

for the employment development program comes from the $132 million

[ Page

8284 ]

account.

That $25 million is not the only money; neither is $132 million.

Yesterday in the House we debated a bill which referred to the

government housing and development bonds, which is a $250 million

initiative. If that gives you a scope of the amount related to housing,

I think that would give you the answer that you desire.

also want to refer to the alcohol treatment houses that you spoke of.

We negotiated with the groups you mentioned. I think you have copies of

the correspondence I have sent to them. We very much felt that that was

a Health program. It definitely is the responsibility of Health. That

resolution has been made through negotiation and it's been a difficult

one. We always have limited resources. If we had everything it would be

very easy to say that we'd take all of them, but we always have to give

priority to the most need. A program for alcoholic treatment was, in

our mind, better under Health where it has finally ended up.

would also refer to the designated areas. The policy for that was

initiated because in places where there isn't a lot of industry or

business — particularly Island areas — it was felt that it was better

to designate them as non-available for income assistance simply because

if the premise was that you wanted people to become independent, and

that certainly is our premise, then there was very little opportunity

for them to get the kind of independence they would desire in some of

those places. You know the background of it. That's really why it was

initiated. However, I would like to tell you that we're almost finished

a review of that particular policy, and I think in the next few weeks

there will be an adjustment of it. So you can look forward to that. I

think I've answered that in a positive way.

I'd like to

refer to the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), who mentioned the Help

Line for Children. Every time you ask about the increase in child

abuse.... There is a lot of talk about advertising by government in the

province. This is one of the places where there should be absolutely no

dispute about advertising. Every time we have advertisements,

particularly the television advertisements, on the Help Line for

Children, we find that the increase in calls is quite dramatic. In

other words, where there is knowledge and education, there will be a

response to it. I think our ads have been very sensitive. I think

they've been appealing to the youngster, as well as those who perhaps

are in need of help — the abusing adults. We have brought lots of those

people forward who say that they do need help. That has been a

tremendous program.

You asked about the regions. It's really

not isolated to any particular region; it is related to the population.

We place more people in the more populated areas, of course. I would

like to make a plea for the advertising; when the knowledge is there in

the community, people will respond and come forward for help. The

figures on that will be available in the annual report, and I would

direct you to those. You can't make a case for an increase in child

abuse; you can make a case for an increase in awareness, and that's

all. Figures were not known. It really was hidden. Our province leads

the way in awareness of child abuse, making sure that those cases that

could have been called hidden cases in the past are brought out. We

have little information on anything that was happening prior to the

initiation of that child-abuse line.

You mentioned the

Unemployment Insurance Commission and the lag time between a person's

leaving a job and getting unemployment insurance. I'd like to say to

the member for Dewdney that it's true that some areas in the province

have been very slow in terms of the connection; time between UIC and

layoff, firing or lack of work has been extremely long. I'm pleased to

tell you that our staff, our regional people and I met with the

minister a couple of months ago. We've had joint meetings with the

managers, both the UlC representatives and the agencies, to facilitate

the flow of traffic between both programs so that we can take the

burden off people. In particular I'd like to mention the Nanaimo area —

the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) isn't in the House. They have

really had a big problem, but with this kind of cooperation we've been

able to overcome it. It's been very good.

First, may I say

to the member for Dewdney that he was very kind to make remarks about

the kinds of services in my ministry. I really can't say it enough. We

have 5,000 people in this ministry, and 200 offices. I am glad that the

member for Dewdney has made the point. We had comments from the other

side today and yesterday that the service in the offices is not as good

as they would like it to be, so I thank the member for that comment. I

will share it with our ministry staff. I think theirs is an

exceptionally sensitive job, and many times they work weekends. Child

abuse cases take a tremendous amount of time and effort, draining

people of energy because they are such tragic and terrible cases to

deal with — family cases, sometimes terrible to deal with. Our ministry

staff does an absolutely outstanding job; let me just say that again,

because I don't accept the criticism.

Secondly, if members

of this House want information and feel that not enough information is

being given to them at the local level, I am as near as your telephone.

