[ Page 2101 ]

CONTENTS

Night Sitting Routine proceedings An Act to Amend the Placer Mining Act (Bill No. 169) Hon. Mr. Nimsick. Introduction and first reading — 2101

Committee of Supply: Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement estimates.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2101

Mrs. Jordan — 2103

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2115

Mrs. Jordan — 2115

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2115

Mr. McGeer — 2118

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2120

Mr. Wallace — 2122

Mr. McClelland — 2123

Motion Meetings of committees while House in session. Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 2123

Mrs. Jordan — 2123

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 2124

Mr. McGeer — 2124

Mr. Chabot — 2124

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2124

Mr. McClelland — 2124

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2125

Mr. Richter — 2125

Mr. Morrison — 2125

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 2125

Mr. Phillips — 2126

Mr. Williams — 2126

Division on the motion — 2126

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Mines.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me. Is this some matter prior to introduction of bills? Yes, proceed. Would the Hon. Minister of Mines defer to the Hon. Member.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I would like to inform the House that I spent a very delightful afternoon welcoming Miss Karen Magnussen back to North Vancouver today and I was accompanied, by the way, by my friend from North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann). (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: He was playing along.

MR. BROUSSON: In particular, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say how pleased we were to hear the announcement this afternoon, in North Vancouver, of the Government's proposed Karen Magnussen scholarship fund. I think this is a great step forward and I congratulate the Government and the Premier on this announcement.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Mines.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE PLACER MINING ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor herewith transmits a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Placer Mining Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, April 3, 1973.

Bill No. 169 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

House in committee of supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
REHABILITATION AND SOCIAL IMPROVEMENT

On vote 238: Minister's office, $72,484.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Mr. Chairman, that is not the way we rehearsed it. I just want to say a couple of things before I sit down to give the Hon. Member for North Okanagan an opportunity to get at me. I can see that she is sitting there with relish.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. LEVI: There are a couple of things that I do want to announce to the House — in respect, first of all, to the Mincome programme. When we announced it last December, when it became law, we said that we were in constant negotiation with the federal government, and that we were attempting to get the asset levels up to $2,500 and $5,000 in order that we could get adequate sharing in the programme.

I was down in Ottawa twice, the last time at the beginning of February, and had a discussion with the Minister of Health and Welfare, Mr. Lalonde, and his staff, and we made a proposal to them that we should like to get an interim upward revision of the asset levels. He wrote me at the end of February to say that they had agreed to an interim upward revision of the asset levels to $1,500 for single people and $2,500 for married people.

Now that was quite a departure from what had existed in terms of the asset levels in this province for almost 25 years. They were always at $500 and $1,000. Achieving this upward revision of the asset levels gives us an opportunity to gain in sharing — and that is on top of the $24 million that we expect to get from the federal government in respect to the increases that were announced during the throne speech in the House of Commons.

I have announced previously that it is the government's position in respect to Mincome that when the law was passed in December we said that we would ensure that every senior citizen would get $200 a month. The programme is only four months old, and we feel that we are prepared to review the programme again in the fall in terms of any upward revisions that we might make, whether it is in respect to an increase or a cost-of-living increase. But we are not prepared

[ Page 2102 ]

to do that now until the fall. We have met the commitment that we have made.

There was a question asked this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, by the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). He said would some people drop off the Mincome? And that is quite true; 11,000 people would drop off, because they would be getting below some $20 — because they will be assured of the $200 with the increase from the federal government.

The other point that I want to raise … there are two other points. It is in respect first of all to the social allowance rates. We have had no social allowance rate increase of any significance in this province since 1965.

It is our intention to increase the rates and I will, after I have announced what the rates are, distribute to each Member the rates relating to social welfare and to the foster parent rate.

We feel that the focus of this department is in respect to children and families. As such we feel that we must deliver to families what we consider to be a minimal amount of money that they can live on. It is our hope that we can achieve eventually the kind of minimal income that we have established for our senior citizens.

I think that the House will appreciate that this is a process in which we will take some time and hopefully, in negotiation with the federal government next month, in respect to family allowances, that we might be in a position some time next fall to review the whole programme in respect to children — not only those children on welfare, but the children of the so-called working poor.

