1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 1, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5889 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Juvenile charged with keeping a common bawdy-house. Mr. Leggatt ––

Ms. Brown

Racial discrimination. Mr. Leggatt –– 5889

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Barrett

Urea formaldehyde in B.C. schools. Mr. Cocke –– 5890

Orders of the Day

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

On vote 117: minister's office –– 5891

Ms. Brown

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Levi

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Cocke

MONDAY, JUNE 1, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In the members'

gallery today is Mr. Brian Powell, a director of the Victorian Chamber

of Manufacturers, who is visiting from Melbourne, Australia. I hope the

House will make him welcome.

Oral Questions

JUVENILE CHARGED WITH

KEEPING A COMMON BAWDY-HOUSE

MR. LEGGATT: My question

was to be directed to the Attorney-General, who isn't yet in the

premises. He was, no doubt, again expecting that prayers, or at least

introductions, would last a little longer than they did. I think I see

him coming through the portals now.

Mr. Speaker, my question

is to the Attorney-General. Early last week a female juvenile, aged 14,

was arrested in Vancouver on a charge of keeping a common bawdy-house.

I would think that the Attorney-General has now had sufficient time to

investigate the circumstances surrounding this particular incident.

Would the Attorney-General advise the House why charges were not laid

under

section 193(2) of the Criminal Code — that is, for being a

found-in in a common bawdy-house — against the adult male person who

was found to be with this young lady?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The matter has been under investigation by the authorities all this

past week. I expect to have a report in my hands in a day or two. I'll

be happy to share it with the member.

MR. LEGGATT: My

supplementary question is this. Not only would there appear to be

appropriate charges that should have been laid in respect to the adult

male being a found-in, but under

section 33(

l) of the Juvenile

Delinquents Act there seems to be a prima facie case, anyway, of

contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile. Can the Attorney-General

advise the House whether that aspect was also under investigation by

his officials, and can he now advise why it has taken this long for any

charges to be laid with respect to the matter?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure the member is not asking for a legal opinion. Part of the question is in order.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, the report that will come to me, which I will be happy to

share with the member, will cover all aspects to which he refers.

MR. LEGGATT:

In the process of this investigation, I'd like to point out to the

Attorney-General, if he'll examine the records of prosecutions under

section 193(2) of the Criminal Code — the found-in provision — that

charges are almost never laid against the male found-ins of

bawdy-houses. My question is this: is it a policy of the

Attorney-General's ministry that the victims of prostitution, namely

the prostitutes, must be charged while the customers, without whom

there would be no prostitution, are constantly allowed to go free?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

No, it is not a policy of this ministry, Mr. Speaker. But as the member

well knows, these matters have been dealt with in the courts with

differing results in different provinces. If we can be successful in

the prosecution of a found-in, then the instructions are to proceed.

MS. BROWN:

On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I understand that

section 192 of the

Criminal Code deals with the leasing or renting of premises for the use

of keeping a bawdy house, yet we have not been able to find a single

instance of prosecution of any of the hotels in the area which lease

rooms to these young women to be used for prostitution. Can the

Attorney-General say whether it is the policy of this government not to

ensure that

section 192 of the Criminal Code is enforced?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the member that that is not the policy of this ministry.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Speaker, my question deals with an incident reported this morning

that the Ku Klux Klan held a cross-burning ceremony near Mission on the

weekend. The ceremony was reportedly accompanied by Ku Klux Klan guards

armed with rifles. Has the Attorney-General decided to investigate this

incident, particularly with reference not only to the hate propaganda

sections of the Criminal Code but also with regard to possible firearms

violations by that group?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's not a question of policy; it is already under investigation.

MR. BARNES:

I have a question for the Minister of Labour, dealing with the same

matter. Alexander MacWhirter, a longtime spokesman for the Klan in

Canada, is quoted as saying: "This incident is the first step taken by

the Ku Klux Klan in going public." He further said: "Such actions are

planned in British Columbia." In view of these developments can the

minister explain why he has continued to suppress the McAlpine report?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

With respect to the comments which were made, I've only had the

opportunity to hear them on the air. However, I certainly don't doubt

the veracity of those comments nor do I doubt the sincerity of the

member's question. It's a detestable occurrence. I have been concerned

about exactly what has happened; and what has happened on at least

eight previous occasions of which I am aware. With that in mind, the

member is well aware why we are identifying the deficiencies in the

Code and why a report was commissioned. I've advised the member before

that the particulars and some of the recommendations in the report are

being analyzed. and we're reviewing a number of alternatives. I intend

to carry out those recommendations. When we have made that

determination the report will be filed. I might add one thing. There is

a very difficult issue which we must face. It's identified in the

report; it was known before the report was commissioned and delivered.

This is one of the reasons why, as a government, we are still working

on that problem.

[ Page 5890 ]

MR. BARRETT:

I have a supplementary question to the minister. What possible reason

could there be, other than government policy, for protecting the people

of British Columbia from the contents of the McAlpine report? Does the

minister believe the people of British Columbia are not capable of

handling a government report that is currently being suppressed and may

be misinterpreted because of its suppression?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

The government is not suppressing that report. I suspect the Leader of

the Opposition, when he was in government, upon receipt of oodles of

reports, took it upon himself, I suspect, to analyze them thoroughly

and make recommendations based on those reports. There is no intention

whatsoever on the part of the government to suppress anything.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, the report has been in the government's hands for 60 days

— almost two months. Now, after all of the intervening incidents, does

the minister still feel that it is necessary to keep this report secret

from the people of British Columbia, while incidents continue to build

up publicly around this very serious issue?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, I don't really believe that particular report is going to

stop incidents from occurring at all. As a matter of fact, I think that

when the Leader of the Opposition was in government the same problems

which now face us faced his government as well; they had for many

years. Yet I note that there is a deficiency in the Code now, which was

a problem that should have been addressed at that time as well. They

chose not to, and I believe it was through inadvertence — no intention

at all…. But it's a fact that it speaks for itself.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary, not to enter into the

argumentative answer by the minister, but to point out that the Human

Rights Code was introduced by the NDP government, not suppressed for 20

years or 20 months. We brought the Code in.

Secondly, Mr.

Speaker, the Code was always open for amendment. I ask the minister

specifically and directly: what reason is there in that report that

leads him to believe that the people of British Columbia cannot decide

what action they feel should be supported by a government in this

regard? What is it in the report that holds him back from releasing it

to the public?

MR. SPEAKER: That question is basically the same one asked before.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, I think the material the Leader of the Opposition has

raised was canvassed earlier. I repeat that I think the contents of

that report have done nothing more than cover a number of incidents of

the past. The report makes certain recommendations. The problem giving

rise to the report has been with us for a long time. I intend to face

up to those issues and follow through with the recommendations which

were made.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, is the minister

of the opinion that information in a report like this is best dealt

with privately by government or publicly displayed for every citizen to

examine and judge for themselves as to the nature of this problem? Does

the minister think that the public is being served best by this report

being kept secret?

MR. BARNES: I have just one matter

for the minister to consider. In light of the possibility that

vigilante groups may form on both sides of this issue, what advice does

the minister have for those parties that may feel that there is no

recourse other than to take action into their own hands in the

meantime, while he sits and deliberates whether or not the report that

he has is applicable or usable in this matter?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Of course no one is inviting vigilante groups to form in any way

whatsoever. With respect to the enforcement of law and order, I believe

that perhaps that question should be directed to my colleague the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams).

UREA FORMALDEHYDE IN B.C. SCHOOLS

MR. COCKE:

I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Education. Last week

the minister responded to questions regarding the presence of urea

formaldehyde insulation in the walls of provincial schools. Can he

advise the House whether since that time any other cases of urea

formaldehyde usage in the schools have been brought to his attention?

HON. MR. SMITH: Not directly, hon. member, but I will check and respond further if there is.

MR. COCKE:

On May 19 — this is June 1 — the school board in Kamloops was notified

that ten of the kindergarten demountable classrooms in that district

are insulated with urea formaldehyde. My understanding is that the

minister's ministry was notified as well. Why has the minister kept

this to himself, and will he act immediately to protect the welfare of

the kindergarten students in Kamloops?

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order. Please proceed.

HON. MR. SMITH: I will certainly look into that specific matter, hon.

member. If it's been known to you since May 19, I wish you had brought it

to my attention earlier.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the minister attributed words to

me that I did not utter. I did not know. I said that the school board

was notified on May 19; I was notified today. I want him to know that

clearly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That's not a real point of order.

Hon.

members, I couldn't help but observe that today's question period,

although subjects covered could have been touchy ones, was nonetheless

conducted in a most orderly fashion, and I would be remiss if I didn't

commend you.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of

order, I wish to inquire under standing order 26 about a matter of

privilege raised by the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) on Friday last.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, the question of privilege which was raised was not

initially raised by the member for Atlin, as I recall, but perhaps by

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

question of

[ Page 5891 ]

privilege

raised by the member for Atlin was taken under consideration by the

Chair. When it is determined if a matter of privilege exists, then, of

course, it will be taken into consideration immediately, according to

standing order 26.

MR. BARRETT: Whether or not there

is indeed a question of privilege is a matter of a ruling from the

Chair, according to my understanding. The ruling itself is the matter

that I'm inquiring of. There has been a weekend intervening since the

member raised it. A certain amount of damage could certainly have been

done in the public's mind, related to misstatements by the minister, as

the member versus the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. The

minister withdrew, or did not wish to pursue by motion, but the member

did. There is a sense of urgency, as related by our standing orders.

The other question I have is: could we have the standing orders printed in larger print?

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, as soon as the determination has been made on the question

raised by the member for Atlin it will be reported to the House without

prejudice to the member.

MRS. DAILLY: With leave, could I make an introduction?

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MRS. DAILLY:

It's on behalf of my colleague, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

There are two of his constituents in the gallery today: Mr. and Mrs.

Rasmussen. They are accompanied by their guests, Mr. and Mrs. Andresson

and their daughter from Iceland.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

On vote 117: minister's office, $233,936.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Chairman, as I'm getting into a few statements regarding my

ministry, I would just like to say, following question period, that our

ministry covers very many services to people, among which are services

to senior citizens. I just want to tell the Leader of the Opposition,

while he's still in the House, that one of the things we have been very

careful to do in all our communications to senior citizens is to

enlarge the print. I thought you would be interested in that, Mr.

Leader of the Opposition.

I stand in my place today with a

great deal of pride in having the responsibility for the Ministry of

Human Resources. I am pleased, too, to tell you that with me today is

the Deputy Minister of Human Resources, John Noble, and the comptroller

of our ministry, Mr. Martin Cook. May I just say that since we last had

our estimates in this House, Mr. Noble has taken a fairly long leave of

absence, for one of the very few times in his professional career, to

undergo hospitalization. I'm glad to tell you that he is back and well,

serving our ministry and the people of British Columbia in his most

effective and dedicated way once again.

