1991 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 1991

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

12927 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Petitions –– 12927

Oral Questions

Public Accounts Committee meeting. Mr. Jones –– 12927

Disposition of Peden letter. Mr. Sihota –– 12927

Labour and justice Committee meeting. Mr. Ree –– 12928

Disposition of Peden letter. Mr. Sihota –– 12928

Mr. Clark

Closure of Royal Oak Inn. Mr. Huberts –– 12929

Dismissal of Attorney-General's executive assistant. Mr. Clark ––

Mr. Sihota

Enrolment cuts at Vancouver Community College. Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 12929

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Social Services and Housing estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Jacobsen)

On vote 52: minister's office –– 12930

Hon. Mr. Jacobsen

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Reid

Mr. Jones

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Rose

Mr. Vander Zalm

Range Amendment Act, 1991 (Bill 5). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Richmond) –– 12955

Mr. Barlee

Mr. Miller

Mr. Zirnhelt

Mr. Vander Zalm

Third reading

Pension Benefits Standards Act (Bill 6). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Rabbitt) –– 12958

Mr. Rose

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Clark

Mr. Vander Zalm

Hon. Mrs. Gran

Mr. Miller

Mr. Smith

Mr. Kempf

Third reading

THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 1991

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In the gallery today we have 53 grades 4

to 6 students from Bert Edwards Elementary School in the great

constituency of Kamloops. They are accompanied by their vice-principal,

Mr. Bruce Mitchell, and teachers Mr. George Smith and Mrs. Margaret

Gallagher. I would like the House to make them most welcome.

MR. REID: In the precincts today we have 56 grade 6 students

and teachers and family representatives from Laronde Elementary School

in south Surrey. I would hope that the House will make their teacher

Mr. John Rogers, all these students and their parents welcome.

MR. HUBERTS: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are: a great

constituent from Saanich and the Islands, Nancy Klovance; her sister

Sheila Jones from Pennsylvania, and Nancy's cousin, Marion Grove, from

Burnaby. Would the House please welcome them.

MR. SIHOTA: In the gallery today are two constituents of mine

from the riding of Esquimalt–Port Renfrew: Mr. Pritchard from Esquimalt

and Mr. Morrow from Langford. Would all members please join me in

giving them a warm welcome.

MR. LOENEN: There are a number of guests accompanying our

constituent from Richmond, former chair of School District 38, Sylvia

Gwozd, together with her daughter Tracy. They have some very special

visitors from West Germany: Mr. and Mrs. Gerhard Falk and their son

Christian. They are visiting from Braunschweig, West Germany. Would the

House please give them a warm welcome.

MS. PULLINGER: Visiting the Legislature today is a

constituent and friend of mine, Mr. John Little, with his 90-year-old

grandfather from England, Mr. Harry Clark. Would the House help make

them welcome.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: On behalf of the second member for Delta and

myself, it's a pleasure today to ask the House to welcome a

constituent, Inger Kam. Would the House give her a warm welcome.

HON. MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, today a former constituent and

a very good friend of mine, Ida Makaro, is visiting our beautiful city

of Victoria. I'd like the House to give her a very warm welcome.

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure today to introduce

to the House a former board chairperson of Okanagan College and a present member

of the board at the British Columbia Institute of Technology — that world-class

organization operating out of Burnaby. Please welcome Mrs. Oona McKinstry to

the House this afternoon.

Presenting Petitions

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It's an honour today to rise in this

assembly to present a petition relative to Burns Bog. Through a number

of presentations that have been made to my office from people involved

with the concern for the conservation of Burns Bog and also the concern

over the Vancouver landfill site, a lot of people in Delta — I think a

lot of people in this House may well have read about this — are

concerned about the garbage, etc., being trucked into the Burns Bog

location. I think it's important to recognize that the process can

easily be changed by processing the garbage along with recycling. This

petition relates to a number of concerns about the bog, and I would

like to table it.

Oral Questions

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE MEETING

MR. JONES: Last Monday the Premier gave an undertaking that

she would ask members under her leadership to assist in convening the

Public Accounts Committee. This morning, after ample notice was given,

seven of the 11 members of the committee were absent, and the meeting

was unable to proceed. All of those members were from the government

side. I ask the Premier why she broke her commitment and allowed

members of her side to obstruct the important work of the Public

Accounts Committee.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware until

earlier today that there had been a meeting called. Otherwise I would

have had an opportunity to talk to my colleagues. But if you would like

to give me notice of the next meeting, I will undertake to speak to the

members of our caucus serving on the committee.

DISPOSITION OF PEDEN LETTER

MR. SIHOTA: Yesterday the Attorney-General admitted that when

first confronted with a letter alleging links between a cabinet

colleague and organized crime he dismissed it out of hand as being

"without substance." The Attorney-General has also conceded that he had

no knowledge of any previous police investigation of this matter at the

time he was shown the letter. Can the Attorney-General explain on what

basis he concluded that these serious allegations should not be given

to the police for their consideration?

HON. MR. FRASER: It is well known now that the letter had

quite wide circulation. It is well known now that it was investigated

by the police in 1988. It is well known now that it was investigated

recently. The member opposite seems to think only lawyers have common

sense, and I am here to say that lots of other people have common sense

as well. This is one of the few times in memory that a cabinet minister

has got in trouble for making the right decision.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Walsh has a lot of common sense; he turned it over to the police. The first member for

[ Page 12928 ]

Vancouver–Little Mountain has a lot of common

sense; she turned it over to the police. When Brian Smith was

Attorney-General, he had a lot of common sense; he turned it over to

the police. The current Solicitor-General has a lot of common sense; he

turned it over to the police. They had no prior knowledge of any

investigation; neither did you, Mr. Minister.

Can you explain why, when no fewer than four cabinet colleagues had

previously done their duty by alerting the police, you failed in your

duty? Why did you fail in your duty to turn it over to the police, Mr.

Minister?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm well aware that during the last year

that member has brought lots of discredit to himself, much to the

leader of his party and even more to his whole party.

I'm here to tell you that the decision I made was right, and it has been confirmed by everybody.

MR. SIHOTA: The central issue in this case is the absence of judgment on the part of the Attorney-General.

Let me put it this way to the Attorney-General. Does the

Attorney-General not agree that the judgment in question here is not

the judgment of Mr. Walsh, but your judgment in a matter pertaining to

your colleague? Are you, Mr. Attorney-General, of the view that Mr.

Walsh was wrong to go to the police and that you were right not to go

to the police?

HON. MR. FRASER: I said yesterday that I had no difficulty

with Mr. Walsh taking the document to CLEU. I've said that, and I have

no problem with it. That's normal procedure for an executive assistant,

anyway. Had something turned up, he would have undoubtedly advised me.

Notwithstanding that, the discredit you tried to bring to this system

is disgraceful. It's you who should resign.

[2:15]

LABOUR AND JUSTICE

COMMITTEE MEETING

MR. REE: The Premier has said she will assist on having

members of the government side attend committee meetings in the future.

Will she also assist members of the opposition? We had a Labour and

Justice Committee meeting here this morning, and only the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew showed up — just for a few moments, and he did

not stay for the business part of the meeting. Will the Premier please

assist us to have members of the opposition attend committee meetings

in the future?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would like to advise all

hon. members for future reference that matters involving committee work

should not be brought into this chamber.

DISPOSITION OF PEDEN LETTER

MR. SIHOTA: Again to the Attorney-General of British

Columbia. Two days ago the Attorney-General indicated publicly that he

never made a move in his office without discussing it with his

officials. In this case he never discussed the letter, its contents or

the appropriate procedure with those officials. The Premier herself has

expressed surprise that you failed to research this matter before you

simply dismissed the alleged link between organized crime and one of

your cabinet colleagues. She says that's a good question. Would the

Attorney-General care to tell this House why, in this of all instances,

he felt no research and no referral to his officials were necessary?

HON. MR. MESSMER: I think that I should answer to the member

opposite. He said that I had sent the letter over to CLEU to have it

investigated. That is not correct. When the question was asked in the

House of the Attorney-General, he was asked if there was a compromise

of the integrity of the CLEU investigation into organized crime.

Because that comes under my ministry, I went back to my office and

asked if they would check with CLEU to find out what happened. The

answer I got was that the police had investigated this thoroughly, and

they found there was nothing of substance.

HON. MR. FRASER: May I add to that, Mr. Speaker? There's no

question about the judgment I made: it was judged to be correct by

everybody. It's me that understands justice in this House much better

than you, Mr. Member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

MR. CLARK: Another question to the Attorney-General. It has

been confirmed that the person to whom the letter was disclosed was Mr.

Kelly Reichert, the assistant to the second member for Kamloops. Did

Mr. Reichert discuss the contents of this letter with anyone other than

Mr. Bob Edwards?

HON. MR. FRASER: That is impossible for me to answer. How could I possibly know?

MR. CLARK: Is the Attorney-General saying that there was no investigation as to where Mr. Reichert got his information?

HON. MR. FRASER: The member asked me a minute ago if I knew

who Mr. Reichert or anybody else had spoken to. There's no possible way

I could know. What you do know is that the information was taken to the

deputy minister; it was examined; and that's how it all came to me.

That's when I took the action of firing my executive assistant. That's

what I should have done.

MR. CLARK: Is the Attorney-General confident that Mr.

Reichert did not tip off any Socred MLAs named in the letter alleging

Socred-Mafia links?

HON. MR. FRASER: The Ministry of Attorney-General and the justice system of British Columbia have

[ Page

12929 ]

been through a number of reviews in the last year.

All reviews — by Mr. Hughes, by Mr. Owen — have shown the system to be

operating as it should: professionally, efficiently and with justice

for all. That's the way it's going to stay, as long as I'm the

Attorney-General of this province.

CLOSURE OF ROYAL OAK INN

MR. HUBERTS: A question to the Minister of Labour regarding

the Royal Oak Inn. In 1988 the Royal Oak Inn changed ownership when an

international group purchased it. At that time the employees were

assured their jobs were secure. As late as three weeks ago there was a

meeting, and they were told that their jobs would be secure. Last

Wednesday they arrived at the Royal Oak Inn and suddenly their jobs had

been terminated. Will the minister please investigate what wage

protection is available to the former employees of the Royal Oak Inn?

HON. MR. RABBITT: The Royal Oak Inn, as I understand it, is

represented by a trade union, the BCGEU, and in our province the first

obligation to recover lost wages is that of the union. In the event

that the union cannot recover those lost wages, then the government,

through my ministry, through the employment standards branch, will do

whatever is necessary to recover those wages.