What we are intending to do in respect to the foster parent home rates: we are prepared almost to meet the Foster Parents Association recommendations in terms of the rates. I will make those available to the Members afterwards.

In terms of social allowance, this has been much more difficult, primarily because of the lack of increase by the previous government. The people have been suffering extreme hardship primarily because of the upward revisions of rental increases that have been going on in this province for some time, We have spent some weeks in trying to arrive at what we think is initially an equitable increase in the social assistance rates. What we have tried to do is to put the focus in terms of children. Again we have also said that we want to do away with the overage system. So what we have done in terms of the increase is lump in everything in terms of the amounts that I am going to announce.

For the benefit of the Members I am prepared to say this, and then I will distribute the lists for you:

At the present time single people on welfare, and they are the largest group that we deal with in terms of welfare, are getting $102 a month. They are allowed $45 for shelter. I think that anybody that has any understanding at all of what it costs to rent a room, knows that $45 is totally inadequate. What we have done with the single people is to raise their rates from $102 to $140.

For unit 2, we have gone from $169 to $250. This is extremely important for us because in that category, besides a single woman with a child, we have the people who are couples over 50, who are not necessarily employable, who have had an extremely difficult time trying to get by on the previous rates. We have decided to up those rates to $250.

Effective June 1 — all these rates are effective June 1 this year.

Then we have gone to Unit 3, from $212 to $300 and in that unit you can either have a man and his wife and one child, or a single parent and two children. We feel it is important that we get the money to the children, and we have lifted that rate from $212 to $300.

Unit 4, we have lifted the rate from $255 to $350. Again the focus is on children. In Unit 5 we have $298 and we are going up to $400. In Unit 6 we are going from $341 to $445, and Unit 7 we are going from $384 to $485.

Now this table applies to unattached individuals — that is group one — couples, two-parent families and one-parent families. Now the total support that we have been talking about includes the children's recreational allowance, school supplies allowance, children's clothing allowance and a general clothing overage.

The present policy regarding these items will be cancelled when the new rates are effective. What we are attempting to do is to eliminate the overage system, so that people understand from the beginning what it is they can receive.

We are prepared to review in August exactly what the situation is in respect to children prior to going to school in September, and that is a very serious consideration for a lot of families.

We're also concerned about the situation in respect to women who are pregnant. We are upping that rate from $10 to $25 and all that's required is proof of pregnancy in terms of a doctor's certificate — that we feel is extremely important in terms of the prenatal situation in respect to the woman.

Then we are looking at the whole question of diet. For many years now we have been in the position of developing a good medical service. Then we've had doctors saying to various welfare recipients that it is important they have special diets, and all that has been allowed for them is $10. We've now increased that to $20. It's our feeling that if we have, on the whole, 90 per cent of good medical coverage, then we must follow up and make available to these people the kind of money that they need to follow through on the kind of treatment that they need, especially in respect to diets, so we are increasing that as well.

[ Page 2103 ]

Now it may very well be that some people will feel that this kind of increase can create some kind of problems. It certainly does. It creates a lot of problems because of the difference between the welfare recipient and the person who is a working poor person — who is on the minimum wage. At the present time, the minimum wage take-home for a man with wife and two children is around $320, plus of course, their children's allowance.

Let me say this, the previous government have always maintained that it was essential to have balanced budgets and it's always been my opinion, and I think the opinion of the people on this side, that those balanced budgets have been at the expense of the children of this province. The inability of the government to see that it was important that children are really in fact our most important resource, and our families are our most important unit. Therefore, we have made these kind of changes because our focus is on children and on families and the maintenance of the family unit.

In terms of the working poor, of course we have to grapple with that whole situation. But we're prepared to grapple with it because next month we're going to meet with the federal government and I'm reasonably sure that the time has come in the terms of the situation in Canada that the federal government is going to be prepared to turn over to the provincial government the administration of children's allowances. We will have plans for that when this is announced.

