1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational

purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, JUNE 20, 1975

Morning Sitting

[ Page 3785 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Savings and Trust Corporation of British Columbia Act (Bill 86).

Third reading — 3785

Workers' Compensation Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 105).

Third reading — 3785

Public Schools Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 83). Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 4.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3785

section 4 as amended.

Mr. Curtis — 3785

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3785

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3785

Amendment to

section 5.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3785

Amendment to

section 6.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3785

section 7.

Mr. Wallace — 3785

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3785

Amendment to

section 9.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3786

Amendment to

section 11.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3786

section 14.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3786

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3786

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3786

Mr. Curtis — 3786

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3786

Amendment to

section 15.

Mr. Wallace— 3787

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3787

Amendment to

section 16.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3787

Amendment to

section 18.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3787

Amendment to

section 20.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3787

Amendment to

section 24.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3788

On the title.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3788

Report and third reading — 3788

Committee of Supply: Department of Human Resources

estimates.

On vote 109.

Mr. McClelland — 3788

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3788

Mr. McClelland — 3788

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3790

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3792

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3793

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3794

Mr. McGeer — 3795

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3796

Mr. Smith — 3797

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3798

Mr. Wallace — 3798

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3800

Mr. Wallace — 3803

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3803

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3803

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3804

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3804

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3805

On vote 112.

Mr. McClelland — 3806

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3807

Mr. Wallace — 3807

On vote 115.

Mr. Wallace — 3807

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3808

Mr. McClelland — 3808

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3809

On vote 116.

Mr. McClelland — 3809

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3810

On vote 117.

Mr. Wallace — 3810

Mr. Lewis — 3810

On vote 118.

Mr. Wallace — 3811

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3811

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3811

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3812

Mr. McClelland — 3812

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3812

On vote 119.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3812

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3812

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 142).

Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 3813

Presenting petitions

Recognition of Chief Maquinna. Hon. Mr. Hall — 3813

Appendix — 3813

FRIDAY, JUNE 20, 1975

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the day.

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

leave to proceed with public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Report on Bill 86, Mr. Speaker.

SAVINGS AND TRUST CORPORATION OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

Bill 86 read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Report on Bill 105, Mr. Speaker.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT

ACT, 1975

Bill 105 read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 83, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 83; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I move the amendment appearing in my name

on the order paper (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 4 as amended.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): This must be seen

as a commendable amendment on the part of the Minister and the

government. As originally drawn in Bill 83, the powers and

duties of secretary-treasurers would have been subject to

regulation, and we spoke about that, I think, in second

reading. I simply rise to commend the Minister for making this

change.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, likewise I would

like to thank the Minister for listening to the School

Trustees' Association and in particular, the

secretary-treasurers. The original amendment would have been a

retrogressive step. She did listen to their submissions and

she's changed it again, and very rightly so. We thank her for

that. On behalf of the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr.

Gibson) who's not with us at the present time and who requested

this at second reading, I'd like to thank the Minister.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, could I just clear

something? Does that last amendment also cover the (

a) and (

b) sections? I want to be sure about that. The amendments

appearing on (

a) and (b): I just want to be sure that's

included.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All of the amendments appearing under that

item.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Fine.

Section 4 as amended approved.

section 5.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I want to move the amendment

again appearing in my name on the order paper which deletes

sections 5, 6 and 9. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 5 as amended approved.

section 6.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I wish again to move the

amendment appearing in my name on the order paper. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

section 7.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I would just like clarification

accordance with the regulations, and may, in its discretion,

grant leave of absence to a teacher." Does this not appear

contradictory — the two words "shall" and "may" in the same

sentence? Could the Minister perhaps elaborate on that?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No, it just simply means that they must

abide by the regulations, and then

[ Page 3786 ]

they may in their discretion grant leave following

that. But

there are regulations applicable to that which they must first

abide by.

MR. G.S. WALLACE: Oh, I see.

Section 7 approved.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the amendment

again appearing in my name on the order paper on this section.

(See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended approved.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I wish to move the amendment appearing in

my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

section 14.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, sections 14 and 15, 1

think, require a bit of clarification from the Minister in

terms of her attitude and the department's policy. I wonder if

the Minister could give us a clear statement as to whether it

is the intention of this amendment that boards should lose the

right to charge fees for students from outside the

district.

There are some districts which have a lot of border

crossers. It just so happens that there's a school nearby. The

boundaries don't make a great deal of sense in a certain area

and you get a lot of people crossing. The Minister has said

that no board would suffer financial hardship, and everybody

appreciates that, but we don't quite know what it means. Could

she define exactly what hardship means? I know there's an

amendment coming up from the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

on this, but I don't think that it really takes care of

this.

There are, as I mentioned, some districts where you have a whole

pile of kids coming across the border for one or two years just because

the school's construction happens to suit that type of border crossing.

What does she mean by "avoiding financial hardship" for school boards?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I would point out that we have to remember

that if they do take a student from an outside district....

First of all, I could perhaps just say that in reviewing this

we've discovered that it's really caused a lot of problems that

aren't really necessary. The amounts of money involved have not

been that substantial to begin with.

Secondly, if a board — and here again we say they "may"

accept a child...it doesn't say they have to, but if they

desire to, of course, they cannot charge fees. But remember

that that board will get through the present finance formula a

certain amount of money for that student based on the

instructional unit value cost. So if they do take a student

they will receive the normal grants for that student. I don't

know if that clarifies it for you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, wouldn't it be simpler, Madam

Minister, if boards were allowed to charge fees where they

consider it necessary?

It seems to me that the amendment seems to allow charging in

section 15, but in

section 14 it seems to disappear. It strikes

me that the two are somewhat inconsistent. While I appreciate

the Member for Oak Bay's amendment, I don't think it would

solve the problem because it deals with fees, and there is no

such thing really as fees within a public school system.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): On the same point

raised by the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson), Mr. Chairman,

there is the instance regarding School District 64 and School

District 63, and perhaps the Minister could comment on this as

a case in point — as an example.

These students, as I understand it, in School District 64

hitherto have been required to go to Ganges, Saltspring

Island, from the other Gulf Islands, and some boarding has been

involved, at additional cost to the parents. Now it's found that

in many instances it will be more convenient for those students

to move out of their school district on a daily basis to Sidney

because of the more direct ferry service and therefore attend

schools on the northern part of the Saanich Peninsula. Now this

will be at once a convenience to the students and their

parents. The students will be home each evening.

I assume and believe that School District 63 is prepared to

accept them, and School District 64, of course, putting it in

rather a tough way, will not have to worry about them. But

precisely what will be the case with district 63 doing a

logical favour to a neighbouring school district? This isn't

sort of casual transferring from one district to another, but

with very good reason.

[ Page 3787 ]

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, to answer that question, Hon.

Member, under

section 160(1) of the Act boards can still....

We haven't taken away the right of boards to enter into

agreements in the very matter that you are talking about.

What we are saying specifically is that they cannot charge

the parent. So in the case you are bringing up, an agreement can

still be brought about between the two districts involved.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, thank you, through you to the

Minister. The Minister thought that there would be an agreement

in this particular case, then? You indicated this was sort of

permissive. They may enter into an agreement.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, I would say there should be in that

case.

MR. CURTIS: You would encourage the proposal?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, I would.

Section 14 approved.

section 15.

MR. WALLACE: Someone mentioned that this amendment probably

doesn't solve the problem it set out to solve, and I just want

briefly to say what that problem was.

It relates not just to the border crossing phrase used by

the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson), which does occur. I'm

talking about cases I've been told of where a child's parents

pay, let us say, taxes in Campbell River and the child, for

whatever reason, during the school year moves to Victoria. This

child in Victoria is then charged fees or whatever you call it

for the education in Victoria. In that example, the school

district in Campbell River does not make any transfer of funds

which they have already received at the beginning of the year

in the form of grants and payments by government to the local

school district. The money is not transferred to the Victoria

school district.

All I am trying to establish in this amendment is that where

it can be shown that for justifiable reasons the child really

has to be in Victoria, perhaps for family reasons or for some

kind of course that is not available in Campbell River, or a

variety of other justifiable reasons, I'm just trying to make

sure that it should not be an administrative obstacle to the

child or the parents, that because the child moves from A to B

during the school year the funds not be transferred.

When the question is asked about the word "fees" in the

amendment, I'm really referring to the average cost per pupil

for education in the school district concerned. If Campbell

River spends $800 per year per pupil, let us say, surely that money

could be

transferred to Victoria. The snag there might be that it might

cost $1,200 to educate a pupil in Victoria, so I realize that

this cannot be a precise kind of situation, but that is what

the amendment is intended to do — bring some measure of justice

to the situation where a child moves from one school district

to another for justifiable reasons.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I appreciate the intent of the amendment,

but after a lot of deliberation we feel that the route we are

taking will be the most satisfactory to the boards involved,

because it is obvious that if some students are coming down

from another board, the recipient board has the final decision

on whether they will accept them or not, and to accept them it

is obvious they are going to insist on working out an

agreement. So we think it better to do it that way than the

mandatory intent in your Act.

Amendment negatived.

Section 15 approved.

section 16.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

appearing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 16 as amended approved.

Section 17 approved.

section 18.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I again move the amendment

appearing in my name on the order paper. ~See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 18 as amended approved.

Section 19 approved.

section 20.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Again I move the amendment standing in my

name on the order paper on

section 20. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 20 as amended approved.

[ Page 3788 ]

Sections 21 to 23 inclusive approved.

section 24.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I move the amendment appearing in my name

on this section. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 24 as amended approved.

On the title.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The title may be an appropriate place to

thank the Minister for bringing detailed legislation of this

nature forward. It is perhaps a little difficult for her to do.

It is the toughest way for her to do it, rather than just

writing regulations, but we do appreciate the fact that she

does make an effort to bring this detailed material forward by

way of legislation as opposed to regulations, and I don't think

we should pass the bill without thanking her for making this

effort.

I trust she will prevail upon her caucus colleagues, in

particular the author of Bill 127.

Title approved.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I move the bill be reported

complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 83, Public Schools Amendment Act, 1975, reported

complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as

reported?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: With leave of the House now, Mr.

Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 83, Public Schools Amendment Act, 1975, read a third

time and passed.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could you give us a list of bills coming

up?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I'm just checking. I think we've just

about reached the point this morning where we will move back

into estimates. Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I would

ask to move into committee on estimates.

Leave granted.

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

ESTIMATES:

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

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

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, there are a few

other concerns that I'd like to talk about this morning,

starting with the story that came out on television last night

and in the paper this morning regarding the juvenile detention

home in Vancouver. Some of the people who are there complained

quite vociferously about unsanitary conditions, and have

suggested that it's very urgent that the government make some

improvements in that home immediately. Staff are apparently

leaving because they can't stand the smell of the place;

general cleanliness is questionable. The people from the family

court committee who inspected the building complained of holes

in the wall, missing window panes. One person, the

vice-chairman of the committee, said that he was nauseous after

an hour and a half in the building.

