1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2419 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Judicial Review Procedure Act (Bill 49) Hon. Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading — 2419

Credit Unions Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 60) Hon. Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading — 2419

Sheriffs Act (Bill 56) Hon. Mr. Gardom

Introduction and first reading — 2419

Consumer Protection Act (Bill 65) Hon. Mr. Mair.

Introduction and first reading — 2419

Statement

Increasing unemployment in B.C. Mr. King

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2420

Mr. Gibson — 2421

Mr. Wallace — 2421

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Reduction of Gorge Road Hospital nursing staff. Mr. Barber — 2422

Ferry terminal parking lots. Mr. Wallace — 2422

Canada's Habitat submission on unearned profits on land. Mr. Gibson —

Food prices on ferries. Mr. Wallace — 2423

Education decentralization policy. Mrs. Dailly — 2423

Tabling of Lotteries report. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy answers — 2424

Defacing of Saltspring petroglyph. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy answers —

Statement

Revelstoke dam project hearings. Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 2425

Mr. King — 2425

Mr. Gibson — 2426

Mr. Wallace — 2426

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Human Resources estimates.

On vote 113.

Mr. Macdonald — 2426

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2427

Mr. Wallace — 2427

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2431

Mr. King — 2436

Ms. Brown — 2436

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2438

Mr. Barber — 2438

Mr. Lea — 2439

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2439

Mr. Barnes — 2440

On vote 116.

Mrs. Dailly — 2441

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2441

On vote 117.

Mr. Wallace — 2441

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2442

Mr. Levi — 2443

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2443

Mr. Wallace — 2443

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2444

On vote 119.

Mr. Levi — 2444

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2444

On vote 120.

Mr. Wallace — 2445

Mr. Levi — 2445

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2445

On vote 12 1.

Mr. Levi — 2446

On vote 122.

Mr. Levi — 2446

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2446

Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act (Bill 28) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2446

Mr. Levi — 2448

Mr. Gibson — 2452

Mr. Wallace — 2453

Government Reorganization Act (Bill 59) Hon. Mrs. McCarthy.

Introduction and first reading — 2454

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): I would ask the House to pay a

special welcome this afternoon to Father O'Brien, a constituent of

mine, whose parish is located in Langford.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, in the

gallery this afternoon is a rather large contingent of students from

Moscrop Junior Secondary School accompanied by their very able teacher,

Mr. Kozak. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. L. BAWTREE (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the

members to make welcome Mr. Bob Egby, one of the managers from

Weyerhaeuser Canada, and one of my friends I've known for a long time.

Introduction of bills.

JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEDURE ACT

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Gardom, Bill 49, Judicial Review Procedure

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

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

today.

CREDIT UNIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Gardom, Bill 60, Credit Unions Amendment

Act, 1976, 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.

SHERIFFS ACT

Hon. Mr. Gardom presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Sheriffs Act.

Bill 56 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.

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Mair, Bill 65, Consumer Protection Act,

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

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

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a brief statement.

Leave granted.

INCREASING UNEMPLOYMENT IN B.C.

MR. KING: The statistics which have just been revealed this

morning regarding the unemployment rate in British Columbia are, I'm

sure, of equal concern to all hon. members of the House. They show an

increase to 9.8 per cent of the work force unemployed in British

Columbia, a pattern which is inconsistent with the downward trend being

experienced in the rest of the nation.

I want to make some recommendations to the Premier, Mr. Speaker,

which I hope he would respond to. In light of these startling increases

I would suggest a general reconsideration of the massive layoffs which

have been announced on the British Columbia Railway. I think it's safe

to estimate that there are between 116,000 and 120,000 people

unemployed in the province of British Columbia at the moment, because

it's obvious that many young people who have not been able to obtain

employment have removed their applications from Canada Manpower and

hence do not reveal themselves in the statistics. So I suggest that the

real picture is much more bleak than Statistics Canada suggests.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that in addition to the suggestions I

have made to the government, I would ask that they consider and give

some indication today of what precise actions the government will

undertake to mitigate the adverse effects being felt by citizens of

this province. I suggest direct employment programmes which will

provide opportunities for permanent work-force people and for the

university and high school students of the province who are

experiencing a hopeless employment market.

I might read for the House, just briefly, a telegram I received from

the Hon. Robert Andras, federal Minister of Manpower and Immigration,

in reply to a request I directed to him in May, and it reads:

I HAVE RECEIVED YOUR TELEX OF MAY 18 REGARDING THE UNEMPLOYMENT

SITUATION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA. THE UNEMPLOYMENT LEVEL IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, AS

ELSEWHERE IN CANADA, IS OF GRAVE CONCERN TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND WE ARE

CONSIDERING WHAT ACTION MIGHT BE TAKEN WHICH WOULD NOT ADD TO INFLATIONARY PRESSURES.

ANY GOVERNMENT DECISIONS IN THIS REGARD, HOWEVER, WILL BE ANNOUNCED IN PARLIAMENT.

AS YOU ARE AWARE, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS IN PLACE A $150 MILLION JOB-CREATION

PROGRAMME, CREATING MORE THAN 5,000 TEMPORARY JOBS. THE FEDERAL

[ Page 2420 ]

GOVERNMENT HAS ALSO ANNOUNCED A $100 MILLION DIRECT EMPLOYMENT

PROGRAMME FOR THE WINTER OF 1976-77, WHICH WILL BE CONCENTRATED IN HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT

AREAS. PROGRAMME CRITERIA AND THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS WILL BE ANNOUNCED IN DUE

COURSE. (signed) THE HON. ROBERT ANDRAS.

I want to make a very strong appeal, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier to

contact the federal Minister of Manpower and Immigration asking that

those direct employment programmes planned for this winter be advanced

to a current basis so the suffering population, the suffering working

people of this province, may receive some assistance. And I want to

suggest further that the provincial government augment those programmes

with direct employment programmes of their own.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I thought perhaps

we would deal with this later, but I feel the matter is of such

importance that the government took the unprecedented step of allowing

the acting Leader of the Opposition to make his statement on

unemployment.

I'd like to respond by saying the unemployment rate in B.C. for May,

as he said, stood at 9.8 per cent on a seasonally adjusted basis and

9.1 per cent on an actual basis. These were the highest unemployment

rates in Canada except for Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and

Newfoundland, a position B.C. has been in for some time now.

The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of 9.8 per cent was up

slightly over the April rates of 9.7 per cent. On the other hand, Mr.

Speaker, I'd point out that the actual unemployment rate for May, 9.1

per cent, dropped by almost a full percentage point from the April

figure of 9.9 per cent. This was primarily due to a sizeable

month-to-month jump of 26,000 in the actual number employed in B.C.

This large increase was 8,000 more than the actual increase in the B.C.

labour force between April and May.

While the unemployment rates remain unacceptably high in B.C., the

May figures do show some improvement over April, particularly in the

actual number of employed, as I just pointed out — 26,000 more employed

than were employed previously. Undoubtedly the picture would have been

better still if it were not for a number of work stoppages in this

province, particularly in the B.C. Railway which has been plagued with

strikes and shutdowns that affected not only the personnel on the

railway but employment in the forest industry and whole communities.

I'm glad the acting Leader of the Opposition realizes that this

situation must be dealt with in a very positive way. In the very near

future he and his party will have a chance to bring about some positive

action in resolving that dispute and in bringing economic stability to

the interior and north of this province, and we will look for your

strong support.

I might point out some of the unusual factors that show a sign of

increasing strength in some areas, Mr. Speaker. A comparison of the

change between April-May, 1976, and April-May, 1975, shows there has

been a larger increase this year in employment for men. This

improvement seems to be in the manufacturing sector, and right now the

Economic Development department is monitoring the change in the

statistics, particularly the jump of 26,000 extra in the work force in

a one-month period.

I'd also like to point out to the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr.

King) that the very fact that we have had this high unemployment in

this province is of concern to the government. That's why this

government tried to take the lead, and has taken the lead, in

activating the study of the pipeline proposal from Alaska through

British Columbia and through to Washington state and elsewhere. This

proposal has been known since the late 1960s, but no action had been

taken, particularly in British Columbia, in the last three years and we

are acting when it's almost too late to get that pipeline considered

before the FBC and the NEB. But that's one of the proposals we are

making to stimulate the economy.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, and without dwelling on legislation, it's

interesting that the first part of our action programme to regain

employment in British Columbia was brought in on Friday with the

changes in the Mineral Royalties Act. There's no comfort in comparable

statistics. The fact that unemployment rose at a greater rate than the

0.1 in British Columbia in Alberta, where it rose 0.4, and Saskatchewan

where it rose 0.5, doesn't help the problem in British Columbia.

The proposals that we talk about are real proposals. Beyond the

mining legislation, which will take some time to reinstitute jobs and

activity in this province, and before we consider the pipeline, the

first thing we must do in this Legislature is ensure that the B.C.

Railway runs and runs continuously.

We may have to deal in this Legislature with the problem of strikes

in the total British Columbia economy, which have contributed to the

slowing down of what should be a period of recovery. All Members of

this Legislative Assembly, Mr. Speaker, will get a chance to put their

votes and put their positions in a very positive way to resolve the

effect of these disputes on the economy of British Columbia, and the

people will assess this Legislature and all members by the positive way

they react to the proposals that will be placed before them, or voted

on, or debated very shortly in this assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Members, before I proceed to allow the hon. member for North

[ Page 2421 ]

Vancouver-Capilano to address the House, I think leave should be granted in a case like this.

Leave granted.

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

first of all, I'd like to congratulate all sides of the House for the

procedure that's been adopted today on the release of this very

uncomfortable statistic. The announcement that British Columbia's

unemployment rate increased last month to 9.8 per cent while the

national average was going down to 7.1, is unquestionably a terribly

serious indicator for our province.

I don't think too much comfort can be taken from actual figures. It

is correct, as the Premier said, that actual numbers of unemployed

decreased during the month and the number of employed went up

considerably, but that is normal for this time of year. It's the

seasonally adjusted figure that's the important one. I have to tell the

House that this May figure is the worst since 1953, which is the

earliest date I've been able to compare with so far, and, I suspect,

the worst figure for May since the great Depression.

This is bad enough, in the short run, but I suggest to the House,

Mr. Speaker, that it is not a short-run phenomenon. Strikes and weather

conditions and so on all have an impact on month-by-month changes, but

this trend is one which we have seen throughout 1976. Normally, British

Columbia's unemployment rate has run between 1 and 1.2 per cent above

the national average for the last few years. It's been double that

during the first part of this year, and, of course, for the last decade

our economic growth per capita has been the very last among the

Canadian provinces.

So there is something more than a month-to-month fluctuation.

There's a basic structural problem which, in my view, comes down to the

fact that in recent years we've been living off capital, we've

exploited higher-grade resources which have bid up our labour and

capital costs to the point where we are getting much less competitive

in the world. The end result will be a very serious economic

dislocation if we don't heed warnings like this unemployment statistic.