DISMISSAL OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S

EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT

MR. CLARK: To the Attorney-General. If Mr. Walsh's actions

were grounds for dismissal, does the Attorney-General think it proper

for Mr. Reichert, the longtime assistant to the former

Attorney-General, to have approached Mr. Walsh to inquire into the

contents of the letter alleging Socred-Mafia links?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, there's no possible way that

anybody could answer a question as wide-open as that. I have no idea

who Mr. Reichert or Mr. Walsh talk with. How could I? I don't know who

you talk with, either. Try to ask a question that makes some sense here.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Attorney-General, you have an obligation to

get to the bottom of this. You're the chief law enforcement officer.

You're in charge of the justice system in this province. You have fired

someone on the basis of confidentiality breaches.

Mr. Reichert appears to have information on which he based his

allegations. Inasmuch as it appears Mr. Reichert had knowledge of the

allegations regarding Socred-Mafia links when he approached Mr. Walsh,

has the Attorney-General determined how Mr. Reichert learned of the

allegations?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker and members of the House and all you watching

on television, what is done has been done right. The information was found to

be groundless; it's been found to be groundless by the RCMP, by the ministry,

been investigated by everyone. The decision I made was right, and I stay with

it.

MR. SIHOTA: If that is the case, Mr. Attorney-General, and if

you are unsure of what Mr. Reichert did with that information, and if

you deny that Mr. Edwards did not look into this matter.... And I will

suggest to you that Mr. Edwards did, and put forward evidence saying

what Mr. Reichert did with the information. If you disagree with the

positions that I've just outlined, then do the honourable thing and

table before this House the Edwards investigation into this internal

matter.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, as usual the member opposite

tries to twist the story. What I said yesterday was that it had gone to

Mr. Edwards. He had investigated it; he brought it to me. That's how

the whole thing came about. It has been done right, expeditiously and

well.

MR. SIHOTA: You didn't take it to Mr. Edwards. Let me ask you

one simple question, Mr. Minister: do you know what Mr. Reichert did

with the information once he received it?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, how could anybody know the

answer to that question? It's a ridiculous question meant to distort

the story. Now the story is wrong, now the information is found to be

groundless, so we're trying to go around some other way. What was done

was done right, well and expeditiously.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll tell the Attorney-General what he tried to

do: he tried to protect the backside of one of his Social Credit

colleagues, and he's trying to do that right now. You know, and I know,

Mr. Attorney, that Mr. Edwards inquired into this matter.

I have a question for the Premier. Can the Premier assure the House

that she did not put any pressure on the Attorney-General to fire Bob

Walsh because of concerns she had about leaks regarding the legal

opinion she obtained with respect to the former Minister of Finance?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, no.

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the provisions

of notice on matters of privilege, I rise to give such notice on

matters involving myself, the internal audit department of the Ministry

of Finance and the B.C. Hazardous Waste Management Corporation.

ENROLMENT CUTS AT

VANCOUVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, on Monday the hon. member for

Burnaby North asked a question concerning the status of the budget of

Vancouver Community College, and he suggested that significant cutbacks

in both programs and staff at VCC were

[ Page 12930 ]

contemplated. I advised the hon. member that

discussions were taking place concurrently with his question and that I

would bring back an answer at a later date.

I am very pleased to advise that Vancouver Community College will

provide the level of programs that it had requested in its budget

submission to my ministry. Some details are still being worked out by

VCC officials and will be considered at VCC's board-of-directors

meeting this evening. The satisfactory solution to VCC's challenge of

delivering its programs was possible only with the creativity and

goodwill of the college board, administration and faculty unions at

VCC, and officials of my ministry.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

On vote 52: minister's office, $337,553.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, it's my pleasure to present

to you today the expenditure plan for the Ministry of Social Services

and Housing for the fiscal year 1991-92. My ministry is perhaps unique

among ministries, in that when the economy is active and robust, the

ministry's need for financial resources decreases. But when the economy

is sluggish, its requirement for funds increases.

North America has experienced a period of reduced economic activity.

British Columbians have not been as seriously affected as other

provinces. However, we have not entirely escaped the downturn, and it

is precisely during such times as these that the social safety net must

be maintained. My ministry's program and services are essential

elements of that safety net.

Mr. Chairman, the mission of my ministry is to help people in times

of need. We do this with careful financial management, efficient

administration and quality service delivery. My ministry's total budget

allocation of $1.98 billion is almost 16 percent larger than it was in

1990-91. Much of this increased funding is required to provide income

assistance to increasing numbers of individuals and families who need

our help to see them through tough financial times and to assist them

to gain financial independence through employment.

Income assistance caseloads grow during dips in the business cycle.

This is nothing new. However, this time the federal government's recent

changes to the unemployment insurance regulations have forced onto

income assistance many people who formerly would have been eligible for

unemployment insurance benefits.

[2:30]

Income support is only part of our work. The ministry is responsible

for protecting children from abuse and neglect. It supports and

strengthens families. It provides housing for families, seniors and

people with disabilities, and it assists people with mental handicaps

to participate as fully as possible in their communities.

In response to rapidly increasing income assistance caseloads, my

ministry has recently introduced a range of new initiatives to assist

recipients in getting back to the workforce as quickly as possible.

We do not wish to create welfare dependency; we want to help people

who are able to work to work. I recently wrote to 60,300 singles,

couples and two-parent families who are employable to tell them that

there are additional services available to them. I want to make it

clear that the letter about the new services was sent only to single

people, couples and two-parent families classified as employable. These

are the groups who are most able to find work at this time of the year.

It was not sent to single-parent families, as we recognize that their

needs may be different. It was not sent to seniors. It was not sent to

people with disabilities, as I am sure we all agree that we have a

responsibility to support those who are unable to support themselves.

There is no doubt that it is a challenge to find employment when the

economy is sluggish. At times like this, all opportunities must be

available to those who are ready and able to work. Staff has been added

to work intensively with income assistance recipients to help them back

into the workforce.

Our budget for income support has been increased this year by $233

million. Welfare payment costs are cost-shared equally by the province

and the federal government. Unfortunately, this cost-sharing is at risk

because of the federal government's unilateral decision to limit Canada

Assistance Plan contributions for British Columbia, Ontario and

Alberta. In order to maintain the purchasing power of persons forced to

rely upon income assistance, the ministry's 1991-92 budget includes an

increase of $19 million to enhance rates and benefits.

British Columbia is widely recognized as a leader in the placement

of people with mental handicaps from institutions to community living.

Almost 3,500 adults with mental handicaps are now living in

government-funded residences in communities throughout the province. In

the ministry's plans for those who remain in institutions for people

with mental handicaps, the best interests of the individuals and their

families are of paramount consideration.

In January the ministry worked with the Ministry of Health and

distributed a discussion paper "Planning for the Future," a proposal

for community services to people with mental handicaps. It is being

used for a major public consultation to establish future direction for

the provision of services to adults with a mental handicap. The

development and delivery of services to these British Columbians is

achieved through a partnership between the government and the

community. My ministry will increase its budget allocation for

community support services this year. The total budget increase for

programs for mentally handicapped adults will be over $25 million.

I have just announced two important initiatives to assist

individuals with mental handicaps to participate as fully as possible

within their communities. The first of these is the adoption of a set

of a operating

[ Page

12931 ]

principles to guide ministry staff in dealing with

all those who provide care for persons with mental handicaps. The

principles were developed by a provincial advisory committee. This is a

very good example of our partnership with the community in dealing with

an issue of mutual concern.

Even with the adoption of the operating principles, I know there

will be situations that require the intervention of someone who is

independent of the day-to-day ministry operations. For this reason, I

am very pleased to tell you that we will be appointing a

service-quality advocate for persons with mental handicaps and their

families. The advocate will operate with a large degree of independence

to monitor service planning, problem-solving and conflict resolution,

and will make specific recommendations for service-quality

improvements. The advocate will report directly to the minister.

The ministry, in partnership with the federal government, local

governments and housing societies, is continuing to produce as much

social housing as possible to serve those in greatest need. In

partnership with the federal government, the ministry, through the B.C.

Housing Management Commission, has developed almost 10,000 housing

units since 1986. The focus of our social housing efforts this year

will be families with children, seniors and persons with disabilities.

I am especially concerned about rental housing for

low-income-earners and about obstacles to home-ownership for would-be

purchasers. Low-income-earners, especially employed single parents, are

having a particularly hard time finding affordable accommodation in a

rental market that has improved but still has low vacancy rates and

rising rents. We must find more effective ways to ensure that people

who are working very hard to maintain their independence are adequately

housed. I can tell this House that a number of program options are

under consideration, and an announcement will be made in the near

future.

This government believes that all people, especially young people,

who wish to own their own home should be able to do so. I want to

assist young people to move from rental accommodations to a home of

their own. While I am not today announcing new initiatives for

first-time homebuyers, we are determined to find workable solutions to

the problems faced by those purchasing that first home.

One of the most important responsibilities of my ministry is to

protect children from abuse and neglect. We are all terribly aware of

the tragic consequences of child abuse. My ministry and its staff are

committed to the effective coordination of resources across all

ministries involving families and children. The new child and youth

secretariat is a welcome initiative in this direction. On June 3 the

Premier and I signed a proclamation which set out the fundamental

elements of a child policy for British Columbia. The policy will be a

framework for communities, organizations and governments to work

together to ensure the best possible environment for children and their

families.

As I announced earlier, the first initiative my ministry will introduce within

the framework of the new children's policy will be a comprehensive review

of our child protection legislation. I believe that this is timely and very

important. The Family and Child Service Act has served us well. However, the

problems we face today are very different from those a decade ago. We will be

consulting widely with individuals, groups and communities as we prepare to

update that legislation.

As this House knows, we have amended legislation to establish an

active adoption registry. I believe it is a fundamental right of all

people to know about their origins. Thousands of people have been

denied this information, and I want to tell you that I'm extremely

pleased that we will be making that information available. The registry

will respect the right to confidentiality to ensure that no information

is released and no one is contacted without consent of the persons

affected.

I support the desire of native people to play a more direct role in

designing and providing family and children services to their own

people. Progress has been very substantial in this area and will

continue, so that services will reflect and respect the unique cultural

heritage of native people.

The ministry believes that the family unit must be strong and viable

and that families under stress must be supported. The safety and

well-being of children is paramount. But any intervention with families

must be appropriate and must respect the rights of individuals.

Consistent with these beliefs, the ministry has developed standards of

practice to guide social workers in child abuse investigations.

Standards for residential care are also being developed.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to a very

special group of people — foster families. Foster families have been

our first choice as a home when children must come into the care of the

ministry. The commitment and dedication they have provided for many

years are truly outstanding. My ministry has worked with the British

Columbia Federation of Foster Parent Associations to enhance our

support, training, payment and structure for foster families. I will be

making an announcement later about a new rate structure and payment

increases.

The family of today is very different in many ways from the family

of only a few years ago. Today there are many single-parent families,

most of them headed by women, as well as an increasing number of

two-parent families with young children with both parents employed.