Also, there were complaints of slow payment by the provincial

government. The vice-chairman of the court committee said yesterday

that it seems that there's an interdepartmental hassle within the

provincial government which is causing the problems in the juvenile

detention home. So I'd like the Minister to give us his comments on the

state of repair of that home, when some improvements can be expected

and, as well, what the reason is for the financial difficulty that

there seems to be. Does the Minister want to answer that first, and then

I'll go on?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): First of all,

the detention home is not within the department. It's clearly

part of the takeover of the court system in Vancouver, and is

operated by the Attorney-General. I am not aware of any

interdepartmental squabble. We are not involved in the

operation of it, because it's part of the court system. Of

course, whatever would go on in the Vancouver area is under the

Vancouver resource board. It's never been brought to my

attention that there's a problem. It's simply part of the

administration of the Attorney-General's department.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Minister, though, would obviously be

concerned if that kind of a situation is going on in relation

to juvenile offenders. I would hope that he would.... Since

the Attorney-General

[ Page 3789 ]

is in Europe and won't be back for a while...these are

pretty serious charges that are being made. I hope the Minister

would check into them.

HON. MR. LEVI: Certainly.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the next item I'd like to

cover has to do with welfare rates. In the latest newsletter

from the Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of B.C., the front page

of the newsletter refers to the past few years of NDP

government, when British Columbia, according to the newsletter,

has consistently led the nation in the area of social

assistance rates per person. It goes on to say that this is no

longer the case.

"In a survey compiled by the federal income support

division, B.C. was tied with New Brunswick in fourth place — Nova

Scotia, Newfoundland and Quebec topped the list. A single

resident in Nova Scotia on social assistance received a monthly

rate of $213, compared to the $160 rate in B.C. The figures

used were those in effect on October 1, 1974."

In a random

check on my own of some of the other provinces, Mr. Chairman, I

would suggest that maybe the situation is even worse than that

outlined in the newspaper. In British Columbia, taking two

people on the basic payments for food and shelter, they would

receive, I believe, $270. Alberta is $172 plus rent and

utilities, which would very likely bring that amount over the

$270 — Saskatchewan, $290; Quebec, $274; and Nova Scotia, $313.

For single people. In B.C. the basic rate is $160; Alberta, $92

plus rent and utilities; Saskatchewan, $190; Quebec $195; and

Nova Scotia, $218.

Mr. Chairman, considering that British Columbia has the

highest cost of living in Canada, those rates seem to be in

need of some adjustment pretty quickly.

There is a bit of a contradiction in the Minister's speech

on welfare that I would like to refer to. Perhaps the Minister

could explain who is right, or maybe nobody is right — I don't

know. A story in The Democrat of April, 1975, headlined "Less

People on Welfare," said:

"The percentage of people on welfare in British

Columbia has

been reduced by about one-quarter under the New Democratic

Party government. Human Resources Minister Norm Levi said in a

speech in the Legislature that 4.9 per cent of the province's

population was on welfare in 1974. That compares to 6.4 per

cent under the former government in 1971."

The Minister goes on to deny that all of his money is going for

welfare and that kind of thing. The thrust of the story is that the

welfare has been reduced. Yet when the Minister was asked to explain

the $100-and-some-odd-million overrun in his department, he referred to

a number of things: Mincome, medical services, child day care,

community grants, child maintenance, adult care, and others, and then

social allowance for almost $45 million. At that time, the Minister

said there was a 16 per cent increase in the number of people receiving

social allowance. There was a rate increase in 1974 of $20 per month,

but there seems to be a contradiction. The Premier as well has said

that there has been a reduction of the number of people on welfare. The

Minister said there was a reduction and then turns around later and

says that there has been a 16 per cent increase. Somebody is fooling

the troops somewhere around here, because obviously one of those

statements is incorrect.

He commented briefly on this yesterday, but I would like to

question the Minister again regarding the charges that were

made some time ago in connection with the Unemployment

Insurance Commission.

The Minister said that the province has had to place some

potential Unemployment Insurance Commission recipients on

temporary welfare rolls, blaming the problem on the tremendous

discrepancy in the waiting period of the federally-operated

Unemployment Insurance Commission. A member of the job finders

staff in Vancouver, Walter Muller, also accused the UIC of

robbing the provincial treasury by arbitrarily withholding

unemployment benefits and forcing the temporary jobless onto

welfare rolls. He said that $24 million in B.C. welfare

payments went to people whose unemployment insurance benefits

had been delayed or callously cut off.

At that time, the Minister said he didn't know how much

money was involved. He now says that there is some cooperation

going on and it is only taking up to three weeks to get a

cheque. I wonder if the Minister has done an investigation to

find out exactly how much money might be involved in this over

the period of a year. Is it $24 million? If it is $24 million,

that is an awful kick in the head for B.C. taxpayers. But

surely the Minister must have some idea of how much it would be

if it isn't $24 million.

I wonder if the Minister could also comment generally on the

job finder programme. Is it being continued? Is it being cut

back? There have been complaints in Vancouver that it is being

cut back. How was it working? Does the department continue to

be in that kind of business? It seems to me it is a very

productive area for the Human Resources department to be

involved in.

Perhaps I could talk briefly too about what seem to be

cutbacks in various areas. In February, the Minister said there

were evaluations going on of existing programmes within the

Human Resources department to see whether or not some of those

existing programmes should be cut back, and that there would be

no new programmes instituted until

[ Page 3790 ]

this evaluation had gone on. I think the Minister's comment

at that time was that we may have to trim the fat in some

areas. Have those evaluations been done? Where is the fat going

to be trimmed if there is fat to be trimmed? What programmes

will be affected? Which serious programmes will be affected by

any cutbacks? Will there be any new programmes initiated in the

next fiscal year? Just briefly, how did that whole evaluation

turn out?

I have some specific programmes which seem to have been

suffering from cutbacks in the Minister's department. One is

the Central City Mission operation in both Delta and Maple

Ridge. The executive director of Central City Mission says the

Human Resources department is responsible, because of poor

funding, for the closure of those programmes for troubled

children. There is another programme for the severely retarded

being carried on. I have a copy of a letter to the Minister

from a Mrs. June Frith of Burnaby, whose child attends the

Donald Patterson School for the Retarded in Burnaby, a

programme to prepare the more severely mentally handicapped

children so they will be able to take

part in regular school

programmes. She seems concerned, as well, that that programme is in

danger of being eliminated.

Then there is the problem of the handicapped. A brief was

submitted to the Minister, and they have been waiting patiently

for some 18 months for some kind of action from the Minister.

They expressed pretty severe disappointment with the Minister

at their recent appearance before the Minister in Victoria when

the Minister really offered no hope, in this immediate year

anyway, for the handicapped people of British Columbia for some

of the submissions that they made in their brief to the

Minister 18 months ago. About all they got was a

wine-and-cheese party for their efforts, and that was a little

less than they'd hoped for.

So with those few items, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to hear the

Minister's comments.

HON. MR. LEVI: On the issue of the welfare rates, which was

the first thing you covered, you may recall that in 1973, when

we did the first increase in the welfare rates, the amount of

money for a single person was $102 prior to the increase in

June, and that went to $140. The same with a couple: $173 went

up to $250 and now is $270. And the other rates were

increased.

The first significant increase of the rates cost approximately $25

million in terms of an outlay. Then last year what we did was to

project the rates based on the cost of living given the base figure

that we'd established in 1973 and projected them — including the

increase in the family allowance which had taken place last year — and

came to the levels that we have now. This year's rates are not under

consideration.

I raised this issue, as a matter of fact, to compare what

was going on in the rest of the provinces. I sit next to the

Minister for New Brunswick and when he told me that their rates

were $213, I asked him how he'd arrived at this. Apparently what

New Brunswick does is to tie the rates to a percentage of the

minimum wage. That's the way they've arrived at doing that.

Newfoundland has a high rate as well.

Something that we have under consideration is the business

of how far we go in terms of elevating the rates, or whether we

go into a two-tier system with rates. Let's deal with single

people for now: whether we should be paying the same rates to

people who are employable versus those who cannot be employed.

We're looking at this kind of situation. The rates are normally

increased every year. We will be looking at the rates. In the

family area, of course, added to the rates that we have are the

75 per cent rent overage. There's also the special needs

budget, which is not available in a general way in any other

provinces, where people have very special needs in which a

person who works on the line can make grants up to $500. These

are not grants that are eligible every year; these are based on

what kind of circumstances there are. So we're looking at the

rates. The fact that we're fourth and were first, and at one

time were ninth...these kinds of things do fluctuate.

Our efforts, of course, are going also in another way. We've

made a choice in terms of the welfare situation — we allotted a

significant amount of money to day care in order to get single

women off welfare into the workforce. That's why we have the

subsidy system. I did cover that last night in reply to a

question from the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace).

You've mentioned 16 per cent increase in welfare.

When I made the statement in September of last year, that related to

the previous year's increase, not to an overall increase. In 1971 — and

it is in the book — the total caseload was 133,000. The caseload that

we projected for the end of this year was 128,000, based on the change

in the situation of the economy. We have yet to reach 133,000 — almost

five years later with a very significant increase in population since

then. That's how those figures were arrived at.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: There were about 4,500 people transferred

from Mincome to social assistance during that period. But the

thing is we have still not reached the peak in terms of the

rates that were there before. I would also add to that that

unemployment insurance does play its part, too, in keeping

people off the rolls. Seventy per cent of the people who get

the subsidy in the Vancouver area are single women who have

children who are working. So that is, if you

[ Page 3791 ]

like, a reallocation of some money. If those women were on

welfare, if they were on the full subsidy, it would be costing

us actually three times more to keep them on welfare than it

does to pay out if they get full subsidy of $120 on day

care.

So the 16 per cent really relates to the difference between

the years '73 and '74.

On the statement by Muller relating to the unemployment

insurance, we were concerned and did meet with the unemployment

insurance people about the delay in payments. I said,

yesterday, that I understand it's now three to four weeks. I'm

not completely satisfied. I've recently had a case brought to

my attention in which somebody who applied for sick benefits

has been waiting eight weeks. We're in touch with the

unemployment insurance on this.

Now there are a couple of things I'd like to just mention in

relation to unemployment insurance. We have an interesting

conflict between the way the unemployment insurance works and

the way we work; and this relates not to the staff but to the

way their Act is drawn. If you terminate employment on your own

initiative, you have a three-week penalty and it takes that

three weeks for you to get the cheque. If you're in need, you

come to us. If you are in need, we're required to meet

this.

Now to me this seems to in some way be undercutting the

situation. I raised this at the last Ministers' meeting and

said that somehow we're going to have to find a mechanism of

warning people that if they decide on their own initiative to

terminate employment, they should not be looking forward to

coming along and getting welfare. The question is that there

has to be some statement, some agreement between the Ministers

and the federal Minister about this whole question of meeting

needs. The Canada Assistance Plan Act says that if they are in

need it must be met. But in that particular area where people

can quit and then have some assurance they will come on welfare.... So we're looking at some mechanism we can get agreement

with from the federal government that we may apply as a warning

the same kind of disqualification period. This is going to take

some agreement, but we have been discussing it.