That, in my view, calls above all for cooperation between management

and labour in this province, and I think it calls for an urgent early

measure.

I would like to suggest to the Premier that he use the status and

prestige of his office in taking the lead in convening a top-level

economic conference in this province this summer, with some urgency,

with representatives of business and labour, and representatives as

well from the Department of Manpower, municipalities and other levels

of government, to develop programmes to deal in the short run with

creation of jobs, but also with the longer-term structural problem of

putting British Columbia's productivity back into shape.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Oak Bay, with leave.

Leave granted.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, there's, no question

that we need not play around with figures on unemployment. The

situation is serious and that's very obvious, whether it's 9.8 per cent

or whatever, and the Premier has quite rightly focused on labour

problems as a contributory factor. But I would have to say that it

would be unrealistic to overlook the budget which has just been voted

on in this House which, by the imposition of various taxes at a time

when there is already high unemployment, can only have the effect of

cutting back on consumer spending. With a reduction in consumer

spending there is a reduction of purchases and there is a reduction of

employment, or at least a failure for the increase in employment which

is customary at this time of the year.

I've asked questions until I'm blue in the face about student

employment, in particular during this session, and I recognize that the

Premier has outlined some of the longer-term initiatives which this

government is taking by such acts as the repeal of the Mineral

Royalties Act. But, Mr. Speaker, I believe very sincerely that we have

a short-term and a long-term problem, and I'm completely behind the

Premier's efforts in the long-term, through pipeline construction and

highway construction, and many other longer-term goals to which the

Premier has made the commitment. But it's a little bit like fiddling

while Rome burns, I would suggest, because we have an immediate problem

which, in my view, can only be alleviated by the government considering

a supplementary budget.

I know that the Premier rejected this proposal a week or two ago

when I asked him in question period, and I know that it would involve

deficit financing and that, until recently, the government has elected

to avoid that particular way of trying to solve the real human hardship

which exists right now.

While the Liberal leader's (Mr. Gibson'

s) suggestion also has a

great deal of merit, that we should have a conference with economic

leaders in our province, I do feel that the quickest, simplest

initiative which this government could take.... I plead with the

Premier to reconsider, even although he has rejected the proposal up

until now; it has been done in other jurisdictions. Economists have

said repeatedly that the last thing you do at a time of low employment

is increase taxes, and it seems now that the figures are coming home to

roost to prove the fact that however much we would prefer not to go

[ Page 2422 ]

into a temporary period of deficit financing, we are simply

balancing the budget at the expense of the unemployed in this province.

Oral questions.

REDUCTION OF GORGE

ROAD HOSPITAL NURSING STAFF

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): My question is to the Minister of

Health, and for purposes of clarity it is in three parts. Can the

minister confirm that he has received a report, signed by four

registered nurses, dated June 3, which indicates that nursing staff at

the Gorge Road Hospital in Victoria will be reduced by 10 per cent?

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, yes.

MR. BARBER: The second

part is, Mr. Minister: can you confirm

that such a cut would reduce the nurse staffing level below the 2.5

hours per patient per day, the absolute minimum set by BCHIS nursing

consultants for extended care?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question,

the Gorge Road Hospital had a substantial over-expenditure of budget

this year. Even after the government picked up two-thirds of their

residual deficit, there was still a $61,000 budget deficit left. The 10

per cent hold-back in cost escalation was the administration's proposal

only, Mr. Speaker, to their department heads for suggestions from the

various department heads in the hospital. The policy has not yet been

referred to the board of administration; nor has it become adopted by

anyone involved in the hospital administration.

MR. BARBER: I'm not sure if that was an answer. My question,

if I may repeat the second part, was: can the minister confirm that

such a cut would reduce below the 2.5 hours per patient per day...?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You've already asked that particular question.

MR. BARBER: I'll try again later. If I may ask the third and

final part, Mr. Speaker, can the minister confirm that such a reduction

in staff would, as suggested by the authors of this report, endanger

the accreditation of the Gorge Road Hospital?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm that. There

has been no cut at the present time at the hospital.

FERRY TERMINAL PARKING LOTS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of

Transport and Communications a question with regard to increased ferry

fares which encourage travellers to park their cars and board the ferry

on foot. Is the minister aware that with only 300 spaces in the Swartz

Bay parking lot, on the weekend of June 5 and 6, 32 cars parked even

quite some distance from the ferry terminal were towed away at an

average cost of $14.50 and that the car owner has a journey of several

miles from the terminal to retrieve the vehicle?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr.

Speaker, I am aware there was some illegal parking near Swartz Bay over

the weekend. The ferries were heavily loaded over the weekend, contrary

to some reports. I might also say, however, that the new fare structure

does not encourage passenger traffic as opposed to car traffic — it is

not as a result of the new fare structure.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the supplementary question relates

to the fact that there are practically no areas near the terminal where

a vehicle owner can park legally if he or she cannot get into the ferry

terminal parking lot.

MR. KAHL: It's been like that for years.

MR. WALLACE: In the light of these difficulties, which can be

urgent in the case of an individual reaching the ferry who simply has

to go on the ferry and leave his car somewhere, has the minister taken

any initiative to increase parking facilities for ferry passengers in

the area of the Swartz Bay terminal?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of real

concern. It is not a new development, but we are certainly looking very

actively into the provision of additional parking spaces for walk-on

passengers for the ferries.

CANADA'S HABITAT SUBMISSION

ON UNEARNED PROFITS ON LAND

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier.

In view of the reported submission of the Canadian delegation to the

Habitat conference reported this morning on land profits as follows:

"The unearned increment resulting from the rise in land values

resulting from change in use of land, from public investment or

decision or due to the general growth of the community must be subject

to appropriate recapture...." I would ask the Premier if the B.C.

delegate approved of this position and whether it is B.C. government

policy.

[ Page 2423 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, positions at the conference

are not necessarily B.C. government policy; nor do they require the

approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr.

Curtis), who is our delegate there. He has been at Habitat last week

and through this week; he will be reporting back to the House tomorrow.

He will be in consultation with the government over the findings of

Habitat. All proposals at the Habitat conference will be considered by

the minister and through him to the government as part of policy. But

as you know, Mr. Speaker, question period is not to deal with policy.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): What's it to deal with, Bill?

MR. GIBSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. This is, of course, a

question of present policy, not of future policy. My supplementary

question is: is this British Columbia policy?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I will say it again: it is not present policy.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): My question is to the

hon. Minister of Finance. Inasmuch as the government has been granted

borrowing authority up to an amount of $400 million and inasmuch as the

House has been made aware that the government has borrowed $181

million, can the minister tell me whether or not any further borrowings

have been made to date?

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, through

you to the member, as these matters are currently under discussion, I

would have to take that question under advisement and report back to

the House.

MRS. WALLACE: On a supplemental, would the minister also give me the amount of borrowings?

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please, Hon. Member. The hon.

minister has taken the question as notice. I would suggest to you that

you hold your supplemental questions until the original reply comes

back. You may then have the opportunity to ask a supplemental.

MRS. WALLACE: I was just trying to conserve the minister's time a little, Mr. Speaker.

FOOD PRICES ON FERRIES

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport and

Communications, with regard to changes in the food prices and catering

services on the ferry, and specifically the fact that clam chowder is

now 90 cents a bowl, a small soft drink 35 cents and a ham sandwich

$1.25, does the minister have a figure which represents the average

percentage increase which has been applied to food prices?

HON. MR. DAVIS: No, I don't, Mr. Speaker, but I'll try and have one prepared.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker. With

regard to complaints about the food on the ferries, and in particular

with respect to the minister's comment in the House on June 3 that 50

letters of complaint were, substantially, all written in the same hand,

since I have received statements to the contrary, would the minister

table the 50 complaints with the House?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The advice which I gave the House was related

directly to me by senior staff of the ferries. I'll be glad to look

into the hon. member's request.

MR. WALLACE: The minister did not answer the question. Will he table the documents?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I believe the hon. minister did answer the question.

MR. WALLACE: He did not. He didn't say whether he would table them or not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! you may not like the manner in

which an hon. minister or an hon. member answers a question, but the

minister has the right to either defer or answer in the manner he sees

fit.

EDUCATION DECENTRALIZATION POLICY

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, to the

Minister of Education. As the decentralization policy of the Department

of Education for Jericho Hill School was done without any consultation

with the parents, I would like to ask the minister if he will take the

initiative of setting up a meeting, personally, with the parents of the

school, so that he can hear their concern.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, in

replying to the question, I think the premise has to be refuted. There

was considerable consultation with the parents with the advisory group

of Jericho Hill School, so that that part of the question is incorrect.

But, Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to meet the parents at any time

in Victoria.

MRS. DAILLY: Supplemental. Just following that up, is the minister saying that the decision to

[ Page 2424 ]

decentralize was actually discussed with the parents? When? Would he please tell us?

HON. MR. McGEER: This was discussed in lengthy meetings,

Madam Member, with the deputy minister and the advisory groups from the

Jericho Hill School. Every single parent was written. I might add, Mr.

Speaker, that this is not a new policy; it's a continuation of a former

policy. Indeed, at the present time, more youngsters who are impaired

in sight and hearing are educated in their own communities than they

are at Jericho.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I have answers to questions that were raised in the House yesterday.

TABLING OF LOTTERIES REPORT

First of all from the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), the

question was in regard to the lotteries branch. The report of the

lotteries branch will be tabled in the House for the fiscal year

1974-75. With respect to the transfer of money from the consolidated

revenue fund to the lottery fund, under the terms of the agreement

between the four western provinces in operating the Western Canada

Lottery Foundation each province was required to provide $100,000 for

operating capital. One hundred thousand dollars was provided to the

Western Canada Lottery Foundation on July 8, 1974, by the province of

British Columbia from the consolidated revenue fund, under

section 6(3)

of the Act. The advance was subsequently repaid, with interest, on

December 18, 1974.

DEFACING OF SALTSPRING PETROGLYPH

To the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), who raised the question

regarding the petroglyph at Fulford Harbour, I'm glad to see that he's

in his seat now, and I will give you the answer, Mr. Member.

On or about February 10, 1976, Mr. Simonsen, our provincial archaeologist, was

informed by a resident of Ganges, Saltspring Island, that Mr. Gordon Cudmore

of Fulford Harbour had recently moved a large boulder, approximately five feet

in diameter, from a location adjacent to the beach, on the west side of Fulford

Harbour, to his private airstrip in Fulford Valley, approximately one mile from

its previous location. On February 11, the day after, Mr. Simonsen wrote a letter

to Mr. Cudmore informing him that his action appeared to be in contravention

of the Archaeological and Historic Sites Protection Act, which reads in part,

section 4(c): "No person or agency shall knowingly destroy, deface

or alter an Indian painting or carving on rock, except to the extent, and in

the manner, that he is authorized to do so by a permit."

Mr. Simonsen received a letter back from Mr. Cudmore informing him

that in his opinion he had not broken the law, and that he had in fact

taken this action in order to ensure that the stone carving would not

be defaced in the future. On Friday, March 5, Mr. Simonsen visited Mr.