I would also like to

cover a few of the things I think have been important in this past

year. I am pleased to note that as we begin our estimates for this

year, my preceding colleagues, who have been responsible for the

Ministry of Education and for social services, have addressed the Year

of the Disabled. The Year of the Disabled, I think, in terms of our

province's contribution, has been exceptionally well looked after in

this province. I am really proud of the fact that when our ministers of

social services met just a week or so ago in this parliament building,

having reports around the table from the various ministries reflecting

on the federal government's initiative in the Year of the Disabled, the

province of British Columbia, under the leadership of the chairman of

the Year of the Disabled, my colleague the Minister of Education, and

under the auspices of the executive-director of the Year of the

Disabled, Mr. Doug Mowat, has presented to the people of British

Columbia, I think, the most ambitious plan in all of Canada for the

Year of the Disabled. I'm very proud of that.

In this Year

of the Disabled I would also like to make mention of two or three of

the programs which I think are of particular note. I'm pleased that the

estimates we are debating will show that there has been a doubling of

the program which has been such a popular program since its inception

and does such good work, the infant development program. We are really

pleased with the strides this has taken over these past two years. The

doubling of that program will mean an opportunity for tiny ones with

problems that are recognized early in their lifetimes to be corrected

or for some assistance to be given. Above all it gives tremendous

assistance to the families carrying more than the usual burden in

trying to find help for those youngsters. So I'm very pleased with the

doubling of that budget. In the years to come, that will probably be

one of the programs that will be doubled and redoubled, because what it

is doing in the community at the early stages is truly the kind of

preventive social service work people have talked about for years but

have not always put into action.

I'm also pleased to report,

in recognition of the year of the handicapped, the fact that services

for the retarded have had a tremendous amount of attention from all of

our social services ministries. The interministerial committee and the

committee of the deputies as well as the ministers in the government

have addressed the concerns of the British Columbia Association for the

Mentally Retarded, as well as other organizations and people who have

come forward. Very shortly we will be presenting to the people of

British Columbia our program for the eighties for the retarded of the

province.

I'd like to state not just what we are going to do

but also what we have accomplished in the services to the retarded. It

has been a most aggressive program, one that has been outstanding in

leading the way in the country. My colleague the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who had the responsibility for the

Ministry of Human Resources, was the first minister in the country to

recognize what other ministries and other associations across this

country have started to recognize. [Applause.] That is well deserved

applause, I might say to my colleague the Minister of Municipal

Affairs. He recognized, when he had this responsibility, that we must

bring young people in institutions into the community. He established

two programs which have been outstanding in this country and have led

the way for other administrations to bring the mentally retarded into

the most

[ Page 5892 ]

normal

community setting possible. Later in these estimates, no doubt, I'll

have an opportunity to tell you how the population of the institutions

has been depopulated and young people and older retardates have been

given the opportunity to live in the community.

I have a

particular interest in the autistic child. I think that in the months

and years to come we will see some updated areas of service for the

autistic child. One of the things which has really assisted is the

identification of autism which, frankly, is so new to the province and

even the nation. Autism has really been recognized for just about a

decade. Our services and the people who work with the autistic child

have had a remarkable, if you like, coming of age in the last few

years. I think some really remarkable things are going to be done in

that regard.

I want to again stress the fact that in this

province, where we are spending $3 million on the Year of the Disabled,

the emphasis has been on ability and making those who are disabled more

a part of the community life and more able. I really believe that by

the end of the year that budget will have done the kind of job we can

all be proud of.

In reference to the handicapped I also want

to refer to the CHANCE program. You'll recall that it was initiated

just a short year and a half ago. The CHANCE program assists the

handicapped to have education in the normal school setting. It has been

a great credit to the instructors in the schools, the schools, the

Ministry of Human Resources, who have aides in the classroom, and to

the Ministry of Education. It was initiated under the former minister,

but enhanced and very much encouraged by the present Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Smith). Those young people who would ordinarily not

have even a limited education are given an opportunity to get into the

classroom in a normal setting. Surely that should be our goal. In this

Year of the Disabled, surely our goal should be that we shall not make

people who are disabled different from the rest of the community, but

encompass them in the normal setting in the classroom, the shopping

centres, the workplace, the community halls and all the community

areas. Surely that is our desire. The CHANCE program, which was

introduced by this government a year and a half ago, pays tribute to

that premise above everything else, and has been, I believe,

exceptionally successful.

I would also like to make

reference to some of the services we have for senior citizens in the

province. There has always been an ongoing debate as to whether or not

we have services in our province which really pay tribute to the

pioneers of the province. I'm really pleased to have information, and

if it's wanted during the estimates I'd be pleased to offer it to our

colleagues. What I would just like to say is that we're very pleased

indeed to have the kind of services for seniors in this province which

have been the envy of other jurisdictions.

If we were to

take a look at all the services — and that includes health services,

human resource services, services in education and so on — I think I

can honestly say that when the social services ministers met last week

— and all but three were present, representing the provinces and the

territories…. I can safely say that we in British Columbia can

certainly be proud of the social services which we give to our fellow

citizens. Those services are only as good as the people who serve in

our ministries, the people who deliver the services and those

volunteers who give of their time throughout the years. There has

always been a recognition of volunteers in our ministry, and when we

really address how many hundreds and hundreds of hours our volunteers

give throughout the province it is an amazing amount of time. Above

all, it's an amazing amount of dedication, which I would like to pay

tribute to today.

I would also like to pay tribute to the

ministry staff. My ministry staff numbers 5,000. There are some 200

officers in the province of British Columbia, and as I travel the

province and meet with the Ministry of Human Resources people, I feel

that I can honestly convey to the House that our ministry is in good

hands with people who truly care at the community level. As I said

before, our programs and the delivery of our programs is only as good

as the people who are there on the front lines dealing day to day with

people in trouble, the people who need help and the people who need a

special lift along the way.

Speaking of a lift along the

way, there is one program that I would really like to address and share

with you today. As a matter of fact, the last time I had the

opportunity to speak before the House on my estimates I did say that we

were beginning a program called the Individual Opportunity Plan. I hope

that each and every member of the House has had an opportunity to see

the program here in Victoria — which has been going now for some nine

or ten months — which was the pilot project which began all the others

we now see throughout the province. I don't think I could explain how

tremendous this program is in terms of helping people, but I'll read

you one of the letters. I've had several more, but I would like to read

one of the letters which came to me from an upper Vancouver Island

resident. For obvious reasons I'm not going to identify the writer, but

this is just one that expresses the kind of effort that the people in

my ministry are making through the individual opportunities program and

shows how it is truly working.

This letter from Nanaimo, written in March, says:

have recently completed a program sponsored by your ministry, the

Individual Opportunity Plan. I must commend you on this plan, and I can

do nothing but shout its praises. I am a single parent with two small

children living on assistance. I'm not satisfied with my lot. I teach

Brownies, I sew for the museum, I belong to a single-parents group…."

She

tells about other things which she has worked on in the community, all

on a volunteer basis, and I will not repeat those because of the

identification.

"I have kept myself busy. I

never seemed satisfied, though; I didn't know what was missing. I would

go for job interviews, but I didn't get the job. I was offered this

program. I knew nothing about it, but I was willing to give it a try.

By the end of the first day I realized what was missing. It was like

being hit with a hammer. The knowledge I have gained from this program

I will carry with me forever and pass on to others.

"The

instructors on the program worked as a team, reinforcing each other,

coaching, schooling, reassuring and helping us to understand the

principle of what they were teaching us. They took us through the

program step by step, using visual aids and a well-organized,

well-planned program. For some of us it took a little longer, because,

as we all admitted, we had problems to overcome. With the encouragement

of Don Comis and Tom Wright, and with each other, we all became

winners, ready to take on the employers of the world, When it came time

to do the phone

[ Page 5893 ]

interviews, we had self-confidence, and it came through as if

we had absolutely no trouble getting personal interviews. We were motivated

— boy, were we!

"There

was one woman in our group who was single, and so far down in a rut

that she had even contemplated suicide. By the end of the program she

had changed. She became attractive, she liked herself again, her

self-confidence came through, and she got good, successful interviews,

The change in this woman was phenomenal.

would personally like to see this program taken into the schools as a

compulsory grade 12 course. The children of today have a great

disadvantage getting jobs. They all have the education, ability, drive

and youth, but they lack the knowledge of how to approach an employer,

dress, and in an interview, get and hold a job. There are rules to

follow, but they don't know what the rules are. They, as much as single

parents, need every advantage they can get. This is a solid gold one.

Please continue this program.

"My own personal

triumph came on the last day. I got a minimum part-time job at the Bay,

doing personal evaluations; it is not much now, but the future

opportunities are endless. I am glad there are still…."

Well, that's a personal note to me, and I'm not going to finish the letter. But I do want to say….

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Well, you know, the member for Victoria, the member for New Westminster

(Mr. Cocke) and the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), who speaks

on social services in this House, can joke and laugh about a single

parent who now has a new lease on life. I find it a happy letter and an

enjoyable letter. I also find it a little distasteful to see members on

the other side of the House making light of something as important as a

person's life — looking after two children and finding her independence

again. I know that the philosophy of the socialists is to keep those

who are down down in submission always, but that's not our philosophy

on this side of the House.

The Individual Opportunity Plan

has offered an opportunity not just to this woman but to many men and

women throughout the province. It is a great credit to the staff of the

ministry, who have designed an individual opportunity plan in different

regions of the province, that it has been so successful.

am really happy to report to you that since I last had the opportunity

to speak on my estimates the program is doing very well. I am pleased

too that in this last year we have had the proclamation of the Family

and Child Service Act, which this House debated well and with, I think,

good parliamentary decorum a few months ago. As a matter of fact, it

was proclaimed just this week.

One thing I would like to address is something that we have accomplished this

year. In the fall of 1980 we took the unique step of agreeing to respect the

authority of a native Indian band, the Spallumcheen, over their own children.

This agreement really received very wide support from the native Indian people.

It is now in the process of being reviewed and planned for, for the children

in the band who are in care, with a view to finding ways within existing legislation

to return them safely to the care of the band. We believe this unique solution

may be the kind of solution that we can have for other Indian bands throughout

the province. Because it is a first in the nation, I think that it may even

be one that can be copied by other parts of our nation.

would not like to end my very few remarks on the introduction of these

estimates without saying that I'm very happy to tell you that the

Helpline for Children has been very successful. The toll-free Zenith

telephone number which we have for young people who need help has

really been accepted throughout the communities. I believe that we have

really and truly helped save lives through that program. I'm very proud

of that program, because it has been picked up by the province of

Alberta. Just recently in the province of Alberta — I think about last

August or September — they too introduced a line which they call by a

different name. It was copied from British Columbia after they visited

our service here. We can feel good that we have also led the way in

Canada, and the rest of Canada is going to be doing somewhat the same

throughout the different communities.