The job-finders' programme is still operating. I did relate that in

April, in the Vancouver area particularly, which was the one that we

monitored very closely, we had some 9,500 people go through the offices

in the downtown area, which is a very large area where we deal with

single men particularly. Of the 9,500 people who were viewed as being

employable who were referred to the second floor for the counselling

and the job-interviewing with the Canada Manpower and the job-finders,

just about 5,000 made it upstairs. The rest disappeared, did not get

any assistance and moved on. And of that I think 5,400 — it is in the

answers — 1,900 were found employment.

That was successful there. It's been very successful in Victoria.

Probably the best job-finder programme we have is within the Capital

Regional District, which is now undergoing more discussions with a

number of employers in the north, again, looking for families. They're

not looking for single people but for families who are prepared to go

to assured jobs and assured accommodation. Those interviews are taking

place again. We have not in any way cut back anything with relation to

job-finders. We have about 30 people in the field with respect to the

job-finders.

On the Central City Mission, we have resolved the problem.

First of all, they got a 25 per cent increase in their budget.

The difference of opinion that we were having — and I think the

public should know about this — is that their administration

costs were amounting to 31 per cent, and that's something we

were not prepared to accept in reviewing the budget. The other

thing is that we cannot have agencies, non-profit agencies,

making planning about setting up other kinds of homes in other

areas without telling us about it simply because we are

required to pick up the operating cost. There was a problem

anyway in the Delta area, and then the whole thing was

withdrawn.

Now to the specific question of the Special Services for

Children programme, which is what the Member is referring to,

particularly in Maple Ridge. When we started the programme, we

said to the field that the only guideline you have is that you

have to watch the way the money is being spent, but the

programme itself has to flow. There has to be some innovation

about how you're going to deal with children. These are on a

one-to-one or two-to-one or a group situation.

We told them last July that we were moving to set up

guidelines and then had a series of meetings with well over 100

field staff, including the private agency people, about the

development of the guidelines, which have now been instituted.

The guidelines do reduce the amount of time that a worker can

be working with a child, but there is also a proviso in there

that that two-month contract can be renewed, and the decision

for that will be made by the regional director.

The budgets themselves have been decentralized into the

regions. The decisions are not made up here. We made the

decisions about how much global budget they will get; they make

decisions about how they will spend it. So some of the expanded

programmes have been reduced, it's true, but in terms of the

one-to-one situation, it they think it needs to be renewed, if

it's in the interest of the child, that decision is made by the

director. But we've said all along that we want to pull the

programme into line. It's probably the best kind of programme

we have.

Now in terms of the general approach to dealing with

children on a one-to-one, or in residential treatment centres:

in terms of expansion, I don't

[ Page 3792 ]

think we're going to see money available for further great

expansion. We've done a catch-up. But what we are going to see

is a moving around of the money, with decisions being made

about increasing the focus on special services for children,

therapeutic foster homes, alternate schools, but perhaps a

de-emphasis in terms of the residential treatment centre

process. What we're hearing from the field and the regional

directors is that in some cases they would like to have access

to some of the money that is being used in the residential

treatment centre thing. So there are programmes that are

happening in some residential treatment centres in which there

is a reduction in the resident part but an expansion in the

day-attendance part.

So we're turning them into situations where the children can

come in on a day basis, rather than getting into what is a

rather expensive operation of the boarding home thing. The

children sleep at home, but they come there in the daytime.

There are those that have to be in there, and of course they're

moved in. So the movement in terms of expansion of the

programme will relate to those programmes which appear to have

been successful over the past two years.

Now on the handicapped, there was a conference in October of

1973, and what came out of that conference was a desire to have

an advisory committee. The advisory committee started to meet

in January of 1974. In June, July and part of August they asked

me if they could go to tour the province. The only thing that I

asked them to do was to tour those centres which are not

normally visited. They went, they toured five of the secondary

centres in the province, and held public meetings.

They actually submitted their brief. Their brief was

submitted in late fall of last year. They did meet with the

cabinet committee. There were some commitments made about

architectural barriers by the Minister of Public Works (Hon.

Mr. Hartley). We have now made further commitments for two more

of the group homes that they want to set up in the Vancouver

area for the handicapped to expand extended care into a

situation where they can go to work. We've made that

commitment. But the basic thrust in terms of the general

handicapped has been initially in the provision of the pension,

which is a costly factor.

We are now moving towards the other kinds of support systems. Now

you know that, for instance, the CNIB were responsible for a large

number of people who worked in the kiosks in the liquor store. The

Attorney-General has announced that those people who work in the kiosks

— about 50 of them — would now become full employees of the Liquor

Control Board. That is part of the thing that the Association for

Concerned Handicapped have been pushing, and part of the handicapped

advisory committee recommendations. The same thing has happened in two

of our offices in Vancouver, where we have set up kiosks — people are

employed at the same rates of pay as other people. So there has been

some movement that way, but the main thrust, generally, has been in the

pension aspect, the provision of the group-home situation where four or

five can live with a personal attendant and can go to work.

I have said to the handicapped themselves that I appreciate

they feel we are not moving fast enough, and I accept that.

But, as I said to them the last day I was there, we have to

balance their demands in terms of what's available. One of the

biggest demands we are having, in terms of the handicapped, is

in trying to do more to continue the policy that exists in

relation to the Woodlands-Tranquille situation of moving people

into the community.

That is really where we've gone in terms of the handicapped

situation.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to again raise

with the Minister the question of regulations, but I read

through Hansard on his remarks last night, and he admits there:

"I have as much trouble as anyone else understanding what that

says." He's referring to the regulations.

HON. MR. LEVI: That was the language; not what it said, the

way it's put.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the trouble is, it appears, from

the way I read it, he didn't understand that an

order-in-council was passed on May 8 of this year which states

that the regulations governing Mincome will be the same as the

regulations governing social assistance. In his speech

yesterday he talked about no change at all in the eligibility

of the Mincome programme.

HON. MR. LEVI: That's right.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But in actual fact, on the first of this

month, by order-in-council, by a decision of the cabinet and

the Executive Council of British Columbia, you did change the

regulations.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, that's what you say.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would like, then, if that's the case.... I'll read you the order-in-council.

HON. MR. LEVI: No, I'll read you what the.... Because you

weren't in the House when I explained it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, no, I'm just looking over the words,

but the Minister would like to get up

[ Page 3793 ]

and explain it again.

I always thought orders-in-council had some sort of

validity, but clearly they don't — at least not with this

Minister's department. The order-in-council states:

"Upon the recommendation of the undersigned, the

Lieutenant-Governor by and with the advice

and consent of the Executive Council, ordering that British

Columbia Regulation 259-75, approved March 5, 1975, being the

Social Assistance Regulations, be the regulations for the

Guaranteed Minimum Income Assistance Act, effective June 1,

1975."

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): That's fairly clear so

far.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, so far clear. The Minister of Health

understands, but the Minister of Human Resources doesn't.

HON. MR. LEVI: Where have we changed it?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Now that's the point.

HON. MR. LEVI: What have we done that we didn't before?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Now that we've established the fact with

the Minister that in actual fact it is the social assistance

regulations which are governing Mincome....

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, we never said that it didn't.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, you said that there was no change

at all in the eligibility of the Mincome programme. In actual

fact, they are not identical.

HON. MR. LEVI: Where is the change?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Then we'll have to go back. I don't have

to go back over everything I said yesterday, but, for example,

I gave you the....

HON. MR. LEVI: 5IF.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: 5IF, 52B — let's see, 9, 1 and 2, 6, 3 —

there's a whole pile of them that I would sort of question, and

I just give you those figures. I don't want to delay your

estimates, but you're going to have to go back and look at the

regulations governing social assistance.

I think Mincome is something separate; I don't think the regulations

are and can be the same. The Minister has made this point to me so

often in debate that go right back — I have them here — debates going

right back to 1972, October 17 to 27, when he and I first started

discussing Mincome.

I just wonder if the Minister would like to indicate that

natural factor has been a change in regulations. Perhaps he'll

take this back now that he understands that social assistance

regulations do govern Mincome. Now that the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Cocke) has made it perfectly clear that he

understands it — a cabinet colleague agrees with me, at least — perhaps

he'll take it back, check out the regulations, scrap

those that are inapplicable and bring in regulations governing

Mincome. He said: "Where does it say that social assistance

regulations govern Mincome?" I read him the order-in-council

which apparently escaped his notice. At the beginning of this

month it came into force. So I trust he'll rectify that

particular problem.

HON. MR. LEVI: Let me just respond to that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, please respond.

HON. MR. LEVI: You have, Mr. Member, the most convoluted

reasoning. That's why I have to call on the assistance of my

colleague, the Minister of Health. You keep insisting that

there is a change in the regulations. What's going to happen

out there is that some people on Mincome are going to think

that somehow eligibility is different than what it's been for

the past two and a half years. There is nothing in those

regulations to change eligibility. Yesterday I explained in

relation to the two serial letters that we sent out — the

serial letter on April 3, 1974. That was at the time when we

instituted the five-year residence situation.

Having done that, what we had to do was to write in to

continue to make provision for that group of people over the

age of 60 who did not qualify for Mincome primarily because of

lack of eligibility in terms of residence. That is what is

referred to in 5(1)(f). Those people are not in receipt of

Mincome; they're of a Mincome age, but they are not in receipt

of Mincome. What we've done is to say that they are, in fact,

eligible to apply for social assistance and that the asset

levels are as they are in the usual social assistance

regulations.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The assets test applies to Mincome.

HON. MR. LEVI: The assets test does not apply; it's not an

asset-tested programme in that sense. We are looking at

people's incomes. In this respect what you keep referring to

really relates to that group that is of the age of Mincome

recipients but is not eligible for Mincome. For instance, when

we put the five-year residence thing on, there were obviously

some people who thought they were eligible for Mincome

and

[ Page 3794 ]

were not, had not been in the country long enough to get

OAS-GIS. Therefore their only recourse for getting income was

on welfare; that's what's written into the Act.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm so glad he raised that issue. I

didn't want to refer to his previous remarks in an antagonistic

fashion. But in Hansard , Mr. Chairman, it says — this is a

quote from the Minister; this is the draft Hansard: "It was

necessary to provide" — and this is the

section that the Member

raised — "through social assistance for persons 60 years of age

or over who for one reason and another, mainly because of the

length of their stay in Canada, did not qualify for

Mincome."

Now that you've made the regulations governing the

application of Mincome and social assistance the same, surely

there should be no need for such provisions.

When you switch.... I'm just having more and more trouble

here. When you switch and make the regulations governing social

assistance the same as the regulations governing Mincome, it

seems very curious that you would therefore go into this

hypothetical situation where social assistance is granted

because Mincome can't be granted. Surely Mincome can be granted

on exactly the same basis because exactly the same eligibility

regulations apply and exactly the same criteria are being used.