You only need to phone me or send me a note and I will have it looked

into. That offer has always been there. The member for Mackenzie (Mr.

Lockstead) has kindly pointed out that he always has had that kind of

response from this ministry.

I'd like to refer again to the

member for Mackenzie and his discussion regarding the handicapped

person who wrote to ask why he cannot have a Christmas bonus as income

assistance. This often comes to mind around December. First of all,

income assistance recipients do not get the same year-round amount of

money as the handicapped. They are on for a shorter period of time.

There is a high turnover in income assistance cases. Therefore the

people who are on income assistance today probably won't be on income

assistance at Christmas. I would just point out that March 1982 cases

totalled 65,730. Cases closed in April 1982 numbered 10,947, while

cases opened in April 1982 were 10,614. In other words, more cases were

closed in April 1982, in these last two months, than came on income

assistance. That turnover, that coming on and going off income

assistance, is very prevalent. So when you think of the whole picture,

please don't concern yourself that it's the same people. It may be the

same numbers, but it is not the same people.

To go back to

the handicapped request as to why they should not have a higher amount

in December as a Christmas bonus: it is because they have a higher

amount all year round.

I want to refer again to the member

for Mackenzie, who talked about the CHANCE program. In his region there

has been an increase in the CHANCE program, but throughout in the whole

CHANCE program, there is a 30 1/2 percent increase in that service. He

mentions a child, Melissa: I know the case which he is talking about.

I'm sorry, I think there has been a 38 1/2 percent increase in the

CHANCE program — I've just been corrected by my deputy. So that's

almost 40 percent, then, for the CHANCE program.

[ Page 8285 ]

did mention the CHANCE program in relation to a child in his

constituency, the child of six and a half who needed speech therapy.

Melissa needs speech therapy, and there was a cessation of speech

therapy there for a six-month period. He should address that question

to the Ministry of Health. That is not in our budget. But I want to say

this: Melissa, until three years ago, wouldn't have had any of the

services that the member for Mackenzie talked about because it is only

three years since the CHANCE program came in to help the handicapped

child integrate into the school classroom. So there was no help at all

for Melissa until three years ago. Now we can give her help in the

classroom. I would like to ask him to direct that question to the

Ministry of Health, because speech therapy, as you know, is a very key

problem throughout the nation in terms of service.

Again I'd

like to mention the Powell River mentally handicapped coordinator. We

tend to never have sufficient numbers of people, because as we give

more services — and we are improving our services all the time — we

find that more services are being demanded, and we continue to look at

such things as the member has mentioned, like the coordinator. As more

resources become available we will make those kinds of services

available.

I think I've answered just about everything that

has been put before us so far. I have more detail on the Pidcock

Pacific area. If you'd like more detail we can discuss it on a personal

basis. I'd like to offer that to the member — or if you'd like to

pursue it, I'll do it now.

MS. SANFORD: I'd like to pursue another issue related to the minister's position as the chairman of that committee.

Earlier,

in response to a question, the minister indicated that there was

absolutely nothing wrong with the way in which the youth employment

program had been administered in the past by the Minister of Labour,

and that it certainly wasn't a lack of confidence in the Minister of

Labour that had required that the youth employment funds come out of

the

schedule B. I would assume that that applies also to apprenticeship

training; and employment opportunities; and the administration of the

Tourism funds; and the administration of vocational rehabilitation,

under health; and that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) was

really able to conduct that silvicultural program; and that the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) — as far as job placement is

concerned — under that

schedule B had been able to do the job, It's not

a lack of confidence in other ministers that has made the government

put all of these funds, $132 million, into

schedule B to be

administered by the cabinet committee, with this minister as the

chairperson.

In other words, what I'm saying, Mr. Chairman.

Is that there is $25 million in new funds. Actually, not really — there

is only $15 million, because $10 million has been taken to replace a

program that had been cancelled. So what we have here is a collection

of all of this money from the various ministries, and if it's not a

lack of confidence in the administrative abilities of those ministers,

then it's being done for cosmetic purposes. It is for cosmetic purposes

that they have placed all of these programs together in one package to

be administered by that cabinet committee. It is to try to convince the

public that they are, in fact, spending that kind of money on job

creation when there is nothing new there. It's the same apprenticeship

program that was there before. It's the same employment opportunities

program that was there before, and it's going to be administered — mind

you. there is some.... Yes. of course there is less money this year, as

there is for everything else — particularly hospital beds but it's

cosmetic purposes.