Cudmore at Fulford Harbour, viewed the petroglyph with him and also

discussed the entire matter. Mr. Simonsen informed Mr. Cudmore that he

would bring this matter to the attention of the Archaeological Sites

Advisory Board, who would in turn forward a recommendation to myself as

minister. At a meeting of the Archaeological Sites Advisory Board on

April 23, 1976, this matter was discussed and the following

recommendations were made....

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm replying to a question which was raised in this same question period.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Since the Act does not specify the

removal of a petroglyph as being prohibited, immediate action should be

taken to have the petroglyph designated as an archaeological object

under

section 2(2), since a designated object cannot be moved without a

valid permit. This would ensure adequate control over future

disturbance to the petroglyph.

The Attorney-General's department should be requested to supply the

provincial archaeologist's office with a legal

interpretation of

section 2(

c) of the above Act.

Mr. Ferne of the Attorney-General's office has advised that Mr.

Cudmore was correct in assuming that the above Act does not specify the

removal of the petroglyph as being in contravention of the Act.

MR. LEA: You're not kidding.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I, as minister, on May 19, 1976, signed

an order designating the Fulford Harbour petroglyph as an

archaeological object within the meaning of the said Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. What is your point of order, Hon. Member?

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver-Centre): Does the Speaker intend to ask leave of the House for the hon. Provincial Secretary to continue her answer to the

[ Page 2425 ]

question, should the question period time run out?

MR. SPEAKER: That's a matter for the Speaker to decide. Proceed, Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: On May 31, 1976, a letter was forwarded

to Mr. Cudmore from the Associate Deputy Minister of the Department of

Recreation and Travel Industry, informing him of the designation and of

the prohibitions affecting such objects. Mr. Cudmore was also informed

that he would be contacted by Mr. Simonsen in the near future

concerning any other measures which may be required to ensure that the

above-designated object can be made accessible to the public. The

petroglyph boulder received some minor scratches resulting from the

moving operation carried out by Mr. Cudmore. However, no damage to the

actual petroglyph carving has been observed.

MR. KING: How about all those fossils over there?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: And I would like to ask.... I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that...

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: ...the question that was raised by the

hon. member is appreciated. However, I think he will appreciate that it

would be, I think, in the best interests of our department if he would

make known to me personally the source of his rumour, because actually

it was all very well taken care of earlier in the year.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Abuse of the rules.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

REVELSTOKE DAM PROJECT HEARINGS

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Regarding the British Columbia Hydro and

Power Authority Revelstoke project public hearing application, the

public hearing before the comptroller of water rights, in connection

with an application by B.C. Hydro for a water licence for the

Revelstoke project, is scheduled to commence June 21 in Revelstoke. A

number of objectors to this application have requested that the hearing

be postponed to allow them further time to study and respond to the

recent reports on the project issued by B.C. Hydro.

Included in this group are the city of Revelstoke, the provincial

Department of Recreation and Travel industry, the B.C. Wildlife

Federation and others. The applicant, B.C. Hydro, was requested to

reveal its position concerning the scheduling of the hearing and has

made the following points in their proposal relative to the application

for a water licence. At the opening of the hearings, B.C. Hydro will

propose, subject to the direction of the comptroller, that:

1. The comptroller commence by hearing a senior witness of B.C.

Hydro, who will explain the features of the application and outline the

procedures which Hydro intends to follow in presenting its application,

including, in outline, the witnesses and the nature of their evidence.

2. Without further development of this witness' evidence or any

cross-examination, the hearing be adjourned to the earliest possible

date in September, at which time it should proceed to deal with the

entire application.

3. All parties intervening and intending to call witnesses make

themselves known to the comptroller and outline, preferably in a brief,

the evidence which they intend to submit, the brief to be received by

the comptroller by August 15, 1976.

During the adjournment, if granted, B.C. Hydro will endeavour to

complete discussions in progress with intervenors directly involved in

the development of the project. This procedure will give all interested

additional time to review the material which has been supplied to the

public with respect to the implications of the project, narrow the

questions, if any, which remain after discussion and make for a better

organized discussion during the hearing than might otherwise be the

case.

Based on the information provided by the applicant, and in deference

to the wishes of objectors, the following procedure will be adopted by

the comptroller.

1. The hearing will commence on June 21, 1976, as scheduled.

2. The applicant will be expected to present the main features of

the application and to outline the manner in which they propose to

present their application at the later date.

3. Any objector who wishes to make an initial statement at this time will be allowed an opportunity to do so.

4. The comptroller will adjourn the hearing to a date in September.

5. Any party to the proceedings who does not make an initial

statement will, nevertheless, be given full opportunity to participate

later.

6. Based on the Hydro statement and other submissions, the

comptroller will consider the procedure to be followed during the

adjourned portion of the hearing and will announce the format in due

course.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond

[ Page 2426 ]

briefly to the minister's statement, for which I thank him.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. KING: As the MLA for Revelstoke-Slocan I had written to

the water comptroller asking for such a delay and I'm very pleased and

gratified that the minister has heeded the widespread concern that

adequate time has not been presented for intervenors to review the

impact studies and to make a detailed and complete submission to the

hearings. I'm very gratified by the minister's statement.

MR. GIBSON: I would just thank the minister for his courtesy

in sending an advance copy. This is a responsive move; it should give a

chance to reach agreement on facts over the summer and reduce debate to

those of genuine difference of viewpoint or values or

interpretation of

the fact. I think it's a good move.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. If we are to continually get

involved in statements made, which have been questions that originated

in the question period, then the ministers making statements and

replies...I think the members, before they reply, should ask leave.

MR. GIBSON: This wasn't a question, it was a ministerial statement.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would wish to raise a point of

order. It's my understanding in the House that we had reached an

agreement that where a minister made a statement party leaders would be

afforded the privilege of replying. The difference today was that the

procedure was initiated by the Leader of the Official Opposition, and

he asked leave. Subsequently, the other party representatives were also

asked to request leave. I just wonder if you could give a ruling for

the future.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, perhaps it's a point that is well taken, Hon. Member, and one that I should explain.

You will recall a decision I handed down in the House, written

decision concerning ministerial statements or statements made to the

House. On occasions where I have been notified as Speaker that a

statement will be made, I have said in that ruling that it is not

necessary for the person wishing to make the statement to ask leave.

However, on occasion, as has happened today, statements are made, or

leave is asked, without having filed with the Speaker any intent that

that statement was to be made to the floor of the House today, and

rightly so, I've asked that leave shall be granted. It's been granted

to those who made the statement. Then I think in fairness to those who

wish to reply should ask the same question to the House: "Shall leave

be granted?" before the reply is made to the House.

MR. WALLACE: I beg leave, then, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I appreciate the

courtesy of the minister in letting us know ahead of time about his

statement. In light of the Idaho dam which burst the other day and

which was preceded by a hearing just like the one we're to be dealing

with in Revelstoke, where evidence was presented that the dam might not

be safe and subsequently proven to be totally unsafe, I think the

minister's wisdom in postponing the hearing in order to more thoroughly

consider the points of objection has raised this government's esteem,

in my view, very considerably.

I hope that in this particular instance in Revelstoke, where the dam

is to be relatively close to Downey slide, which in itself is an area

of debate, we must be doubly certain that all the preliminary

investigation that can be done will be done and scrutinized to the

greatest possible degree by interested parties.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES:

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 113: minister's office, $124,264 — continued.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Chairman, this is

the first opportunity I have had to speak to the minister (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm) on his estimates, and, of course, naturally we wish him

success in his portfolio.

I've got a very simple question. I am asking the minister directly

whether he will repeal what I have to describe as the infamous

amendment to regulation 29 of the social assistance regulations. That's

to do, of course, with tightening the definition of handicapped people.

Mr. Chairman, as I read the amendment, it is terribly restrictive of

those people in our society whom we may call the lost, the poor, the

weak — the

[ Page

2427 ]

people who cannot cope with life in a normal way. It is terribly

restrictive and I would like to think that in our society today we

could be broadening the definition so that these people who, as I say,

can't really cope with modern life, certainly can't cope in a period of

unemployment; can't cope, in many cases, whatever the period may be....

I would hope that we would be broadening this kind of a definition so

that they could....

You know, $260 a month is slow subsistence, but t $160 a month for

life is slow starvation. That's what we're talking about. We're talking

about a chance for the weakest and the poorest and the lost in our

society. This definition, of course, is well known, but to qualify you

must go to a qualified medical practitioner who confirms that the

disability is apparently permanent. Now that makes it difficult or

almost impossible. They say death and taxes are permanent, and that's

about all.

To say that an illness, an injury, a psychological incapacity, which

means a person can't cope, is permanent puts an onus on the physician

which is almost impossible to meet. It's simply going to mean that some

of the people are going to be forced back onto welfare who simply

shouldn't be there.

Then it goes on with other conditions: " ...provided there is no

remedy, no therapy available for the person to significantly lessen the

disability." I would have thought that the important thing there was

whether the remedy was at hand. I mean, if somebody refuses to take

remedial therapy, okay, but to say there is that remedial therapy

available somewhere and therefore in the meantime you are off, I'd say

that is heartless.

Then the other conditions are just about as bad: "The person must

have required extensive assistance and/or supervision to manage normal

daily functioning, or very special diets." Training the person to

become economically self-supporting is not possible, but the question

is: is it fair? Has the person that immediate opportunity? If they have

and don't take it, of course, we'd all agree. But what this adds up to,

Mr. Chairman, is a heartless regulation in tightening the definition of

those handicapped people who can receive what is a very, very modest

allowance. I think that a society that neglects its handicapped, its

poor and its weak is a decadent society. I think we brand ourselves

with a mark of shame when we allow special privilege to flourish in

society and deny to these weakest of our people a decent minimum

income, and we are a wealthy province.

My simple question to the minister is: will he agree to look again at this

regulation, this very restrictive definition? I'd like to ask him directly:

will you withdraw it and reinstate the old, which I think was all right? Will

you at least look again at this regulation which I think was passed on March

6 of this year?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr.

Chairman, to the hon. member, certainly we don't make these amendments

for the sake of making amendments. I'm sure that even with this

amendment there may be problems which will have to be considered as

they become evident. There were problems with the old definition, and I

think the hon. member is aware of some of the problems. One in

particular was a large number of appeals from the Vancouver area for

those people who had alcohol problems.

Certainly the definition, or the assistance, was never intended to

provide additional moneys to those who had an alcohol problem, because

the least assistance they needed was additional moneys for alcohol.

What instead they require is some remedial action through another

programme, either sponsored by Health or Human Resources. So it was

because of that problem that the change was initiated, and I'm sure

that there may be problems with this definition. If these problems are

such that we must again make further amendments, I can assure the

member it will be so.