How can you work out this great fine distinction which you

mention on page 748-1 of draft Hansard? I just don't see.

HON. MR. LEVI ; Okay, we'll take another run at it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If you've got the regulations that are

identical for both programmes, as they are at the present time

by reason of Order-in-council of May 8, 1975, if they're

identical in both cases, why are you making these fine

distinctions to put some people who otherwise would be on

Mincome back on social assistance?

HON. MR. LEVI: Where would they otherwise be on Mincome?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Because of that residency requirement

that you talked about.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, they can't be on it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, then how can they be on social

assistance when the same regulations apply in both programmes?

Gotcha! Figure that one out! I just don't know.

It seems to me that if you're going to apply the same

regulations for two distinct and separate programmes, you can't

make these great distinctions

[ Page 3795 ]

of putting one group of people who don't apply for one on

the other programme. Because the same regulations apply.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The regulations, to my mind, should all

be governed by this latest order-in-council. Perhaps you should

withdraw the order-in-council — change it.

HON. MR. LEVI : No, no.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Lieutenant-Governor may have made a

mistake. Certainly he's probably been badly advised. When you

have the same regulations governing.... I don't see how you

make these fine distinctions between some programmes which are

Mincome programmes and some programmes which are social

assistance programmes. In any event, it seems pretty funny to

have this deliberate effort to get that group of people who may

have come to Canada as landed immigrants — their family happens

to be here — get them here, go through a great song and dance

of regulations saying: "No, no, you can't have Mincome." As

soon as you've gone through that exercise you turn around and

give them social assistance with the other hand. Surely if

you've got regulations which govern in both cases — that's the

example you've given me, cases where Mincome will not apply;

therefore you have to give them social assistance because they

don't have enough money to live on. Why on earth do you make

these weird distinctions? The system is complicated enough.

I don't wish to remind the Minister of any of these little

things. I don't understand all the things about Mincome, but I

would refer him to — I'm sort of proud of this — October 26,

1972, where I indicated to him that Mincome would cost $95

million....

HON. MR. LEVI: Which it didn't.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister thought it was going to be

$25 million. What is the cost now? About $110 million?

HON. MR. LEVI: We're dealing with the current year.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Okay, what was the current figure in that

first year of Mincome? I've got them here too, by the way.

HON. MR. LEVI: Does that say $25 million? I think I said

more than that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I just feel that having once been fobbed off by the Minister on the cost

factor.... Had he accepted my figures, he wouldn't have made

that $102 million error. It would have been substantially less.

He would have made much less of an error and he would have been

much better off, less criticized, less attacked for all his

efforts to help people, and I just can't understand why, in the

circumstances, he won't pay a little more attention at this

stage.

Mincome, you see, that year cost $62,411,259. I calculated

it out at the maximum of $95,396,887, and the Minister started

off at $25 million. I was 33 per cent out and he was about 130

per cent out.

HON. MR. LEVI: No, our projection was....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: From $25 million up to $63 million? Come

on.

HON. MR. LEVI: Our projection was $58 million.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, it started around $25 million, you

went to $40 million in the debate, the Premier said $60

million, and then burnped it down again because of federal

contributions.

As I said, I didn't argue with you on one of these things,

and it clearly turned out that you would have been so much

better off if you had listened to me in the first place. The

mistakes would have been fewer, and I think in this instance

you should do the same thing.

You have clearly got the same regulations governing both

programmes. Why are we going into these weird distinctions for

the person who has come here from other countries, who has not

been five years resident in Canada, and who goes on to social

assistance because of some footling regulations which I don't

understand about Mincome? Surely it is money in, money out, out

of the same public treasury, one way or another. In particular

when you claim, according to your order-in-council, that the same regulations apply, this distinction seems totally

fictitious.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): A few quick points

to the Minister, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask him about

the rest-home rip-off. Unfortunately when I raised this before

I asked the question of the wrong Minister. I should have known

better, and apologize for my stupidity on it.

Rest homes are now no longer paying interest on deposits which they

demand. They are doing this because they no longer come under the

Landlord and Tenant Act, so they are taking advantage of the situation

by requiring a deposit and not paying any interest on it. It is within

the Minister's power, as I understand the Act, it having been pointed

out to me by a more astute member of the press gallery, that you can

demand by regulation that they pay interest on any deposit they hold.

They are doing enough by demanding a full month's pay even if a person

is there for only two or three days before they pass the vale.

HON. MR. LEVI: To which Act are you referring?

MR. McGEER: Your accommodations Act. I'll point it out to

you. I can't even remember the title at the present time — it's

that obscure in my mind. But I can show you the letters that

were written. I'd be happy to do that.

The second thing I'd like to ask about is this. Last summer

there was a period where farm produce was rotting in the Fraser

Valley because it was impossible to find workers to harvest the

crops, in particular the strawberry crop. At that particular

time there were a group of people who were camping in Haney,

giving Maple Ridge Park as their address, and going down and

collecting welfare.

I'm wondering whether we have got any mechanism for offering

work instead of welfare to young transients. It's got to be

quite a game in Canada where you start with $2 in your pocket

and hitch-hike across the country and the first stop in each

city is the welfare office, and you move along quickly to the

next. People have had trips back and forth across the country.

They've made college fees and room and board for the winter and

come back with a couple of thousand dollars in their pocket.

Quite clearly this is an abuse of a regulation that is intended

for people who are genuinely in need. I hope we can make some

moves this summer to discourage young people from ripping off

the welfare system.

The next has to do with methadone clinics. I must indicate

my dismay, I guess, that we're starting to open up so many

methadone clinics around the province because the way I

interpret the experience with these, wherever they are, you are

substituting a state-approved addiction for a free-market

addiction. I don't know of any place where a methadone clinic

has actually cured a drug problem.

What it has done is to bring a host of other social problems

into an area, as well as to entrench drug usage. Unfortunately,

it doesn't end with methadone in a methadone clinic. Plenty of

drug trading goes on in the lane outside the building.

I would like to know: if we are going to open these clinics,

are there plans for closing them? What is the long-range

outlook, so that if you get one going for a period of time, you

set a limit on it and close the thing down and try and

encourage the residual drug users who are in a community to

move to another so that you can begin to centralize the drug

usage in one area and begin to clean up towns.

There was a time when Prince George, Trail, and Nanaimo, and

even Victoria, were completely free of

[ Page 3796 ]

drugs. I am talking about hard drugs, but hopefully soft

drugs, since the armamentariurn has been enlarged, and that we

could get back to the state once more where most of the

communities in British Columbia were clean of drugs. It may be

hopeless to talk about ever cleaning up the city of Vancouver,

but at least you should be able to get back to the state where

it is confined to one geographical area. Then it gets to be an

easier management problem from a social point of view, as well

as an easier problem from the law enforcement point of

view.

I just wonder if the Minister can give us some hopeful

long-term outlook.

Finally, Mr. Minister, I would like to discuss the Community

Care Facilities Licensing Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: Minister of Health.

MR. McGEER: Well, he was the one who said it was under

another Minister.

HON. MR. LEVI: If that is the Act to which you are

referring.

MR. McGEER: That's his?

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes.

MR. McGEER: OK, my fault. Can one of you do something about

it?

Finally, Mr. Minister, I don't want to ask any questions

that are going to be embarrassing. I'm only asking ones that

are embarrassing to me this morning. How are you doing this

year? Are there going to be any overruns that you know of, any

clerical errors? Are you going to stay within that $560 million

budget this year? Can you make it all right? Will there be any

press conferences to announce multi-million-dollar slipups, or

can we rest easy this year?

HON. MR. LEVI: We'll start with the last question first. I

think I explained yesterday in some detail that we have a

tracking system which is a much more accurate one, that I have

confidence in. Yesterday, I received the statements for May.

This time last year, I would have been lucky if I had gotten

that kind of information by about September, so we are

operating on a four- to six-week delay in terms of getting

information.

It is not actually even four to six weeks. The information

on May went into my office yesterday, so we are talking about

having information 19 days after the month of May. We are on

target, so I am hoping we will have a good summer. With

statutory programmes, there is little room to manoeuvre, but I

am much more confident about that kind of tracking system than

the one we had previously.

On the methadone clinics, the one attempt at a methadone

clinic is in the Vancouver area. You may know that there it was

centralized, particularly around the West Broadway area. You

may recall that there was a large outcry from the local

businessmen about it. What will happen in the Vancouver area is

that there will be a decentralization of the system into four

or five areas. They will still retain the central one to do

most of the analysis on the urine testing and that kind of

thing.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, the Member made references to the kinds

of drug problems that grew up in other areas: Prince George,

Campbell River, Victoria. Ten years ago, there was a policy

directly connected with the operation of the Matsqui

institution when one of the first programmes in relation to

parole was called the SNAP programme — Special Narcotic

Addiction Programme.

That started out where they would release a number of people

who were addicts. On the initial programme on that, they said:

nobody can move outside of town. Then when they went to the

second, third, fourth, and fifth, they started to move people

out of town. They allowed them to go where the work was. Then,

there were a number of doctors in the interior, the Okanagan,

who were maintaining these people on a methadone programme in

connection with the then Alcohol Foundation. The

decentralization from a parole point of view seemed very

practical — you go where the work is.

All right. At the onset of the soft drug thing, we started to

have drug centres beyond the Vancouver area. Whether we can aim

to do what the Member has said, to bring it all back into the

centralized area, I think, is highly doubtful because the

problem is significant in areas like Prince George. It is

significant in Nanaimo — significant, but not as significant,

of course, as in Vancouver.

On the methadone programme itself, there are 167 doctors

that are available to the programme. The commission recently

issued a series of letters to both the doctors and also to the

people involved in the clinics about the dangers of methadone,

spelling out the kinds of criteria for people getting on

methadone. These things are being checked very much with the

medical association.

That at the moment is one of the thrusts. Now I'm informed

by Dr. Connolly, who is the doctor in charge of this, that

since November the extent of the control and the kind of

criteria that is being used to put people on methadone has led

to a reduction in the number of people who actually go on

methadone. They've been able to do a number of tests where

they've made the judgment that some people just are not

suitable for that kind of thing. Some people don't

[ Page 3797 ]

even need to do it.

We did over the years some pretty difficult situations at

one time — four or five years ago — in the Oakalla situation

where people would go in there on remand and would get their injections of methadone with not a great deal of trouble being

taken to see whether in fact they really had a heroin habit,

and people were picking up the methadone habit. But I think the

general control situation is much better, certainly is much

better since last November when they finally were able to bring

it into a kind of coordinated programme.

You talked about transients and the farmers. In November,

1974, I met with a representative from the B.C. Agricultural

Federation, and the Minister of Agriculture, and we asked about

what the needs were going to be for the future. Also present

was a representative of the Department of Labour.