I think that one of the major reasons

that all of these funds have been put together to be administered

through the Minister of Human Resources' committee is for: (1) the

consumption of the public and (2) for the re-election of that minister.

Unless we have another redistribution and redrawing of the boundaries

of the various constituencies, then that minister is in trouble in her

own constituency. A large part of the reason for putting all of these

funds together under

schedule B is to try to convince the public that

it is this minister, through that committee, that is creating work. At

the outside, there is $15 million under that particular

schedule that

is money that had not been allocated in the past. Based on her answer,

I would assume that none of that $25 million is going into housing,

even though

schedule B itself says that part of that money is for

housing. She indicated that that was another bill that was going to

provide for housing if any money was taken out through the bonds.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

would also like to know, under the bridging program, whether or not

there will be any moneys advanced from this $25 million program — which

is not really $25 million, but only $15 million — to the various

companies who will be participating under the forestry bridging

program. Will there be money advanced so they will be able to get

involved in getting payments for start-up costs in order to undertake

various projects? I'd appreciate answers to those.

MR. BARBER:

I have a simple question for the minister. When is she going to

proclaim

section 8 of the Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's discussing legislation, hon. member, which is not permitted in debate in Committee of Supply.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's legislation already in force.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I'll read the citation to you from Sir Erskine May. "The administrative

action of the department is open to debate. but the necessity for

legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in

Committee of Supply."

MR. BARBER: I quite agree. My

question is: when is she going to proclaim a

section of a bill that has

already passed? It's not future policy, it's their policy. It wasn’t

our bill: it's their bill. It was her section. not ours. It's her

policy, not ours. which is under discussion. Fm not debating the bill.

I'm debating the policy. The policy apparently involves a failure to

proclaim

section 8 of a bill which Social Credit passed. The policy

concerns whether or not cost-of-living increases shall be made a

recognizable part of the ordinary formula for calculating increases in

social assistance. First not debating the bill. and I totally agree

with your ruling, Mr. Chairman.

I repeat my question. When. by policy, will the minister proclaim

section 8 of a bill which has already passed?

[ Page 8286 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

That is still discussing a matter of legislation, hon. member. If it's

a proclamation section, it could have been discussed during that time.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

I don't think I offend the rules of the House when I say that that act,

which is already passed by the Legislature.... I'm not arguing with

you, Mr. Chairman, I'm truly not. May I just put it this way. The

income assistance increases since 1976 have, each and every year, using

the Vancouver CPI, exceeded the cost of living. If I had, in the last

three years since I've had that responsibility, proclaimed that

section, the income assistance increases would have been less each and

every year, so I'm not considering proclaiming it.

Could I

please respond to the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford). She talks about

new appropriation. There's no such thing as old money. Every single

thing that we have in this House from this budget, as of the beginning

of the fiscal year, is new dollars. To say that we have some new money

and the other is old is just not true. The additional fund of $25

million.... She asked a question about the other balance of $132

million. It was a way, since revenues are down in the province due to

the resource revenues being down, to maintain the level of services

that we've always had. We are putting — the Finance minister made that

comment in budgetary introductions — those programs into the one fund.

That amounts to $132 million. We have the capability within that

committee to use those funds for the very best purposes to create

employment.

You made a comment about the bridging program.

It really does address itself more to the forestry ministry now that

the committee has established that bridging program.

You

asked about the dollars pertaining to that program. I believe it

amounted to $10 million, which initiated $27 million of federal

government funding, making a total of almost $40 million. We understand

that will be joined by some moneys which the companies will be given in

terms of material, machinery and that sort of thing. That part of it is

a federal government responsibility. We do not administer the program;

it's federally administered. That question and any questions pertaining

to it should be more readily answered now that the decision has been

made. It will be done more under the Minister of Forests, who works

very closely with the Minister of Labour on that particular program.