No one that I'm aware of has been affected by the definition change

directly at this time, and hopefully no one will be affected directly

if they're already in receipt of this allowance. What effect it'll have

on new applicants I'm not sure, but certainly it's hoped that the

definition, which is now in line with the federal definition, will be

one with which we can live.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I want to make it

clear to the minister that I realize that alcoholism is a separate kind

of illness and should receive separate treatment and consideration,

whatever that may require, but surely you could have taken the old

definition and simply pointed out and made an exception for alcoholism

and say that's a matter for subject...but leave the old definition

there.

What you've done is to tighten the definition generally for all the

handicapped because you say there is a particular problem with

alcoholism. That, I think, should be looked at again.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, this subject was

one that I had planned to raise this afternoon anyway, and I'm very

disappointed at the minister's answer to the member for Vancouver East

that he doesn't know what effect it's going to have on new applicants.

new applicants. In case we haven't got the message through, I think we

should read into the record again the qualifying conditions to say that

a person shall receive aid as a handicapped person. I couldn't believe

it when I read it:

"Such designation shall be made only after a

[ Page 2428 ]

qualified medical practitioner has confirmed that the disability

is apparently permanent and that there is no remedial therapy available for

the person to significantly lessen the disability, and provided the disability

is sufficiently severe that (

a) the person requires extensive assistance and/or

supervision to manage normal daily functioning..."

That almost defines extended care, never mind a handicapped person.

" ...or (

b) as a direct result of the disability the

person requires unusual and continuous monthly expenditures for transportation

and/or special diets, or for other unusual but essential and continuous needs,

or (

c) training the person to become economically self-supporting is not possible."

Mr. Chairman, the minister suggests that he's not sure what effect that's

going to have on new applicants. I would suggest that many of the people who

will qualify under (a), (

b) or (c) — one or other or all — will probably be

in an institution to be this severely disabled within the definition of the

new regulation, serial letter No. 562-466, dated March 15, 1976.

Mr. Chairman, the minister in recent months has made various

statements which have caused a great deal of fear and misunderstanding

on the part of people in our society who cannot keep up with the "rat

race," to use a popular phrase. To try and define "handicapped" in such

rigid and all-embracing terms, and so reduce it to such a minority of

people, I think is not surely the goal of this minister or government.

This minister has been accused of showing something less than the

expected amount of sympathy for the people whose needs he is appointed

as minister to meet. He surely means what he said a little while ago —

that it's the people truly in need that he wants to serve and that he

wants to prevent abuses of the service and hence avoid the expenditure

of money on persons who really do not need the help or who are seeking

social assistance only because they cannot obtain gainful employment.

We've heard that statement from the minister many times and I support

that approach, but surely we're going overboard in the direction of

adjudication in the awarding of benefits when we have a circular in the

language of this circular of March 15.

The minister has also repeated on various occasions the positive

kind of approach that he's taking to his responsibilities. I won't

intrude on the legislation before the House, but he has repeatedly

emphasized that indeed the challenge to his ministry is to retrain,

re-educate, relocate and take various positive measures to try and

minimize the number of persons receiving social-assistance benefits.

Now that also applies to the handicapped. There are many handicapped people

in our society who with some kind of training, some kind of incentive, some

kind of encouragement, whether it be physiotherapy or handicraft training or

simple recreation pursuits, can possibly become partially self-dependent. But

this is no incentive at all. This is an incentive to a handicapped person to

magnify the handicap. It's a completely retrograde step, Mr. Chairman, in

any kind of way of encouraging handicapped people who have even 10 per cent

possibility of diminishing their handicap.

It reminds me of the same blind attitude we seem to have in the

health field with the extended-care situation: as soon as a person

improves just a little bit in an extended-care hospital, they're told

they have to leave and we get into this whole terrible problem of

intermediate care and the lack of facilities that I touched upon

yesterday. It seems to me we're just exactly on the same theme in

redefining the qualifications for recognition as being a handicapped

person entitled to a handicapped person's allowance.

The minister may not have realized the degree to which this

definition is restrictive. As a medical practitioner, Mr. Chairman, to

the minister, through you, I know what will happen anyway. Thank God,

many practitioners will thumb their nose at your regulation and they

will define persons as being permanently handicapped simply because

from a humanitarian point of view, a medical practitioner does not

enjoy this kind of edict being stuck in front of his nose when a

patient comes in for a medical examination. I can speak with some

feeling as well as experience on this issue. The fact is that medical

practitioners are having more and more of this kind of form-filling to

do, and all the talk in the world about delegating authority to lesser

levels of medically trained people will not get around this bald fact

that in the case of handicapped persons applying for the allowance,

only the medical practitioner is in a position to be the one to say yes

or no to the definition of the permanency of the handicap.

Once again the theme of this regulation frustrates everything that

doctors are trying to do. The medical practitioner is trying to get

more and more handicapped people out of the rut, if that's the right

word, which "permanent handicapped" puts them into. Here again, a

doctor who may recommend certain services or procedures which would

somewhat diminish the individual's handicap is going to ask himself the

question: if I say that this person is not permanently handicapped,

what happens to this person and what kind of impact does it have on the

patient to be told that really there is absolutely nothing that can be

done to help them?

If that isn't a negative, more retrograde, backward step, I don't

know. I think the minister clearly has had a multiplicity of

responsibilities in a short period of time and I feel confident that

this is one of the changes in the regulation in which the minister

perhaps has not had an opportunity to appreciate all the ramifications.

[ Page

2429 ]

While the ramifications are very practical, they're also certainly

psychological in that, as I say, the whole thrust of this regulation

tends to contradict so much of the attitudes in medicine and social

work these days — that you never accept anything as being permanent,

irreparable or unimprovable. We're all working within the social and

health field to recognize that in improvements with medicines,

procedures, technology and all the things that cost so much money, the

real purpose is to rehabilitate, to retrain and to improve.

Some philosopher centuries ago said that in the role of the medical

person there were a few people whose lives you could save, there were

many you could improve and there were a great many you could comfort.

So this kind of regulation seems to just look very much at the nuts and

bolts, the hard, black-ink fact of how much money you're going to pay

to handicapped people. I think if I were a handicapped person, this

kind of regulation would just simply blow any feeling of hope, or any

feeling that governments really understand the plight of the

handicapped.

I could quote many examples that I know of, direct examples, where

this is just the kind of demoralizing blow to people who are already

struggling, as the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) has

clearly pointed out, against all the problems that you and I have as

healthy people in this province — all the problems of inflation and

increased taxation, and even the problems of putting a nutritional meal

on the table at regular intervals towards the end of the month — these

kinds of things.

Now surely this province isn't as broke as we're told it is — and I

don't believe it for a moment. But we are told that we are in terrible

financial problems; surely we are not in such plight that we have to

bring in this kind of extremely rigid, restrictive definition of

handicapped people.

Before I finish this remark, I wonder if the minister could tell us how many

people in the province, at the present time, qualify for handicapped person's

allowance. I don't need the figure right this minute, but during the debate

it would be very nice to know how many presently receive the allowance. I suppose

from the minister's comment there's no way of knowing how many may be

losing the allowance if they are reviewed by a medical practitioner who, under

the old definition, completed the form and said that they were entitled, but

who, under the new regulation, if he were completely rigid in his

interpretation

and completely persuaded that he had to follow the regulation to the letter

of the law, would probably now say that the patient is not permanently handicapped.

If we are to conduct any kind of an intelligent discussion on a regulation which

has the clear purpose of saving money, then we should know how many people are

affected and how much money is being saved.

I think, really, if the minister has accepted this new regulation

because of the accepted problem of alcoholics receiving this benefit

when that was not the purpose of the regulation in the first place,

then it does seem rather unfair to other handicapped people that a

regulation of this type should be introduced to deal with a small

segment or a minor segment of the total population at risk in this case.

I wonder if the minister would care to give us the numbers. Would

the minister also give us his opinion as to whether that number has

been appreciably changed since the regulation came into effect three

months ago, and what trend the figures are showing in regard to new

applications, let us say, between the middle of April and the middle of

May, which would be exactly one month after the new regulation was

introduced?

I just want to touch on one or two other points quickly, Mr.

Chairman. We didn't finish, in my view, our discussion on the problems

of intermediate care and the commitment to an immediate...which the

government made in the last election. I've quoted this full-page ad

from December 9 many times, but I plan to go on reminding the House of

the commitments made — not commitments made a way down the road when

the economic situation in the province improves. We've heard that

phrase so many times. I'm talking about the part of the election ad

which said: "An immediate commitment will be the construction of

community-care nursing units for those 65 and over." Immediate. There

were no ifs, ands or buts.

The need was recognized by this government, this party in power,

obviously, and a commitment was made. That commitment was made in

December and this is June of the following year.

Yesterday I got no specific statement by the minister as to the

creation of the facilities. As briefly as I can I just want to quote

again from one of the studies done by this minister's department in

November, 1975, just before this minister took office. If the figures

are changed, or wrong or need correction, I'll be quite willing to

accept the minister's correction.

This report is entitled: "Report on the closure of adult-care

facilities in the capital region, and the current need for adult-care

facilities, November, 1975." This is from the Department of Human

Resources, adult-placement section, greater Victoria area. The figures

are as follows: from November '73 to November '75 there has been a net

loss of 31 personal-care homes, which represents 282 personal-care

beds. During the same period four private hospitals have been lost.

At the same time certain private hospitals were taken over by the

government and designated as extended-care hospitals, meaning that

[ Page 2430 ]

intermediate-care patients had to be relocated, and while on paper

this appeared to increase the extended-care beds, it in effect quite

drastically reduced the number of intermediate-care beds in the greater

Victoria area. So the net effect has been a total net loss of 35

chronic residential adult-care facilities in the capital region, or a

total net loss of 489 beds — quoting figures from the department's

report.

Now if Glengarry and Aberdeen Hospitals are not considered in these

figures, and we take into consideration the Saanich Peninsula

extended-care unit, we have a net loss of 32 facilities and 269 beds.

I just repeat, Mr. Chairman, that the private-hospital beds were

taken over by the government and designated extended-care. They are not

new beds to the community; they are simply redesignated beds. And by

redesignating them for extended care, the person who suffered most is

the individual requiring intermediate care, who has, with some

suffering and hardship, been relocated and very often in inferior

circumstances.

Now I understand the minister has set up a task force to further

look into the question of intermediate-care problems. I'm not sure just

where the task force is in its deliberations, but I believe Mr. Pages,

or a name similar to that, was made chairman of the task force and that

briefs have been presented to the task force.

Yesterday I asked the minister whether there was any hope at all

that we could bring at least some consistency into this whole field by

having all the responsibilities for these patients under one minister.

As I recall, the minister said that there was a committee of cabinet

which was working well, but he also said that we should look at

options. I wonder to what degree the minister has looked at the

situation in Manitoba where all these facilities are designated as

nursing homes — they are all under one minister; they are all under one

commission. I'm not talking at this point about financing or shared

costs, or anything else. I'm talking about the efficiency and humanity

involved in the administration of all of these kinds of facilities.