This year the day care budget has been increased to help low-income

working parents. Day care subsidies are an important support for income

assistance recipients. It assists them to train and gain work

experience so that they too will have the opportunity to move towards

independence.

My ministry has budgeted $52.89 million to child day care. The

Ministry of Women's Programs and Government Services and Minister

Responsible for Families complement my ministry's role in the day care

picture. An additional $12.1 million has been made available to enhance

the day care program.

The family maintenance program assists income assistance recipients

to receive spousal support for child maintenance when they are entitled

to it. Spouses

[ Page 12932 ]

have a responsibility to support their dependents.

Receiving a regular maintenance cheque can often be the first step to

independence for a single parent. Family maintenance services have

helped thousands of lone parents to obtain financial support from their

estranged spouses and thereby to become independent of government

financial support. Last year over $6.85 million was court-ordered to

income assistance recipients. The call for this service has been so

great that we have been unable to meet the demand. The 1991-92 budget

will allow us to add 37 new family maintenance workers.

In closing, I want to emphasize the fact that working in partnership

with others is the fundamental way in which the ministry goes about

fulfilling its responsibility to people in need. Our partners are many,

and they are varied — from several thousand contracted service

providers to organizations such as the Downtown Eastside Residents'

Association, the B.C. Association for Community Living, native tribal

and band councils, federal and local governments and many more. Their

work is invaluable, and their support for the work of my ministry is

beyond measure. It is much appreciated.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the contribution of my ministry

staff. Much of their work is extremely demanding. Ministry staff

provide services to people who are often in highly stressful

situations. Being a child protection worker is not a job that one can

easily leave at the end of the day. Other staff deal with similar

difficult challenges and decisions daily. There are those who would

criticize the work of the ministry staff. It is easy to sit back, I

suppose, and criticize. However, situations are seldom as clear and as

simple as our critics would suggest. I know that. I also recognize how

difficult and demanding the work is, and how well the staff of my

ministry perform their duties. I hope that all members of this House

feel as thankful as I do for the dedication and service of the staff of

this ministry.

[2:45]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I think it's appropriate that I start by

picking up where the minister left off and by adding my support and

appreciation for the work that the staff in the Ministry of Social

Services does not only here in Victoria but in each and every community

in the province.

For anyone who has had to deal with issues surrounding the Ministry

of Social Services, it is increasingly clear that they are very special

people dealing with very difficult and very unfortunate situations

throughout the province. The thing that is striking, I believe, is that

for most of the policies that have come from this government and from

previous Social Credit governments, while the words are there in

appreciation of that work, the reality is that the caseloads have

continued to increase and the support has not been there for the work

they do.

So for all of the good words, I think it's important that we take

the next step and recognize that it has to be followed through by

practical and tangible actions from the government.

In the estimates of Social Services I'd like to talk about a number

of different issues. It's clear that with the Ministry of Social

Services being as large as it is and the scope of issues being as broad

as it is, it is impossible to touch on all issues or do credit to many

major issues that need to be debated in this House. Having said that, I

have chosen a few areas to focus on, with the hope that they might

continue to indicate where the New Democrats are coming from and the

kind of work that we would like to do to improve the situation in the

province, and on behalf of our constituents, to hold this government

accountable for its policies.

What I'd like to lay out in the beginning are some of those areas of

concern. Before moving into talking about family and children's

services and the policies of this government on children in this

province, I'd like to emphasize that a number of the situations

families face in dealing with the Ministry of Social Services first and

foremost have to do with poverty, and that a number of the issues

families face in this province could be alleviated. A fair degree of

the crisis the minister referred to could be disposed of if people had

the ability to feed, house and care for their children in a dignified

manner.

This government spends an awful lot of money. This is the

third-biggest ministry. It's very clear that the answer is not

necessarily more money from government but more practicable policies,

more accounting, more clarity in the goals the government hopes to

achieve with the money they spend. The government indicates that the

budget in Social Services has increased over the years, and this year

is no exception.

The government also talks about the role of the ministry being one

of serving people in need. As you go through the policies and the

realities of the lives of the people this ministry affects, it's ironic

that in some ways Social Credit policies are creating the very need

that they are, by their stated policies, addressing. The fact that they

have cut prevention programs, cut family service programs — the

programs that help families deal with situations before they become

crises — is the very indication that they have in some ways created

that need that they are now servicing. I would argue that providing

support — whether it's child care workers, child workers associated

with schools or sexual abuse teams — is considerably less expensive

than dealing with crisis intervention. This government's cutbacks and

narrow-minded view of their responsibilities have created a need within

families in this province that is now up to three times more expensive

for taxpayers to deal with.

In his introduction the minister talked about the policy dealing

with foster parents — the rate structure and payment increases. There

are families in this province that have to make a decision whether or

not they will keep their children. If they had the support of this

government to provide for those children, they wouldn't have to give

those kids up, and you wouldn't have to pay foster parents up to three

times as much as that kid is worth on welfare to the mother.

When we are dealing with policies associated with children and families in this province, it doesn't

[ Page

12933 ]

necessarily mean more money. What it does mean is

money spent well, having your goals clear and having very clear

standards and regulations for children that, unfortunately, have no

other alternative but to be in care. What we've seen through this

government's ideological bent is the privatizing of services — turning

the care and delivery of a number of services over to the private

sector. Because of that ideological bent towards the private sector, we

have seen a tremendous amount of taxpayers' dollars — and we'll talk

about that later — not accurately accounted for and the goals I hold

important not fulfilled.

We'll talk about the ombudsman's report and his reference to the

lack of consistent standards, regulations and licensing — another area

where we'll talk about effective spending of taxpayers' dollars.

It is clear that there will always be children and individuals in

this province that need some assistance. What is also clear is that

government is failing those people and the taxpayers, because taxpayers

believe that they are paying tax dollars to ensure a certain standard

within our society, a mutual and collective agreement that we should

not see children remain in harmful situations, not see families broken

up unnecessarily. We will indicate through the estimates that the

government has failed.

I want to talk about youth services. We'll refer to the reality of

young people in this province, government policy, counselling for

victims of child abuse, services to handicapped and disabled people,

and the issues of concern to native people as well — just as a bit of

an indicator of where I hope to go with the estimates so that your

staff, Mr. Minister, can prepare to deal with that.

I'd like to start with the broader, perhaps more philosophical

issues, such as the relationship of the ministry...issues around

poverty and how they fit with the rest of the cabinet. I'll start by

asking the minister whether or not his ministry is formally a component

of an economic strategy for this province?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Let me say that anyone who serves in the

cabinet in this government and is responsible for a budget that is

close to $2 billion is certainly part of the economic strategy of this

province. We recognize very well that in order to provide the services

that are required in this province by many people — and many of those

are children — the first requirement is that we have something to give.

The way we get something to give is by having an economy that's strong

enough to produce enough wealth that we're able to look after those

people in need. So yes, let me say that this minister — and, I think,

each of the ministers — is part of the economic strategy for British

Columbia.

I think that the opening remarks of the member opposite were certainly politically

oriented remarks. Obviously we will not agree on the conclusions, because we

see things from a different perspective. The member takes care to say that we

do not necessarily need to spend more money, but we need to spend it better.

The record of the member opposite and of those who belong in the same philosophy

for spending money is not particularly good. I don't know that it's

appropriate for them to set themselves up as examples.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Point of order. I believe the minister just

impugned me personally by making a reference to my ability to manage

money. I am not a member of the government, and I'd like the member

either to be more specific or withdraw that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am sure the minister will withdraw any indication of intent to impugn the hon. member's integrity.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of

impugning the member opposite. That's not even what I said. What I said

is that the philosophy of the members opposite, and the record of that

philosophy for controlling expenditure, is not very good. I think we

can offer evidence of that.

The difference, of course, is how we will deliver that service. We

deliver the service through participation of the private sector. We

make no apologies for that, and while I don't expect that we will agree

on this, I have no trouble in believing, understanding and knowing that

that is the most efficient way to do it.

Now the suggestion obviously is that the service would be better

provided were it not provided through the private sector, but if it's

to be provided and not through the private sector, that automatically

means it would be provided directly by government. Perhaps there's an

interest of the members opposite to have the government providing the

service directly. But let's not confuse that interest with a cost

saving for the people of British Columbia or better service. In fact,

it will not be. It will have quite the opposite impact in both cases.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm continually surprised — and you'd think

that after five years there wouldn't be another surprise coming from

that side. The fact is that we have significant issues to deal with

around the care and responsibility for children. Not only in this

province but, indeed, across Canada they are facing a crisis.

It is clear to me that the old ways of old governments such as yours

have not worked. It is clear to me and many others that it is going to

take some creative thinking and the use of options and alternatives to

begin to be able to meet the needs of those children and families. The

minister digging in and talking about old ideologies is not helping

anybody.

[3:00]

I'd like to address two issues. One is the issue of an economic

strategy. It is clear that when we are talking about real options to

eradicate poverty in this province, we must look at putting the heads

of strategic ministries together at a table to begin to deal with the

needs of labour, the labour market in this province and economic

development issues.

When we are talking about a pool of unemployed in this province,

band-aid solutions, such as the sorts of programs that your government

has brought in over the last number of years, have not worked. They

have not been a strategic component, and you have not provided real

opportunities for these people — six-

[ Page 12934 ]

month jobs and back on welfare. I think it's very

clear that there's a long and well-documented history that those

programs have failed. They have not addressed the real needs of people

who rely on income assistance. It's about time that you looked at

people's needs and the province's needs in a more realistic fashion.

Pointing to the fact that everyone in cabinet is responsible for

economic strategy, and the virtue of the amount of money your ministry

spends as an indicator of fulfilling your responsibility to those

people on welfare, just points out the fact that you have not given it

the kind of thinking that is clearly necessary.

I've done this for the last couple of years, but we'll go through it

again because I know the minister is somewhat new to the post. The fact

is that the people on welfare.... When you look at who relies on income

assistance in this province, it's pretty predictable. They are women

with children. When you look at the economic reality in this province

and at the need for government intervention — and I've said that word —

and when you look at the fact that children are supported by

single-parent, woman-led families, the reality is that the government

has a role and can intervene. It can intervene on affirmative action

programs — other jurisdictions have done so. It can intervene on pay

equity programs — other jurisdictions are leading the way. The fact of

the matter is that women earn 60-cent dollars, are disproportionately

represented in part-time jobs in an involuntary capacity and don't have

pensions to rely on. Well, of course, they're going to be poor and are

going to have to rely on welfare. There are things that you can do by

representing those women and the taxpayers who pay for those welfare

cheques in a round table with the strategic ministries of your

government, to look at real options and things that you can do with the

government apparatus to try to eradicate the poverty that is facing

those women.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

The fact that people who are disabled are disproportionately poor in

this province, and that by virtue of their disability can pretty much

rely on poverty at some point in their lives, has everything to do with

government inaction. Other jurisdictions have looked at affirmative

action programs and support for the disabled, to enable them to live

productive lives in the workforce. Those people want to work, and they

all have something to give. We've seen nothing but punitive letters and

punitive policies.