I want to mention that

I have not felt that the assistance that we can give to those parents

who are single and have been left by their spouses…. I do not believe

that we have come as far in our enforcement of maintenance orders as we

would have liked to. We still have some problems in that regard in

order to get the very best system that we can possibly have. That is

still under consideration by our ministry. Because it's such an

important consideration, we want to have the very best policy. As far

as we can see right now, we are getting close to a solution but not

close enough to make any announcement at this time. But I can assure

the House that the enforcement of maintenance orders — which truly

makes life miserable and makes people live in an economic state that

they should not be forced to live in — needs to be revised in this

province and across this country. We are not going to rest until the

enforcement of maintenance orders in this province is changed, so that

particularly those who have children and those wives who are left and

who have extremely miserable lives will indeed have a better way of

life by the policies that we put in.

We are very concerned

with the cost-sharing programs and the future of the Canada Assistance

Plan. Although the federal government has not made any very definite

statements, enough statements have been made that it looks as though

the future of all social service funding in the Dominion of Canada is

going to be changed to such a point that we are going to have some very

difficult times in the years ahead. We work and continue to work with

our colleagues across the country to make sure that we can have the

very best delivery of social services Canada-wide. That includes the

attention of the federal government. If they are going to take dollars

out of the province, they must continue their cost-sharing programs,

rather than cutting them off and leaving each of the provinces to fend

for itself, I look forward to the debate that the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis) is having today in Alberta and the help that the

Finance ministers from across the country can perhaps give us in

putting pressure on the federal government in order to have the very

best health and welfare services across this nation.

spite of my remarks about the funding and our concern, I am pleased to

say that we have had an extremely good relationship. It is an

expression of concern; it has nothing to do with being critical of the

federal government. We have had the very best of relations with the

federal minister and the

[ Page 5894 ]

federal

government. The federal-provincial cooperation has been very good

indeed. I think we have common objectives in social planning. I

acknowledge the realities of financing.

Mr. Chairman, I hope

these few remarks will introduce some subjects which the members of our

House will pick up on. Please know that I can't cover everything in my

ministry in half an hour or 20 minutes, because it is a very large and

diverse ministry. But I hope this afternoon that the debate on the

Ministry of Human Resources will see each and every member giving us

constructive and important ideas in order that we can continue to go

into the decade of the eighties serving our fellow citizens even better.

MS. BROWN:

I'm certainly glad the minister has asked for some constructive

suggestions. I think the most constructive one that I can give is to

suggest that she resign right now. I can't believe, after listening to

the fact that the Socreds had done a market survey and discovered that

the winning word is "positive" and had decided to change all of their

propaganda, actions and behaviour to more positive ones, that what we

would be treated to this afternoon is a list and a litany of all the

programs which the minister, through her government's actions and her

own actions, has been eroding and destroying over the last year. That's

precisely what has been happening. The past Minister of Human Resources

knows it too. Every one of the programs which the minister has listed

and mentioned is at risk as a result of that minister's actions and the

government's actions. Yet the minister stands up, and instead of making

positive statements by saying that her government is going to turn over

a new leaf and that people in need in this province are now going to be

served, what we get is a litany of all the programs that are dying, are

being destroyed and are being eroded as a result of the actions of her

and her government. So much for their market research. They had better

come up with something better than "positive," because we certainly

have not seen any indication of "positive" to date. My positive

contribution to the debate is to suggest that the minister resign at

this particular point.

A Ministry of Human Resources has a

number of responsibilities to its people. As someone who has worked in

the field for a number of years, I can only give you my perception. My

perception is that the ministry has at least two things to do. It

should deliver services and it should also act in an advocacy role on

behalf of the people in the province who are dependent on its services.

Despite the very excellent staff which the minister has to work with,

despite the army of hard-working volunteers in this province and

despite everything that the government has going for it, the minister

and the ministry have failed on both counts. They are not meeting the

need for services, and the minister is certainly not operating as an

advocate for the people in need in this particular province.

Let

us begin by specifically dealing with the advocacy role of the minister

as it affects the children of this province. Let's start out by dealing

with a topic which is of special interest to the minister, because when

one goes through the records we find that she's always sending off

telegrams on their behalf.

I want to start off by talking about the whole issue of teenage prostitution.

When I went through the record, this is what I found. I found in 1979 a newspaper

clipping indicating that the minister sent a cable to the federal Minister of

Justice saying: "Something has to be done about teenage prostitution in

this province, because it's a terrible, dreadful thing that is happening

to the young people of British Columbia. Please amend the Criminal Code so that

something can happen about it." I went through the records and found that

again in 1980 there was a telegram sent to the minister responsible for the

Criminal Code of Canada from the Minister of Human Resources, saying: "This

is a terrible, dreadful thing that we have to deal with in British Columbia,

this business of teenage prostitution." Lo and behold, in 1981, what do

we find once again? The minister brought out the same telegrams she sent in

1979 and 1980. The same telegram is again being sent in 1981 to the Minister

of Justice of Canada, saying: "Please do something about the Criminal Code,

because we've got this terrible problem of teen-age prostitution in British

Columbia." What else has the minister done, or what did the minister before

her do? Well, the reality of the situation is that it takes two people. In fact,

what we're looking at is a teenager as the victim in this particular instance.

When we question the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) we find that the customer —

the person who makes prostitution possible by paying for the service — is not

being touched. We find, in fact, that charges are not being laid in 1981, charges

were not laid in 1980 or 1979, and as far as we know charges have never been

laid. In all of the research that's been done to try and find even one single

case where the charge was laid, we haven't been able to find one. The Attorney-General

has agreed that he is going to do some research and try and see if he can come

up with one instance where a charge has been laid against an adult male who

has purchased the services of a female child. That's what we're talking

about.

We're

not talking about telegrams being sent in 1979, 1980 and 1981. We're

talking about the minister's role as an advocate for the children in

this province, who should be able to say that a child that has been

used by an adult male is a child at risk, a child that needs

protection, and charges should be laid against that adult male. Yet

there is not a word about the adult male. It shouldn't be necessary to

send a telegram to the federal Minister of Justice. This minister is a

member of the cabinet who has contact with the Attorney-General and the

Premier; she has access to the delivery of justice in this province

that nobody else in this province has. And what do we find happening in

1981? Precisely what happened in 1980, 1979, 1978, 1977 and forever.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN:

No. In fact, if the minister had been able to apply some of the issues

that were being dealt with at that time, she would have known, because

the research is there and it states very clearly…. I can give her back

copies of her own research which states very clearly that the child is

a victim. You don't zero in on the victim; you zero in on the person

who is perpetrating the crime, if indeed it is a crime — and it is a

crime. It doesn't make any sense to keep sending off cables about the

victim and letting the criminals go free.

The minister

stands up and says she hopes that she will get some constructive

suggestions and ideas. That's the second constructive suggestion I'm

making, Mr. Chairman. First of all recognize that a child is a child,

and when a child is being used by an adult, that child is a victim. The

minister's responsibility is to protect that child, not to participate

in the myths and the fantasies and the scapegoating that is going on

surrounding the children — the female and the male children

[ Page 5895 ]

— who are being used on Davie Street, Granville Street and in other parts of this province by adult males.

One

of the things you ask about this whole business of adult sexual

exploitation of children is: where does it occur? The answer is that it

occurs in hotels. I have a copy of the particular

section of the

Criminal Code which states quite clearly that it is against the law for

any public place or other place to be rented or leased to be used as a

common bawdy house, yet there has not been a case when a 14-year-old

child has gone to a hotel and rented a room with an adult male in her

company that that hotel has been charged with contributing to

delinquency. Every single time a hotel rents a room to a child in the

company of an adult male by the day — or by the hour, as happens in

some instances — that hotel is contributing to the delinquency of that

child. What is the minister doing about that in her advocacy role of

protecting the children of the province? If the minister doesn't have

the information, as I said, I'm very happy to pass on to her all the

reports, some of which have been in her possession since 1977. She must

have got them from the previous Minister of Human Resources.

would really like not to have to go through the hypocrisy of having the

Minister of Human Resources once again send that telegram to the

Minister of Justice saying, "Help, please do something about the

Criminal Code," just before her estimates come up in 1982. I know that

there are dedicated, committed, hard-working social workers working

with those kids, but it's not the kind of thing that Human Resources is

going to be able to solve by itself through counselling. That's not the

way it happens. As long as the customers are there and are protected by

the law and the government, and as long as the Minister of Human

Resources remains silent on the subject of the customers, all the

counselling in the world is not going to bring an end to the sexual

exploitation of children by adult males. It's not going to happen.

The

Minister of Human Resources is not going to pacify her conscience and

get off the hook simply by sending off one telegram once a year to the

Minister of Justice saying: "Help, please do something about the

Criminal Code." In her role as an advocate for the children of this

province she's been a hopeless failure. She's been a disaster, and

should resign on those grounds alone. She has the tools, she has access

to the Attorney-General and the Premier, she's got the support of the

community groups, TRACY, SPARC and the United Way. Everyone wants to

help her with this problem, but it's not happening. What do we get in

exchange? A cable once a year to the Minister of Justice.

the statistics show, every summer hundreds of children end up on Davie

Street being used and exploited sexually by adult males. The research

also shows that we're not talking about poor, deprived, underprivileged

males. The research shows that that's an expensive habit which is

indulged in only by those males who can afford it. I don't want to ever

have to sit through another instance of that minister's hypocrisy

sending off another cable to the Minister of Justice. I want to see

some action over there. I want that minister to deal with the

Attorney-General in terms of what happens to those customers, and to

deal with the hotels; to deal with whatever minister is responsible at

whatever level of government, because it's a national disgrace that

after all her years as Minister of Human Resources the problem of the

sexual exploitation of children in this province is on the increase

rather than on the decrease.

Talk about having the tools to

work with. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) introduced

to this House an amendment suggesting an advocate for children — an

ombudsman to work on behalf of children. The children of this province

sure need an ombudsman, because the Minister of Human Resources is so

busy building glass slippers in her honour and her memory that the

children of this province have nobody to speak and work on their

behalf. Of course, she has her own problems with the ombudsman. So

don't use the word "ombudsman''; let's call it something else.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Let's have some good suggestions.

MS. BROWN:

Is the ex-Minister of Human Resources, who was fired from that job

because of his incompetence and ineptness, suggesting that to have an

advocate working on behalf of children in this province is not a good

idea?

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: A little

less advocacy. Do you know what the absence of advocacy has done? Do

you know what the absence of advocacy means to the children of this

province? It means that young girls and boys are being sexually

exploited by adult males, while the Minister of Agriculture and Food

(Hon. Mr. Hewitt) yawns and looks bored, and they get away with it

scot-free. That's what the absence of advocacy means. The Ministry of

Human Resources is not operating as their advocate. The government is

not operating as their advocate. That's what the absence of advocacy

means. That an adult male can take a 14-year-old child and pay her for

services. She gets charged and he gets off scot-free. That's what the

absence of advocacy means.