I understand from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) that

he visited Manitoba a month or two ago with the very specific purpose

of finding out about better ways of providing intermediate-care

facilities. I'd be very interested to know what the Minister of Human

Resources has in mind in perhaps emulating the Manitoba procedure.

The other problem, in addition to the basic one of lack of

intermediate-care facilities, is the management of what we call the

ambulatory-confused person. If the minister has had any recent

communications or meetings with personal-care homes such as Tillicum

Lodge and others, he will find that one of the most difficult problems

is the question of the elderly person who, from a motor point of view,

is relatively ambulatory, has physical capacity to move around and

sometimes move around reasonably briskly, but who is mentally confused.

We've had problems, as the minister knows, of such persons wandering

away from a hospital or a personal-care home and subsequently being

found dead.

I know this is a difficult problem no matter what government is in

power. I'm not for a moment suggesting that this government is any

better or any worse than any other in trying to deal with this problem,

but we are living at a time when more and more citizens are living to

an older age, and where sometimes their deterioration is not of both a

physical and mental nature. Where there is some cerebral degeneration

or atherosclerosis, the patient becomes somewhat confused but may

retain a fair amount of physical capacity to move around. I understand

from many of the nursing staff in these facilities that the time and

the responsibility involved in dealing with that particular type of

patient is very much a strain on the staff. No matter how hard they

try, there is always the recurring episode where such a patient wanders

away and becomes lost or is involved in an accident, or worse.

So I wonder if the minister has had specific requests on this

question of the ambulatory, confused patient, and what specific

measures he has in mind to deal with this in the near future.

Another point I'm very interested to touch upon, as briefly as I

can, is the whole area of the unemployed employable that the minister

has referred to many times. I'm very fascinated by the most recent

publicity given to the issue where the minister returned from a meeting

in Ottawa. The headline that appeared in the Victoria Times

on June 3 was: "Guaranteed Pay Plan Falls Flat on its Face." After

researching this matter a little bit, I understand that all the

provinces, as recently as February of this year, had agreed in

principle to the concept of federal-provincial cost-sharing on

subsidies to the working poor, which I think is another horrible phrase

that we use — let us say to persons earning minimum income, or a little

above the minimum income.

If I could just quickly quote figures, Mr. Chairman, I understand

that the original proposal of the federal government which would have

guaranteed $36 a month to the head of the household, $24 a month for

spouses and $10 a month for each child was scaled down. Had that plan

been in effect last year the cost would have been $225 million. Since

that kind of assistance to low-income groups puts more money in

circulation and gives these families some slight increase in consumer

purchases, which, in turn, to some degree, will surely at least level

off the unemployment in this province, if not reduce it, I wonder if

the minister would be able to tell the

[ Page

2431 ]

House what was the sudden change of attitude by eight provincial

ministers between February and May in regard to a plan which the

federal government put forward and in principle had accepted. What's

happened in the meantime? Is the decision by the provinces subject to

review in the near future?

As far as B.C. is concerned, I understand that we're to have a pilot

project, which the minister stated would be the only one in British

Columbia. As far as I am concerned, I would like to congratulate the

minister on at least showing conviction in the principle that it is far

better for this province or any province to provide this kind of

subsidy and leave the individual with the incentive to be employed,

rather than save a few million dollars in one direction and finish up

spending the so-called saved dollars either through further social

assistance benefits, unemployment insurance, or some other similar

programme.

So I wonder if it is possible for the minister to tell us when the

pilot project will begin, if he knows, how it will be implemented, and

what the actual formula will be. He is reported as saying that it will

be in an area of the province with low employment. Does the minister

have some information at this time as to where the pilot project will

be implemented and how much it will cost the province? These are four

very basic questions.

The other final point I would like to raise, Mr. Chairman, is the

question of the job-finding programme which the minister has announced.

There was the statement that a staff of 50 will be hired to find jobs

for 24,000 employable people. I'm quoting from the Victoria Times of May 25, which states that the job-finding programme was announced and would cost $700,000.

Now there are two or three questions related to that announcement.

First of all, I can't find the 50 new employees anywhere in the

estimates. Throughout the estimates of Human Resources, if anything,

there's a reduction in staff, except for one or two persons in the

minister's office and in personnel administration, as I recall, and we

may most suitably go into this under specific votes if that would be

preferable.

But the fact is this announcement that there will be 50 people

employed to find jobs for the unemployed employables at a cost of

$700,000 — I can't find the 50 places and I can't find the $700,000

estimate. The minister in question period a week or two ago said that

these jobs had not been filled. But the point is that if they are going

to cost $700,000, it doesn't make much sense to debate the estimates if

we can't find somewhere in the estimates the $700,000 that will be paid

as and when these new employees are employed by the Department of Human

Resources. That is a substantial sum of money.

I wonder if the minister can give us any idea just exactly where

these jobs are at the present time. Because it is one thing to look for

jobs; it is another matter to create jobs. While this minister is less

responsible than, let us say, the Minister of Economic Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips) or others for creating jobs, a lot of the comments

I have heard from the man in the street is that this is just a great

big smokescreen to try and create the impression that something

realistic is being done about welfare.

While the great majority of people would surely agree that it makes

much more sense to invest government money in the creation of jobs

which will take the unemployed employable off the welfare rolls, I

can't feel very excited about the employment of 50 members of the

minister's department as job-seekers. That's the whole title in all the

announcements and the publicity that was given on this issue.

"Job-finding programme" is the phrase that is used time and time again.

As recently as this afternoon in the discussion on unemployment we

realized that it is job-creation rather than job-finding that is the

big challenge to the government at the present time. So I wonder in the

last two minutes if I could ask the minister what kind of jobs he has

in mind. Has there been some review of the areas in which the jobs

might be available? The question of moving unemployed persons to areas

where there is work — could he give us some idea what the guidelines

are? In other words, is it 50 miles or 100 miles, or if there is a job

in the Yukon, 1,000 miles away? Who will pay the cost of

transportation? If a person is trained for a certain job and the only

one that is available pays half the rate or one-third or one-quarter or

whatever...?

This job-finding programme and some of the minister's announcements

have raised a great number of questions as to just exactly how the

proposals are to be implemented. I wonder specifically if the minister

could tell us whether he is looking for jobs that already exist, but

for one reason or another are not filled, or is he looking at job

creation?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I will try to answer them

as briefly as possible. Certainly we are looking for positions that may

already exist with respect to employment. Hopefully new jobs will be

created, but certainly that again will have to be the job of the

private sector. Possibly we can encourage them to create more jobs. But

largely it's a method of seeking out jobs. It's a method of training

people, retraining people, of motivating people.

The process has been fairly — I would suggest very — effective and

very, very rewarding in Surrey. Hopefully we might see this same

process being applied provincially. Certainly the benefits can be

tremendous, not only in the savings that it could possibly bring about

in the social assistance vote, but

[ Page 2432 ]

also in that it will get people back into the community and into a

normal way of life, which I am sure the majority of people want.

The staff that we have estimated to take care of this particular

programme are 50. They have been approved by order-in-council. They are

part of the 15 per cent which we have between the 85 per cent since the

cutback in October and the 100 per cent which would normally be there.

I'll try to think of the other parts of that particular question. I

think that covers that particular question fairly. I could probably add

to it.

MR. WALLACE: The relocation of people.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The relocation of people. The programme

will be a working together of Canada Manpower and the Department of

Human Resources. The cooperation that we have received so far from

Canada Manpower has been tremendous. We look forward to far greater

cooperation still. They are giving us not only office facilities, a

desk and a telephone, but also manpower within the office when they

have it available or when the need is there.

The moving of people — this is something which will have to be a

judgment thing. No way can you say: "Well, we'll move you if it's 50

miles or if it's 100 miles." I think we have to approach this

reasonably and we have to leave some discretion with the people who

will be involved in the programme. I don't think you can have a

hard-and-fast rule governing that.

MR. WALLACE: What about the other provinces?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: With respect to the guaranteed income

supplement programme, yes, I think I can proudly say that British

Columbia had the most positive position with respect to that programme.

We came out in support for the reasons that you stated. For one thing,

I don't think it is going to cost the province all that large an amount

of money. However, we don't know just what the figures will be until we

have them pulled together, which is presently happening within the

department.

We'd like to see it tried in some of the areas of British Columbia,

if not provincially, but perhaps if it were tried provincially it may

create other problems with the movement of people from other parts of

Canada which we perhaps couldn't cope with. So I'm saying that if we

could try it in some of the low-employment areas, or in some of the

areas where there are a large number of low-paid jobs, it might have a

tremendous effect and the effect might, in several ways, be very

beneficial.

We came out in favour. Why some of the other provinces came out

against I can't say, except that the most common expression was one of

"we can't afford it." There had been a considerable change in my first

comments at the conference where, Mr. Chairman, if we have a further

meeting, we'll have nothing at all because it just appears that the

more meetings that are called the further away we drift. That's

unfortunate. I can't speak for the other provinces.

Regarding the facilities for intermediate and personal care, yes,

there has been some drop, particularly in the Victoria area. This

hasn't happened just recently; it's been a process that began some time

ago, largely because some of the older, converted homes which were

being used as personal-care facilities became too expensive to staff,

too difficult to operate. We are looking now at a formula which will

allow us perhaps to deal with these non-profit societies on a

non-blanket type basis where we say we have one rate and that applies

to everybody regardless. We are looking at a formula which may allow us

to deal with each of these societies, or facilities, on an individual

basis. How successful we will be I don't know.

We're also, of course, now looking at the outcome of the study which

has been initiated by a task force which is set up between Health and

Human Resources to provide a better formula for private hospitals.

Hopefully, this will relieve the situation some.

We have in the meantime, however, dealt very positively with a

number of applications for such facilities, and I'd like to list those

that are in process now: there's the I think it's Lutheran Court in

Victoria; there's the facility proposed for the Gulf Islands, which is

presently in the works; there's a facility in Fort St. John; there's

the Villa Cafe in Vancouver; there's the one which was proposed by the

Chilliwack General Hospital; there's the Jubilee Home Society in

Vernon; and there is a facility which has been proposed by the Smithers

Society. So there are a number of actions being taken there.

Your last question was to do with the handicapped definition, and I

agree that what we've come up with may not be the total answer. I know,

too, that what was previously there certainly didn't answer the

question and we did see, and perhaps this is justifiably so, a very

large increase in the number of handicapped people. It was increasing

yearly at the rate of, I believe, about 2,000 per annum; however, since

December of 1975 to January of 1976, there was an increase of over

1,000 in that one-month period. We had before us at one time 55

appeals, I believe it was, dealing with the very same question that I

answered to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) .

I know too, as you stated, physicians can deal with this very

liberally even though the restrictions are there, and we saw this

happening, as a matter of fact. Hopefully that particular problem might

be answered still in some other way, although I'm not

[ Page 2433 ]

sure how. I don't believe, and I agree with you, that we don't have

the whole of the answer. We'd certainly be prepared to look at it very

shortly again. We've had too many things to look at in the last five

months, and they can't all be attended to perfectly all at once.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, I just want to comment on the....