The arrangement that we have worked out and which is

available to all agriculturists is that if they have demands

for labour they are to be in touch with the Department of

Labour, who will then tell our local offices how many people are

needed. Now that's the kind of thing that we've worked out.

In relation to the transients, the transient programme, of

course, does not give automatically welfare to transients. They

do not have automatic welfare. They may get a voucher. They may

get put into a hostel, but they're not automatically on

welfare.

What the Member says is quite correct, that people are

travelling this country via the welfare offices. That is

happening, but in B.C. certainly between June and September,

transients are dealt with in a quite different way because of

the large number that comes through and people are dealt with

usually in the rest of the year. They are not placed on

welfare. There are very rigid criteria for anyone who comes in

as a transient to eventually get on full welfare.

Now the most successful part of the transient programme

which operates by the Youth Hostel Association is that where

there are hostels — and I'm thinking particularly of the one in

Revelstoke, where the stays are short; where the referrals to

employment are okay.... We have tried to get hostels,

particularly in the Okanagan area and have some trouble doing

this. If we had those kind of hostels, given the experience we

had in Kamloops and Revelstoke, we could make available on a

very steady basis, people to the farmers in a more organized

way than it's done now. But we have not been able, for

instance, to sell the people of Penticton on the desirability

of a hostel, and that's somewhat unfortunate. The experience in

other hostels is that it's useful in terms of referrals.

I'll look into the question of the Community Care Licensing

Act in relation to the deposits. I've just asked the Deputy

here but we'll find out and I'll take an opportunity to answer you

on this.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, just a

couple of short questions to the Minister, and this concerns

the matter of intermediate care homes.

The Minister, I am sure, has a letter on his desk — as a

matter of fact he's not only got a letter, he's got dozens of

them from different organizations in the Fort St. John area,

each of them outlining their support for an intermediate care

home in Fort St. John. It's one of those facilities that we do

not have immediately available, and the only thing that is close

to us is in Dawson Creek and it's completely filled.

Now the Lutheran League, or at least the people associated

with the Lutheran Church, are in the process of setting up a

society which they are prepared to do, and they have a number of

local people — businessmen, accountants, a housewife, a retired

person and a farmer and so on — who have indicated that they will

form the executive for this society.

Their biggest problem, though, is to try to get everything

in chronological order, that as soon as they get approval from

one place they get turned around in another direction and

they're told either, "Well, you'll have to wait awhile.

Funds are not available," or, "you're going to go on a

deferred list and eventually we'll get the priorities set up

for you." It's provided them with nothing but frustration so far, Mr.

Minister. But they have at least got to the point where CMHC

have now provided $5,000 of start-up funds for them, that

that's committed. So that will give them the money to go ahead

with the advanced planning and so on.

Their other problem, of course, is that the Department of

Housing has run out of funds with respect to any more one-third

capital grants for the issuing period at least. All I'd like to

ask the Minister on behalf of all of the people up there who

are vitally concerned about this is, would he at least reply to

them to the extent of what they could expect from his

department in the way of operating subsidies, once they get all

these loose ends tied together.

Believe me, it's causing them nothing but headaches right at the

moment, trying to put it all together. But there is a real need for

that particular type of institution. Unfortunately, right now too many

of our older people who need that type of attention end up in

acute-care hospital beds, and put the staff of the hospital to a great

deal of concern over the fact that they shouldn't really be there in

that expensive a situation, an institution. Yet there's nowhere else to

send those people where they can be handled within their home area. And

of course, this is important to people of that age.

So would the Minister, first of all, reply to the

[ Page 3798 ]

society which has

written concerning the matter and give them an indication of how he'll

tie the expertise of his department in with Central and Mortgage and

Housing, the Department of Housing here and the Health Department so

they can put this package all together?

HON. MR. LEVI: As the Member knows, one of the things that

we were concerned about in Dawson Creek is that the existing

facility be operated at full capacity and that, as you say, is

now happening. In relation to telling people about approval for

operating costs, of course, we have to know what the amount of

the loan is going to be. We have to know what the staffing is

going to be before we can set that. I would hope that we can

make some decision about that in the very near future. But

those are the things that we really need to know.

MR. SMITH: I think what they really need right now, more

than anything else, Mr. Minister, is guidance on the steps they

have to take to get everything together.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes. I'll have Mrs. Bisto get in touch with

them. She's in charge of the adult-care area, and some of those

facts are necessary for us. Yes, I have received all the

letters. We've got a number of letters from them, and these will

be answered.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, there are just one or two areas

that haven't been adequately canvassed. I did touch on adoption

yesterday, and I don't think the Minister chose to ignore my

questions, but I would like to say a little more. The whole

question of adoption has really been highlighted recently in

two or three respects — first of all, by the emotional upsurge

in this country at the end of the Vietnam war when many people

expressed their wish to adopt Vietnamese children.

I thought that the Minister put it very well at that time,

back in April, when he reminded the people of British Columbia

that, while their response to the plight of the Indo-Chinese

war victims had been overwhelming, there are still 150 British

Columbia children, many of whom have severe handicaps, who are

available for adoption by parents who feel they can cope with

the extremely arduous task of raising these children.

I wondered if the Minister could bring us up to date on one

or two statistics. Are there still 150 children available for

adoption, or how many others might there be where no

applications have been made to adopt them?

Secondly, I'd like to know, of the Vietnamese children who

were brought to British Columbia, were they all pre-arranged

adoptions before the emotional upsurge that I mentioned?

Thirdly, I'd like to follow up on the problem of the child

from Korea who was reputed to have been kidnapped, and that

goes back to the end of last year. But it all points up some of

the real hazards in adoption, particularly when we go outside

the country to adopt children. In fact, there was a statement

by the Red Cross at the time that some countries, by good

intention perhaps, but despite that, were breaking

international agreements and the Geneva Convention. So I'm just

wondering whether the Minister can give us some brief

information as to the aftermath of the end of the Vietnamese

war.

More specifically, right here at home the Berger commission

has continued in its extremely interesting and exciting fashion

to bring forward the final report dealing with adoption. I know

that we can't expect the Minister to anticipate legislation at

this point, but there was one very hot issue in that whole

matter which referred to the proposal to have a reunion

registry whereby an adopted child, or a former parent who gave

up that child for adoption, could become reunited through the

vehicle of a registry.

I notice that the Berger commission said that it could not

recommend establishment of a registry, and suggested that only

the supreme court had the power to bring together adopted

children and their natural parents. As the Minister well knows,

and in fact as everybody in the province probably knows, there

was a tremendous resistance to that proposal by those people

most affected, namely parents who had adopted children in good

faith with the assurance that this reunion would not be

encouraged and that they were regarded in law as the natural

parents. One of the local parents who took a strong position in

this regard said that he had at least 500 telephone calls when

the proposal became known, and of course we had a big meeting

in Victoria, attended by several hundred people, where the

overwhelming majority were opposed to this concept of a reunion

registry.

Now I would just like to ask the Minister: in the light of all that

outcry — not an outcry, but a legitimate protest at the proposal — and

in light of Mr. Berger's commission, can we take it and could we put to

rest the fear in the minds and the apprehension in the minds of many of

these parents who have adopted children years ago? Can we take it that

the government, in the face of the Berger recommendations and the

feeling of the adopting parents, can we assume that the government will

drop that issue completely and just let the matter die? Because it's

certainly caused a great deal of unrest in these families concerned,

both on the part of the adopted person and the adopting parents. I

think the Minister would be doing a great service to all of these

people in the province if he could tell us that, on consideration and

in the light of the opposing evidence, the government will just let the

[ Page 3799 ]

whole matter drop.

I did ask a few questions yesterday about the

handicapped, and again I think the Minister merely overlooked giving me

some specific answers. But as we know, the government set up a

committee of handicapped persons, under the chairmanship of Dr. William

Buckler, to study the needs for the handicapped. They met with the

Minister just recently and, prior to that, they had stated that they

had some specific recommendations which, in their view, would give

recognition to the needs of the handicapped and would not necessarily

cost the government a lot of money to correct.

In fact, specifically, they said that there were 17 detailed

recommendations which they had compiled and sent to the

Minister in January, and these in fact appeared to have

resulted in no action by the Minister. In a communal society

that recognizes the need for people with genuine problems, I

think that with our affluence and with the kind of money that

we have in this budget, $516 million, I believe that we could

be doing more for the handicapped. I wonder if the Minister

could tell us where it is as a result of the meeting about two

weeks ago.

The other subject I touched on yesterday which I would like

just to follow up a little more is this very contentious matter

of social assistance. I'll preface my remarks by agreeing that

one swallow doesn't make a summer, but there is a degree of

concern which was brought to public attention by the individual

in North Vancouver who received something on the order of

$10,000 in social assistance payments, got a settlement from an

insurance company and went to Mexico for a six weeks vacation.

Certainly this focused attention on the very point that I

raised yesterday, namely that I don't think society grudges for

one moment providing social assistance to people in genuine

need, but there is the other side of the coin and the very

reverse emotion generated by the community at large when they

read of this apparent situation where a person can spend a

capital and return to a penniless state and then go back on

welfare.

I don't mean to castigate, or even mention names or specify the

individual factors in this man's case, but nevertheless there was a

tremendous hassle over a period of weeks and the Minister was asked to

talk with the mayor, and the mayor froze the decision of council and

suspended a decision for 30 days under a

section of the Municipal Act.

The bureaucratic mix-up, if nothing else, gives the general public at

large the impression that all is not well in the field of social

assistance. Those of us who are busy paying taxes in every direction

you can imagine become, unfortunately, a little hostile to the system,

perhaps quite unfairly. But this one kind of case, and the cases which

previously occurred with transients, certainly make the taxpaying

citizen of British Columbia and Canada wonder if we're well organized

to prevent this kind of abuse.

I've looked through all the clippings that went on over a

period of many weeks in the case of the North Vancouver family,

and I wonder if the Minister could tell us: what was the final

outcome of that case? I can't seem to pin it down other than

the point at which the Minister said it was still really the

municipality's responsibility.

The last report I can find is dated March 4. The headline in

the newspaper says: "Mayor Lifts Welfare Block." It sounds like

some kind of barricade that's been going on and that both the

Minister and the municipal people got ground down to the point

where they just gave in and said: "Okay, I guess we'll just

have to go back to paying welfare." That's the last report I

can find, dated March 5. I wonder if the Minister first of all

would tell us what happened to this specific case and to what

degree this kind of situation could be done repetitively, where

a person utilizes capital in the manner that was done in this

case.

I am also very interested in — I don't think I really got an

answer to this either — the degree to which provincially we are

happy with cooperation and arrangements regarding immigration

with the federal government. As I quoted yesterday from the

Minister's report on page 64, he talks about assisting social

assistance recipients in returning to other provinces and

occasionally other countries when indicated because of social

reasons.