I think I've answered everything else that you had on that, and also the member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER:

Could the minister advise the committee what amount a person on income

assistance may earn and not be held liable for in regard to an end

revenue reduction in their monthly assistance cheques? Could she also

advise us when that amount was last altered?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

It's a question that's raised often, and I understand it. I think it

was 1970 when it was last altered. The amount which one can keep

without deduction for a single person is $50 a month and $100 for a

couple or a family.

Let the member ask the question. I know

what he's implying, but I do have an answer for it through our new

program. I think the implication is always that if we could let people

who are on income assistance keep more of the money they cam, thereby

helping themselves off income assistance, the transition to

independence would be quicker. I thought that too; I really did think

that when I first came into this ministry. I thought that if I ever had

the chance to have this ministry, I'd like to put that into place, and

we did have a pilot project in this area. It did not work out that way.

We found that those people did not gain to the extent that our program

during this last 18 to 20 months gained for them. Everybody is

different. Having more money at the end of the week will work for some

people but it won't work for everybody. Being able to retain more money

at the end of the month will work for some people. I'm sure there are

cases you could mention, even in the pilot project; but it was not

significant enough to make it an overall policy.

We have

made an overall policy of those avenues where people can upgrade their

education. We're putting more money towards having people upgrade

themselves in education, taking a course or a training program that

would perhaps make them more self-sufficient. The Individual

Opportunity Plan addresses that. It gives them a contract, a length of

time, and they know that at the end of that time they are going to be

off income assistance completely. They know they will not be on income

assistance forever or on a part-time job forever. Granted, it's

designed differently. I know that's a simple explanation.

are developing a new approach to what we call the easement formula — a

new approach to income. We feel, and our people tell us this, that the

easement formula, as this idea of keeping so much is called, really can

perpetuate dependence rather than lead to independence. I have to rely

on my people in the ministry to give that advice. I believe it to be

true, with the dramatic results we're getting in the other area. The

Individual Opportunity Plan is working so well that I really believe it

is a much better way.

MR. BARBER: The gray, and

disappointing, area of public policy was certainly indicated by the

study in Victoria. I'm familiar with the study, I'm familiar with some

of the participants, and I share the minister's disappointment in its

results. Obviously the hope that persons could, so to speak, earn their

way off welfare, the most simple expression of that policy, was not

well met. The study appears to be scientifically credible, and the

consequences again were disappointing for most people.

The

purpose of that policy is ordinarily held to be to assist persons to

become more independent — I think that's an appropriate statement of

the general purpose of that policy. However, there are some people in

our society who, it would appear, by reason of age, education or the

ability to function at perhaps a marginal level, are persons who will

for all practical purposes never leave income assistance. Certainly I

had occasion to have that drawn to my attention just a couple of days

ago when I had someone call me: an older woman who is not yet

officially at the age of retirement, as we recognize it, but who for

all practical purposes, by reason of her own marginal abilities to

cope, to comprehend and to succeed, is someone who is never really

going to be able to use that policy for any transitional purpose. It's

just not humane or sensible to imagine that she will.

Given

the results of the Victoria study, which appear to demonstrate that

increasing the amount that persons may keep and not be penalized for

their earnings does not in fact produce a happy result toward that

result of independence, is the minister prepared to reconsider the

policy for those persons who are, for all practical purposes,

permanently dependent? Again, I'm reflecting on persons whose education

and

[ Page 8287 ]

whose

ability to comprehend the system and their place within it.... A person

who may in the past have had problems with alcohol or drugs or some

other more than marginally handicapping experience may for all

practical purposes be a permanent ward of the state but not yet over

the age of 65. For these people, who perhaps are able to hold down a

part-time job at minimum wage, a few hours a week, and who do not have

nor do they request anything beyond that, the $50 limit is not, I

think, appropriate.