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Do you want to get up and debate this, or shall I do it?

I'd like to just put some figures to the minister and ask him to

comment about them. In relation to the income supplementation

programme, the federal one, if at the optimum they are able to pick up,

hopefully, on the one-third, two-third sharing basis.... Now that's

when, of course, the legislation comes into operation. One of the

pieces of information that we were able to come up with during the time

we were government is that there are probably about 150,000 children in

this province who are living in families that have incomes of less than

$6,000 to $6,500 a year. We know that about 70,000 of those children

are on the welfare roles. So there are about 80,000 children in

families who are not on welfare. They are the so-called low-income

working poor. We, in looking at those figures, Mr. Chairman, suggested

there are probably about 25,000 to 30,000 families in this province

today who have children, some 80,000 children, and who are living on

incomes of less than $6,500 a year.

In respect to the federal programme for income supplementation,

let's use the figure of 30,000 families. Just for an example say that

each one of those families, in order to be supplemented, would be given

$100 a month. We're dealing now with families with children; we're not

dealing with couples who have no children. That would run something of

the order of 30,000 times $100, which is — I see the deputy minister

doing the figures, about $3 million a month and about $36 million a

year if you go into that kind of supplementation programme. If you are

successful enough to get the federal government to pick up two-thirds

of that, then the government is looking at an expenditure of somewhere

between $ 10 and $15 million.

Now the minister indicated in his statement that he didn't think it

would cost a great deal of money. Well, I'm not sure really what he

means by a great deal of money. Given that you have already cost-shared

the programme, $10 or $12 million is a great deal of money. So in

looking at the programme itself.... Now those are the number of people

who would qualify, based on the study that was done about two years

ago. You'd have to get more up-to-date income tax data.

But the programme is not inexpensive, even if you are able to get

the cost-sharing through the federal government and that won't be,

according to Lalonde, the federal minister, until probably sometime in

1978, because he doesn't expect to be able to introduce the legislation

much before spring of 1977. So I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the

minister must.... Perhaps he'd respond to the proposal that I've given

him in respect to the amount of money that this kind of income

supplementation will cost the province.

Now the other question is, of course, that if one agrees that all of

these people should be supplemented, and it's going to cost the

province $12 million, then presumably some kind of rigid asset test

will be introduced and not all of them will qualify. So there is also

another problem. The federal programme, while it is a move in the right

direction, certainly was something less than the kind of thing that

we'd hoped for, at least a couple of years ago, when we talked about

the guaranteed annual income as opposed to the income supplementation,

which was really categorizing people. So perhaps the minister might

want to respond to that.

The other thing I want to raise is the change in the handicapped

regulation. I think it's important to recall that some four years ago

there were about 3,200 people on the various handicapped pensions that

were in operation in the province at that time. The criteria for

getting on then, both medically and asset-wise, were extremely rigid —

very rigid. They were the most rigid criteria — more rigid, in fact

than the supplementary assistance to senior citizens. Okay, during the

three and a half years — or 40 months — of the previous government,

that number went from about 3,300 to 3,400 up to about 10,000 people.

Now I can recall, Mr. Chairman, that when I was the minister I got

literally hundreds of letters from people complaining about the fact

that they could not get on. They had been rejected. I looked very

closely over the years at the kind of criteria and they were tough

criteria. That's not the easiest board in the world to get through.

But I will agree with the minister on one particular point. I think

what he's done is used a sledge hammer to kill what really amounted to

a fly. One of the things I stated very clearly, once we had changed the

handicapped pension, was that I was not prepared to see hundreds of

thousands of alcoholics get on it. I made that very clear and I made it

clear several times. However, when we finally introduced...when the

appeal procedure came in, frankly, much to my chagrin, about 40 or 50

people did get on, which I personally found very annoying. Because, as

the minister said when he read a statement — I said it many times — he

was not prepared to see somebody who could get drunk on $160 get drunk

on $265.

[ Page 2434 ]

One of my alcoholic friends tells me that you don't really need

money to get drunk anyway. You've got enough cronies who will always

keep you going. That was the situation.

Unfortunately, I think that the minister reacted so strongly to that

situation that he put in this extremely rigid qualification for

handicapped. He did exactly the same thing with the special needs.

Presumably he had been told by one or two people that one or two people

during the course of three and a half years of special needs had ripped

the system off. He again moved in very quickly and put the clamps on —

no more special needs. He told us the other day that there were special

needs. I'm prepared to argue with him about that one. I'm in touch with

the field all around the province and my understanding is that the

criteria and the instructions are very clear, and some decisions are

made by regional directors, but by and large it's pretty tough. So what

he did was to introduce a change in reaction to a problem that

certainly raised its head but could have been remedied. It could have

been remedied by a change in the regulations which would have said very

clearly that people who have alcohol problems are exempt from the

eligibility to receive the handicapped pension.

I think that that particular category was not one that in this

province even the previous government was prepared to get into in terms

of financing. But what is the atmosphere in which this kind of policy

is being enacted?

For instance, in terms of the handicapped pension, when he brought

in the regulations he was interviewed by the press, and substantially

what he said was that under the former definition it was very easy to

be designated "handicapped." Well, I would suggest he go take a look at

the files in the committee that was looking after the medical

definition and the determination, because it wasn't easy — it was very

difficult.

But then he goes on to say — this is really an insult to the

handicapped, and I'm sure that after he said it he might have wanted to

repent it — that "if you had a stomach-ache or you had to go to the

toilet on a regular basis you could qualify." Now the minister knows

that that's a lot of nonsense, but that's the kind of insulting

statement that was made. At least, he's alleged in the paper to have

made it at approximately the same time.

"Any person who has taken advantage of a situation to qualify for

the handicapped pension will be cut off." Well, what you're saying is

that something's wrong with the staff, in terms of the people who make

the determination as to whether somebody should get on.

In April, 1973, when we introduced the changes to the rates, I can

recall very clearly, Mr. Chairman — unfortunately the Chairman who was

there before was in the House and this Chairman was not — the former

Premier of this province, W.A.C. Bennett, standing up in that seat (he

didn't stand on the seat, he stood up beside it) and he had tears in

his eyes. He didn't make reference to the welfare rates, but he said:

"But I really appreciate that you are doing something for the

handicapped." He made quite a point on that. He made quite a point

about that when he stood in his place and he reacted to the statement

that I made in the House that there was going to be a range of

increases.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

When we debated the handicapped persons income assistance in

October, 1972, we talked about the very stringent conditions under

which people could get the pension and then we talked about letting

some light into the situation to allow these people to come out. In the

next three years there was a feeling among the handicapped people that

they were getting closer to being accepted in the community and that

they were going to have opportunities to be able to make it like

anybody else, regardless of the fact that they were handicapped — that

they would not have to go through a degrading process. But in March the

dark cloud came back over again because of the definition of

"handicapped."

I don't know whether the minister met with the handicapped people

this morning. We met with them yesterday. There were about four or five

people, I think, among that group who were people who had been

rejected. As for three of them particularly that I spoke to, I couldn't

see in the minister's wildest dreams that somehow these people would

not be eligible for handicapped pension. They simply would not be

eligible other than the new definition, which is "permanently disabled."

Now that was contrary to all of the effort that was being made by

the handicapped over the last three and a half years who were saying

constantly to the government: "We don't want to get locked into a

system. If we're able to get out and work we want to be able to get out

and work and we don't want to be looked on as some special category of

people."

This definition, of course, will presumably affect only the people

that are coming off, because I doubt very much that the minister is

going to be able to find anyone who's on there, other than the 40 or 50

alcoholics that he made reference to, who is not entitled to the

handicapped pension.

The atmosphere that has now been created among the handicapped,

which is a great tragedy, is that now they're beginning to wonder where

they stand — even those people who are on it.

A letter arrived today from a man called Kee Ming Lee. I'll read it because this is what he writes:

"Enclosed please find some newspaper

[ Page 2435 ]

articles which I try to understand. Somehow it's very difficult

for me to understand them in layman's terms, especially articles dated March

10, 1976, and March 11, 1976."

These are at the time when the statement was made about the change in the handicapped.

"Would you please explain to me in layman's language?

In March of last year when I was on the HPIA I thought my social worker

from the CRB explained to me that there was a difference in being on

HPIA than on welfare, but after reading the

article March 11, 1976, and

May 19, 1976, my mind is very disturbed."

He has now gone on to refer to the GAIN legislation, I presume.

"I think I am very much agreeable with an

article by Miss Russell" — and he's talking about an

article that appears in the Sun

on May 19. "I strongly resent that HPIA is the same as welfare." Okay,

this kind of thing we'll have to cover under the legislation, but

here's one thing:

"The handicapped people are very much different than

the people on welfare. These people are able-bodied people; most of

them could be working and join the union if it was necessary. But would

you please remind the Minister of Human Resources that how hard we, the

handicapped people, try to find a job we could not do it because for

one thing our health conditions are not the same as the able-bodied

people.

"Would you please ask the minister whether he needs

any clarification letter from my physician? I'm an epileptic and could

not hold a unionized job. I'm very happy to call my physician and ask

for a letter of clarification if he wants one.

"Now I'd like to quote for you an

article in the Sun

newspaper dated January 26, 1976: 'In the same interview, the Hon.

Robert Andras also said that handicapped persons should be made to feel

that they belong in the community. "It's not enough in a society as

wealthy and affluent, even in these days, to be satisfied by sending

cheques to lonely people and assume that this is sufficient. We have

too long accepted that somebody who may be handicapped, whether

physically or mentally, is therefore to be set on the sidelines and our

conscience is cleared by sending him or her a cheque. We must give the

handicapped the opportunity to be part of society. "'

Sincerely yours,

Kee Ming Lee"

Now he has said substantially in his letter what the member for Oak

Bay (Mr. Wallace) said and what I have said and what other members have

said.

The attempt over the last few years was to make sure that the

handicapped had at least an equal opportunity to feel that they were

part of society. But we got it yesterday in our caucus, and presumably

you got it today in the Social Credit caucus, from the group of

handicapped people who came in to see us and stated that they were

afraid. They had been rejected and they were afraid that even those

people who were on might have to get off. So there is an atmosphere of

fear. An atmosphere of fear is consistent with many of the statements

that that minister has made in the past five months.

He started with a very inauspicious statement about shovels. He

talked about cutting back on the emergency, on the special needs. He's

cut back on the welfare and on the handicapped because he's changed the

definition. He's changed the payments, but that's the piece of

legislation we'll deal with next. So all of it has been extremely

negative.

His reaction to the definition, when it was raised by the member for

Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), was: "Well, we had some trouble with 40 or 50

alcoholics." Again, he's using a sledge hammer to kill an ant. Yes,

it's that way now if what he's saying, as he seems to be indicating

from his seat, is that he's going to have a big witch-hunt. He's going

to go through the records of all of those people who are on the

handicapped pension and he's going to chase those people off who don't

qualify because he feels — as he was quoted as saying — that it was far

too easy to get on the handicapped pension. If you had a bellyache, or

you went to the bathroom too often....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: You said that. Well, if that's not what you're

going to do, what are you going to do? I suggest that you should go

back to the previous regulation. If you want to exempt the alcoholics,

do it. That's okay. But don't create and continue to create the kind of

fear that exists not only with the handicapped but with the Mincome

people — because they're scared too — and the welfare people. They're

literally scared to death.