However, on August 21 of last

year, the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) introduced an

amendment to Bill 45 — an absolutely disastrous piece of legislation —

which was proclaimed a couple of weeks ago. It suggested that there

should be an ombudsman for children — someone appointed under the

Public Service Act to work on behalf of children. In fact, if there was

such a person — if there was a child advocate in this province today —

that 14-year-old child would have had someone to speak on her behalf.

She would not have had to live through the humiliation of being charged

with keeping a common bawdy-house.

Look at what's happened

here. We have two adult males and a child involved in a situation which

is illegal. There's the adult male who is the clerk at the hotel which

rented the room and the adult male who was the customer — two adult

males and a child. Who gets charged in a civilized society like this?

The child. Now it's not too late for the minister to act on the third

good suggestion which I'm making. She's asking for positive

suggestions. This is the third positive suggestion which I'm making —

that is, that the amendment introduced on August 21 by the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam concerning an ombudsman for children is an

amendment which should be accepted by the government.

If the

minister is incapable, unable or unwilling to act as an advocate for

children, then at least have somebody else appointed under the Public

Service Act to do that particular job. At least do that much. But the

advocacy role on behalf of children is going to have to be done by

somebody. We just cannot continue to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to

this particular problem, or to try and deal with it by sending a cable

off to the Minister of Justice every year.

[ Page 5896 ]

Then

there is the whole question of teen-age suicides. It's interesting to

me that, in elaborating the litany of things done by her ministry, the

minister really very neatly sidesteps the total lack of services to

juveniles in this province. Anyway, the disgraceful statistics on

teen-age suicide and the kinds of things involved in teen-age abuse of

alcohol, abuse of drugs — not necessarily just teenagers, because the

ages are getting younger and younger…. The whole question of what's

happening to children is one that — if she is unwilling or unable or

uninterested, and not wanting to play a

part in — the minister should

be willing to consider at this time; and certainly the appointment of

an ombudsman to take on this particular role should be considered.

The

other area in which the minister has failed in terms of her role of

advocate — not just to children but to their parents — has to do, as

she herself confessed, with the enforcement of maintenance payments.

The minister said they are very sorry the ministry couldn't do as much

as it would like to do in this particular area, and everyone is

supposed to say: "Well, isn't that too bad; try harder next time." But

that's not good enough.

The ministry really is a total

failure — an utter and complete failure when it comes to ensuring that

those maintenance payments are being paid. In any event, in the system

under which the ministry operates, the maintenance payments don't go to

the families anyway. Only the first $100 is kept, and the rest is

deducted. In fact, what we find again is that the children are the ones

who suffer.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Can't you say one thing nice?

MS. BROWN:

This is not a nice issue we are dealing with. What is the point in

saying something nice about an issue which is not nice? The failure of

the minister to operate in her role as advocate is what I'm dealing

with. And that is not an nice issue. The children, by no choice of

their own — because nobody chooses who their parents should be — who

are dependent on the Ministry of Human Resources for services and

protection, are not getting it. Certainly one has to zero in first on

that failure, which has to be laid squarely at the foot of the

minister, and in as gentle a way as possible. I've got to accept the

fact that the reason it hasn't been happening is because too much of

the minister's time and energy is being placed in other areas. The

ministry is obviously not her first priority.

That is why my

very first recommendation was that if at least she doesn't want to

resign, she should take a leave of absence until after the glass

slipper is settled and off the ground, and let someone else do it who

cares, who has some concern, some compassion and some commitment to the

people of British Columbia who need the services of the Ministry of

Human Resources. But this business of spending all of the time, energy

and effort building and putting together this memorial when the

services to people and children are being left without any policy

direction, and no attention at all is being paid to it, is something

that one has to zero in on. This is a gross disservice to the people of

British Columbia who need the services of that minister, to have to try

and make do with this particular minister, who at this time does not

have their needs on her mind. She's not the slightest bit interested in

them.

Again, Mr. Chairman, continuing to discuss the

advocacy role of the ministry, which the minister is ignoring, there is

the whole question of the discrimination which families in receipt of

income assistance continue to face in housing. This is another instance

in which the minister, as a member of cabinet, has access to the

minister responsible for the residential tenancy legislation. She

hopefully or presumably sees him at cabinet meetings and in caucus

meetings. Year after year an appeal goes out from this side of the

House to have that particular piece of legislation amended so that

landlords cannot continue to refuse to rent accommodation to people

because they are in receipt of income assistance or because they have

children. The person who should be fighting the hardest, speaking the

loudest and trying with every fibre of her being to have that act

amended is silent on this particular issue. Once again her

responsibility as an advocate is not being discharged. During this time

of the housing crunch, when housing is so tight, when everyone is

having such a dreadful time getting accommodation and when landlords

can pick and choose to whom they shall rent their accommodation,

families in receipt of income assistance and families with children are

finding that the discrimination against them is on the increase.

The

fourth positive recommendation which I am making to the minister,

because she has asked for positive recommendations, and I believe in

positive recommendations…. I believe that the market survey done by the

Socreds that says, "Let's use the word 'positive'," should be shared by

all of us. So I'm making another positive recommendation. A positive

thing that minister can do in the interest of being positive is to get

an amendment to the Residential Tenancy Act accepted by her government.

We have tried to get that amendment accepted without success. The

minister can do it, as a colleague of the minister responsible for that

piece of legislation. As the Deputy Premier, with access to the ear of

the Premier, the minister can get that piece of legislation amended. If

the minister finds that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Hyndman) is stubborn and will not heed her, there is a

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), who is responsible for the

Human Rights Code. That can be amended. There are two alternatives:

either amend the Residential Tenancy Act or amend the Human Rights Code.

any event, this business of discriminating in housing against people

who are in receipt of income assistance and families with children is

something that the minister should take a positive position on. She

should positively make a commitment to have an amendment, either in

both pieces of legislation or in one piece of legislation, introduced

to this House before her estimates are terminated. That is part of her

advocacy role.

As I said when I started, as Minister of

Human Resources she has two responsibilities: one is to the delivery of

services and the other is to advocacy. I'm dealing now specifically

with her advocacy role. I want to repeat that she has not discharged

her advocacy role, in particular with the children who are victims of

sexual exploitation by adult males. She has not discharged her

responsibility as an advocate for the children who are committing

suicide for whatever reason — certainly due to the pressures of the

community in which they live. She has not discharged her responsibility

as an advocate for families with children and for families in receipt

of welfare who are being discriminated against in terms of housing.

The minister also has not discharged her advocacy role in terms of looking at the impact B.C. Place is going to have on

[ Page 5897 ]

the

housing needs of people living in the area peripheral to that

development. An excellent study has been done by a social work student

at UBC on the impact on the housing of people presently living in that

area. Once B.C. Place is developed and the housing introduced there is

going to be high-cost housing. What's going to happen to those people

who are presently there? The minister has not spoken. She doesn't have

to do this publicly. If we could at least see some indication from her

government's action and the direction that her government is taking

that she has at least spoken out on behalf of the people living in the

downtown eastside surrounding the B.C. Place development, that she is

aware and that her government is aware that they are going to be

displaced and that somehow a plan is made to protect them and to ensure

that there is still housing there for them….

Region 15 of

Human Resources is in that area. B.C. Place is going to have an impact

on that region. The minister has been silent on this.

I can

see the red light, which means that I have two minutes. Is that it? Oh,

I have no minutes at all. Okay. I'm going to have to stop for a while,

but I'm not through discussing the way in which the minister has failed

in her role as an advocate for the people in need in this particular

province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, just prior to

recognizing the minister, I think it's possibly an appropriate time to

review the sixteenth edition of May on relevancy and general

restrictions on debate in Committee of Supply. Once again I will read:

"The administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the

necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be

discussed in Committee of Supply." I'm sure that the last member who

took her seat will realize that the Chair allowed considerable latitude

in the opening remarks. We'll get back to that particular

section and

more relevance as the debate continues.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to the member who has been very

critical of the handling of Davie Street and the juvenile prostitution

problem in the city of Vancouver. Let's just tell it for what it is and

put it all out on the table here and now. The problem with the member

for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) and the other members of the opposition

party in this House is that none of them at any time ever stated one

word when all the problems grew in the city of Vancouver because of the

problems with the Criminal Code, when the Criminal Code of Canada was

challenged in the supreme court and the law enforcement agencies in the

city of Vancouver could not enforce the law as it should be enforced.

Let's call it for what it really is. That side of the House,

represented in the very centre of Vancouver where the juvenile

prostitution problem is the most acute in all of Canada, said not one

solitary word.

That member talks about cables. I'm going to tell you that I've got

a filing cabinet in my office — of which only three files are here on this desk — all

on the juvenile problem in the city of Vancouver. Did the mayor of Vancouver

do anything about it? Did the aldermen in the city of Vancouver do anything

about it? Did the the MLAs representing Vancouver Centre do anything about it?

Mr. Chairman, they said not one solitary word until today. Let's call it

for what it is: the member for Burnaby-Edmonds on two items right here on the

floor of this House today said: "My gosh, we didn't speak up; we'd

better put it on the record; we'd better make it clear; we'd better

call for this minister's resignation; we'd better get the whole thing

on the table on this day on this estimate, because we have forgotten; why, we

didn't say anything." And they didn't; they didn't say one

solitary word.

Mr.

Chairman, if that member were so concerned, where was she when the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and I called on the member in

Ottawa, Mr. Chretien, and asked for that member to stand up and be

counted?

Does she get kicks out of relating about children

that are being abused? She relates them on the floor of this House as

if it's the fault of this ministry, this government or any one citizen

in this province. Of course it isn't the fault of any one person in

this province. The law is such that it can be and is only handled by

the federal administration — the federal law which needs to be amended

but has not been amended by the dominion government.

The

member talks about research, and if she had any kind of research at all

she would know that this matter has even been addressed on a civic

basis by the city of Montreal through legislation. I have a copy of the

act here. In Montreal, I understand, juvenile prostitution is quite

well contained by a civic bylaw. It was introduced by alderman Helen

Boyce in the city of Vancouver and is now being. studied by the civic

government there. But it's been almost two years that the

Attorney-General and I have been negotiating with the federal

government and the city of Vancouver. Who was it that established the

first and only organization in the city of Vancouver to address this by

the appointment of Ted Oliver? Who appointed Mr. Ted Oliver? The

provincial government. That's not sending a cable or a letter; that is

action. It cost the provincial government money to take over a

responsibility that, frankly, was the city of Vancouver's

responsibility. They should have been doing it themselves. We called on

them for help, and they gave us assistance in terms of cooperation, but

it was the provincial government — the Ministry of Human Resources —

that initiated that, Mr. Chairman.

The member tries to put

on…. She says that we have sent three telegrams. Yes, I sent telegrams

to get attention from the minister who has the responsibility and can

do something about it — the very minister who promised us that in the

fall of this past year he would be introducing amendments to the

Criminal Code which would address themselves to the Davie Street

question. This member tries to make light of telegrams and tries to put

us in a position as if we haven't done anything. There isn't any

provincial government in this whole nation with this problem — and that

includes Ontario and Quebec — that has addressed itself to this problem

with as much ambition as this government has.