I think there was never a more timely occasion than now when

the federal government's Green Paper on Immigration is being

studied all across the country. As I made plain yesterday and

as I want to make plain again, it's got nothing to do with the

colour of a person's skin; it has to do with the rational

economic factors. If we bring in untrained, uneducated people

at a time when unemployment in this country is already 8 or 9

per cent, then I think the federal government is not facing its

responsibility wisely. I want to know to what degree the

provinces' point of view is listened to. This statement in the

annual report suggests that already we have arranged to return

persons on social assistance to their country of origin. I

wonder how many have been involved and whether the Minister

foresees this as an increasing mechanism or if it is

decreasing. Where are we at in this particular respect?

I also notice that on the same page the Minister talked

about "exploratory and mobility grants." This is providing

money to individuals who might be able to find a job somewhere

else other than where they're presently living. I wonder if the

Minister could comment on the way that good intention was

scuttled by Alberta in particular. As the Minister knows, back

in February he announced these mobility grants to assist

recipients. According to the

[ Page 3800 ]

annual report, 95 single persons and 40 families were helped

to move to full-time jobs outside the Victoria area. The

Minister emphasized the cooperation with Canada Manpower.

The next thing we read is that Canada Manpower in Alberta

got very upset. There had been 3,500 jobs listed with the

Edmonton office alone, compared with 100 listings in Victoria.

But then when Alberta heard that we were paying $160 per person

to help them to move to Alberta to get work, they lowered the

boom in Edmonton and said: "Thank you very much, but no

thanks." It says in the report that the Manpower people in

Alberta were very upset; I'm quoting Mr. Levi in the newspaper

report. "They felt we were moving too many people around when

we were only responding to what appeared to be a demand." That

seems to me like a good idea. I thought this was all one

country and, if somebody couldn't find a job in British

Columbia, why not give them an incentive to move to where there

is a job?

[Mr. Skelly in the chair.]

We all pay lip service to this Confederation bit. Sometimes it just

sickens me, the way when you put it to the test you get less than fair

and reasonable response. I was really quite angry when I read that this

is the attitude. I suppose, to be fair, we might get upset if somebody

did it to us. But if we do, then we should all stop....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, people are coming into the province

without skills and without training, and we have to go to the

expense of....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I'm not suggesting for a moment — so that I'm

not misunderstood — building a Scottish Hadrian's Wall at the

Alberta border. All I'm saying is that if there's a positive or

a plus flow of people to British Columbia looking for jobs and

we find the kind of situation that existed in February where

there were far more vacancies in Alberta and we put up $160 — I

think it was $160 per person — to try and relocate these people

where there were jobs, it really bothers me. I'm not picking on

Alberta. I'd feel the same way whether it was Saskatchewan,

Manitoba or any other province.

I wonder if the Minister has given up on this kind of programme. If

he hasn't, how do we get around this business of Canada Manpower? It

was supposed to be serving all of Canada. Once again, it is a federal

agency. I didn't think there were any preferential or picky attitudes

that they would take one policy for one province and not for another. I

just feel that this is a very important issue that the Minister should

bring us up to date on and tell us what the plans are for the future.

Furthermore, how far away would we be willing to subsidize or provide

financial help? Is there any kind of mileage the Minister has in mind?

Obviously, the further the person has to travel, the more it

costs. But if there were jobs in Saskatchewan or Manitoba or

Ontario.... What discussions have gone on at

federal-provincial conferences on this particular topic?

The last issue I wanted to raise is that we have talked many

times about the family unit and that the order in society

breaks down with family breakdown and marriage breakdown.

Again, I just want to say that I think the Berger commission

has done a fantastic job on this series of reports in a

relatively short time and in very well-written, clear,

quite a flood of legislation, particularly in relation to

children. The last report makes it very clear, I think, that

children appear to have no rights in our society, or very few,

and that legislation in this regard would be forthcoming.

The Minister had announced, back in March, that the

government would sponsor a family life conference of some kind.

I am not quite sure that at that time the Minister had the

format for the conference spelled out. I think I received a

notice the other day that we are to have a meeting on Monday of

next week to discuss this.

Since it is very obvious when we talk about juvenile

delinquency and social problems of one kind or another, and

drug problems, that we realize a lot of it is related to

family breakdown, could the Minister give us some idea just

what this family life conference format will be, when it is

going to get underway, who is to be involved and to what

degree? I don't suppose Justice Berger can be involved — he is

busy on another project. But I would hope that the family life

conference would involve the people who are responsible for the

work of the Berger commission to the greatest extent.

HON. MR. LEVI: In respect to the conference, after the

meeting on Monday we will probably have a much better idea

about the date. I personally would like to see the conference

take place toward the end of September or October, hopefully at

a time when the Legislature is sitting, because I think it is

important that as many Members of the House as possible

participate in the conference.

We would look to be bringing together 200 to 300 people from

all walks of life across the province — young people, old

people. I have spoken to a group of people who have been

looking at alternate lifestyles in a very positive, responsible

way, and I urged them to be in touch and be prepared to make a

presentation. I think that is worthwhile. I spoke this

[ Page 3801 ]

week to the Catholic community services and urged them. They

will be getting invitations. A week before I spoke to a group

of seniors.

I would like to see us get an as broad as possible dialogue

going. I don't think it is necessary for us to have too many

professional people there in the sense that they will be

leading the thing. We hope to get into workshops; then I would

hope that we would move from the general conference in the fall

to regional conferences from then on, because we want to involve

as many people as possible.

It is very exciting to have the kind of co-operation we have

had from the church leaders and, hopefully, from all of the

party leaders, their caucuses and from the community. We are

already getting a great number of inquiries. Miss Connie Hally

is now organizing it. She is on it full-time, and she will be

putting the thing together. We will be discussing some of the

keynote speakers, and that is obviously something we need to

have for the conference.

In relation to that, I was asked a question yesterday which

I didn't get a chance to reply to: how many of the children

coming into care come into care as a result of family

breakdown? During the fiscal years 1974-75, we had a total of

some 4,600 children from all over the province, including the

Vancouver area, admitted to the department. Of course, there was

an almost equal number going out at the other end. Of that

number, they have at the top: parental failure — 1,469, which

is about a third. But when you also add some of the others...for

instance, you have: physical abuse — 81; desertions and

abandonment — 375; one parent deceased or sole parent deceased,

parent illness (mental), parent illness (physical), and so on — the

number comes pretty close to 2,700, which is more than 50

per cent as a direct result of family breakdown for a variety

of reasons.

You made reference to immigration and to the general

problem. One of the interesting facts that we picked up

recently was that just about 50 per cent of the people who are

drawing unemployment insurance in the Vancouver area have SIN

numbers, social insurance numbers, that come from outside of

the province. To some extent it would give you some indication

of the large number of people who move to the province and who

work here. There is a movement the other way.

I think it is probably more appropriate for my colleague the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) to comment on this, but one

of the things that is happening is that at the meetings of the

Ministers of Labour, they are getting more and more down to the

nuts and bolts of talking about training, attempting to train

or retrain people to fill those jobs that are not being filled.

So that kind of cooperation has started with Canada

Manpower.

I must say that not a great deal of discussion goes on with the

provincial government about just how many immigrants we are likely to

get. Last year we got about 27 per cent of the total immigration to

Canada — I think the total was around 260,000.

It's time that we had a fairly broad conference about

immigration in terms of how it affects the provinces. The issue

of how many is something the federal government can decide.

What we would like to know is: when are they coming, who are

they, and what kind of pressure are they going to put on the

number of services we have? Of course, when we bring people in

there's tremendous pressure, for instance, on health services.

If we have a series of older people coming it puts pressure on

our intermediate-care and adult-care services. So we do need

to have a much better kind of relationship with the federal

government on the planning aspects of this.

I have no comments to make about the general debate on the

Green Paper because that thing is being discussed by the

public, but I think the Member is right: we do need to have a

much better kind of planning about this. It doesn't exist. I've

raised the issue with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.

I've also raised it with the Minister of National Health and

Welfare. It's time we started to have some discussions about

this.

The other thing is that I've often characterized our

province in relation to the kind of social services we have to

give. For many people it's the province of last resort, They

are in great desperation because they can't find employment or

that kind of thing in other provinces. They move out here and

at great cost to the municipalities. That's one of the reasons

we moved with Vancouver to take over the administration costs.

They were picking up about 25 percent of the total load of the

province because of the large number of transients, and that

was on the backs of the taxpayers, because that was the largest

piece of the system.

In summing that up, we do need very much to have this kind

of discussion.

In relation to moving people, we do move people and we are

continuing to move people. Obviously we are moving them in a

kind of low-profile way so that we don't have some kind of

roar-back. The movement is paid for primarily by Canada

Manpower payments. It's not something that the government has

to shoulder. They have the grants.

You made reference to the case in North Vancouver. In the

resolution of that case, I think the Member probably

appreciates that what was going on between myself and the mayor

is that he wanted me to be the heavy and he wanted to be the

nice guy, so I was the one that had to make a decision when it

was clearly a decision that he had to make. What was decided

was the way they dealt with it previously. The individual in

the case was getting a Canada Pension Plan disability pension,

and whatever else

[ Page 3802 ]

they needed above that was paid for in vouchers. The rent

was paid directly to the landlord. The resolution of the case

generally, unfortunately, resulted in the one spouse winding up

in jail, not in relation to the events that the Member

described but a whole different set of events. The whole thing

was very tragic. The notoriety given to the case, fortunately, is

in no way indicative of the kind of problem we have to deal

with. I can't recall of that kind of problem every coming up

before. There have been a number of things that people have

suggested about the case, but I think that we've dealt with it

in the very best way possible. While I appreciate that

taxpayers get very exercised about this — I was certainly

exercised when I heard about it — we are catering for a very

large system where the vast majority of people who need the

system are people who get it. I don't think that we should have

this kind of case cloud the good work that's done by the

system.

In terms of preventing this kind of thing, it's always been

my opinion that if somebody sets out in a very premeditated,

somewhat diabolical way to beat the system, then they're going

to beat it, because they're going to go to great lengths to

create a number of subterfuges in order to do it. That becomes

very difficult to monitor, but in the larger system, again in

the Vancouver area, we've had this going now for over four

months, where there is direct issue of cheques where the

recipients are seen every month — those that were on the

mail-out had to come and pick up their cheques and their ID was

checked. There are much better checks going on. We instituted

that first to get the ID thing and then the post office

cooperated by not being efficient enough....

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI : Right. So we've continued it, and it's been

very beneficial.

I want to just say something about the adoption — the Member

did ask yesterday what has happened to the Indian adoption

case. That's been before the supreme court, as the Member says,

for quite some months.

MR. WALLACE: October last.

HON. MR. LEVI: I spoke to a lawyer recently. We have no

indication of when it's coming down. There's been some speculation as

to why it's taking so much time. I don't know. If I had to speculate —

and I'm not a lawyer — maybe there's a constitutional question or

something, but we have actually no indication of when it's coming down,

and I guess if it doesn't come down by the end of this month it's not

likely to come down again until October because I don't think they sit

again until then.