So you're going to have to explain to us now, but if not now

hopefully when we get to your Bill 28, because then we're going to have

to go all over it again. You're going to have to be much more explicit

because this is the place where you have to stand up and tell us what

you really feel. If you don't want to do that, that's your prerogative,

but only there there are thousands of people who are scared to death of

your name because of the kind of rhetoric that you're constantly coming

out with.

Yet it's amazing that when you come into this House and you're asked to explain, you're really a bit of a softie.

[ Page 2436 ]

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Yes, you're a bit of a softie. The rhetoric is for

the people out there. The rednecks like to hear that. But in here when

he's on the spot, he really is a softie. Why don't you be a softie out

there and be a redneck in here? Then we can deal with you much more

reasonably — because they can't deal with you out there. The

handicapped can't deal with you, the Mincome people can't deal with you.

So lay it on the line, tell us what you're really like, because out

there you've got one heck of a lot of people scared to death. The

people at the top of the pile who are scared to death are the

handicapped, the people who are least able to help themselves. That's

what you've created — this kind of atmosphere.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): I have come to the

conclusion that it's futile to really appeal to the Minister of Human

Resources to have any feeling or sensitivity for those poor people in

our province who have to rely on the Department of Human Resources for

sensitive understanding, for assistance when they need it, when they're

in real need, for rehabilitation and so on. The minister's statements,

I think, have been harsh. They've been unfeeling from the very moment

that he was sworn in as a member of the cabinet.

I had occasion, Mr. Chairman, to meet with a group of people who

demonstrated outside this Legislature, who were similarly concerned at

the harsh and insensitive statements that have been made by the

minister. He indicated that people might exist successfully on a diet

of tulip bulbs. He indicated that if people were unemployed, they

should be provided with a shovel. Mr. Chairman, those poor people, when

they were expressing their concern outside this Legislature, asked me

on their behalf to extend a token of their frustration to the minister,

and I undertook by solemn vow and pledged to do that for them.

So, Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask the Page to take across to the

Minister of Human Resources the emblem that he has become famous for in

this province, with a flower attached to the handle, Mr. Chairman, and

some vestiges of the Social Credit propaganda from the last campaign

still stuck to the blade. (Laughter.) I'm going to ask the Page to take

it over and deliver it to the Minister of Human Resources with the

request, Mr. Chairman, that in the future he might have a bit more

sensitivity to the people in this province who are unemployed, who are

indigent and handicapped, and rather than shrugging them off with crass

statements of "get a shovel, " he might try to come to grips with the

root causes in the future.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I'm sure that after that last gift you wish you had recognized me instead of the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) .

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I notice the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) isn't allowing that shovel to get too close to him either.

I just have four very short questions which I know the minister will

be able to deal with very quickly. I think it was on the night of

Thursday, April 29, Mr. Minister — is that a 29? I can't see without my

glasses — when the issue of funding for the rape crisis centres was

raised on the floor of this House. It was brought to your attention

that the Department of Health was only going to be able to afford the

sum of $75,000 to be shared between the three centres, and you did

really a very good thing and said that your department — through the

Attorney-General — would be willing to look at the whole business of

the funding for the three existing crisis centres dealing with rape

which were presently in operation in the province.

Well, nearly two months have passed since that time, Mr. Minister,

and budgets have come and gone and neither of these centres have been

able to get a firm commitment from you as to just what form this

funding is going to take. There is some anxiety out there as to.... I

know you are not going to renege on your promise; I know that. I'm not

worried about that. What I really would like, though, is to hear you

explain to me so that I can probably convey to the existing centres

just how the funding is going to be dealt with.

The other thing I want to ask you at the same time, dealing with the

rape crisis centres, is the funding for new centres. As you know, there

are only three presently in existence for the whole province, and

that's not nearly enough, Mr. Chairman. I'm hoping that the Minister of

Human Resources, in replying to my question, will be able to tell us

that he and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), as well as possibly the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), have come up with a formula for funding

new rape crisis centres, because three are just not enough for the

entire province.

The other issue has to do with transition houses, Mr. Chairman.

Again, the minister made a commitment to continue funding the

transition houses on a fee-for-service basis. My question to the

minister, through you: what about the funding again for starting new

transition houses throughout the province, because the problem exists

that there are just not enough transition houses in existence,

unfortunately, to deal with the really large increase in wife-beating

around the province. I know that the

[ Page 2437 ]

Minister of Human Resources has indicated his concern about this

phenomenon and his willingness to continue funding these centres. The

message I bring is that we need more of these centres. It makes me very

sad to have to say that, but we really do need more of these centres.

I was in the north recently, and there isn't a transition house

there, except in Prince George, for example. Even in the lower mainland

there is a need for more. Is there anywhere in the minister's budget

where start-up funding for these transition houses could be dealt with

and, if so, would he explain to us just how this would be done?

My third point has to do with Vancouver Indian Centre, Mr. Chairman,

and their request for an assistant director, a programme director. Now

the Vancouver Indian Centre is really quite different in terms of

community centres. There is nothing else quite like it anywhere in the

province. They do a number of jobs: they're your welfare office;

they're your housing bureau; they're your employment centre; they're

your recreational centre. The Vancouver Indian Centre really is the

focus for any Indian people coming from any part of British Columbia

or, indeed, from anywhere in Canada, who need a centre, a place from

which to get information, a resource referral, or whatever.

What they have found is that this is just too much work for one

person to do, and the request was made to the Department of Human

Resources for funding for an assistant. It really wasn't very much

money, as a matter of fact. They were asking for something like $12,000

to pay for the funding for a deputy or an assistant to help in the

carrying out of the job, the really good job being done by the Indian

centre.

Now the response which they received from the department was in the

negative. They met with me and asked whether I would convey to the

minister, during his estimates, their real need for another person.

Their caseload has increased incredibly. They're involved in a

health clinic, a tutorial programme for students. They have a programme

for native people in prisons. A couple of times I have gone out with

some of the women who go out on Thursday evenings to meet with the

prisoners at Matsqui and listened to some of their concerns. They even

supply food to people who turn up at the centre and have no food. They

either have used up their welfare cheques or whatever. But they

actually do provide meals every day.

The demand on the centre is increasing during the summer because of

students coming and going and people travelling, and there is

absolutely no way that they are going to be able to successfully carry

out their function unless there is an increase in funding from the

Department of Human Resources. So I'm hoping that the minister will

find, somewhere in his budget, the possibility to extend the funding

for one more person in the Indian centre and certainly for the

additional budget that they're asking for to cover the cost of food and

other things in their programme.

My final topic has nothing to do even with my own riding, quite

frankly, but the member who is responsible for this riding is in the

House. I've been waiting for him to talk about the needs of Osborne

Guest House in Terrace, B.C. He hasn't raised the issue yet, so I'm

going to do it for him, and I know he's going to support my statement

when he gets up to speak on these estimates himself.

Through you, to the minister, Mr. Chairman, Osborne Guest House is a

halfway house for these people who are discharged from Riverview. It is

a place where people who are mentally ill and some people who are

retarded live for a while until they can move into the community and

survive in the community as a result of having this period of

supervision. Now Osborne Guest House had the benefit of the service of

three people on the LIP programme, and, as you know, the LIP programme

has been discontinued. And these people — there is no money for their

funding. I want the minister to know that I disapprove of the way that

the federal government handles things like LIP and OFY and this thing.

I do not believe that they should be allowed to come in and fund a

programme and then pull themselves out and leave it to the province to

pick up the tab. I'm totally against that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MS. BROWN: Nonetheless, the reality exists. Osborne Guest

House cannot survive unless the funding to pay the additional three

people is picked up, either by the minister's department or by the

Minister of Health. Now the really strange thing about mental health is

that the federal government has decided that it's not a health problem.

I don't know just what category it comes under but certainly Mr.

Lalonde does not see it as coming under his department. So for that

reason the Department of Health in the province doesn't get the

funding, the cost-sharing to make it possible for them to subsidize

this kind of programme. So back we come to the Minister of Human

Resources again.

I would appreciate it if, in responding to me, the Minister of Human

Resources would indicate, first of all, whether he's aware of the

dilemma that the Osborne Guest House is facing at this point as a

result of these three people being chopped. Is he aware of the fact

that the house is continually in use, that there are facilities for 17

people and there are never more than one or two beds that are vacant at

any time — people are continually coming and going? This is the only

resource that Riverview has in Terrace, B.C., and must be kept open, if

for no other reason

[ Page 2438 ]

than because it makes it easier for people from the north to be

discharged from Riverview back to a Terrace, as long as the Osborne

Guest House is in a existence. Finally, is he willing to consider

picking up the tab for this? I know that the member responsible is

going to stand up and speak in support of Osborne Guest House, now that

it's been brought to his attention. Maybe after the minister has

spoken, if he would like to add some of this, and if the minister

doesn't have a copy of their budget, Mr. Minister, I have it here and I

would be very happy to pass it on to you. Thank you.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, to the hon. member, I

don't know when this information was given to the member, but certainly

as of fairly recent date we've been very actively involved with the

Osborne Guest House. As a matter of fact, presently we are very

carefully looking at the whole matter of staffing and management and

cost of the Osborne Guest House. So probably the member for Skeena (Mr.

Shelford) is aware of this and that's why the question wasn't raised.

But it's very much in hand. I can't say what the outcome is, because

it's with staff at the moment.

MS. BROWN: Did you say that you are picking up the tab for the staff at the moment?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Presently the staff are now looking at

staffing and management and cost to get all the information on the

Osborne Guest House. There hasn't been any indication or any statement

of discontinuing that particular service,

MS. BROWN: No, no, if I could just clarify for the minister,

I know that the minister is looking at all of these things. I was in

Terrace last weekend and as recently as that it was discussed. What I'm

saying to the minister is, please, when you are looking at all of this,

recognize that Osborne's jeopardy has to do with the fact that they are

going to lose three people as a result of the federal decision to cut

off the LIP funding. Okay? Thanks.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I am aware of that, Mr. Chairman.

The other matter of the Vancouver Indian centres and the other

Indian centres in the province: we have been funding these, of course,

through the Department of Human Resources. They are presently still

being funded through the Department of Human Resources although we have

raised the question with the Hon. Judd Buchanan in Ottawa regarding the

funding and the financing of such and similar centres in British

Columbia, as apparently in other provinces there is far more assistance

from the federal government.

Following that meeting with Judd Buchanan it was agreed that our staff and their

staff would meet to try and come up with a more equitable formula or something

that we could both accept with respect to funding facilities that are there

to assist Indians that move from the reservations to the city or otherwise. So

that again, is being looked at.