Another group you can look at who are disproportionately represented

on welfare are visible minorities, particularly native people. New

Democrats on this side of the House have talked about policies that

will empower groups like native people in this province to take control

over their own destiny, to get on to living productive lives and to

being fully employed, because that's what they're after as well. They

want some control over their own destiny, and your government could do

something about that.

When I talk about an economic strategy and your role in that, Mr.

Minister, it is not simply by virtue of you filling a chair at the

cabinet table or by virtue of the amount of money your ministry spends.

I would agree that welfare recipients spend their meagre dollars in

their communities, and there are direct economic spinoffs. It's not

welfare people who are shopping across the border, because they're

spending their money in the grocery stores — the very little money that

they get — right there in their communities. A number of them don't

even have the ability to get across the border.

It's more than the direct spinoff from tax dollars going into

communities to pay for social services or for welfare; it's recognizing

who is on welfare, and that a number of those people on welfare are

there by virtue of the group they fall into — women, disabled, visible

minorities and one recognized by a predecessor of yours: men over the

age of 50 who have become technologically redundant, and who have been

laid off and no longer have a job to go to. Ever since the government

announced that recognition, I'm looking for policies to address that,

and I see none. Have you written those men off? Well, their families

still need them. Their families are still counting on them to pay the

rent and often, at that stage, to see their kids through high school or

university. Those men come into my office, and I have to tell you, Mr.

Minister, it's quite an experience when you get a 55-year-old man in

tears in your office telling you that he never thought he would have to

rely on welfare. They have worked all their lives, paid their taxes and

paid for all of the programs they now are having to take advantage of,

while feeling absolutely devastated by the reality they're having to

face.

I don't see anything coming from your government, other than

punitive letters telling them that you expect them to get out and work.

Well, the reality is that your government doesn't seem to be able or

willing to open their eyes to the few basic realities of those who rely

on those safety nets or to develop programs in consultation with other

ministries in order to ensure real options for those people.

We have a group in this province, and they call themselves End

Legislated Poverty. That's what it means when they're talking about the

poverty in this province: governments have failed to legislate real

options and real solutions to eradicate the poverty that many of those

people are facing through no fault of their own.

The minister went on to talk about an ideological difference between

your government and this side on the issue of privatization, and your

commitment to the private sector for delivering social services in this

province. You make a quantum leap by assuming that I am arguing for the

delivery of services to be done solely by government. Those were not my

words. By making that leap, the minister failed to deal with the fact

that by privatizing a number of those services, you've only done half

the job. That hands-off-responsibility attitude of this government,

where you just shovel the taxpayers' dollars into the pockets of the

private sector without any strings attached or any quality control,

regulations, standards or the ability to police.... The minister shakes

his head.

[ Page

12935 ]

We will talk about the quotes from the ombudsman's report referring

to the need to standardize regulations and their enforcement. In any

other sector, who ever heard of turning a statutory responsibility over

to another group to administer and then not putting in place in the

most minimal way a structure that can hold accountable the group you

have given the responsibility to? Without the understanding written

down in contracts — and repeated not only in the ombudsman's report but

in the auditor-general's report as well.... Again and again, year after

year, we hear quotes that the goals of the programs and contracts are

not spelled out, so the auditor-general is not able to assess whether

or not tax dollars are being spent in ways that assure people that

their money is being spent well. Again and again — because the goals

are not spelled out and the standards are not uniformly enforced,

because the people aren't in the field, because they're overworked —

checks and visits are not being done.

The ombudsman's report refers to different institutions and group

homes in the province where children's safety and health have been at

risk, because the handling of children's services has been spread out

through so many ministries that one hand doesn't know what the other is

doing. That is the result of privatization. That is the result of you

not fulfilling your responsibility to the children and taxpayers of

this province. Fine — have those individual group homes deliver the

service but, as a minimum, ensure that you have in place standards and

regulations and the ability to enforce them. Without that

accountability, without fulfilling your responsibility, you are

neglecting both the children and the taxpayers in this province.

When I talk about spending money more effectively, more efficiently

and more accountably, that's precisely what I'm talking about: knowing

that every single dollar of taxpayers' money being spent in the care

and delivery of service is being well spent and accounted for, and that

those people that you are responsible for are getting a certain

standard of care, and that people in this province can be assured that

the children you do take from crisis situations are not ending up in

situations that are as bad, if not worse, because of your neglect.

You referred earlier to the secretariat around children's services and around the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. member. I must inform you that your time has expired.

MR. BARLEE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear more from the member. I'm finding it very interesting indeed.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'll finish my question to the minister. In the Health

estimates we asked some questions about children. The minister's excuse

for not dealing with some of that interministerial coordination was the child

and youth secretariat. You have had notice from the ombudsman, and to my mind,

setting up the secretariat does not relinquish your ministry from the responsibility

of trying to deal with some of those issues. I'd like to hear from the minister

about his ministry's involvement with the secretariat, its progress, and

what he is doing to deal directly with some of the responsibilities flowing

from the ombudsman's report.

[3:15]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I get up to respond rather

reluctantly. I don't know whether we're supposed to participate in this

type of dialogue. Is this what estimates are all about? I thought it

was so that the people of the province, if they're interested and

watching.... I know that most of them are out working; they haven't got

time to be paying attention to what we're doing. But there are some

people who are concerned with what we do in government, so I thought

that those who are interested, at least by this process of going

through estimates, would at the end of the day have some understanding

of the programs offered by government, the services provided, and the

viewpoints of the members opposite on how those programs might be

improved or on some things we might do a little bit differently. I

thought it would be a dialogue that at least dealt with facts.

Obviously there are political statements that have no bearing on

reality, so I don't know that there's any need for us to begin to try

to even respond.

We're accused of not having creative thinking. Well, what is

creative thinking? The member opposite didn't say, but I suppose the

province of Ontario has creative thinking when it comes to social

assistance and social services. The whole of Canada is watching to see

the outcome of that particular example of creative thinking. I wonder

if that's what is meant.

We're accused of not caring about women who are dependent upon

social assistance and of doing anything to help those people better

themselves. Well, the member opposite is the critic. I assume, as the

critic, you know some of the things that go on within the ministry.

Right today there are thousands of women in this province benefiting

from programs that we have set up to help women on social assistance

find their way out of it. For your information, if you haven't seen it

before — it's information that's available — in 1991 there were the

following women participating in our programs: counselling, 1,800;

training and education, 14,000; work experience programs, 500; wage

subsidy programs, 3,900; job search support, 3,000. Many of these

women are very pleased with the support they have received from the

ministry; they have gone on to become financially independent. They

have done very well. I understand the struggle they go through. It's

not an easy process for anyone, but they have done it successfully. So

the help we offered must be of value, because we have many success

stories. We could stand here and say that the government provides no

support for those people. But we are not dealing with reality. The fact

is that there is a lot of support, and many people have benefited from

it. They have taken advantage of it, and they have been successful.

My ministry is very much involved in the use of the secretariat. The assistant deputy minister, the chairman

[ Page 12936 ]

of the secretariat, is the member from my ministry. As chairman, he,

along with the other ministries that are involved, have been working

over a period of time, and their work is progressing very well. They

are very pleased with what has been accomplished within the secretariat.

MR. REID: I appreciate the responses to the concerns around

women and some of the women's problems relative to the Social Services

department. I attended a meeting last night in my constituency with a

special-needs mentally handicapped group. They made a position to me on

the Employment Plus program — how it affects them and how we can,

through your ministry, expand the program to cover the employables

within the mentally handicapped community who have limited experience

and limited abilities but are willing and able to work in some of the

employment opportunities in the community. But it appears, through our

programs which we provide.... I'm not being critical about the programs

you do provide, Mr. Minister. I was hoping that maybe there was some

way that we could expand those programs a little to cover that

special-needs community, as it equates to the mentally handicapped.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, we have a number of programs

through Employment Plus, as you know, and there are many handicapped

people who participate in those programs and take advantage of them. I

have had the pleasure of going to different projects and meeting some

of the participants. I can tell you that the program has been very

successful. People are allowed to participate to the degree that their

ability will allow. But for all of them, the very fact that they are

able to participate in something that is meaningful and creates

something they can see is very important for their emotional

well-being. So the program is successful. It is an area where we're

very mindful that support is needed, because often there isn't private

employment available.

MR. REID: Mr. Minister, I'm pleased to hear that because

reference was made specifically last evening to the community

workshops, programs which our special-needs participants.... The

mention was that if they were over 19 years of age, for some reason or

other part of our program does not cover those special-needs people. Is

that correct, or is this group that I spoke to last night not current

on what the program does?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The information I have is that it does not

cut off. These people are employed through achievement centre programs

— that would be like the workshops — self-help skill programs, support

work placement programs and the employment initiative for the

handicapped employment program. I'm told that the assistance is

available to the mentally handicapped over the age of 19.

MR. REID: Obviously the group.... I didn't have the answers

at my fingertips, because of the kinds of expanded programs you have.

So I will certainly convey that information today.

Mr. Minister, I'm interested in the comparison between what your

ministry provides in the province of British Columbia and what Ontario

currently provides relative to budget funding for Social Services.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, the member will have to bear

with me for a moment on that last request, because the numbers change

so often that we have a hard time keeping up with them. But we will try

to get you the current numbers.

As for your earlier question, it would be worth knowing exactly

which program the people who had the concern were participating in. It

might have been a program that was exclusively designed for children,

but we certainly have programs that employ the mentally handicapped

when they become adults.

MR. REID: Mr. Minister, in order to clarify that, I will get

some further answers from your staff. But the particular program I was

talking about and the people who I was visiting with last night....

We're dealing with a large age factor from 13 to 50 or 55. So there

certainly was a wide range, and it was a community workshop.

What had concerned me most, when it came up and was relayed to me,

was that this organization, which operates a non-profit society in

order to raise funds to do the expanded things they want to do for

these special-needs people, were subsidizing, it appeared, some of

these clients who were able to go out into the community and do some

limited amounts of work. They were able to subsidize them until they

ran out of subsidy funds, and then they had to call the employees back

because they were not dovetailed into Employment Plus. For whatever

reason, they thought it was not possible for them to apply.

So I will follow that up today, because it sounds by your

explanation that they haven't pursued it far enough. I wasn't able to

give them the answers last night, but I will pursue further with them

the programs you have available.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I thank the member, Mr. Chairman, and look forward to hearing from him so we can answer the case directly.