I think that this is the direction we're moving in because at the Minister's Conference in November last year there was unanimity in terms of eight provinces. I think that we can be very optimistic about what is going to happen in the future.

In terms of expense, because that's always a question the people want to know, the total cost is $24 million. Ours is just over $8 million in terms of the situation with the province. I think it's got to be borne in mind that what we're doing is putting the focus on children and families — we shall not forget the single recipient who has often been left out. Nobody in this province can survive today on $102. It just isn't possible.

Let me say this, we are prepared that the working poor of this province can apply to get the subsidy up to the social welfare levels that I've just announced.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Well if he has no other qualities, that Minister is the best scene stealer I've seen in this House yet, Mr. Chairman. I must give him credit in the statements he's made tonight — stressing his concern and proving an emphasis on children and the family. I don't detract that from him at all. I won't comment on the rates at the moment, because he hasn't yet distributed them. But I hope possibly to do so in a few minutes.

I couldn't help but smile to myself as the Minister announced very proudly that his efforts had been successful in Ottawa in raising the assistance level to $2,500 for a married couple and $1,500 for single. And indeed that was an accomplishment which was well assisted before the Minister got into office and I'm sure it proves one of the major advantages of a minority government in Ottawa. Nonetheless, it's welcome news. But, Mr. Minister, I would suggest to you that you hop back on the plane and get back to Ottawa as soon as possible and tell them that those basic levels are not yet high enough.

We are putting ourselves in a position again and again in Canada, and it's not necessarily this Minister's fault, where we still punish the prudent — where there's no question that these levels should be considerably higher both for people on welfare — especially on a short-term basis where you have families in a position of immediate distress through no fault of their own, yet find themselves almost ineligible for any assistance because it would be immediately taxed out of their hands. Yet, if there's a case where there is perhaps a dying parent and home assistance is needed and the father is on a limited income — as the Minister knows, this present great problems.

It's the same for senior citizens, Mr. Minister, I'm sure he would agree that it is ridiculous what the basic levels in Canada are today, and that we find ourselves as people in government punishing the prudent, as I said. People who have saved, have worked hard, gathered a few assets find themselves today in British Columbia and in Canada in a position where in the end they have less free spending money than those who are receiving the guaranteed supplement and Mincome.

When the Liberals in this House get up to speak about the plight of the senior citizens in this province I think they should remember very clearly, that it is the policy of the federal Liberal government and it has been the policy of the federal Liberal government through the years that have left the mid-income senior citizens in Canada in a state where they cannot enjoy the type of life that they have worked for. They cannot enjoy the type of life that they have saved for. They find themselves in the position where they might have an income of about $400 a month, and nearly $100 of that a month goes up in income tax. It's utterly, utterly ridiculous. But I'll go into that later.

In listening to the Minister and his comments, I'm sure any improvement is welcome in these times of high cost of living. I must say I would have been more impressed had he said that these rates would go into effect April 1, 1973, retroactive. Why wait till June,

[ Page 2104 ]

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman? Why not do it now? You know, Mr. Minister, with all due respect, the only welfare programmes that this Government has brought in since being in office are for overpaid cabinet Ministers and disabled companies.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: When this Minister came into office with his colleagues, he blew off a bomb. What he wasn't going to do for rehabilitation of people was hardly worth mentioning. Then he sat back, and in that time, he's done nothing really but survey the damage.

He destroyed the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen without any questions, without any study, without any input. He destroyed Willingdon School with no questions, no study and no input. He destroyed the Opportunities for Work Programme with no questions, no input and no listening. He destroyed the local incentives programme, between his departmental people and local business in the community — again no questions, no examination, no listening.

He has really, to put it charitably, just about threatened to annihilate nearly every social service organization in the province. He calls it "welfare empires are on the way out."

Well, Mr. Minister, when we survey this bomb damage that you've created, we see that you've hobbled your field staff; you've cut them off and the Minister does not answer their letters. He hasn't encouraged their programmes. It's created six months of complete vacuum in the Province of British Columbia. There has been no initiative from this Minister to his staff, or in these other areas, that we are aware of. This has come about at a time of rising unemployment, a time of almost unprecedented rising cost of living. His Government has hobbled the economy of British, Columbia. He has hobbled his staff. We see a hobbled incentive for people to work, not only his own staff, but people who are on social assistance. He has hobbled many sound programmes in this province.

Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Chairman, we don't deny you nor your Government the right to make changes — that's your prerogative. But what we do do, is deny you the right to cut out effective programmes without having something to immediately go in their place. In so doing, in exercising a right without a responsibility, you have created a vacuum which is going to take months and months and months, if not years to overcome in the Province of British Columbia — not only through your own efforts, but through some of the actions of your Government, which are going to come home to roost in two or three years. And when you get a combination of this, Mr. Minister, my advice to you is be gone in three years.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, to go back to some of these programmes that you … let's take the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, maybe if the Hon. Members would read the Minister's own report, and maybe if the Minister himself would read his own report, they would accept the words of qualified people in the field. I'm not asking you to accept my word, I don't say the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen was any good — I didn't have anything to do with it. (Laughter). Read this report, and you will find region after region, regional director after regional director, talk about the assistance that was given by the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen, and the cooperation that developed between businesses in communities, between the department and the people who worked in the Alliance in helping to create jobs and the people for whom the jobs were being created and who were being channeled into a work stream. Certainly they didn't all stay there, because this is the nature of many of the people who are receiving social assistance — that's why they are receiving social assistance. It is because they have a problem and that problem is often reflected in poor work patterns.

You know, Mr. Minister, it is almost as easy to condition or to train or to enthuse an average person about a work pattern, if it's properly handled and they get some assistance, as it is to enthuse him about sitting in the pub all day. That is where this Minister's responsibility lies. I want to ask you, Mr. Minister, in reading your own reports … I'll quote some of them if I can find them here.

"Region 8:

"There are two other important reasons for the reduction in social allowances cases. One was the revision and improvements of methods of eligibility, determining an ongoing service delivery, with ultimate improvements of social allowance caseload management.

"A second reason was the excellent integrated intake job placement programme with the local office of the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen. This concept of the integration of the two programmes should be seriously considered for use in other regions of the province."

Mr. Minister, if you read your regional reports; you will find this over and over again.

"Region 3:

"Close contact was maintained with Canada Manpower and Provincial Alliance of Businessmen

[ Page 2105 ]

offices to ensure employment opportunities or vocational retraining opportunities being available to those receiving assistance. We greatly appreciate the concern, help and cooperation of these agencies. As a result of joint activity and planning a significant number obtained full employment."

Mr. Minister, your own report vouches for the good work and suitable progress that was made by the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen in cooperation with your department. Your own figures, Mr. Minister, show that through this type of cooperative action and through this type of assistance from the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen, those receiving social assistance were reduced in number.

Mr. Minister, as I say, if you wanted to change the programme, that is your prerogative. But what did you put in its place? The day you disbanded that Provincial Alliance of Businessmen, what programme did you put in its place? How many workers did you hire? Or how many members of your staff did you move into a new department or a new programme to replace this vacuum? And the same question, Mr. Chairman, on the job opportunities programme, where people who had been on social assistance and who heard about the opportunity to work — and many wanted to work — went in and said, "I would like to work, give me a certificate."

You know, Mr. Minister, you of all people should be appreciative of the way a piece of paper sometimes helps a person. We are all human beings and we all respond to certain notes of success. Some people on social assistance just felt that getting that piece of paper was something. Then the assistance they got in seeking a job was something more. Many people who hadn't been working had the opportunity, through the provincial government paying part of their salary and through the assistance of the office, and maybe even just that piece of paper, of getting that little extra push or spark or incentive that they needed to go to work.

Your own report, Mr. Minister. If you didn't like the programme, that is your prerogative; if you wanted to change the programme, that is your prerogative — we don't deny you that. But what, Mr. Minister, on the day you cancelled that programme, did you put in its place? How many employees did you shift in your department to take up this vacuum? What type of incentive did you give these people in looking for jobs? What type of assistance did you see that they got in looking for a job?