In the meanwhile, legally all of those children — over 100 of

them — are in some kind of legal limbo. It's something that we

can do nothing about. It is completely in the hands of the

supreme court.

In relation to the Vietnamese children, we in B.C. got

seven. I have an almost daily report on one child because one

of my children baby-sits for the child. In all cases of

children brought to Canada, and I think there were about 120

altogether, they were all pre-arranged. There were a total of

280 children being arranged for in Canada prior to the

overthrow or capture of Saigon. All of the children who have

come — just over 100 of them — were all arranged for. The

parents knew about them.

I did have an opportunity last week to speak with some of

the American people from the Child Welfare League of America.

In that whole horrendous, almost hysterical process that took

place, one thing was that they had landed themselves with a

significant number of children who don't know who they are.

They kind of scooped them up and brought them over. As the

Member mentioned, we've had the Korean child case, which is a

very unfortunate situation. That case, at the moment, is going

along the question of certifying identity, and that will take

some time because there's going to be some genetic testing

done.

But we've tried and with some success now, but not earlier,

with the federal government. Well over a year and a half ago we

tabled a paper at a conference where we had to set up a desk.

We have that now; that desk is operating out of Ottawa to help

the welfare department. But I would doubt, frankly, that we are

going to get any children out of South Vietnam. I think that's

closed off.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: I don't know where else. Certainly not large

numbers of children are going to be available. For our own

part

in Canada — and we've said this at meetings — we should look

very closely at how many children we're sending out of the

country because we were sending children out and bringing

children in, and it didn't make a great deal of sense. The

Ministers have agreed; they've exchanged information, and

hopefully we will have a few more children available. I think

last year, 1973 were actually the figures, 120 children went

out of the country — mostly to the United States.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: We didn't send any out, but a large number

were going out of Saskatchewan. About a third of them were

Indian children. That whole process is now stopped.

The one point I want to make is that in relation to the

Indian adoption situation we did set up a project

[ Page 3803 ]

between the two groups, BCANSI and the B.C. Union. They

hired staff, we trained them and put them in the field. That

worked for about eight months. Unfortunately, as a result of

the April 22 resolution that project has now come to an

end.

I think that answers pretty well all the questions.

MR. WALLACE: Reunion registry.

HON. MR. LEVI: Oh, reunion registry. I should say this: as

long as I'm Minister it will not be instituted. I think we've

had a good debate about it. We've got the clear wishes of the

people out there, and we must follow them. It will not become a

question of legislation.

MR. WALLACE: Could I just follow up on one point? I wasn't

quite clear on the Minister's answer on this mobility grant

situation. I got the impression, perhaps wrongly, that the

federal government, through Canada Manpower, said no way, in

relation to the Alberta situation.

Now where are we at? I just don't accept that. Canada

Manpower's responsibility is a federal responsibility with

equal treatment to all provinces. If Canada Manpower, in this

kind of situation in Alberta, is saying that they are looking

after Alberta, even though people in British Columbia could go

and work there, they don't accept that. Well, that seems to me

to be a contradiction of the whole basic idea that Canada

Manpower is a federal agency finding jobs for people regardless

of provincial boundaries.

Could the Minister say if there are to be further

discussions of this? Have we corresponded with Canada Manpower

and asked them for a delineation of policy? Do they have a

policy? Is it a seat-of-the-pants policy?

HON. MR. LEVI: It's got a little bit to do with politics. I

did raise it with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration when

I was in Ottawa. They had checked into it prior to my getting

there in April, because I had raised it in February. They said

that they'd straightened it out. I'm informed that we are

moving people again, not necessarily to Alberta. The grants

referred to in our report really relate to the relocation of

families from here to other provinces. Canada Manpower does get

itself involved in a lot of relocation grants. For instance,

they cooperate with us in terms of the families we are doing.

But I think that it's happening. We're doing it in a less

obvious way because it was upsetting them. But it is now

continuing; it's happening.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't have very much to

add. I'm interested that two people, neither of whom were born in

Canada, are arguing the question about whether there should be more

immigrants to British Columbia. I think that's one of those curious

ironies, and a very good one too, particularly if we're also arguing

about the mobility of people within Canada from a very different point

of view.

MR. WALLACE: I am now a loyal Canadian, just in case you've

got any doubts about it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Very good. Whether or not he's a Scots

nationalist, I'm not sure. He's at least here, a loyal

Canadian.

I would like to question the Minister on the alternative

education programmes. The point was raised with me by the

group-home day-care programme, which is an outfit which was

actually handling kids who otherwise would apparently have to

go into some sort of institution. They don't fit in the public

schools; they don't fit in the regular alternate programmes.

The regular alternate programmes, as I understand it, are for

the kids who have dropped out of school and are not fitting

into the regular school system. The kids in this particular

programme appear to be those who need more in the way of

supervision and more in the way of almost institutional

assistance.

This brief that came to me, which is very similar, I

believe, to a brief presented both to the Minister and to the

the group-home day programme being cut back very substantially.

I've got the June 11, 1975 serial letter of the Department of

Human Resources concerning alternative education and

rehabilitation programmes, but I think that we do want to make

sure that programmes which were apparently operating

successfully — and the Minister can correct me on that — are

being discontinued for financial reasons, which again is my

supposition on the basis of the information that's been given

to me, while we have at the same time the Minister talking

about further trends into forest camps, or things of that

nature, which would appear to me to have to handle the kids

that the home day programme will have to release.

It seems that on the one hand, you're cutting back on a

programme that's doing something useful, and on the other,

you're causing yourself extra expenditure in another area.

Maybe there's good reason for this, maybe there isn't; but I am

concerned that the people who wrote me this letter, the staff

representatives of the group-home day programme, have the

opportunity at least of continuing this programme if it is

indeed successful.

That perhaps is a starting point. If the Minister could

indicate how valuable this programme is, perhaps then he could

also indicate whether it's worth the money he's been putting

out, and perhaps he could finally indicate whether or not

they're going

[ Page 3804 ]

to get more money, because from the look of it, from what

I've heard, this programme is to be terminated because of lack

of funds.

It looks as though this programme is to be terminated.

Perhaps the Minister could simply indicate to me what the

situation is.

HON. MR. LEVI: We met this morning with the group, myself

and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly), and heard

from them in respect to their brief.

One of the things that's happened with the programme is that

it's operating out of what's called the special services for

children, and it more appropriately should operate on a budget

out of the alternate school programme; it's being funded as a

special services for children programme. We pointed that out to

them. We had the co-coordinator for alternate schools there.

We're going to work with them about rearranging the

programme.

The other thing is that they're doing extremely good work.

Their work is very similar to the work being done in the

Vancouver area by the step up to the day programme — they're

getting the same kinds of children. These people are doing it

with a less intensive staff ratio, and discussions are going on

with them now about how the programme can still operate

effectively — as effectively as other programmes in Vancouver

dealing with the same kind of children — but with less staff. I

raised this issue seven months ago when I met with the Victoria

School Board and some of the staff to discuss alternate

schools. I then found that in this programme, although it's an

alternate school model, it's not funded that way. We usually do

that on a budget basis — we look at staffing and other things.

So the main thing is that because we have put guidelines on the

special services for children programme, that certainly will

result in the reduction of the number of staff they've got

available because it is, frankly, a very rich programme. There

are something like 15 workers and 18 children.

The other thing that we discussed this morning, which is of equal

significance, is we want to know what is happening to those young

people after they go through the programme — not all of them go back to

school. We expect to get some information, because it's one thing for

us to put a heavy emphasis on this — in this case, I think too heavy an

emphasis in terms of the richness of the programme — and not have full

information about what happens to the children on a follow-up basis.

That's coming to us. So there are discussions going on with them. There

will be some arrangement made for the continuation of the programme. I

don't think the programme is going out of business. They understand

this morning in our discussions that we could not continue to fund such

a staff-rich programme. It's just too rich in that sense compared to

other ones.

The other thing is that because it was special services that

they were getting the funds from, and that is a budget that is

administrated by the regional director, it was cutting fairly

heavily into the rest of his budget. So it's being discussed

with them today as a matter of fact, and probably on Monday,

about getting into the alternate school model in terms of

funding.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I thank the Minister and, as this matter

is under discussion and clearly is being taken care of, I'll

certainly leave it there, but I would like the information he

might be able to provide me with later.

Mr. Chairman, the question of immigration was raised. I

checked the British North America Act and I see in

section 95:

"In each province, the legislature may make laws in relation to

agriculture in the province and to immigration into the

province, and it is hereby declared that the Parliament of

Canada may, from time to time, make laws in relation to

agriculture in any or all of the provinces, and to immigration

into, any and all of the provinces," et cetera, et

cetera, et cetera. Immigration is very definitely a split

jurisdiction. It, along with agriculture, is one of the two

listed there specifically.

We have a Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) and

there's a federal Minister of Agriculture and nobody thinks

anything of this. They fight back and forward occasionally

about $1 for a programme here or $100 million for a programme

there. But never has any province in recent memory, with the

exception of Manitoba under the Conservative government, to my

knowledge, got at all involved in the question of immigration.

As the subject has been raised under this Minister's estimates,

and as there is a Green Paper currently put forward by the

other jurisdiction responsible for immigration, namely the

federal jurisdiction, I wonder whether the Minister could be a

little more informative about the provincial government

attitude. It's not a question of us not having jurisdiction or

having to lobby some other body; we have power to make law

relating to immigration into the Province of British

Columbia.

I raise this at this time, Mr. Chairman, because I have

raised this under a number of other things — namely, for

example, B.C. Hydro borrowing and the absurd way that growth

takes place in this province, based entirely upon projections

of B.C. Hydro. That seems to be the only planning agency for

growth — and it's more, more, more. I've raised it under the

Minister of Finance — the Premier; I've raised it under just

about every heading I can. I think it's about time British

Columbia decided where it wants to go in the years ahead. We

have 2.5 million people, more or less, at the present time and

a possibility of 20 million people within the lifetime of some

of the people in

[ Page 3805 ]

the gallery. None of us here, perhaps, will see that, but

some of the people in this room will — some of the younger

people.

Is that the way we want to go? It's time, I believe, for a

look at what sort of society we want in British Columbia in the

future. This is not just a question of who's going to own the

companies, because that's irrelevant almost in comparison with

the type of social pressures that are going to be created by

tremendous growth. Ownership of companies — whether it's

privately owned or publicly owned — is an important issue, no

question. But in terms of whether this province has 2.5 million

people or 25 million people, there you are really getting into

some questions of a different lifestyle.

We've done nothing so far. I've been unable to interest any

Minister so far in letting me know whether they're doing any

thinking, whether they've got any people involved in trying to

decide where British Columbia is going and whether it's going

in the right direction in terms of growth. The jurisdiction is

joint. I would assume this Minister is as responsible as any

other that I can think of for this particular area.