The comparison for British Columbia and Ontario in the percentage of

the population on income assistance is: in B.C. it is 7.7 percent, and

in Ontario it's 9.5 percent. The caseload increase over last year in

British Columbia was 14.9 percent; in Ontario it was 40.4 percent. The

1989-90 income assistance expenditures in B.C. — this is '89-90; bear

that in mind — was $886 million; in Ontario it was $2.5 billion.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I have a very quick question to ask the

minister. I'd like to read something and ask you whether you agree with

it: "Governments (federal, provincial and local) provide welfare

payments and unemployment cheques to millions of people who produce

nothing. In other words, in reality they enjoy free consumption of

goods and services produced by

[ Page

12937 ]

others." Could the minister tell me whether he agrees with that statement?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Can I have the very first part of the question again?

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd just like to know if the minister agrees

with this statement and whether he believes it is a reflection of his

government's view. The statement is: "Governments (federal, provincial

and local) provide welfare payments and unemployment cheques to

millions of people who produce nothing. In other words, in reality they

enjoy free consumption of goods and services produced by others."

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, obviously the question asked

by the member is intended to lead someplace else. If your answer is to

be a criticism of people on social assistance then I think you have to

understand that I do not support the view you're taking. I suppose that

anyone on social assistance at a particular moment in their life is

maybe not able to produce something that other people would use in

society — if that's what you're looking at. But that's not their fault

at that point. They need help at that point. And if we can treat them

in the right way, then they will be able to go into the workforce and

be productive members of society, which the vast majority of them

certainly want to be.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Before I go on with this particular statement,

I want to ask the minister — and I won't pursue it any further — to

look at your response when the Blues come out, because one of the

things you said was that people on welfare, through no fault of their

own, need help. I believe your words were: "If they don't produce

anything that anyone else can use...." And you went on from there.

So even though you are offended by this statement — as I am — there is

a thread that runs through even your mind, sir, that people on welfare

are not being productive. And I think that one of the fundamental

things we must come to realize is that people on welfare, those

families raising children, those women whom you, through your policies,

are forcing into the labour market, are by virtue of the work they do

contributing to society by raising their families. They are doing

worthwhile work.

[3:30]

The statement I read to you, Mr. Minister — and I am going to ask for your

help in this, and I am glad that other members in the House were offended by

the statement, because I'm going to ask for help from them as well — comes

from a textbook. It comes from the grade 12 consumer ed class, a compulsory

course in this school system. I want you to think about what it feels like to

kids in this province in grade 12 who may be at school trying to get their grade

12 education so that they can get into the workforce — maybe they're hungry

because their parents can't feed them on the welfare cheques they're

getting — fighting those obstacles and reading this kind of crap.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the B.C. Teachers' Federation.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Well, I would suggest.... I will ask the

minister whether you will make representation to have this course

reviewed and to have all of the biases — and that is only one

section

that I have quoted — taken out of the course and rewrite the consumer

ed courses, which our kids have to pass before they get their grade 12;

to be unbiased and of some use. These government members get up

repeatedly and talk about politics in school; I don't know what that is

if it isn't politics. I'd like to hear from the minister whether he

will support me in having that course reviewed.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I came here today to do the estimates for

the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, and I would think that

even the members opposite wouldn't hold me responsible for or expect me

to make the changes in books that are in the school system. I tell you,

if I start reviewing the school system — if that's a job that I have to

do — I'm going to be awfully busy, because I guess I wouldn't stop at

just that page. I would look at a lot of other things and be sure that

I was comfortable with all the things that were in it. I don't think

it's reasonable.

The Ministry of Social Services and Housing, as we mentioned at the

outset, has a budget of close to $2 billion, and reviewing that is

pretty much a full-time job. If you have concerns about what is in the

literature in the education system, then I think.... You have had the

Minister of Education up for a number of hours. I'm sure you must have

asked him the question. Let him deal with those issues; let me deal

with those that are concerning this ministry. If we can get on with the

questioning, I'd be pleased to answer.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm really quite disappointed and saddened by

that, because I think — to go back to some of the very clear messages

that you've gotten in the last year — that unless governments start

dealing with the whole child and the whole family, we're never going to

see any movement on addressing the crisis that the province feels as

far as family relations go.

The message was that we have got to begin — not only in the delivery

of services, but in the messages we give people — to take some

responsibility for where we're heading as a society. I'm sorry that the

minister wouldn't even see fit to raise his voice in protest about

that, because it relates to the people that your ministry serves. It

relates in the most simple, direct fashion to an advocacy role that you

could play on behalf of those children — a very valuable one — and I'm

sorry you don't see that it would benefit, maybe break, that cycle of

poverty and maybe give those kids a real shot at being the best that

they could be.

MR. JONES: I'd like to thank the member for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley. I think she raised a critically important

point, and I want to give the minister another chance. I was quite

shocked when the member indicated that that statement was part of the

school curriculum for British Columbia. I appreciate the

[ Page 12938 ]

minister isn't responsible for the school curriculum in British

Columbia, but he is responsible for the attitudes towards the social

service system that exist in this province. I think he does have some

responsibility there.

The request from the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley, as I

understand it, was that you take some action. It might mean having a

conversation with the Minister of Education, or it might mean writing a

letter to the Minister of Education. I don't think that's a very

onerous burden. I know how busy the minister is, but it's a very simple

request.

If he really believes what he said in this House — and I was very

pleased at his response in disagreeing with that statement.... If he

really believes what he said a few minutes ago about the

inappropriateness of that view, then I think he'd be quite willing to

have that conversation and write that letter. I'd like the minister to

respond. I hope he has changed his mind.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: One thing I don't like to do as an

individual is be uncomplimentary to people I'm talking to, regardless

of whether we agree or not. But what the member opposite asked me is if

I would participate with her in some kind of undertaking. I have to

tell you that if I was going to join with someone, I would want to join

with someone in whose evaluation of circumstances and social structure

I have more confidence. I'm not really comfortable when I hear the

member opposite give the views that have been given on a number of

issues as I've sat in the estimates so far this year and last year. I

don't know that I want to participate in any kind of joint undertaking

to start reviewing what goes on in the Ministry of Education.

Secondly, I have to tell you that I've been around long enough that

I would not respond to somebody picking a line out of a textbook. I

would want to go there and know what was said in front of that and

behind that, because it's very easy to make a compelling argument or

state an opinion based on just taking out a bit and not looking at the

overall context. Before I would make any commitment at all, I would

certainly be very sure what I was commenting on. I'm not prepared to

accept at face value the position presented to me by the member

opposite.

MR. JONES: Will the minister make any commitment to follow up

on the discussion we've had this afternoon with respect to that part of

the B.C. school curriculum?

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

like to point out that we spent 15 hours and 59 minutes debating the

Education estimates, and I think that question should have arisen then.

We should be dealing with Social Services estimates in this debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken, hon. member. I suggest we get back to vote 52.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I don't want the member

opposite to feel neglected. If he will tell me the document this

extract comes from and how I can easily get hold of the information,

then I'll read the information. Sure, why not?

MS. SMALLWOOD: I will send a copy of the cover page of the

textbook and the quote, including the page number, and will welcome any

help the minister can give.

I'd like to move on from that quote and talk about poverty and, very

briefly, the issue of earned exemptions, which we'll get back to later

on. I've made a commitment to an individual — I hope the gentleman is

listening today — to raise this to publicly lobby not only on his

behalf but on behalf of a number of people with disabilities in this

province, and I would expand that to include all people on GAIN as

well. I'm introducing it in that fashion because I want to make it very

clear that New Democrats are committed to this as a principle. I would

hope that we could push the government to review their policies, to see

the wisdom of allowing an increased exemption for people on disability,

on handicapped pension and on welfare.

I think that it's fairly well recognized in this province....

Whether the minister is prepared to do it in this House or to do it in

a public fashion, I would argue that all you have to do is look around

the big cities of Vancouver and Victoria, and I suspect even Prince

George — I see the member for Prince George — to see the number of

people who are now having to live on the streets because they have no

homes, and the number of people who have to line up at food banks, to

understand that in our very short memory the situation in our society

has changed significantly. Poverty is far more visible, and people are

going hungry in British Columbia.

There is something the province can do. The province could very

simply allow people to keep more of the money they earn, therefore

increasing the standard of living and closing the gap between welfare

payments and the poverty line. It's not going to cost taxpayers'

dollars. It does encourage and support people going back into the

workforce. People with disabilities often are only able to work a few

hours a week, but by allowing them to keep more of their money begins

to deal with the issues of poverty.

I would ask the minister to explain why the government has not

allowed people to keep more of the money they earn. I encourage him to

do as the New Democrats have done: clearly change his policy, come in

line and embrace the policy that New Democrats have had for some time

of increasing the earning exemption.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The reality is that it does cost, and it

costs significantly because the earnings are then no longer exempted.

The province continues to pay the full amount regardless of the

increased income. So there certainly is a cost to government.

There's also, I think, the relationship between people who are not

on social assistance and people who are. We are unable, in fact, to

broaden the base for

[ Page

12939 ]

social assistance. We have a very substantial number of people

depending on the program now. I think the GAIN portion of our budget is

about $1 billion, about half of what we spend each year. So it's a very

substantial amount of money.

In my view, given all the other requirements in society, all of them

are very good causes and necessary services. You have spent some time

debating Education and Health, and I listened to a fair amount of the

debate on those ministries. One thing I did not hear was that too much

money was being spent and that we should in fact cut back on those

services. The suggestion was that we should have more of them.

[3:45]

In order to meet the demand for all the services.... The province

only has so much in resources, and we spend a lot of money through my

ministry. I would like to be able to provide greater benefits for the

people in need, particularly those who don't have the option of earning

additional income. But in order to do that I have to have some place to

find the money. The initiative that we have recently taken by trying to

assist people that are on social assistance to become financially

independent is one of the main initiatives geared for that very

purpose. If we could be very successful in helping people come off

social assistance — those that are able to — and find employment, then

we would have more resources left to distribute among those remaining.

But as the situation stands right now, I think that we have provided

into the budget of Social Services and Housing as much money as we can

realistically afford to put there. It would be nice to have more, but I

don't know where we would propose to get it.

MR. LOVICK: My colleague our critic for Social Services and

Housing has graciously consented to allow me to participate in this

debate about an issue that I feel very strongly about and am very

concerned about. I'm referring specifically to the area of government

spending with a view to creating employment for people who are

otherwise on social assistance — that whole important, significant

policy. I'm sure the minister shares the concerns.

Obviously what we on this side are concerned about — just as I'm

sure the minister and his colleagues are — is whether we get value for

money; whether the programs we are undertaking are having the effects

we would wish them to. The predicament, of course — I made this point

in Health estimates, I made it in Finance estimates, and I'm going to

make it in others — is that I don't think, with all due deference,

government is doing the kind of job it should in terms of evaluating

its own policies and its own spending habits to ensure that we are

getting that value.