The local and regional incentive cooperative programmes: Mr. Minister, I spoke to you about this in October; I checked again before this session began and I was mortified and distressed to find that all over this Province of British Columbia you had competent, enthusiastic employees who are concerned about the job situation, who had worked out programmes either with forestry people in the interior or the north, with businesses, with Canada Manpower. Yet there had been no response and no encouragement from your office to proceed. I ask you, Mr. Minister, now, what did you do between October and January 1, and what have you done in relation to this between January 1 and now?

HON. MR. LEVI: Sit down and I'll tell you.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, you had better make yourself comfortable, Mr. Minister, because your $90 million Mincome programme for disabled companies in British Columbia is going to require a lot of examining and a lot of effort on your part to justify.

I want to talk a bit, Mr. Minister, about your Mincome programme. When we sat in this House a year ago on that side of the House, the then Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Mr. Gaglardi) and the Members of the government went to great lengths, and Hansard will record it, to point out to the then Leader of the Opposition (Hon. Mr. Barrett) and the now Premier of this province, why the Social Credit programme for a guaranteed minimum income required federal government cooperation. It was pointed out that to give a guaranteed income to senior citizens and disabled, now and at that time, was limited by the Canada Assistance Act and that it was limited by the regulations – and they can only be described as stringent and unrealistic regulations — of the federal Liberal government. We made it very clear to the people of British Columbia then, to the Opposition then, to the people of British Columbia in the election, and to the Members of the Opposition, that it is province was capable of giving a minimum income to the disabled and the blind and the senior citizens in need as defined by the Canada Assistance Act up to $225 a month.

Mr. Minister, Hansard records and the election records that you, along with your colleagues and certainly the Premier of this province today, either would not listen or simply chose not to listen and intentionally or unintentionally went out before the election at that session and during the election and left the impression with the senior citizens of British Columbia and the handicapped British Columbia that all would receive a minimum income of $200 a month.

Mr. Minister, I see you shaking your head, and I appreciate that because I know that your office is full of mail and my office is full of mail and every Member of this House has an office full of mail from elderly citizens, people over 65 years of age, who say, "What happened? Premier Barrett, then the Leader of the Opposition and now the Premier of this province, told us that everyone over 65 would get $200 a month as soon as they were elected and that every handicapped person in British Columbia, physically or mentally handicapped, blind or deaf,

[ Page 2106 ]

would receive $200 a month minimum income."

This Government should hang its head in shame that they misled the people of British Columbia and a group of people above all who have the right to respect a government and the right and reason to trust a government. These people have been abused by the statements of the now Premier of this province and of many of his colleagues in the cabinet.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Show us the letters.

MRS. JORDAN: Read your own mail, Mr. Member — openly, not collectively.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Who's the letter from?

MRS. JORDAN: Well the Minister of Labour says,

"Who is the letter from?" That Minister with his favorite policies and political payoffs to his election supporters has done more to increase the plight of senior citizens and disabled people in this province by unleashing one of the most unprecedented inflationary periods in the history of this province or anywhere else in Canada. If the Minister of Labour, through you, Mr. Chairman, has no more sensibility than to make a stupid…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Shame!

MRS. JORDAN: …an inane remark like that when this matter is under discussion, then I challenge him to go out and make it outside of this House to the senior citizens that are writing to him, and to the elderly people who now want to know what happened, and who now see millions and millions of dollars going into disabled companies in this province right from their own mouths — money that is rightfully theirs.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: When did this come out? Well isn't this interesting? I haven't seen this before; I wonder if the Members have seen that.

AN HON, MEMBER: It was mailed out right across the province.

MRS. JORDAN: It says:

"This month's Mincome will guarantee you an income of at least $200. The Government of British Columbia is proud to announce a new and exciting programme for senior citizens, Mincome." Did this go to Columbia Cellulose, Mr. Minister? Did this go to Ocean Falls, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. BARRETT: When the next election comes you'll stand up and say you're against this programme — is that right?

MRS. JORDAN: Are you getting ruffled again tonight? Your conscience is bothering you, Mr. Premier, and it's a jolly good thing it is, because there's good reason for it, Mr. Chairman. That Premier gave the wrong impression to the elderly citizens of this province. And now the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement has the audacity to stand up in the House tonight and make a massive announcement, effective next June. How cynical.