Perhaps he could give us some information on his views or on

the government's views or what sort of submission will be put

to the Green Paper on Immigration, whether or not we ourselves

are making any steps, for example, in terms of

decentralization. We hear great things out of the Minister for

Northern Development — or the Minister Without Portfolio

responsible for northern development (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler). We

hear things about the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea). The

Highways Minister is one of the few planners in terms of

decentralists in the province. He has opportunities for

decentralizing population. The Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) is another one probably

responsible for growth and for industrial development. Of

course, we have yet another Minister there. But there's no

co-coordinating Minister, except for perhaps this one.

I would like the Minister to take a couple of minutes just

to tell us what's happening. The people of British Columbia

have no idea what the attitude of the provincial government is

towards the future in terms of the size of the province, the

development of the province, in terms of what the provincial

government thinks our growth potential may be.

I happen to be one who feels that growth is not a desirable thing in

itself and that we do not need enormous industries now located in

Ontario or elsewhere to make us a wealthy people — we are wealthy now on

a per-capita basis — when we do get heavily into secondary industry,

unless we're very careful as to what ones we attempt to choose to

locate here. I believe that we happen to be a primary-resource-industry

province — a development province — because that's what gives us more

bucks. That's what pays us more; that's why we do it. That's not bad.

If we can have a very high standard of living, with many groups in

British Columbia the highest paid in the world.... I don't think it's a

bad thing for certain groups of tradesmen in British Columbia to be the

highest-paid in the world. I think that's great if we can keep it up

but at the same time maintain our other social services and maintain

employment for other people as well.

I know full well that these wage levels undoubtedly will

decline in the future if we....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Mr. Member, I think you're

digressing just a little bit on the specific responsibilities

of this Minister.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, you're perfectly right, Mr.

Chairman. I am digressing. But it's so nice and refreshing to

get a Minister who replies to questions and considers concepts,

when you're met so often by the negative stonewall tactics of

some of his colleagues. This is a very major subject; this is a

subject which in some ways transcends all the other subjects we

talk about. It's a joint federal-provincial jurisdiction. This

government has as yet given no indication of its attitude. We

had a much better idea of the previous government's attitude.

We don't have an indication of this government's attitude.

That's one question. I'm off the subject, I agree, but he's

going to spend two minutes only, well within his estimates,

telling me about it.

The other question is this: is there now an assets test for

Mincome? If there is, is it the same as the social assistance

assets test? I still don't understand how we can have

regulations governing both programmes, and then you telling us

that the programmes are on a different basis.

There is no way in my mind that you can have

orders-in-council signed by the Lieutenant-Governor, and then

you go around ignoring them, which apparently you seem to be

doing. Is there an assets test for Mincome now? Is it the same

as the social assistance assets test?

HON. MR. LEVI: In respect to your last question, we are now

going to take a very close look at what you have been saying,

because you are persistent in following that process, and I

would hope to have an opportunity to talk to you about it. I

can't comment now because I really want to go through it

again.

You know, when we put together the regulations we go through

a fairly rigid process not only with our legal people, but those

regulations have to be accepted by the Canada Assistance Plan

people because of the sharing.

I can't comment now. My understanding of it, and I will

examine the regulations again, is that it is still,

[ Page 3806 ]

as far as we see, an income-tested programme. I say that

now; if I have to back off on that the next time we meet, then

I am quite prepared to do so. But my impression is that we

develop the regulations in terms of income-tested base

programme in terms of Mincome.

I'll certainly examine what the Member has said and come

back to you at the next sitting.

Now, in relation to the broad question of immigration and

planning and no-growth, the Premier and other Members have

expressed that in terms of no-growth, that's not a decision

that a provincial government makes. After all, we are part of

the whole of Canada....

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: I appreciate that. We also have a principle

in Canada which allows people to flow back and forth in terms

of the decisions they make.

All right, the government has made decisions about where it

is going in terms of the development of secondary industry, in

terms of the kinds of programmes we develop in the province in

relation to seniors, which do attract people from other

provinces. So there is an openness about it.

We can, as the Member suggests, become just a resource-based

industry without the development of secondary industry, and

then we probably still would have a growth problem because

people would still come in. There would still be the kind of

demand.

There is a need for discussion on the broad question of

where Canada is going in terms of population. That's presumably

coming out of some of the debates that are going on as a result

of the Green Paper.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Are we going to make a submission to

it?

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, I think we will wait to make a

submission when the thing gets back to Ottawa. I don't think

that it would be appropriate, when the community is being

involved in the submissions here, for the government to make a

submission at that time, but rather when it gets back to Ottawa

we will then have something to say about it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Who is the co-coordinating Minister?

HON. MR. LEVI: We have been discussing this with other

Ministers. It is something that has yet to be discussed in the human

services committee in a formal way, but I'm interested and have been

saying, as have other Ministers, that we simply have to get into that

whole area of decision-making in terms of immigration, and you've

pointed out a piece of legislation, but in practice that kind of role

of the provinces in respect to immigration never actually operated,

except in the instance of Manitoba.

So I would see us making representations in respect to that

when the travelling system finishes and winds up in Ottawa,

because I think when government tends to make statements about

things, it does have a tendency to overshadow the public input.

I think that kind of thing should wait until towards the end

when we move towards that kind of thing.

That is basically what you were asking.

Vote 109 approved.

Vote 110: departmental administration and support services,

$3,914,703 — approved.

Vote 111: community services, $14,366,333 — approved.

On vote 112: services for families and children,

$59,193,296.

MR. McCLELLAND: A very brief question to the Minister. I was

out of the House when I think you partially answered this

question yesterday. It has to do with day-care rates.

As an example, if a single parent — a mother, in this

instance — was receiving full subsidized day care, was paying

no money for her day-care services, and had a husband,

estranged, who was making perfectly good money, did I

understand correctly the Minister to say that the department

makes no effort to recover any money for day-care services from

that husband? If so, it seems to me....

AN HON. MEMBER: From the spouse.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, from a spouse, whether it be husband or

wife. I know of instances where husbands are pulling down

$1,500 a month, and the estranged wife, perhaps in a different

community, is getting completely subsidized day care. It seems

to me that husband should bear some responsibility for that

charge.

I would like to ask the Minister whether any of the money in

this vote will go towards any new facilities for juvenile

offenders, or whether that is completely outside the

jurisdiction of the Minister's department.

With regard to native Indian children, is there an ongoing,

active programme to get native adoptive children placed in

homes? Are the restrictions at this time too tight with regard

to native foster homes?

Could the Minister tell us how many native Indian social

workers there are in British Columbia, and if there's an

ongoing programme to get more native people streamed into

social work?

[ Page 3807 ]

HON. MR. LEVI: To go to the topic of day care, where is the

separation of a couple and the spouse goes on welfare, there is

a requirement that there be an application for a maintenance

order. In some cases the kind of antagonism that exists has

really made the thing very difficult to do. We will act as a

third party, but the application for an order of maintenance is

made, whether we do it or whether the wife does it. There are

some situations where there's an option. If there's a

possibility of reconciliation then it's better if we do it and

we don't antagonize the couple. But it is done. As a matter of

fact that's the condition of receiving welfare — you make an

application to seek support from the husband.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm talking about the case of a person who

isn't on welfare. The mother isn't on welfare. The mother works

and is getting full subsidy, but the father....

HON. MR. LEVI: But what is she living on?

MR. McCLELLAND: On her wages.

HON. MR. LEVI : Oh, if she's working. But the thing is she might not necessarily get a full subsidy.

MR. McCLELLAND: But suppose she did. Now I'm talking about a

case where she does. The father makes good money, and nobody has

made any application to get recovery from that father.

HON. MR. LEVI: That's an interesting point. There is no

provision in that way, short of getting a maintenance order.

Presumably if they're separated, even if they're not on

welfare, one presumes — and I don't doubt that in some cases

that maintenance orders are not made — in that case that woman

is treated as a separate entity. We are only able to proceed in

our legislation through the regulations we have. You've raised

a very interesting point, and I'll certainly discuss that with

the staff. That's something that we've not considered — not

that I'm aware of.

The Deputy says that we do, in taking an application, make

an attempt to take a joint income application, even if they're

separated, to try and find out what the other person is

getting. If, of course, it's beyond the subsidy level, it's

rejected. But I think the other point you've raised is an

interesting one.

In this budget there are provisions for juvenile services

but not for the containment thing that you've been asking

about. They're not in there.

In respect to the Indian adoption which I covered just before, we

did set up, in cooperation with the B.C. Union of Indian Chiefs and

BCANSI, a project as a result of the report that was done that year.

Four people were hired — Indian people who were trained — and put into

the field in two areas. That programme was developing extremely well,

but as a result of the April 22 decision the programme has now come to

a halt and the people are no longer working. That's the decision that

they made.

One of the things that we did find out in that project was

an attitude by the Indian people when we were seeking people

for foster-home placements and people who might adopt. One of

the most consistent responses we were getting was "We would

like to get our own children back first" — a very reasonable

kind of statement. Unfortunately, the programme's come to an

end.

In respect to the number of staff who are Indian in the

department, I think it's eight. We found outside workers of the

department in bands — we paid the salary to the band who hired

them — and my understanding is in the province, both from the

federal end and our end, there are probably something like 60

people who are Indians who were,working in the social services

area. We have only eight.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, just a brief question. We talked

a lot about Pharmacare, which has been a great success, but I'm

really puzzled to know why the Pharmacare administration costs

are up by 180 per cent. On vote 110 it's gone up from $81,000

to $226,000 for administration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We're on vote 112.

MR. WALLACE: I'm sorry. Are you certain of that?

HON. MR. LEVI: It was a bit earlier, Scotty.

MR. WALLACE: You went from 109 to 112 in a hell of a

hurry.

Vote 112 approved.

Vote 113: services for senior citizens and handicapped

persons, $166,283,172 — approved.

Vote 114: health care services, $28,548,700 — approved.

On vote 115: community programmes, $28,398,169.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We've got to be very quick

in this House.

I just wanted to ask basically some information about the

community resource boards, and some kind of up-to-date report

by the Minister as to how many areas in the province now have

resource boards and what areas don't have resource boards?

They were set up under legislation, and there has been a

great deal of publicity about the inadequacies of elections and

the inadequate knowledge of people

[ Page 3808 ]

generally as to what resource boards are supposed to

accomplish — and a whole variety of other issues in relation to

resource boards. That is one point.

On a specific point, I have had complaints from people

living in Port Coquitlam that the resource board office, while

it operates a telephone from 8:30 to 5, is actually only open

between 11 and 12 and 1 to 2:30.

Interjections.

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

restrain themselves a little bit.

MR. WALLACE: There seems to be joy unbounded because we

finally got the Minister's vote and we are on very rapid

progress toward 1 o'clock.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: We always know that when the Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) gets up highjinks over there, anything

can happen.

That is just a specific question. Is there uniformity in the

hours in the different areas, and what is the access of people

to the resource board's services? It appears that this specific

has been brought to my attention in Port Coquitlam. Does it

vary from place to place? What uniformity is the Minister

est