I recall to

you not only the Ted Oliver report and what he recommended, but the

fact that many or most of the recommendations have been carried out.

Mr. Oliver recommended that through the Attorney-General's ministry and

the police department in the city of Vancouver, which gave great

resources and cooperation, we reinstated car 178, which gave us

attention to a small area and tried to help these youngsters from day

to day and from night to night; and that was reinstated. He recommended

that we have an emergency facility. He said that it wasn't good enough

and it didn't work — and we all said it wouldn't work — to take

children….

You take them out of the area and perhaps take

them to another community, back to their own homes…. He said: "It

doesn't work. Your own ministry tells you it doesn't work. They're

right back on the street within 24 hours be-

[ Page 5898 ]

cause

you can't lock them up. What is needed now is a one step away from the

street hostel." A one step away from the street hostel was put, into

place in the city of Vancouver. It's there now. It wasn't the most

popular thing for the city of Vancouver or for the provincial

government to do because, like so many things, it's fine to have it,

everybody wants it and they want help for the children but "please

don't put it in my neighbourhood."

We went all through that

and we'll go all through it under many other services for children that

we have to deal with in the future. But I'm going to tell you that I

didn't see the members for Vancouver Centre stand up and say: "That's a

good idea. Let me help you with the business community in that area

that don't want this hostel down there." I didn't see them at the

meetings. I didn't see them coming forward and saying this was

something that all people on all sides of the House and all parties can

agree on. We didn't hear a word from that party. We didn't have one

iota of help — not one word. I'll tell you what's bothering them over

there. Because they didn't have any interest in it, didn't speak

publicly about it and didn't stand up to be counted when the time was

there to stand up to be counted, they're Johnny-come-latelys now and

want to hitch onto the bandwagon. I didn't do it for publicity. I did

it to get the job done for the young people. You're doing it today to

hook onto some headline that you want, and you're not doing it for the

children of that area. won't take that from that member for

Burnaby-Edmonds. I won't take the accusation that we have done nothing

in that regard.

The jury is still out on whether or not the

one step away from the street hostel is going to be a truly successful

one. Let me tell you what the hostel has already done in six months.

All children who are picked up do not go there. There are some children

who can return to their families, foster parents or to whatever

community they have come from. So we don't take all children and put

them in that hostel. But of 30 youngsters who have been picked up and

have been given treatment — remember, this is a slow-starting program —

all except five have been successfully rehabilitated and placed. This

is a very good example of a cooperative effort by several agencies. I'd

like to pay tribute to them because this has not been an easy one to

get off the ground. That is a cooperative effort by the Ministry of the

Attorney-General, the Ministry of Education, our ministry, the people,

police and social agencies in the city of Vancouver, the civic

government and the provincial government. All of us are working

together, all above politics, and all saying that we want the very best

thing for those youngsters. We want to help them.

I'm going

to repeat that we can be the stretcher-bearers after the problem and

the accident. We can try to mend and put the pieces of their lives

together. That's what we're here for. We'll do that job. We'll do it

over and over again. Even when it seems frustrating, we'll continue to

do it. But what can stop the whole thing is an action by the federal

administration. I've said that over and over again in a series of

frustrations over a teen-age suicide and a charge of a teenager in a

bawdy-house last week. Yes, I sent another telegram. I'm going to read

the telegram to the House. It was to the hon. Jean Chretien. It says:

IT IS WITH GREAT CONCERN AND FRUSTRATION OVER UNSEEMLY 'DELAYS

WHICH PROMPTS ME TO REITERATE MY PLEA FOR ACTION TO DEAL WITH JUVENILE PROSTITUTION

IN THE CITY OF VANCOUVER. I REMIND YOU OF OUR MEETING OF JULY 22, 1980, AND

YOUR EXPRESSED DETERMINATION TO TAKE STEPS TO DEAL WITH THIS DIFFICULT PROBLEM.

MY REQUEST FOR ANOTHER MEETING WITH YOU IN LATE 1980, WHEN YOU FAILED TO PRESENT

CHANGES TO THE CRIMINAL CODE TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, WAS DELAYED AS YOU FELT

YOU WISHED TO HAVE THE FINDINGS FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA ON AN APPEAL

IN THE GALJOT CASE.

THIS WEEK WE HAVE HAD A SUICIDE BY A 14-YEAR-OLD GIRL AND A CHARGE

AGAINST THE YOUNGEST KEEPER OF A COMMON BAWDY-HOUSE IN THE CITY OF VANCOUVER.

THE CHARGE IS LAID AGAINST A 14-YEAR-OLD GIRL. IT IS UNBELIEVABLE THAT IN THIS

YEAR 1981 WE STILL PERMIT CHARGES AGAINST JUVENILES IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHARGES

AGAINST THE PROCURERS. SURELY THE HOUSE OF COMMONS CAN RELATE TO THE STREET

CHILDREN OF VANCOUVER WHO CONTINUE THIS MERRY-GO-ROUND OF PROSTITUTION, ARE TAKEN

IN BY OUR MINISTRY AND WITHIN HOURS ARE BACK ON THE STREET IN THE ABSENCE OF

ANY LEGAL MEANS TO DETAIN THEM AND OFFER REHABILITATION.

I HOPE TO HAVE YOUR RESPONSE BY RETURN.

Mr.

Chairman, I have so much material here on the problems of juvenile

prostitution that it could keep us here until 6 o'clock. It is a very

sad day in this House when we have a member who is to be the official

critic of this ministry stand on her feet and try to say that we have

done nothing in this province about the problem which is probably one

of the worst social problems we have had. But I think we can see it for

what it is. The member has not spoken up until today, and I guess it's

an opportunistic kind of thing in this regard. She trying to put it on

my head that nothing has been done. I've had enough things said to me

by that party across the floor of this House, and outside this House,

that frankly it doesn't bother me too much. I just assess it according

to whence it comes.

This is a very serious problem, and it

is the kind of problem that members on all sides of this House should

be in unison on, not fighting one with the other. The member talks

about children being abused and sexually exploited by adults. Let me

say this to you: not once has that member come to me in my office and

discussed something. I would even go to her office, whatever — I'm

easy. Why don't you come to us if you have some wonderful cure,

something that none of us have ever thought of besides all those things

we have already done: the implementation of the

one-step-away-from-the-street hostel, the added help on the site,

social workers, health workers and young street workers to assist, the

added dollars that have been put in to make sure that help was there,

the concentration by our staff, who carry the burden of that right on

site, who go home and worry about it all night, who wake up and are

called out to help those young people in the middle of the night.

you carry that burden, then for heaven's sake come and talk to me about

it if you've got an answer for it. Don't stand up in this House and say

we haven't done anything, because that is just an absolutely outrageous

and completely irresponsible twisting of the facts by a member who

would like to take on some kind of holier-than-thou attitude about

where she's been. I want to know where she was a year and a half ago,

when all those young people were on the streets of Vancouver and we

were telling the world that there was no help for those children

through legal avenues. We never heard from them then.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[ Page 5899 ]

would also like to say about the reference to the enforcement of

maintenance orders that I told you it was a priority for this ministry.

It is a priority for our ministry, because today, just as in many years

past in this province, there are parents with children who have been

separated or divorced and who go through that incredible wrangle of

having to try and collect for maintenance after a court order has been

made. I gave a solution for it a few months ago. It's running into some

problems because we haven't been able to quite figure out how it can be

enforced and implemented, but I think we have a solution. I told you

what it was and what I thought last year. I said it had been done in

other jurisdictions, and that they have had some problems. We'd like to

repeat what they've done in other jurisdictions without some of the

problems — that's all, that's where it's at. Don't try to put on now

that you're all very interested in the enforcement of maintenance

orders, when in the last year this ministry has said that that is one

of their top priorities. I told you quite frankly in the introduction

of these estimates that I'm not satisfied with the speed at which it is

going; but then I'm never satisfied with the speed at which anything

goes, because I like everything to be done yesterday, as most people in

this House would like it to happen. But what a bunch of nonsense to say

that we've failed. We're further and further ahead in terms of the

enforcement of maintenance orders. I can tell you where we are in that

regard when I exchange notes with my colleagues across this country. I

know the frustrations they've had, some of the things they've done and

some of the things they would like to do. I think that British Columbia

stands at least on a par with other jurisdictions, if not a little

ahead, in their research in this regard.

I wanted to talk

about those two items, and I don't think there's anything else that had

to do with my ministry that I will respond to. I asked for constructive

criticism, and I'm really hoping yet to get it. If we do have some

constructive response that we can get out of the opposition or members

on my own side of the House that would add to solving the problems we

have had reiterated here in the first hour of this committee, I'm

really willing to listen. I hope they'll come forward with it.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, I'm not surprised that the minister is saying that I've

never spoken on this issue before. Obviously, she listens but she

doesn't hear. I have spoken on this issue so many times. Certainly,

even before she was the Minister of Human Resources, her predecessor

can say that. Obviously she doesn't hear, because she also said that I

didn't offer a solution, a recommendation, or an idea. So I'm going to

do that once again, and I'm going to do it really slowly and clearly to

see whether maybe this time the minister will hear what I'm saying.

The

minister said that the responsibility of the ministry is to be the

stretcher-bearer — to pick up the cases after these kids have been

exploited. That is not the role of the ministry. There is an advocacy

role, a prevention role, and that's what I'm talking about now.

I'm going to start from the beginning and go really slowly. As long as

there are customers, as long as there are procurers, and as long as there are

adult males who can purchase the services of children, not all of the counselling,

the hostels or the programs in the world are going to wipe out the sexual abuse

of children. The minister did not hear, because she certainly did not address

herself to my recommendation, which was to start dealing not with the victim

— the child prostitute — but with the adult males who are the customers, the

exploiters, the procurers. That was my suggestion in 1980, in 1979. In 1978,

and again in 1981.

The

member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) and the minister herself said that I

get a kick out of speaking on this topic. The fact that I am a parent

of children is one of the reasons I am concerned about it. I am

offended by the comment made by the member for Dewdney and by the

minister. But I am not going to ask them to withdraw, because the sort

of people who would accuse another person and another parent of getting

a kick out of talking about sexual exploitation are obviously speaking

as a result of their own experience and their own feelings. So I won't

deal with that. But I am offended, and grievously so, by the comment

made by the Minister of Human Resources and supported by the member for

Dewdney that I am dealing with this topic because I get a kick out of

it.

I am angered that year after year we get pious

statements about what is being done for the prostitute and not a word

about what is being done to the adult males who use their services.

That is what I'm talking about. I know that the minister has a hostel

one step away, and I know that there are programs in place to do with

the children. That is not the point. The point is that the children are

the victims, and I want the minister to deal with the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Williams), who has the responsibility and the right and the

law on his side in terms of dealing with the adult males who are

exploiting these children.