It's not a matter of how much we spend. We all know that our

resources are limited. It's a matter of allocating our priorities and

of finding out whether what we're spending is having the desired effect.

I specifically want to refer in the estimates to vote 53, the programs-for-independence

category, and still more specifically under that the employment initiatives

program of some $39 million. The first question I want to pose to the minister,

just for clarification's sake, is whether the LIFE program — Local Initiatives

for Employables — comes under that classification. Is it true that the LIFE

program equals the employment initiatives program and that that accounts for

some $39 million of this ministry's estimates?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: No, it comes in addition to the others.

MR. LOVICK: Could the minister then please tell me what

amount of money is earmarked for the LIFE program specifically? That's

obviously going to be my focus, Mr. Chairman, and therefore I want to

have some idea of the magnitude of expenditure we're discussing.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: If the member was asking how much money is involved, it's $39 million for the staffing and.... That program, yes.

MR. LOVICK: Now there's something mixed up, because if indeed

it's $39 million, then it must be equivalent with the employment

initiatives program, which is $39 million. So I was right in the first

place that the LIFE program equals the employment initiatives program.

Is that the case? I'm not trying to score points; I merely want to

establish that we're talking about the same stuff.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yes, the $39.08 million covers the program, but it doesn't cover the staff. The staff is above that.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. LOVICK: That obviously accounts for the discrepancy between those two figures. Good; no problem.

All right then, let's look at that particular initiative. Let's look

at that particular program, the intention of which is to get employable

people off the welfare rolls and gainfully employed.

Would the minister agree first that this program doesn't differ

substantially from a number of other initiatives introduced by the

Ministry of Social Services and Housing, though it might have gone by

different names over time? I won't mention all the names, but they

started in about 1969; then we had another program in 1976 called PREP;

we had another one in 1980 called the Individual Opportunities Plan;

we had another one more recently, in 1986, called JobTrac. Would the

minister explain whether this program we're talking about is

qualitatively and significantly different from those, or whether it's

perhaps old wine in new bottles?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: There have been other programs in the past, but yes, this certainly is a new program.

[ Page 12940 ]

MR. LOVICK: It's interesting: it seems we are going to take as our motto that we will be terse and succinct, indeed laconic.

Would the minister tell me how this particular one differs from its predecessors?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I can tell you about this program, if

that's what you want. I can research it here and dig out the

differences. I don't know exactly why you want to know the differences,

but that's perhaps not my business.

This program is designed to help people in various ways to become

independent. I don't know that it needs repeating. It's in the letter

that I sent to all of the people involved, and I'm sure you have a copy

of it. There are half a dozen ways in which the initiative works to

help people get off the social assistance roll — if not to full-time

employment, perhaps to part-time.

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate the candour of the answer. What I

will do then is describe, albeit briefly, the principal defining

features of some of those other programs and ask the minister if he

would tell me whether the current program is in any way similar.

In 1969 the minister Phil Gaglardi created the Provincial Alliance

of Businessmen, which was also ostensibly designed to get welfare

recipients off the welfare rolls. As he said in his own inimitable

fashion and with a perhaps more truthful attitude towards welfare

recipients than some of his predecessors', in his mind the program was

designed so that employable welfare recipients should get jobs and get

off welfare. Pretty blunt. What he said at that time.... I'm sorry,

I've misquoted it. Indeed, the line that I just quoted, I believe, was

attributed to you, Mr. Minister, announcing the LIFE program. My

apologies to Mr. Gaglardi, who is clearly not here to defend himself.

I want to refer again to the creation of the Provincial Alliance of

Businessmen program. This was to provide a vehicle for business people

throughout the province to employ those on welfare. Gaglardi's

statement at the time, in the inimitable manner of "Flying Phil," as

he was well and affectionately known by some at the time, was that "we

need individuals in political leadership today more than ever; men" —

only men in Gaglardi's time, as he didn't believe women were involved,

but what the heck, that was his problem — "with the guts to stand up

and say: 'We're going to get the deadbeats off the welfare rolls.

See?"' It's sort of like Jimmy Cagney saying: "All right youse guys,

see how we're going to do this?" — that kind of thing.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: What's the problem of the minister who is

chortling? Do you want to argue something? Madam Minister, if you want

to stand up and say something, why don't you do that instead of hiding

behind your little table there as you often do?

The point I'm making is that at the time, the plan for the program

to get people off welfare and back to work was to encourage business

people — I guess by means of loans and incentives of other kinds — to

employ those people. Does the current LIFE program have any similarity

to that?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: No, it doesn't.

MR. LOVICK: Let me move ahead to the next major initiative

under the aegis of Social Services and Housing. This one was introduced

by the not-too-long-ago Premier of the province, who was at that time

the minister responsible. The program was called the provincial

rehabilitation and employment program — PREP. That was introduced with

his famous one about "we'll provide shovels for those who won't work,"

etc. PREP, as members will recall, consisted of counselling and

training for welfare recipients offered by the newly hired government

staff. It also provided funds for transportation and work clothes so

that workers could indeed go to the job site and present themselves

ready, willing and able to work, and not dressed in a manner that would

make them appear to be unsatisfactory employees. Does the new program

bear any resemblance to that one?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: It doesn't really require a new program to

do those particular things, if my understanding is correct. It must

have been a good program that the member had, because it seems like

it's endured for a period of time. We still provide the training and

assistance for people to get off the system if they are able to do so.

I don't want to say any more, because I know a lot of thought went

into the process of how you're going to ask these questions. If I

answer them all at the beginning, you won't have anything to ask. So

I'll sit down and let you ask some more.

MR. LOVICK: I suspect the reverse is true, but what the heck,

I am quite prepared to do this on a kind of seriatim basis. Let's move

ahead to 1980. It's interesting that we had to announce a new program

with new titles and new terms of reference, if indeed the one in 1976

was so successful. But let's let that one hang out there for a moment;

let's look at 1980.

The person who introduced that program was the member who now is the

first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain. Her program was called the

Individual Opportunity Plan. That program, people in positions of

authority and expertise argue, was cobbled together from remnants of

the PREP program and similarly consisted of funds for counselling,

training and employment-related expenses. For the first time — just in

passing — single mothers with young children, those other welfare

recipients who clearly should have been back on the work rolls, were

expected to seek employment. Does that one differ in any significant

and substantial way from the newly announced LIFE program?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: It's close, and I guess what this really

shows is that over a number of years the government has taken seriously

the responsibility to help those on social assistance become

financially independent, for a number of reasons. But I don't want

[ Page

12941 ]

to talk about the reasons because I know the member hasn't got to

his last question yet. The difference from that particular program is

that the program we have today has been directed to people other than

single parents with children — if that's who was included at that time;

I'm not sure.

[4:00]

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate the answer. Can the minister confirm

that in 1986 we had another program ostensibly to serve the same

purpose as this one, creating a partnership with the federal government

and the Ministry of Labour? The program was called JobTrac. That was in

1986; it was also introduced by one of your colleagues, Mr. Minister.

This one was specifically targeted to create jobs in forestry, tourism

and the environment. Is this one in any way similar, beyond those

simple points, to the LIFE program? Or is the LIFE program

authentically different?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: It has similarities. I guess it's not

identical, but I have to tell you, so that we don't create a

misunderstanding for people that may be watching these proceedings,

that in all of the intervening years we also had programs to help, and

we had programs before this recent initiative. We have had a program in

place to help people make the transition from depending on social

assistance to becoming financially independent. That has been an

ongoing process, but there have been a number of occasions when the

government has made a special initiative under particular circumstances

such as those we face this year. But I suspect you're getting to that

one now.

MR. LOVICK: Could the minister tell me why that last program

was reconstituted and renamed in 1988-89 as JobTrac? What was the

justification and logic behind doing that? If it's the same program

essentially, why did we give it a new name yet again and announce it as

if it were a whole new initiative on the part of this government?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Well, I'm not sure at this point whether the member has now got to the current program. Is that where you are now?

MR. LOVICK: I thought I was making it very clear.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: No, you weren't making it very clear. It's

a little bit confusing trying to follow this track, but I know the

target we're going for, so I'm trying to stay with you on it. Anyway,

what's in this program today is spelled out very clearly, and whether

it has similarities or differences compared to previous programs is

really of no concern to me. It may be of concern to you, and if you

have a concern about that, I would like you to tell me so I can hear

what those concerns are. I don't know where that makes any difference —

it's the results, the intention and the purpose of the program.

MR. LOVICK: It's the results, says the minister. You got it. The

penny dropped. That's precisely what I want to talk about. The quintessential

case that I would present to you, Mr. Minister, and would offer you an opportunity

to respond to is that those programs, remarkably similar in content, which have

been around for some 20 years, have not made a whit of difference. They haven't

had any significant impact. Those same basic statistics for the number of people

unemployed, the employment rate in the province and the number of people on

social assistance — all of those statistics — have remained relatively constant

for 20 years.

The obvious question is: what has been done to evaluate the program?

What has been done to demonstrate that this approach works? What has

been done to demonstrate that what we're dealing with is in fact an

honest effort to grapple with the problem, not just a rather expensive

public relations exercise to convince us that we have to get those

"lazy bums" — as some would have it — off welfare and working?

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame on you!

MR. LOVICK: Somebody says: "Shame on you, what an awful thing

to say!" Let me remind those people that the evidence demonstrates very

clearly that the programs have not made any difference. Nevertheless,

with depressing regularity we get new announcements of new programs

telling us that at last we're going to solve the problem, because of

all those people apparently cheating the system. I submit to you that

that's the shameful behaviour; that's the dishonest approach to it. I

hope this minister isn't part of that, but it certainly seems to be the

record of this government. I would therefore ask the minister to tell

us what we are going to do to determine if this program will be any

different from all those others, and if we are going to get value for

money.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The member opposite has made some very

critical remarks about people receiving social assistance. He wants to

attribute those remarks to me or to this side of the House, but we

never made them. He made them, and there's no place.... We have the

estimates in front of us, and it's a very large book. You can go

through this; you're welcome to look at it from beginning to end, and

nowhere in it will you ever find any indication of the words you have

used to describe the people on social assistance. We don't talk about

it in any of the material that's here; we don't talk about people

that way when we're discussing in my office the problems of dealing

with the great demands on the social service system. It is not the kind

of discussion that takes place between me and my staff at any time.

As far as the benefits are concerned, I can tell you, Mr. Member,

that if there was no financial benefit flowing from the initiative we

have taken, I would still be very pleased that we had taken it, because

we have helped a significant number of people make the transition to

financial independence. That is worth something that goes beyond just

dollars and cents. It does a tremendous amount for the families and the

individuals involved.