Transition houses: we do not, within the budget, have any moneys for

capital funding to begin transition houses. We have said that we would

fund them on a per diem or a fee-for-service basis. We would like to

see how it works out for the year. Apparently it didn't work out too

well in Aldergrove; we are sorry for that. Actually I didn't become

aware of the closure until after the fact.

I agree with you that there is a real need for transition houses. We

would like to assess that for the balance of the year. If we deem it

advisable to put some capital funds into the budget for next year, this

will be done. But there are no capital funds for this year.

The final question on rape relief centres: yes, the Department of

Human Resources will be funding a part of the cost for the additional

centre. I can't give you the exact amount at the moment. Our grant

budget is getting very thin. I can tell you that I have told the hon.

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the hon. Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. McClelland) that the funding will come. What funding we can

make available will come from the Department of Human Resources and it

will be on a matching dollar basis.

MS. BROWN: Matching with whom?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: With the centres. They are getting moneys, of course, also from the United Way and other such groups.

MS. BROWN: Clarify that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea).

MS. BROWN: No, we want to clarify the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. member for Prince Rupert yield to the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) ?

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. The Rape Relief Centre

in Victoria, with which I am most familiar, receives no money from the

United Way or any other source. Indeed, a dollar-for-dollar matching

grant is of little use to them. To my present information, the one in

Kamloops also receives no other grants, Mr.Minister; again, a dollar-for-dollar system would make

[ Page 2439 ]

little sense.

The $75,000 granted as of April 1 by the Department of Health is at

the moment being split among the three rape relief centres in British

Columbia. The one in Victoria is finally able — we are very grateful

for this — to pay three staff, each of them $800 a month for their

services. These are, though, around-the-clock services; the centre

never closes, the doors are open or the answering service is available

all the time as are these three women.

There are at present, though, in Victoria no moneys whatever for

overhead or operating costs. Zero, not a penny. Not a penny for

telephone, not a penny for rent, not a penny for transportation. What I

would just like to express, if I may, Mr. Minister, is that there is

some urgency to this and that I and they and the people they serve

would be very grateful if as quickly as you can you give them your

advice. If you choose to match dollar for dollar the grants from the

Department of Health, that would be quite fine, indeed.

MS. BROWN: Yes, that would be it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I am aware that they would like to have a decision before July 1. I think we will have it plenty before then.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Chairman, I would like to

bring up the topic with the minister of the health and human resources

board on the Queen Charlotte Islands. I would first of all like to

thank the minister for allowing that board and that service to the

community to continue.

I am sure you are aware that I did write to you asking that the

one-year continuation that was allowed by yourself is really not good

enough in terms of those people trying to plan the future services that

they are going to supply to the island. It is very difficult for them

to look at programmes that they would like to implement not knowing

whether at the end of this year they are going to be in existence.

I think that probably by this time you have a chance to check not

only with your staff but the staff of the Health department to find

that that committee, that board, on the Queen Charlottes is voluntary,

elected and doing a good job of supplying social services both in

health and those services from your department to the citizens of the

Queen Charlotte Islands — in many cases, a service that was never

supplied before. They are bringing in dentists; doctors are coming in

now, working for wages for the board and for the people of the Queen

Charlotte Islands.

The request that I am making isn't going to cost the government or

the people of British Columbia any more money for this coming year than

has been planned. But it is very difficult for that board — for that

group of citizens — to try and decide what they are going to do in

terms of future programming if they only have till the end of the year.

I am sure that at the end of the year you will see your way clear to

allow another year and another year. But to give that community a

chance to do the kind of planning over a long period of time that will

eventually save money for the community of British Columbia is

something that I believe the minister should consider. I would ask that

at least a five-year programme be initiated, that that programme be

allowed to remain in place for five years, and at the end of each year

you would have the opportunity to assess what that group is doing, the

kind of services that are being supplied, and there could be

adjustments within the five-year programme.

If a programme is not working out well, maybe stop it. If it looks

like it needs a bit more funding in that area, or a bit more help in

some other way other than funding, then do it. I think the year that's

been allowed isn't long enough, and I think that everyone will tell you

that has had anything to do with that programme on the Queen Charlottes

that it's worthwhile, it's doing a worthwhile function, and it's acting

properly and supplying services.

I wonder if the minister would, in these last moments of his

estimates, make a commitment that it could be at least a five-year

experimental programme from now for five years hence?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, to the hon.

member. I hope to be paying a visit in the not-too-distant future to

the Queen Charlotte Island Human Resource Health Centre, or board.

Certainly I've spoken many a time very much in support of that

particular board and similar boards like it, because they're providing

a tremendous service in an area where formerly there was nothing at

all, and where without it there wouldn't be anything, perhaps.

The year trial I think perhaps is an overstatement in that perhaps

what should have been said is that we'd like to assess the whole

concept in a year with a view, I hope, to expanding it to other areas

where such services are required. The development group presently does

have a considerable budget, and I think perhaps they are also looking

not only at that concept but alternate concepts somewhat similar for

areas that have other needs. The combining of the two is good.

MR. LEA: I think there has been some misunderstanding, then,

because the board is under the assumption that they're finished in a

year unless there's another decision made to allow them to continue. I

believe that the people are worried because, as the minister has said,

they are getting

[ Page 2440 ]

services they haven't had before and probably wouldn't have now if

it hadn't been for that volunteer organization spending a lot of time

and effort.

I would like to say that if the minister would let me know when he

is going to the Queen Charlotte Islands, I would be very glad to make

sure that I could be there with him to take him around and to meet with

some of the people.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Chairman, I made most

of my remarks yesterday and I only want to recap a couple of things if

the minister will give me his attention.

Earlier this afternoon the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) was

again pointing out one of the unfortunate aspects of the regulations

respecting the definition of handicapped. I had raised these points

yesterday, and I'm wondering if the minister has considered the

untenable way in which this

section of the social assistance

regulations is drawn.

I think by now there's been sufficient representation from members

on this part of the House to raise concern even within the minister's

department, and I hope that he will assure the House that this section,

which I will read again for the record, will be sufficiently revised as

to be more meaningful and more useful to the medical profession. As it

stands now I think it would frighten off any medical practitioner for

fear of being implicated and assuming certain liabilities because of

the nature of the legislation. The particular regulation reads as

follows:

"Handicapped person means one aged 18 years of age or older.

At the discretion of the director...has been designated as handicapped due

to the person being mentally ill or mentally retarded as defined in

section

2 of the provincial Mental Health Act, 1964, and due to the person having a

physical injury, amputation or physical malfunction of the body. Such designation

shall be made only after a qualified medical practitioner has confirmed that

the disability is apparently permanent, and that there is no remedial therapy

available for the person to significantly lessen the disability, and provided

the disability is sufficiently severe that (

a) the person requires extensive

assistance and supervision to manage normal daily functioning, or (

b) as a direct

result of the disability the person requires unusual and continuous monthly

expenditures for transportation and/or the special diets or for other unusual

but essential and continuous needs, or (

c) training the person to become economically

self-supporting is not possible."

You can imagine how hesitant a practitioner would be to permit himself to do

anything that is going to imply that he has finally and conclusively made a

designation as to permanency; it's just too tight.

I think the minister is wanting to clean up the situation where he

feels there may be too much discretion and too much looseness in the

hands of too many, and I can appreciate the problem he's faced with.

But I think, on the other hand, there is a valid argument that it's

better to have a few slip through than be unduly overbearing on those

people who may suffer as a result of legislation that's a little bit

too rigid. I merely want to remind the minister that we on this side of

the House are not attempting to be total obstructionists at all times.

I think from time to time we make some points that he would do well to

consider, and this is all I'm going to say about that.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

Just one other inquiry, and this again is an inquiry because I've

attempted to get some further information on it, but I only have a

sketchy bit of information. I'm hoping that the minister can feel if he

knows anything about an organization calling itself the New

Opportunities Handicap Rehab Programme. I just heard about it briefly.

It's located on Dunsmuir Street — 444 Dunsmuir, unit 104.

I understand that this organization has been soliciting the

assistance of persons who are handicapped and has been offering them

job opportunities or training programmes and, in fact, has been

consulting with people in the Department of Human Resources in getting

referrals to their organization. It's an American organization, I

understand, with a base in Decatur, Georgia, and they have a subsidiary

regional area office someplace in Edmonton. They supply Vita lamps,

which are put out by the Philips Co., I understand. These lamps have an

extended life beyond the normal light bulbs — lamps — and they are

giving a three-year guarantee with them. As an example, there is a

60-watt bulb that sells for something like $1.98.

Now the point I'm interested in the minister responding to is the

actual job assignment given to the handicapped people, because I

understand they are asked to.... It's because of their handicapped

condition that they qualify for the job of soliciting by telephone

prospective buyers of these lamps. The pitch is that they must state

that they are handicapped and that they, by virtue of their handicapped

condition, have been given a special rate on the merchandise that

they're selling and they are asking people to purchase from them in

order to assist them to maintain themselves.

If this is true, needless to say, it is an exploitation of a

physical condition, by perhaps no fault of the person, but they are

victims of a situation where they are being exploited to sell

merchandise. I'm not sure

[ Page 2441 ]

if the Department of Human Resources is aware that there have been

some referrals, but I would hope that they would want to look into the

whole programme to see if everything is in order. I'm wondering myself.

One of the things that I've heard, for instance, is that some of the people

who have responded to the solicitations of this organization have, in fact,

been told that they must sell a number of lamps per hour — I think they said

something like a figure of seven lamps per hour — before they start to qualify

for their commission. There is no salary involved — it's straight commission

— and there is no training involved, but they say they're going to train

these people.

Now these are all questions, and certainly, if it's true, we should want

to look into it. Even if it isn't true, I think it points out the great

need we do have to provide for these people legitimate training opportunities

so they can be actively engaged in carrying out their own livelihoods with dignity

and with meaningful activities. By doing this, it makes it no longer necessary

for them to have to opt for any opportunities, such as these, which may be

very small in remunerative value but, out of desperation — for instance, if

certain of these people on prior-handicapped income assistance found themselves

not qualified — they may be, just out of sheer desperation, falling prey to

certain organizations such as this.

I must qualify that by saying that I don't really know if this organization

is licensed in the city of Vancouver to operate or not, or just what the situation

is, but I've had it from pretty responsible authority that there does exist

such an organization and that, in fact, there are many handicapped people who

have gone down and are presently working at this organization and are complaining

that they have not received payment for work they have done.

They've attempted to protest and they haven't received any satisfaction.

Now your colleague, perhaps, the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair)

may be interested as well in investigating.

If you find that there are some irregularities I hope that we in the Legislature will be the first to be so informed.

Vote 113 approved.

Vote 114: departmental administration and support services, $5,365, 281 — approved.

Vote 115: community services, $17,171, 241 — approved.

On vote 116: services for families and children, $65,791, 568.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Chairman, to the minister. I'm

not sure, as I haven't been in all afternoon, whether there was any discussion

on child abuse, and if the