In response to that issue which I

raised, I get 30 minutes talking about the victims again, and not one

word about the adult males who are exploiting those children. That is

the topic I raised today, last year, the year before, and the year

before that. I will continue to raise the topic, despite the member for

Dewdney and the Minister of Human Resources, who accuse me of getting

kicks out of it. This is too important a topic for me to back off from

just because I get upset, and because the member for Dewdney and the

Minister of Human Resources accuse me of getting a kick out of this. I

am angry. I’m angry about adult prostitution too, and the fact that the

Criminal Code addresses itself only to the prostitute and not to the

males who use their services. I'm doubly angry about the fact that in

responding the Minister of Human Resources zeros in once again on the

victims, rather than on the adult males who are exploiting them.

The

other issue which I raised was the discrimination against people —

families with children — in receipt of income assistance for housing.

The minister did not address herself to that particular topic. I guess

I'm going to be accused of getting a kick out of that too. But I would

appreciate it if she would address herself to that topic in responding.

What

I'm talking about specifically is the advocacy role of the minister. I

pointed out to her that an amendment was introduced to Bill 45 dealing

with the appointment through the public service of an ombudsman to

speak out on the rights of children, and to add that the provinces of

Quebec and Ontario have incorporated protection of the rights of

children in their recent legislation. The major opposition I had to

Bill 45, which was recently proclaimed, was that an advocate was not

included in that bill to speak on behalf of children and to protect

them. When the bill was being debated we were told that the minister

did that. I'm saying that it's not happening. The minister is not

discharging her advocacy role to the children of this province. It's

just not happening. I would appreciate it if in responding she would

deal with the topics I

[ Page 5900 ]

raised, and keep her personal comments off the floor of this House.

far as her role of advocate is concerned, I raise again the whole

development of B.C. Place, and how it's going to impact on region 15

and the people in receipt of income assistance who are going to be

displaced when that development is complete. I'm asking for some kind

of response from the minister about what is going to happen. I would

appreciate it if she would address herself to that topic.

There's

the whole business of federal and provincial cost-sharing. The federal

government recently increased the income exemptions which it is

possible for people in receipt of income assistance to have. The

government of British Columbia did not take that up. At the time, the

minister said that a pilot project conducted in Victoria had proved to

be unsuccessful, and that was the reason why that particular

opportunity to increase the income exemptions of people on income

assistance was not exercised. The $50 a month for singles and $100 a

month for families of more than one person has been in place for heaven

knows how many years. The federal government has now raised that and is

willing to cost-share in an increase up to $75 a month for single

people and $150 for families of more than one person. There is a final

report which the minister has. On the basis of the findings of that

report, she explains that she did not exercise this option. We want to

know why. Certainly the kinds of information coming out of the two

interim reports which we have did not support her contention that the

pilot project was not successful. If the federal government is prepared

to increase that earnings exemption to $75 a month and $150 a month,

there isn't any reason why it cannot work in tandem with the Individual

Opportunity Plan. I do not see them as being mutually exclusive of each

other. People should have a choice. They should be able to decide

whether they want to be a part of the Individual Opportunity Plan, or

if they would prefer to put in X number of hours in employment and have

their earnings exemption — the $75 a month for single people and $150

for families of more than that.

That again is a way in which

the minister has failed in dealing with people in need. The whole

business about the federal-provincial cost-sharing — the threats that

are coming out of Ottawa about cutting back on these cost-sharing

programs and the amount of money being put into it — is again where her

advocacy role should come in, and she has not been working hard enough

in that particular area.

In speaking about the different

ministries — the Attorney-General, in terms of the young female and, in

some instances, young male prostitutes…. The minister didn't address

herself to the whole business about the hotels either. She spent all

her time speaking about the victims. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich), with the Human Rights Code, and the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman), with the residential tenancy

legislation, have not been dealt with. I'm sorry the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has gone, because another area

in which the minister needs to exercise her jurisdiction as an advocate

is on behalf of the disabled in terms of the bus-pass issue. As a

member of the cabinet with access to the decision-making process, she

has still not resolved that issue on behalf of the disabled people of

the province. That is another failure on the part of the minister in

terms of her advocacy role.

The whole question of the

over-taxation of people, as brought down by the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis) in his budget, and the impact that is having on

people on fixed incomes — senior citizens as well as people in receipt

of income assistance…. The advocacy role of the minister, in terms of

fighting against these kinds of incredible tax increases that have such

a devastating impact on people on fixed incomes, is something that the

minister has not addressed herself to. Not everyone can defer their

taxes. There is absolutely no way of deferring a sales tax. When you

purchase an item, your sales tax is put on right away; it's not

possible to defer that; you can't put that off for three years. It's

the most regressive form of taxation there is, and the one that weighs

most heavily on people on fixed incomes and people in receipt of income

assistance. These two groups are part of the constituency of that

minister as a Minister of Human Resources, and her role as an advocate

on their behalf has been abandoned. She has not been fighting on their

behalf, and that is what I say when I say she has failed them.

listing all of these areas, I'm speaking specifically of the areas in

which she has responsibility as an advocate. I'm not dealing with the

direct delivery of services yet, because that's another issue. That's

going to take a lot more time. I'm dealing specifically with her

advocacy role and the way in which she has failed as an advocate on

behalf of children; families with children, in terms of discrimination

in housing accommodation; people in receipt of income assistance who

are going to be affected in terms of their housing needs by the

development of B.C. Place: the whole cost-sharing thing, in terms of

the earnings exemption for people in receipt of income assistance — all

of these areas, and, of course, the regressive sales tax which was

introduced by her government in this budget. In all those areas, where

the minister should have been operating as an advocate and working on

behalf of those people, protecting them, it has not been happening.

That's what I'm talking about when I say she has failed in carrying out

her responsibility in that regard.

If one were to even look

at the whole issue of the development of northeast coal and the

development of a new town to deal with that, and to question whether in

her role as an advocate she has ensured that all the community services

are going to be in place as part of that development plan….

Are

there going to be transition houses put into place? Is there going to

be adequate day care? Are there going to be adequate services for the

children, women and families who are going to be moving into that area?

I'm talking about the new town at Tumbler Ridge, or whatever, in terms

of northeast coal. That's part of the advocacy responsibility of the

Minister of Human Resources — to see to it that those services are in

place and that they're actually a part of the plan.

She

mentioned the Spallumcheen band and the Spallumcheen agreement. It's

been over a year…. No, sorry, it hasn't been a year. I guess it was

last fall. But apparently it's still under study. The whole business of

implementation still hasn't been reached. In your opening remarks you

said it was still being examined and was still under study. What about

the federal task force which the ministry has consistently refused to

participate in? The federal government has indicated, in terms of

delivering services to Indian children, that it wants to establish this

task force. The women of the Indian Homemakers Association, which the

minister knows is a very important component of the Indian community

because it's made up of the grandmothers, mothers and aunts who are

very much involved with the children, want the provincial government to

participate in this federal-provincial task force. The ministry has

consistently refused,

[ Page 5901 ]

despite

all requests, to be a part of that. I would like the minister to give

some kind of explanation as to why this is the case or whether there

has been some change in terms of her decision. Has there now been a

decision to participate in the federal-provincial task force looking at

the needs of children and designing some kind of plan for them? I'd

appreciate it if the minister would deal with some of those questions.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Chairman, first of all let me respond once again to the charge that

I haven't been listening. I was listening and I thought that I had made

it clear. I wish the member for Burnaby-Edmonds would listen clearly as

I say once again that it's a federal government responsibility. All of

the responsibilities vis-à-vis the Davie Street problem and juvenile

prostitution, as far as the Ministry of Human Resources is concerned,

have been handled not only in a very responsible and unique way but in

a way that has led the country in terms of social services in that

regard. There isn't that kind of a hostel, for example, in Montreal or

Toronto.

Let me quote your words. You want the world to know

no one in this House would argue with you — that you want us to be

dealing with the adult males who are the customers. You underlined it.

You said: "Now please listen." The province of British Columbia,

through the present laws in this nation cannot — through the Ministry

of Human Resources, through the Attorney-General, through the Minister

of Health or through the Minister of Education — change the Criminal

Code. It has to be done through the federal government.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) will have an opportunity to speak.

want to read to you our proposed amendments to the Criminal Code for

soliciting juvenile prostitution and procuring. It's clear and I hope

that after you hear this today….

I will be very glad to send

this to you. I think you have a copy of it; I believe I gave you a copy

a year ago. It reads this way:

"Section 195(

l) and (2) of the said act are repealed and the following substituted

therefore: Everyone who: (

a) procures, attempts to procure or solicits

a person to have illicit sexual intercourse with another person,

whether in or out of Canada; (

b) inveigles or entices a person who is

not a common prostitute or a person of known immoral character to a

common bawdy-house or house of assignation for the purpose of illicit

sexual intercourse; (

c) knowingly conceals a person in a common

bawdy-house or house of assignation; (

d) procures or attempts to

procure a person to become, whether in or out of Canada, a common

prostitute; (

e) procures or attempts to procure a person to leave his

usual place of abode in Canada if that place is not a common

bawdy-house with intent that he may become an inmate or frequenter of a

common bawdy-house…."

Procurement is mentioned…. It goes down through (f), (g), (h), (

i) and

(j). It says that the law should be brought against the procurer, just as you

have said. That is not possible under provincial law. The member for New Westminster

can talk about it being possible. If it were possible under provincial law,

the city policy in the city of Vancouver would long ago have used that avenue,

because they are at their wits' end, What I would like the House and the

member to understand…. She continues to say that she has given a solution.

She has given the solution that we gave to the Solicitor General in July 1980

at a meeting where he promised to do something about it. She makes light of

the fact that I sent a telegram to him last week because I'm totally frustrated

that he has not acted on that meeting which was arranged by the Attorney-General

and me. I think that she should be lauding us for prodding him once again to

get to work on it, rather than being critical of sending a telegram.

We say in this submission to him, signed by the Attorney-General and me:

"British

Columbia previously took the position that the current soliciting

provisions of the Criminal Code should be repealed and amendments

introduced to the effect that where a person approaches another person

in a public place with the intention to exchange sexual services for a

consideration, a fee or other gain, that person would be guilty of an

offence. Further, where a person accepts the offer, he would also be

guilty of an office.

"We continue to hold the

view that this approach is valid, and we recommend that it be

considered further as part of the continuing deliberations with respect

to the fundamental review of the Criminal Code."

We have met

with him and we reiterated that it is the adult customers who are very

much more to blame than the children they exploit — more so by any

measure of human decency whatsoever.

So don't tell us that

we haven't addressed it and that that's the almighty answer to it. Yes,

it's the almighty answer, but it is in the hands of the federal

government — the very federal government that I appealed to by a

telegram which you derided an hour ago in this House. I ask you, send a

telegram to Mr. Chretien today and tell him that you agree with the

Minister of Human Resources in the province of British Columbia, and

will he please address himself to changes in the Criminal Code. Now I

know the member is going to be up on her feet again in these estimates,

and I would like to ask you. Mr. Chairman, to allow the member to

respond to me in that regard, to please send that telegram today and to

support this Minister of Human Resources for a change. Let's do

something for the youngsters on Davie Street.