[ Page 12942 ]

So even if the financial benefits were neutral, it would still be a

good program. But that is not the case. The programs that you talked

about.... I don't know about the ones when you go a long way back; I

would have to research that, and I hadn't done that before today. But

the one you talk about — the most recent one before this initiative —

brought many people into the workforce who were depending upon social

assistance. We expect that the investment we are making within the

ministry to provide additional staff and to provide these services will

show a financial benefit to the province several times the amount of

the investment we make. It will show that return not because anybody is

forced into any kind of hardship, but because people have found an

opportunity to become independent.

Last year approximately 7,000 clients obtained jobs under the

Employment Plus wage subsidy program. A further 9,000 participated in

job action and other special employment projects. An average of 1,600

single parents have become independent of social assistance through

employment received through transition benefits each month.

The member says we haven't succeeded because we still have a number

of people dependent upon social assistance. I submit to you that you

have seen the situation only after the programs and initiatives have

taken place. You have no way of knowing that the situation would not be

even worse had these initiatives not taken place. You're basing your

evidence on one side without knowing what the other consequence would

be. Certainly we haven't changed the fact that people are depending

upon social assistance. Certainly the people in this province are

subject to the economic downturns that have hit this province along

with the rest of the country, although not nearly as severely as in

most places in Canada. But to say that the programs have been of no

benefit is a gross misstatement.

MR. LOVICK: We appear to have two parallel streams going on

here, Mr. Chairman. I did not say what the minister just said I did,

and I don't want to waste the time of this House in a "You said; no, I

didn't" kind of silliness; instead, let's talk about the issue.

To be sure, Mr. Minister, and to your everlasting credit, I have

never heard you say anything that denigrates people on welfare — fair

ball. But please don't have the temerity to sit here and say to this

House that others of your colleagues have not. What about Phil

Gaglardi? What about the former Premier of the province? What about the

member for Little Mountain? All of them as welfare ministers have made

those kinds of comments. Moreover, what about the point raised less

than 20 minutes ago about the school curriculum? If you don't consider

that a derogatory and pejorative comment about people on welfare, God

knows what you require as evidence. The fact is that anti-welfare

culture is alive and well. Further, I would submit to you that the LIFE

program, as introduced, implicitly says the same thing. It says that

employable people are choosing not to be employed and are ripping off

the welfare system. That's the premise of the LIFE program. Moreover, I

see that your colleague the Solicitor-General — my colleague has kindly

passed this on to me — has used the term "welfare junkies." So tell us

about your self-righteous and pure stand and loving those individuals

on welfare — maybe you, Mr. Minister, but certainly not all of your

colleagues.

Similarly, nobody is arguing for a moment that the money we spend is

entirely wasted — we're not saying that. Anybody who knows anything

about economics knows that if you transfer $30 million to people who

otherwise don't have money, you do something to fuel the economy —

that's Keynesian; it's good macroeconomics. It's about transfer

payments. We all accept that as a reality of the modern state.

The fundamental issue I am addressing is whether we have in place

anything to evaluate the work we are doing, to find out if we couldn't

do it better. I'm suggesting to you, moreover, that the evidence we

have is that all of our new programs — announced with great fanfare —

have not demonstrated that we have learned a damned thing over 20

years, despite spending the money. It appears we haven't learned

anything, because we can't point to any significant successes between

1967 and 1991 — it's the same stuff. The obvious question, then, is:

are we evaluating what we've done in the past, so that we can learn

from it, with a view to making sure that how we spend our money today

will be handled better and more effectively and more efficiently?

That's the question, Mr. Minister; I'd love to hear your answer.

MR. REID: With leave of the House I'd like to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. REID: Mr. Senator, in the precincts today we have another

senator, in the municipal field: Bill Fornich, representing Surrey.

Certainly the welfare of Surrey is always on the mind of that member. I

hope the House will give him a very warm welcome.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to add my words of greeting and

welcome to a good friend and longtime co-worker in Surrey. Welcome,

Bill, and I hope we continue to do as well.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The answer to the previous question is

yes, we do evaluate the programs. We try to improve the programs based

on the evaluations we have made.

I want the member opposite to know that the remarks he attributed to

people on this side of the House and people who have been on this side

of the House.... I don't think he included anyone who has ever been on

that side of the House, but I guess they're much purer. I don't know

about those remarks, but I do know one thing: there's one great justice

in this world, and that you are responsible for what you as an

individual do or say. I come from that perspective, that what I say and

do I'm accountable for, and I don't mind being held accountable for it.

[ Page

12943 ]

In that vein, I want to tell you something. It's not something I

need to explain, but I will explain it. I just want you to know that

these things are not done lightly or quickly. When it came to sending

out the letter to the people who receive social assistance, I sat down

with my deputy who is here beside me today and other staff members, and

I went over it several times.... I asked them to guarantee that the

letter only went to those who had a fair and reasonable opportunity —

there was a reasonable expectation that they could find some kind of

employment. We purposely did not go to single parents, because it

involved children. We did not want to put any stress on those people,

because I was concerned that their situations are different and more

difficult to deal with. We went with those where I believe there is an

opportunity that if they can get the help they need, they can make the

transition.

I understand what people go through when they are faced with

economic difficulties. It's easy for the rest of us to stand back and

say that there are opportunities for them, but when you are in that

situation it's hard to see those opportunities and hard to take

advantage of them. Sometimes it just takes a little bit of help. We

have provided that help.

[4:15]

The research we have done is through the social assistance

recipients strategy. There are four parties involved: Health and Welfare

Canada, Canada Employment and Immigration and the provincial

government's jurisdictions. It's a matching program: $28 million

provincial and $28 million federal money. We are the first province to

enter into the program. The evaluations are part of that. We have found

that when we help people to get onto a job, be it part-time or

whatever, those people who actually get a chance to be employed get off

social assistance sooner and stay off it much longer. That initial job

experience has a great deal of success attached to it. We know that we

help people a great deal when we give them that opportunity.

MR. LOVICK: A simple question: if so, if you really believe

that those individuals who are receiving social assistance are indeed

only those who need it — that they aren't chiselers and all they need

is that help and the likelihood of their getting employed again is

high, given some help.... If we really believe that, why do we have to

introduce a program that implicitly says that what we have been doing

to this point has clearly not adjudicated and screened applicants

carefully enough, and therefore we have to launch a new program and

write letters to all those people, because we're not sure that they are

trying hard enough to find work? Explain that to me, please.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: It is not the fact at all that we have not screened

people properly and that people are on social assistance who should not be receiving

it at all. We have help for people because they are caught...requiring social

assistance to be able to live. These people have come and asked for help;

they need some kind of assistance and support. If you follow that logic, the

simple thing would be, I suppose, to say: "There will be nothing available

for you." We don't do that. We help people when they come; we help

people make the transition from depending on social assistance to becoming independent.

It's not a question of their not having been screened properly.

We're not saying that people are not entitled to it. I have said

repeatedly, when I've been asked about the program, that if people

cannot get a full-time job — which may be hard to do in many cases,

particularly a full-time job of their liking — maybe they can get a

part-time job. If they make something, and it's not enough, we'll help

them make up the rest, so that they can live properly. What we expect

is that everyone will try to make the effort to be self-supporting, if

they possibly can.

MR. LOVICK: I must confess, Mr. Chairman, that it seems that

the minister is being deliberately obtuse. The point I am making has

nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of providing people that

assistance. We all know that; we accept that. It's good, important

stuff. The issue, however, is that if you send out a letter to people

who are currently receiving assistance, and you suggest to them in the

letter that they're going to be cut off assistance because they're

employable, doesn't that suggest to you that they are in fact being put

under the gun and that the onus is on them to suddenly prove that they

are indeed legitimate, reliable, honest and fair? That was certainly

the response I got in my constituency from a number of different people

who called, scared to death that they would be cut off — including, I

might add, a single parent, despite your vaunted screening process, Mr.

Minister.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I know the purpose here is for your side

to ask questions and for me to provide answers, but I would really like

to ask the member opposite if a single parent has a letter. If so,

could I please have a copy of it? I would be very interested in

obtaining it. As far as I understand, no single parents received that

letter.

You were asking about us cutting off benefits. I've got the letter

right here; I've gone over it many times. It's a little while since

this letter went out, but as I read it over, unless I'm missing

something, I don't see where we ever suggest that we would cut anyone

off.

Interjection.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yes. I want to make it very clear, Mr.

Member, that I make no apologies for the letter. I want to make this

point very clear: as I stated earlier, we in this province spend about

a billion dollars a year providing social assistance, and we don't have

the resources at the present time to be able to justify spending more

than that. I don't know where we would get additional moneys, if we

were going to spend more on this particular program. I have a concern

that we have a number of people who are depending upon us for

assistance, who have really no options: the elderly, children,

handicapped people. Those people must be looked after.

[ Page 12944 ]

When this letter was sent out, it was a conscious and deliberate

decision that we would ask these people to do what they can, to

cooperate with us, to reduce the burden on the social assistance

program, so that we could be sure we'd be able to continue to provide

an adequate living for those who haven't got the opportunity to provide

for themselves. I make no apology for that statement, nor do I make any

apology for my expectation that people who are physically able and have

an opportunity to become employed should take advantage of the support

we provide for them to become employed. That is the responsibility of

you, Mr. Member; that's a responsibility of me; that's a responsibility

of every citizen within this province. But there are number of people

who don't have that option for some reasons that are not of their own

making. For those people, we will be there to provide for them.

MR. LOVICK: I don't disagree with too much of what was just

said. I'm pleased that the minister has said all that, because I will

be able to send out those comments as recorded in Hansard to the 20-odd

people that called my office who were very worried about what policy

was being introduced by the ministry. With all due deference, Mr.

Minister, I don't think your letter was well crafted; I do not think it

was terribly sensitive; I don't think it showed much empathy. I would

suggest you might want to take that under advisement. Have a look at

it. Perhaps test it out with some of those people who received it who

were alarmed by it. I would also suggest to you that yes, indeed — to

answer your question — I will give you the name of that individual,

with her permission, or at least I will show you the letter she

received.

Let me just present the case against this program in terms of

evaluation of the program and whether we're getting full value for

money, as presented by faculty at the University of Victoria School of

Social Work. I hope you're familiar with the case they've presented. I

understand they've written a report, and I would dearly hope that you

and your officials have had an opportunity to look at that report.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Their examination of B.C.'s so-called workfare programs — and I'm

quoting now from Marilyn Callahan, associate professor at the

University of Victoria School of Social Work — concludes:

"These programs have had no impact on reducing the

numbers of income assistance recipients nor on the length of time they

receive assistance. Further, there is no evidence that the benefits of

these programs exceed their costs. Not surprisingly, the only factor

that appears to affect the number of people on income assistance and

the length of time they remain in receipt of welfare is the rate of

employment. From 1967 to 1988, the percentage of all B.C. citizens on

income assistance has remained about 33 percent of the unemployment

rate, regardless of the existence of 'workfare' programs."