You know, Mr. Minister, I've been astonished as we listen to the quackings of the Members of that side of the House and the obviously insensitive attitude and unsympathetic attitude for the plight of the senior citizens of this province.

The federal government doesn't always do things, right, I must say — in fact, their track record is not very good — but at least for once they woke up and saw the plight of the senior citizens of Canada to a small degree and offered them an increase of $17. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, when one examines the debate on this subject and the facts, it is quite clear that the provincial Mincome plan rests on the level of income available to pensioners. That income is available from the Old Age Security Act of Canada, and in payment under the Social Assistance portion of the Canada Assistance Plan. This is the baseline from which the provincial government has calculated the portion that it must pay to achieve a $200 guaranteed income for those over 65. Correct, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. LEVI: You had $1,200 on your programme — $1,200.

MRS. JORDAN: With this in mind, Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious that the Government of British Columbia, through its programming and through its pre-election statements and its election statements and its statements in this House this session, has an ethical and moral commitment to now use the new baseline federal figures for the calculation of your income to pensioners.

Mr. Chairman, the Social Credit party in this House has a far better approach to pensions on the order paper, which I'm not allowed to discuss.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thank God for that,

MRS. JORDAN: But it does use the principle of the income tax payable as a basis of a calculation for a guaranteed income. The Mincome plan, Mr. Chairman, in fairness now to the 100,000 pensioners, as calculated by the Minister and referred to just a

[ Page 2107 ]

moment ago, should be amended forthwith, Mr. Minister. That means now. Tonight. To raise the minimum available to pensioners under the plan to at least $217.12, and preferably, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, to the $225 per month that your staff can point out to you was available and ready to go for those who qualified in this province. Take the money out of the welfare companies and put it into the hands of the deserving senior citizens.

I think, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, that he should be the first to agree that any other course would be unfair. These thousands of British Columbian taxpayers, as a result of previous provincial action, in fact will receive nothing now from the federal budget as they proposed. It's incredible that the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement, who I know to be a very sympathetic man, could stand in this House during the oral question period and say day after day after day that he will not allot that extra $17 to those who need it.

Now, Mr., Minister, you are proud of the programme that you brought in tonight. Be even prouder. Stand up here and announce tonight that you are going to give these people what is rightfully theirs and that your negotiations in Ottawa have really had an effect. How can you possibly, with your colleagues, sit there in plush comfortable chairs with over $30,000 a year income, when some of them have been running popcorn stands before this, deny the senior citizens in need in this province that $17? It's absolutely unbelievable.

Mr. Minister, you have a lot to answer for if you don't make that statement. They don't want that money in June or October, or next January 1. They want it now. They don't want that money, $20 million-odd, funneled into the debts of Columbia Cellulose or some other fancy pantsy idea that the airy fairy Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) has.

Mr. Minister, you have a job in this province to create jobs for people who are unemployed and on rehabilitation. You have a responsibility to assist those in need, and the people most in need in British Columbia today are the elderly citizens and the disabled.

HON. MR. LEVI: Sit down, Luv, and I'll tell you what it's all about.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, is the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement ill? If he isn't, then his conscience must be bothering him, because this government took off every effort of the previous government to have some semblance of control over the rising inflation in British Columbia. Certainly it pinched a little bit those who had, but it was done for those who needed.

Mr. Minister, if you're getting $22,000 a year and you have to have an 8 per cent increase instead of a 6 per cent increase at the expense of the senior citizens, then I don't buy your shame at all. I'm proud to think that the senior citizens should have more. They're the ones, Mr. Minister, unless you too have no understanding of economics, that have to go to the store and pay the higher prices that are to a large degree the result of your Government's inflationary policy since taking office.

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, the staples in this province and in Canada — but largely in this province — are rising. Milk, butter, eggs, cheese, fresh vegetables, meat — there go the lights again. I certainly don't advocate any type of price controls in these areas that are going to affect the farmers. But what I do say, Mr. Minister is that your Government has left the senior citizens in this province in a real squeeze for the very staples and things that they need for their everyday existence.