It seems to me that part of the remedy

always lies in professional discretion; part of the remedy can always

be found in professional judgment on the part of the persons whom we

entrust to administer policy in the field. I wonder if the minister is

prepared to consider an amendment to that policy which, identifying

persons who we have to admit are more or less dependent for the rest of

their lives, would allow them the benefit of a larger grant which they

would earn. This is not a subsidy from the Crown; this is money they

cam themselves. It seems to me that for those dependent persons for

whom the issue of transition is not real or practical, the $50 limit

brought in 12 years ago is no longer appropriate. It seems to me $100

or $150 might be more appropriate.

Of course, there remains

the enduring problem of the resentment on the part of persons who might

be described by academics as the "working poor," people who are able to

hold down a minimum-wage job and wonder why the heck they should bother

working at all, because the amount they bring home is not much

different from those which people get to keep if they're on welfare and

do no work at all. This is the edge of resentment as well that also

informs public policy. I appreciate that's a problem. Therefore I'm

asking the minister to narrow it and to specify it and to consider that

range of options that exists for persons of marginal capacity who are

probably permanently dependent on assistance, who are often older

persons and who could perhaps earn $100 or $150 a month and who,

perhaps as the result of those earnings, should be able to keep it. I

wonder if the minister would address that question of public policy as

it relates to persons who are, for all practical purposes, permanently

dependent but capable of making small earnings, certainly in excess of

$50 a month. I just don't think the old formula of 12 years past is any

longer appropriate for those people. The way to resolve it may be again

to permit and to encourage the use of professional judgment and

professional discretion on the part of trained persons in the field.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

First, we really have four areas that we're talking about, and I just

want to identify them quickly. We have the group of people who are

handicapped, who I know you're not speaking of, but that group does get

a higher amount and is adjusted quarterly. In the income assistance

group itself there are three areas. One is an eligibility group where

they are able to take a position, being trained or whatever. They

usually get off all on their own, as I said in the House, 50 percent in

the first three months of being on income assistance. So their turnover

is very quick; they're already into a work pattern and they have been.

The

next group we could identify as the rehabilitative group, and in that

group are the single parents. They've probably not worked for a long

time because they've been at home raising a family. We give them

different supports — even a youngster, a 20-year-old who hasn't got the

burden of a child, but perhaps we still allow him to carry on medical

benefits. There's another thing. All of those people need support of

some kind and need retraining, which I've discussed before. Individual

opportunity plans are available to them.

Then there's the

long-term group, which I think you're addressing, and it's fairly

stable. You'll be interested to know that there are not very many —

3,000, we think — in the province. That's not many when you consider

the total caseload. It's a fair-sized group, but it is not many when

you consider that the total caseload is 60,000. But I have asked my

staff. We seem to have been on the same wavelength. I have addressed

this.

We're reluctant to write anybody off and say that the

3,000 stay there and give them more in terms of a cheque. We're truly

reluctant to do that, so we

part company on that aspect, which I think

you'd probably even agree with if we can come up with a program that is

going to assist those people. I give, for instance, the example of an

alcoholic who truly cannot be employable and who truly is written off

and is very low. One day it's quite possible that he will come out of

that with our help. With our help, many other people — people with some

marginal mental problems and not so marginal mental problems....

I've asked my staff to come up with a policy to address that. I don't

believe we want to tie it down to a dollar figure. I'm glad you've seen

that study and that you agree with us that that has not been the

answer, and what is the answer is a program which addresses the

individual. There are 3,000 individuals in there, and I think we can

come up with something for the 3,000. It may take ten years for some of

them, but it's worth doing. It may well be that some of them won't ever

come off that long-term program. At any rate, we are addressing it. I'm

pleased you brought it to the floor of the House, and I'll be happy to

report to you as we get along with it.

MR. BARBER:

Some of those individuals phone me. They are people who believe, with

or without cause, that they are entitled to keep a greater share of

their real earnings and to look forward to a larger share in their

potential earnings. They're not, of course, asking for a larger

handout; they're asking for a larger return on the basis of their own

individual initiative. I think that's excellent. I'm very glad for them.