That's one of the challenges thrown out by those people working in

the field, Mr. Minister. I'm wondering if you are prepared to provide a

detailed response to those contentions. If those allegations are true,

then surely we ought to be re-evaluating our approach to dealing with

this serious problem to ensure that we provide the assistance to all

those people who deserve it — and to provide those unemployed

individuals with what the vast majority of them really want: an

opportunity to be gainfully employed. Would the minister care to

respond?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I have a note here that says: "Callahan

and other university professors use the term 'workfare' to describe

British Columbia's employment initiative programs. They use the term in

error. Workfare has been tried in the United States with little

success. Cost-sharing arrangements made with the federal government

specifically exclude work-for-welfare programs. Income assistance

recipients in British Columbia do not have to earn their income

assistance, and that's established by the act in Canada."

MR. LOVICK: I find it difficult to conceive that a group of

university faculty specializing in this field would not be mindful of

that simple bit of information. Are you telling me, Mr. Minister, that

this discounts the case they present, because they don't know the

meaning of that particular program and the funding arrangement for it?

In other words, is your answer essentially a denial of the claim they

put forward?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: My view on it is neither one of

confirmation nor denial. I know there are a lot of opinions on how you

might deal with any social problem, and social assistance is no

different. There are people who are satisfied that they have the answer

to dealing with the problem.

I think that if you examine the record of this ministry, you will

find that one of the things we are very open about — and I make it a

point as minister to make sure that we are — is that we are willing to

listen to what people have to say — people who have views and can offer

input and assistance on how we might improve what we're doing.

We have recently opened up the major act in our ministry that

provides for the protection of children. The purpose of doing that is

to get all of the input we possibly can from as many people in society

as possible, because we believe that what we have now is good

legislation. But I'm convinced that no matter what we're doing, there

are ways we can do it better. I think that the people out there — some

who are friendly to the government, and some who are critics of the

government — have ideas, and we would like to hear from them. We would

like to take the best ideas that are available and incorporate them

into our program. We want to do it in that particular case, and we're

happy to do it within the GAIN program.

If there's a better way for us to spend the dollars that we do

spend.... But I have to tell you, Mr. Member, that the money we spend

in these programs is for the most part money that goes out in a cheque

directly to someone else. That's how this money is spent. I don't know

if you can find a better way of doing it, because people need that

cheque in their

[ Page

12945 ]

hands in order to buy their food and their shelter. That's where the

$1 billion essentially goes. It's not a lot of programs. We have

programs to try to help people make the transition from the system, but

that is admittedly a small part of the overall cost of this particular

system.

[4:30]

MR. LOVICK: I don't want to belabour this point, but just to

clarify, I am not talking about the concept of welfare to provide

assistance to the people who are unemployed. I'm not talking about

that. I'm talking about the apparent propensity of your government and

preceding governments of the same political stripe — the same ideology

and name — to regularly reintroduce what is essentially the same old

program in order to get another hit and to give another sense to the

public that now your government is dealing with the problem, when there

appears to be not much, perhaps nothing, new under the sun.

I also would like to emphasize again that insofar as the minister

agrees with me that the obligation of those who make and administer

public policy is constantly to look at whether we can do it better, we

meet, we have no disagreement; that's the whole point of my asking

these questions.

Unless the minister has something else that I feel honour-bound to

respond to, I want to conclude my brief comments here by saying that I

hope, if he is committed to the notion of taking input from a variety

of sources and a number of people — indeed even institutions — that he

and his colleagues will look very seriously at responding in detail to

the analysis that has been produced by the University of Victoria

School of Social Work faculty. I think they raise some fundamental

questions that ask us to look very seriously at our entire approach and

to perhaps radically revise our approach. I hope that the minister will

then give me and my colleagues the assurance that this will indeed be

done. I think it should be done.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'm in agreement with that. I noticed,

though, that we talk about programs and methods of dealing with the

need for social assistance. I don't want to bring up the case of

Ontario, but Ontario's the only place in Canada that presumably is

governed by a philosophy similar to the one across the way. I have the

program right here. On a number of points it lists what Ontario does

and what British Columbia does. I can tell you that we both deal with

the problem in the same way. The difference is that Ontario allows much

bigger exemptions than we do. But they haven't come up with any unique

way of getting people off the system. It seems to me that their program

is one that's designed to bring a lot more people in on it. I notice

here on another note I have that it's estimated that their budget for

social assistance will be $1 billion overspent for this year.

I'm happy to hear ideas from any source, and I'll look at the material

you're talking about. I'll give that some personal attention, because

I'm interested in what people have to say about the problem, not only for

the dollars and cents, but for the human values that are involved — the ability

for people to make the transition from having to depend on government assistance

to being able to be independent. I think that's worthwhile, and I'll

look at that.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I thank my colleague for his intervention, and

we will follow some of those issues later on in the estimates. I'd like

to talk to the minister about his children's policy for British

Columbia. The press conference with the minister and the interim

Premier wasn't received very well, mainly because people in this

province are pretty aware of the situation of children due to poverty,

the need for a number of services and this government's total inability

to grapple with children's reality. In reference to the curriculum

quote that I gave him, the minister said that he is unable to deal with

education issues. I want to just directly remind him that in his

children's policy for British Columbia, the policy of his government,

one of the quotes there is to provide an education system that respects

and encourages individual potential. Under that policy alone, with

great fanfare, Mr. Minister, you and the interim Premier held a press

conference promising to follow these guidelines in the treatment of

children and the development of legislation. I suggest that it's

entirely appropriate for you to also advocate on their behalf as far as

the education system is concerned, using your own policies.

In addition to that — and I know that at this point perhaps the

minister's feeling a little bruised — in respect to that particular

press conference where the minister and the interim Premier actually

used the kids as a backdrop and then promised not to exploit kids — the

minister went on to talk about great platitudes: an intent to provide

supportive services directed to assisting families in raising their

children; to provide protection and take responsibility for children

when the families are not able to do so; and to consider, when

introducing legislation, programs and policies, the best interests of

children and family.

I can only draw from that great press conference that the minister

is feeling a little sensitive about his inability to deal with the

issues arising in this province to do with children. But I will do the

same thing this year as I have done in past years and point to the

minister's and this government's signature on the UN Declaration of the

Rights of the Child. I suggest that if the minister is sincerely

looking at improving the rights of children in the provision of

services, we might take a look at that document.

I remind the minister, if he is not already aware, that your

government, a year ago at least, signed a document, sending a letter

finally to the federal government saying that you had gone through all

of your legislation and policies and felt that you had lived up to the

responsibilities of the Canadian government as a signatory to the UN

convention.

I think it's instructive in this process to go through some of the

articles in that convention and talk about how, in this process you've

embarked on, you might do more than bring your legislation in line and

indeed look at organizing some of these services.

[ Page 12946 ]

Article 3 of the convention calls for the state to provide the

protection and care that is necessary for the well-being of the child.

I see that in your principles there. Yet we know that children in care

sometimes suffer from placements and have less than adequate access to

counselling services. Just one little example of what is happening in

this province — not only problems with regionally accessible

services.... I'm sure the minister is well aware of the fact that many

youth services are centred in the lower mainland, when and if they do

exist, and that people on the lower mainland as well as in more remote

areas in the province have great difficulty getting services to

children.

I wonder if the minister can indicate to the committee where you're

headed with your proclamation and with the UN convention, as to making

services more accessible and indeed providing that protection you so

euphemistically talk about.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The UN convention on the child is a good

and very interesting document. I think when you view that document you

need to keep it in perspective. It's a document that covers the world,

and the situation faced by many children in this world is different

from that in Canada. They face very extreme circumstances. They face

situations where the families are able to do precious little for their

children. In some cases the state is able to do precious little for

them, either. The logical alternative to that is to provide as much

protection as you can by providing them with some rights, hoping that

even at their young age, equipped with these rights, they will be able

to fend for themselves in a very unsympathetic world.

Under those circumstances, the UN convention is an adequate

document. In Canada and particularly in British Columbia we can offer

children a little more. My understanding is that the provinces will

still have the opportunity to make their comment regarding the UN

convention. The position that we would take, presumably as a

government, with regard to that document would be consistent with our

policy on children. One of the reasons for having the policy is so that

we can clearly spell out what the priorities for children are in this

province.

You mentioned one

section of the UN convention on the responsibility

of the state. We recognize that government certainly does have a

responsibility, but we don't start of with the responsibility of the

state. If you notice, our document very clearly starts off with the

responsibility of the family. We believe that families have a lot of

rights. Parents have rights. I believe that with those rights go

responsibilities. We don't want to intervene as a government into the

family unit. We think the family unit is best left on its own. There

are circumstances where the family is unable to provide for the needs

and the protection of that child. When that happens, we expect that the

community will be supportive of their children, and the government will

then intervene to make sure that every young person in British Columbia

is guaranteed the opportunity to maximize their own potential as future

citizens of the province.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm sorry the minister didn't see fit to

answer the question. My question referred to the policy statement with

regards to your responsibility. I'm not talking about the

responsibility of families and children. I would not presume to suggest

that I, as a member in this House — or after the election potentially a

member of government — know better than a family how to raise a child.

I would not presume to try to outline for them what their

responsibilities are and how they should conduct their lives.

[4:45]

What I'm talking about is your responsibility as the person where

the buck stops — as far as care for children under your statutory

responsibility as the minister is concerned. I asked you specifically,

in line with your policy — and I might add that issuing these

lovely-sounding statements is a real cop-out when you have the power of

legislation to enforce and to actually give the children in care in

this province some tangible rights that they can do something with....

But let's talk about these platitudes and, as I've said, compare

them with the convention. You say that the UN convention deals with the

whole world and Canada is a lot different. We'll talk about how

Canada's different and how Canada treats its children and what it’s

like to be poor in Canada as a child. I would suggest to you that a

poor child here in Canada suffers just as much and needs just as much

attention as a poor child in other countries. To say that that kind of

suffering doesn't happen right here in our own back yard is to suggest

that you have your eyes closed.

My question to you was along the lines of

article 3 of the UN

convention. I will repeat it for you: it calls for the state to provide

the protection and care that is necessary for the well-being of a

child. We're talking about children in care — your direct statutory

responsibility. We know that children in your care suffer from time to

time in placements and that even in the best of placements they often

don't have the support of community services, one example being the

sexual abuse cases, as we see in some children that have drug and

alcohol problems, as we see in young sexual offenders themselves having

trouble getting services in this province. Accord