You just stand up and talk about nutritional programs. You are the Minister that wanted to get rid of the tea and toast syndrome. Mr. Minister, by the time you're finished the senior citizens will be glad to have some tea and toast.

It doesn't take a nutritional expert and a whole committee and a year's study to know what keeps senior citizens and people healthy. It's milk, eggs, cheese, butter, meat, fresh vegetables and some vitamin pills in the wintertime to keep these people happy and healthy.

Mr. Minister, give them the money — don't give them the nutritional advice. They know what they like to eat, they know what's good for them, and $17 more a month will go a long way towards assisting them.

MR. CHABOT: Pass on the benefits from Ottawa — don't put them in your back pocket.

MRS. JORDAN: You know, the only intelligent answer that that Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) has as he pours millions of dollars of taxpayers money into disabled companies, not creating one new job for handicapped people….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please address herself to the estimates.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I certainly will. Mr. Minister, I ask you will you please not sit on that $23 million nest egg that is coming from the federal government? Don't hatch a lot of new plans with it. Don't give it to the disabled companies; don't get the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) off the hook for his debt financing; give it to the senior citizens who need

[ Page 2108 ]

it in this province and give it to the disabled in this province.

Use some of that money to cover their expected drug costs and expand your programme to help the mid-income people who don't have the benefits of medical cards and don't have these other benefits. They are the people who need your help, Mr. Minister.

I would like to ask you some specific questions also, about Mincome.

HON. MR. LEVI: Oh, thank God.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, my specific question, Mr. Minister, I want to know if you are not going to give these people the $17, what are you going to do with it? Specifically we want to know dollar by dollar where that money is going. It has been taken out of the pockets of the senior citizens of British Columbia by this Minister; where is it going? Who are you giving it to? And why are you not giving it to those who should be having it and for whom it is allotted? We would like to know also about Mincome. What is the actual cost to date, the number of citizens receiving it and what is the average payment?

We would like to ask the Minister about the advertising programme which I understood cost almost as much as the Mincome payment. Who devised the ads? Whose voice is on the ads? What expenses were given to that voice? What remuneration was given to that voice? Where were the tapes made and who were they distributed by?

HON. MR. LEVI: Read the order paper.

MRS. JORDAN: I ask you again, Mr. Minister, pass on this money to the senior citizens. What about rent, Mr. Minister. By your own statement, when you first came into office, senior citizens were being gouged. This was a great big statement and what this Minister wasn't going to do was hardly worth mentioning, and that's exactly what happened. It is hardly worth mentioning.

Mr. Minister, you are not only taking the $17 from these people per month, you have done nothing to alleviate their plight in rent. You sit there with $23 odd million, if you won't give it to them in monthly payments, give it to them in a rental increase grant — it's not taxable. The federal government, the Liberals, can't take it away from them.

It was a commitment that was made by a former government — that the bringing in of the rental grant programme was just a beginning and would be increased every year. Mr. Minister, you should be seeing that that Mr. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) gives these people at least $100. Double it. In fact if you look at the cost of living and the amount of money you are getting from Ottawa, you could make it $150.

Mr. Minister, that would really help them. Give it to anybody over 65 who is renting because there are very few people who are renting over 65 that are multi-millionaires. Besides, if people have saved and they have a little larger apartment and a few more privileges because they have been able to earn more, you shouldn't punish them.

Why didn't the Minister insist that these people receive an increase in the grant? The Minister of Finance proudly announced the extension of the Homeowners' Grant to the couples where one is below 65, as long as one is 65 or over. What have you people got against the renter? What have you got against the senior citizens who don't own their own homes? Why have you not raised the renter's grant to at least $100, or more properly $150, in light of the inflation in this province?

It is almost as if turfing people out — especially old age pensioners — has become the favorite game of this Government. You announced that you were going to stop all this and you made great policy statements that there would be rent controls in British Columbia.