Coming

to know some of them personally, I also realize — in the sense of

someone who has had a bit of experience dealing with these folks — that

that's not always very practical for them. It's wonderful that they

feel that way, but unfortunately the human consequence isn't always as

positive as that. It's on behalf of those people that I wonder whether

or not the minister might direct her staff again to consider a policy,

again, which allows people in the field to make 3,000 individual

choices — to issue, to exercise and to employ their best judgment,

their best imagination and the best intelligence they can bring to bear

on the cases of these individuals.

It may well be that the

woman who phoned me at home a few nights ago asking why she could only

keep $50 — and about whom I know some other facts that indicate that

she's earning as much as she can right now — would be appropriately and

humanely helped if she were allowed to keep more of her real earnings

and if she weren't penalized. It may well be that she will never get

off the program, but I think it's always useful to try to find a way to

allow competent human beings in our service to make humane judgments on

behalf of

[ Page 8288 ]

individuals who need our service. A firm, fixed and rigid rule is not always helpful to every human being.

The

$50 is currently a firm, fixed and rigid rule. It's not helpful to

those human beings. Perhaps that rule should be abandoned altogether,

and it should be a sliding scale, such as $50 to $150. Your employees —

our employees — might be allowed to make personal judgments on the

basis of their knowledge of the 3,000 human beings you've described.

I'm not asking for a fixed rule; I'm asking for a fair rule. It may

well be that a sliding rule is the best way. It may well be that for

some people $50 is appropriate for the individual circumstances that

prevail. It may be that for others two or three times that amount,

based on what they might be able to do with it, would be a more humane

response to their human circumstance.

I'm not asking for a

fixed rule, but a sliding rule that allows your best staff to make

their best judgment according to the human need and the human

circumstance. I think that's a the kind of Public policy that can do

more public good in the long run.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr.

Chairman, I have several rather unrelated items. Perhaps I should just

run through them all and then the minister can deal with them all at

one time. The first item I would like to raise with the minister is

about Cedar Lodge at Cobble Hill. I know that this has been a very

long-standing situation, and I thank the minister for ensuring that I

funds were available to ensure that that place kept in operation until

the end of June. Of course, my concern is for next year, and certainly

I realize.... And I don't want to get s into the debate on whether that

particular institution is the way to go. I know the minister has other

ideas — that the people served by Cedar Lodge would be better

integrated into I the community. But the point I want to raise with the

minister right now is that at this point, when those services are not

available in the community, when the school system is being asked to

hold the line and other services are being asked to hold the line, that

alternative is not available. I'm not arguing s the pros or cons as to

whether Cedar Lodge should or shouldn't be there. I happen to think

that it should be, but I don't want to get into that debate. What I am

asking is whether or not the minister has reached any decision as to

whether or not funding will be available to keep Cedar Lodge I in

operation for another school year, and what the level of that e funding

will be. I understand that the board that operates the school has

limited their request to a 10 percent increase over s last year, which

seems a reasonable kind of request. I would hope that the minister is

able to assure me that funding will be available for at least one more

year, until we're perhaps in better times and can get into the debate

of whether or not c we're going to fund those kinds of institutions in

the future. But until you have the alternative the minister talks about

available, you can't just close down the one operation and turn those

kids out into the public school system or into the home or where ever

they happen to go. The parents of the children involved there from

around the Island are extremely concerned. So that's the Cedar Lodge

question: the request for funding for one more school year at least,

and the level of funding.

There's been a lot said — turning

to another subject — about the programs the minister introduced

relative to trying I to get people who are in receipt of social

assistance back into the workforce, and the problem with young mothers

when there is no day care, and basically the problems with jobs. I know

that the minister received a letter from the village council at Lake

Cowichan in which they said that, even if one were to agree that single

mothers should be working, there are no job opportunities for women in

Lake Cowichan. The 27 applications we received from unemployed women

for the village's secretarial vacancy last month is evidence of this.

Now this was written back last fall. I would point out to the minister

that there were 200 applications of a legal secretary vacancy

advertised in the local Duncan paper just last month. So there

certainly is a real problem.

The other problem in Lake

Cowichan is day care. There's a two-year waiting list there — no place

for children to go. Now I know the minister responded to that at some