I'm going to

address my remarks to a couple of other things that were said. The

member raised the issue of earning exemptions. In response to the

federal government's recent announcements that they would give more

money….

They would be willing to share more money; it isn't

that they are going to provide some largesse which is going to change

everybody's life. I would like to say that I am quite cognizant of that

whole program. We are working toward relating this very much to the

Individual Opportunity Plan. We appreciate that over the years there

has been rather an ad hoc way of putting that program together, because

it has grown up over need; it's been responded to because of need, but

now we want to get it all reconciled. I think that's a positive step to

be taking. I'm hoping to have that review completed in a very short

time, and I hope that I'll be able to address in my report some of the

things the member suggested in that regard, once we have the report and

all the facts before us. So the member for Burnaby-Edmonds will be

pleased to know that it is under review.

[ Page 5902 ]

also want to address my remarks to some of the things she has said to

us regarding British Columbia Place. You know, Mr. Chairman, you can't

have it both ways; you can't ask for concerns over housing in that area

and then be against B.C. Place, because the very effectiveness of B.C.

Place is the fact that it has been purchased by the government of

British Columbia for a very small amount of money — a very good deal, I

might say. British Columbia Place is going to represent, if you like,

downtown British Columbia; it's going to be representative of the whole

of the province, not just Vancouver. It will rehabilitate an old

railroad and a semi-industrial, miserable-looking area that we look

down on from two bridges. It will beautify the area, and it will give

us an effective stadium which has long been sought after by the people

of British Columbia. But it will also add to the area housing which

will be effective and will give, as I understand it by reading more on

it, homes to families and children amounting to about 22,000 people in

the future.

It seems to me that the member, when she brings

it up and says that it's a terrible thing to be building these

monuments, is against the very thing that will produce the housing in

that area that is called British Columbia Place. I tell you, you can't

have it both ways. It isn't going to be from the tax dollars of the

people of British Columbia that the housing will be provided; it will

be because that property will be sold at a much greater price than what

we paid for it. People will be investing, people will come from all

over the world to invest in that area, and there will be a payoff to

the taxpayers of the province, instead of taking it out of the pockets

of the taxpayers who are going to be providing housing in that area,

which will be a great advantage to the citizens of B.C.

Discrimination

in housing. I would like to ask the member to bring that up under the

Housing minister's (Hon. Mr. Chabot'

s) estimates. I know that we have

problems in terms of housing in this province — problems of supply,

great problems of inventory. Those problems are because of the greatest

growth in the history of this province, where we have something like

around 55,000 people in one year arriving in this great, positive part

of Canada from all other parts of Canada. I know the word "positive"

irritates the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, but I will continue to use

the word because that's the way we are on this side of the House

positive.

I was very surprised at the references to the

budget. In making references to the budget, the member fails to

recognize that in that same budget which was placed before this House

there is $70 million of tax credit to low income families. It means

that for a family that has two adults and two children, with an income

of $10,000…. Personal exemptions credits mean that 40 percent of

British Columbia families will benefit — only those paying taxes, but

they are low earners. Seventy percent of those are over 65. That will

reduce the provincial revenue by some $70 million. I notice that that,

which was announced on March 9, 1981, was not related in any way to the

member's remarks.

You mention Tumbler Ridge, and there's no

question in my mind that the great initiative in northeast coal, which

will provide hundreds and hundreds of jobs for our fellow British

Columbians, will really assist those of our people who are on income

assistance. It will give further opportunities for employment in the

province and will assist them to have independence, and not dependence,

in this province. I would also like to assure the member, just as we in

this province have always been cognizant of providing the services that

go with such a development, that certainly that is very much on our

minds. We have had discussions in the interministerial committee and

between ministers regarding the instant town, if you'd like to call it

that.

I think I've covered all the points up to this point.

MS. BROWN:

I just wanted to ask the Ministers Human Resources why a charge of

contributing to juvenile delinquency was not laid against that adult

male who procured the services of a 14-year-old girl.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Chairman, you know the Attorney-General's ministry was asked about

that, and I think my own personal feelings and the expression of the

government with regard to our concern have been well said. The

Attorney-General stated earlier today in question period that that is

under investigation. I know his personal feelings regarding that, so I

know that it will be well looked after. But a report will come back to

the House through the Attorney-General; that really is not a question

for my ministry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a moment, hon.

members. May, in the sixteenth edition, reminds us that action for

which a minister is not responsible cannot be discussed in Committee of

Supply. I recognize the concern of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. I

also recognize that the Minister of Human Resources has also discussed

actions for which her ministry is not responsible. We do have a

relevancy clause which binds us in the Committee of Supply.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, the only reason I raised it was because the minister had

stated that only the federal government. had the jurisdiction to deal

with this particular problem. The question really was raised just to

bring to the minister's attention that there are provincial things that

can be done. A charge could have been laid under the law dealing with

contributing to juvenile delinquency. I appreciate that the

Attorney-General is investigating this matter. I just didn't want the

impression to be left that the provinces are totally helpless and can

do absolutely nothing in this particular area. There are things that

the provinces can do.

I would like to speak at more length

about the whole B.C. Place thing, but my colleague the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) would like to ask the minister a few

questions, so I'm going to defer to him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In the spirit of allowing debate to reciprocate, the hon. member for Dewdney seeks the floor.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

I cannot pass by without making note of the remarks of the hon. member

for Burnaby-Edmonds, when she heaped coals upon my head for a chance

remark I made across the floor. I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman,

that there's hardly any other construction I could put on it. I would

also like to tell you that it was during that same period when her

speech commenced that I went to the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr.

Lorimer) and I said to him, "You know, I agree with that member,"

referring to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. "I agree with what she

said, that there should be something done in this area." But what I

mean, Mr. Chairman — and I think I should make this clear — is that

this is not the forum for making speeches of 30 minutes' duration on

one subject. An opening speech by the critic of the NDP is not the

place for this kind of speech. I

[ Page 5903 ]

have

to construct that there must be some enjoyment taken from playing it

over and over again. The place for this type of discussion is in the

minister's office, as I have done and as other members of this side

have done.

We are concerned — every one of us — because it

is a very special and terrible problem that is occurring in the city of

Vancouver and in almost every other city in the North American

continent, and probably elsewhere. But I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that

this House is not the place for the opposition to make political points

across the…. All together, as a concerted force, at the minister's

office — above politics…. Politics has no place in this, I want to tell

the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. We all agree on it; we all believe it;

we all know it's wrong. Charge the males if you want; charge everybody.

But I say to you that we must understand that it is not a political

problem. Her place is not on this floor, making emotional speeches for

the benefit of her political party. I tell you it does no good. I tell

you it's wrong. It got to a point, after 30 minutes, when I considered

it extremely disgusting. This charge I make; I make it standing here

before this House.

The Minister of Human Resources is a

constructive minister. The programs that have been established by that

ministry are new to this province; they've never been done in that way

before. I tell you, when unemployment is in the position it is today,

there should be no able adult male on the Human Resources roll — and

there are mighty few. We believe that the element of work…. We believe

in the work syndrome; that's what this party believes in — we believe

that the federal unemployment act should be changed so as not to cater

to laziness and unemployment. We believe in these things. We believe in

what the minister believes in, that we should be constructive. We

should work together on everything. Human Resources matters are not a

political forum — not at all. They are a forum for doing the right

thing with people. One should not attempt to make points on this floor,

on the backs of the poor, on the backs of the disadvantaged, on the

backs of the young, on the backs of all these people. This is not the

place for it.

I say the member for Burnaby-Edmonds is wrong.

I say it is dastardly. I say it should not be allowed in this forum. I

say we should all get together on this great problem to solve the

situation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Dewdney is not imputing any improper motive to the member for Burnaby Edmonds, is he?

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, nothing that the member for Dewdney says bothers me. It doesn't matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm still not satisfied. The hon. member for Dewdney was not imputing any improper motive, was he?

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. Chairman has observed anything that seemed

improper, I would like to know what it is, because I have no improper

intentions whatever in the matter of this debate. But I make my points

very clear; they are forceful but they are to the point.

MR. LEVI:

In the past in this House we have had people who've said that this is a

political forum, and we've had people who've said that the worst thing

you can do in this place is to play political politics. Now we have the

member for Dewdney telling us that this really isn't the place at all

for politics. Well, he's in the wrong business. George, you'll have to

find somewhere else to go and talk, because this is a very political

place and this is a very political topic. I know as well as the

minister how political it is. I've got the scars to show it. It's

always going to be political. For somebody to suggest that you mustn't

play politics when you've got some issues is crazy. That's why we're

here; that's why the Minister's up there answering the questions and

taking the lumps, like every other minister has to.

I want

to deal with the minister on some of the booby traps and sand traps

that you get in the ministry. If she's going to come in here and tell

us that somehow she's pinning her hopes on the federal government doing

something, I say to her: "Forget about it." You cannot expect them to

do anything. Do you really think you're going to pass a law that's

going to prohibit prostitution? Do you really think that's going to

make a difference to the young kids down there? The kids will run away

from group homes. Do you think that because you build a hostel somehow

that is going to be more attractive to the kids prostituting down on

skid row? What are you going to say to a girl who makes $400 a day —

"Come with us, we'll take you to a group home"?

What the

minister has failed to address are the problems the ministry has failed

to deal with over the years. I want to deal with an example of what

epitomizes what you do in your ministry. Two weeks ago we had a debate

in question period — we're supposed to ask questions, but it got into a

debate — about a 14-year-old boy who was in Riverview. We had the

minister say in the House and go into the corridor…. She wasn't

completely sure what she was saying, except that the boy was psychotic

and that was the best place for him — which I disagreed with. We have

to examine that particular problem in the light of what the minister

has been saying.

I would like to know from the minister what

happened to the missing S47 million that was allocated by this House

for children's programs and never spent. Last year, 1979….

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Every cent of that was spent. You want to compare that? Well, we'll deal with it.

What

happened to the $8 million that you failed to spend in the family and

children's budget last year? You came into this House and told us that

Riverview was the best place for that young boy. For a minister to come

into this House and say that just proves to me that the ministry led by

that minister is completely bankrupt of the ability to develop

resources so that you do not put 14-year-old boys in Riverview with

adult people. We'd have been in one heck of a mess in this House if

that boy, who was beaten up the day I saw him, had been killed. Then

where would we have been? The minister's answer, I'm told — because she

went into the corridor; she didn't talk about it here — was that

they're now going to develop five special holding centres at $100,000

per child. I have a number of questions to ask the minister.

Why

is it, when you're so short of facilities, that you underspent your

budget on family and children's services by $8,400,000? That was

1979-80. What did you do in 1978-79? You underspent the same division's

budget by $11.8 million. In 1977-78 you underspent it by $6 million. In

1976-77, the infamous underrun year, you underspent it by $16.8

million. That comes to a grand total of some $47

[ Page 5904 ]

million

that you've failed to spend to use to develop programs. You failed to

develop programs in 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1980, and the fallout

from that failure are the people down on Davie Street, the young

children who are prostituting and getting into trouble — and you have

to wind up putting them in Riverview. That's the legacy of the policy

you have, the legacy of the fact that every year since you've been in

government you have underspent that vote.

You have

absolutely no commitment to a broad program dealing with children. You

think that because you take over a hotel and put children in it that

that's a solution. And you stand up and tell me — one of the most

ridiculous things I ever heard in my life — that you have 25

rehabilitated children. That's absolute nonsense. In the 17 years I

worked in the field the last thing we talked about was rehabilitation —

that somehow you got it overnight. You don't get those things

overnight. To suggest to this House that because you developed that

particular hotel you've got 25 rehabilitated people is ludicrous. You

don't rehabilitate anybody overnight, particularly not children as

disturbed as those young children down there prostituting themselves.

The important thing is that we have never had, not from this minister

or her predecessor…. Not once have you stood up in this House and

talked about what you think the ministry should really be doing in

terms of children, which is your major concern.

We've got

the member for Mission who tells us that no single people should be on

welfare. I can recall that five or six years ago that was a terrible

thing as well. How is it that this government can't do any better than

the other government in keeping single people off welfare? What is he

talking about? But you've got to listen to the kind of gabble that

comes out of that man's mouth. The heart of that ministry has nothing

to do with the issues of welfare. If people have got to eat, you feed

them. But we're talking about children. Later on we'll talk about the

retarded and what you've not done. But in terms of children, to

underspend those budgets every year for a total of $47 million is

absolutely shocking.

You have not been able to come to this

House and tell us what long-range plans you have, what new plans you've

introduced — nothing. You're not going to get away with the fact that

you took over a hotel, you're going to put young prostitutes in there,

and you somehow think that you've saved them. The name of the game in

the business of dealing with children is prevention. That's what you

spend your money on. You spend every possible cent you can on seeing

that you don't have people going into the system. To stand up here and

tell us that Ottawa won't do this, Ottawa won't do that, and therefore

we're in a difficult position….

My colleague has made the

point: you've got two pieces of legislation you could act on, in any

case. I would love to see somebody arrested under the Criminal Code

section. Let's appeal it and see what kind of arguments we have. Then

maybe those people in Ottawa would change the law. But don't tell me

that you sit in the Attorney-General's ministry and get advised that we

really can't win a case on this. I'd like the public to know that you

can't win a case when an adult is found with a young prostitute — a

teenager or sometimes even younger. That's the tragedy.

You

have not at any time talked about children as eloquently as you do

about B.C. Place — never. You tell us that you've done this and you've

done that. On B.C. Place, while you're answering next time, tell us who

is going to live in these 22,000 homes you're going to build down there

that will cost about $250,000 apiece.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI:

You cannot mix the two. That's the ludicrousness of the situation. We

have a Minister of Human Resources who is supposed to concern herself

with treatment of people in need. At the same time she's mixing in B.C.

Place. It's incredible!

Address yourself to the portfolio.

Address yourself to children. Answer the question for us: how is it

that $47 million was underspent in that ministry in the area where

future costs…? You've got an example of future costs in the hotel

you've taken over. There are always future costs when you fail to act.

Not long ago — two or three weeks ago — we were talking in committee

about a new kind of financial accountability. In 1975-76 the

administration costs were $3.8 million. Now we're looking at

administration costs of some $15 million. I want to know what is so

all-fired costly when the number of people you have getting service

from your ministry is less than it was in 1945.

Your deputy

told us that it costs $25 million to administer a $450 million income

maintenance program. Somehow we expected to hear there was going to be

an adequate spending of money in terms of accountability; but we seem

to be spending more money on accountability than we are on children —

$25 million for this, $15 million for that. Where are the programs? In

terms of what you've been addressing yourself to today, how can you

stand there and not be prepared to explain to us that you underspent

your family and children's budget by $8,464,000? How is that possible

in a ministry that is constantly in need?

I've been in

communication with the minister about operations in my riding that

waited and waited and swung on the gate until the very last minute. I

spoke to the minister about the infant stimulation program and the need

for one worker — $13,000 or $14,000 was all we were talking about. They

finally got it after nine months. It's that kind of lack of

consideration…. If one wants to argue that the bank is empty and we

can't afford it, that's one thing. But when you come into this House

and I say to you that you underspent your budget in respect to

children, then we need an explanation.

If you're trying to

slip out of the burden that you have in terms of administration of your

portfolio, no amount of legislation in Ottawa is going to change one

iota of things in terms of the problems your ministry has to deal with.

You have to address yourself to preventive programs. You have to

address yourself to programs for the young children. But don't keep

crying about the fact that Ottawa doesn't listen to you. They've never

listened to anybody. You write that off immediately; then you make a

point of saying that you're going to do it regardless of Ottawa. That

has to be the attitude with those people. After all, they spent the

last 12 months talking about the constitution. They don't have any time

for young kids being violated down on skid row. They have no time at

all. Forget about them. Address the problem in terms of what you can do

in the ministry, Don't underspend the budget in terms of family and

children's services and then come in and tell us what kinds of problems

you've got. In just over five years you've underspent by $47 million.

That was one year's budget in 1976, and here we are now that far behind

in terms of programming. Now I want the minister to tell us something.

When she was asked about that young man that was in Riverview, she made

a statement to the press. What plans do they have for young people who

are constantly

[ Page 5905 ]

becoming

press stories, like that young man? The minister said that was the only

place they could send him. The irony of the whole thing is that as soon

as we raised this — and it's not pleasant to raise these things…. They

are signals, and we have to have signals.

That young man had

to be removed as quickly as possible, and he was removed. She acted

quickly, and out the young man went. But where did he go? He went into

a therapeutic foster home — a family that was prepared to deal with

him. That was an option before he even went to Riverview, but it wasn't

acted upon. It's that kind of action that brings the ministry into

disrepute. It shouldn't do, because the ministry isn't just the

minister — it's all of the staff that have to deal with the flak that

comes out of the community around these kinds of things.

It's

my understanding that the minister has indicated that there are going

to be five holding units for young, politically dicey people who keep

getting into…. Now what is the plan? What is the ministry or the

government planning to do? Are they going into the containment

business? Are they going to build juvenile jails? What are they going

to do with the troublesome youngsters?

We've had debates in

the House before when we dealt with the so-called containment

legislation, which was knocked down by the courts. What are the plans?

It would be nice for that minister to come into this House and tell us

what the long-range plans are for her ministry. I'm not interested in

hearing about B.C. Place. I want to know what plans you have for the

hard-to-handle young person. What are you going to do with them? Are

you going to expand the therapeutic foster home program? Are you going

to expand the group home program? Are you going to rely on the extra

buildings that are going into The Maples? What are the plans? Those are

the kinds of things that the member for Mission gets nervous about,

because they become political issues.

There is nothing more

political than having a 14-year-old boy in Riverview. That's sure

political, but it's a signal that the government has been incapable of

developing the adequate kind of resources. We heard at one time that

was going to happen with Willingdon, but we don't get any answers from

the minister.

We don't get any suggestions about what she

would like to see or what they're planning to do. You have an

opportunity to get up and tell us what the ministry's plans are for

young people who are in trouble and at risk. Don't tell us about the

hotel that's down there. That's a very small first step. You have a

range of programs within the ministry that can be expanded. You might

want to do away with some and bring in new ones. It's a question of

spending all the money that's allocated in the budget. The failure to

spend all the money has helped to make the problems far worse than they

were five and six years ago. What happens now is that you have to play

the game of catch-up — the heavy expenditure on young people who should

have had money spent on them years ago.

We can tell by

looking at the budget, at the grants and the cutbacks where private

resources have been bled of the money. That's the sum total of that

kind of policy — to cut back. The tragedy of that is that programs are

compressed, they become less staffed and the services are reduced. You

cannot expect to reduce staff and maintain the same service. Are we

really in the business in the next two or three years? When there's a

change of government, are we going to have to go through a whole

catch-up system again?

There was a catch-up system last time

— almost nine years ago. Nothing had been done for years. Then, of

course, it became very political for the opposition to talk about

enormous amounts of money being spent in the Human Resources budget. It

was necessary, but it was hardly even adequate by 1975. That was the

kind of money that could be spent. The member who talked about

politics…. The first year after the new government took over, they

wanted to demonstrate how they could save S100 million. They cut back,

and what did they cut back on in one of the programs? They didn't spend

$16 million in family and children's services.

The minister

has now been there two years. What is going to happen to avoid the mess

that took place with that young boy in Riverview? What resources are on

the drawing board? I have heard — I'll be very candid with the minister

— that there's going to be an expenditure of somewhere between $2.5

million and $3 million involving only five children per unit and a

total of 25 children in five units. Is that the kind of plan the

government has for dealing with these exceptionally hard-to-handle and

politically very high-profile problems? That's what I ask the minister:

what are you going to do with those kinds of problems?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

First of all, the member brought up B.C. Place on more than one

occasion during his last remarks to the House. I didn't raise the

subject of B.C. Place. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown)

raised the subject, and I was responding. I'll continue to do so. If

you want answers in this estimate, then I'll give them in response to

that. I'll be pleased to do so.

Our last speaker was talking

about cuts in the children's budget. During question period a few days

ago the same member made those same statements and charges — the

question that the ministry underspent its family and children's

services budget. An analysis of the expenditures for family and

children's services for 1980-81 indicates that the member who has just

taken his seat is wrong in his charges. Our financial reports covering

1980-81 expenditures show a total underexpenditure of $5 million,

representing 5.7 percent of the total budget of $87.2 million.

Moreover, in the area of child-care resources the reported

underexpenditure was only S300,000. That represents 0.9 percent of the

total budget for that activity of $31.9 million.

Sometimes

there is an underexpenditure caused by unanticipated temporary closures

of resources. That is when there is a turnover of house-parents because

of their quitting, getting out of the business or whatever. We're

talking about $300,000 on a budget of $31.9 million. That's 0.9

percent. It's not any overt action on the part of either the government

or the ministry to cut back services. It's just a fact of life that

when a house-parent quits and there's an underexpenditure, that's what

happens. I can give you more details on that if you want, but I have a

feeling that the member won't want us to give him too many details.

When

he talks about services for children, he hasn't talked about the 100

percent increase in the infant development program, which gives special

services from birth to the age of three years for developmentally

delayed children. He hasn't talked about the initiation of increased

subsidies to help more than 10,000 parents in British Columbia to meet

the costs of day care. He didn't talk about an expansion of specialized

day-care programs for children with exceptional needs — handicapped

children. We've had our field opera-

[ Page 5906 ]

tions

budget alone increa