HON. MR. LEVI: That's not true.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I haven't got the clipping here, Mr. Minister, but I will send it to you tomorrow.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: You advocated…does the Minister deny that he advocated rent controls in British Columbia? I'm asking the Minister, does he deny that he advocated rent controls?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: The Minister says he never advocated rent controls in British Columbia.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, I know it's not true because the Minister did advocate in a meeting in Vancouver that there should be rent controls in British Columbia and he is blushing and he knows it.

Nonetheless, Mr. Minister, this Government has advocated rent controls and did during the election, before the election and right after. With the result, combined with their economic policies, there is a growing shortage of rental accommodation in British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[ Page 2109 ]

MRS. JORDAN: And who is hit first by this? The senior citizens. The climate in British Columbia is such that people fear to invest in British Columbia now and they fear even more to invest in such investments as apartment buildings. They don't know whether there is going to be rent controls, because the economic climate is such that their assets may be frozen. And this has resulted in a scarcity of apartments and increased rentals.

The Minister knows it because he announced in November that he has reason to think there was rent gouging and he was going to talk to the landlords. In fact, I believe that he threatened to name the landlords who raised the rents of senior citizens. With that in mind, I contacted his department and gave him some names. Yes, and you know, Mr. Minister, those people never even heard from you. I had to go and sit down and talk to them myself and in two instances We met with the other people in the apartment and they agreed to absorb the increases and not the senior citizens.

But, Mr. Minister, people who own apartment buildings in British Columbia are faced with increased assessments through your Government action, the threat of financial insecurity and the possibility of rent controls and they just aren't going to build.

Yet, your Members stand up and say that housing is a matter not for the Government, but for the public. Now, what sort of conflicting statement is this? Your Government can't possibly develop enough public housing in the next six months to take care of the needs of the senior citizens in this province, let alone other renters.

I want to know, Mr. Minister, what you and your department are going to do about this. Are you going to give the senior citizens an increase in the renter's allowance to help alleviate this problem? The piddly little bit that they are getting in Mincome is being eaten away by their everyday food requirements and their rent increases. There isn't even anything left over for the hot-water bottle — as the Hon. Member pleaded on the air — or a picture show, or the little things in life that they should enjoy. If you examine their budgets, Mr. Minister, you will find that that's dead-on and that Mincome has barely kept pace with the inflationary policies of your Government.

Well, the Minister wants to get on.

HON. MR. LEVI: You're damn right.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Minister, get on with your job. Stop threatening the associations, the volunteer associations in British Columbia. Stop hoarding the senior citizens' money under your little cushy pillow. Give them a renter's grant. Give them the money that belongs to them and get involved with their problems.

You know, Mr. Minister, this questionnaire that you sent out … and it is unfortunate that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) isn't here because I would just like to read to him what he had to say about questionnaires as late as January 20, 1972, to March 30, 1972.

At the time of trying to introduce a guaranteed minimum income, the former Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement was required to send out a form by the federal government. Do you know, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, what your colleague had to say about that? Let me read it to you.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: I realize your colleague does use rather blatant language, but still we will clean up the Hansard. "They talk about trust, they talk about need" … this is quoting the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and the now Minister of Highways:

"The other Minister, who with some grace made an addition to this debate, talked about the problem his mother had in filling out one of those applications for the medical plan. No matter what your age is in the Province of British Columbia, if you are operating under the plan administered by that Minister, this is the form to the House.

"It says, the Government of the Province of British Columbia, Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement; originating office, Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement, 238 Government Street, Duncan, British Columbia, Supplementary Social Allowance Annual Report."

" 'I know, I know,' " but he was talking about the problems old people have in filling out forms. And that man over there, that Minister talked about bureaucracy. I'm relating his own form to the kind of bureaucracy that he operates and the problems that it creates for old people.

"The other Minister talked about independence and free spirit and all the rest of it. These Ministers of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement must use the same speeches, regardless of party. I want this House to know what the old people of this province are subjected to by this government. It says, 'please complete the following report of your circumstances and return it by mail to your local welfare office as indicated in the envelope provided. Failure to do so may result in suspension of the supplementary allowances and health benefits presently available to you.'

"This is the individual. 'I filled it out when I was speaking because they have to sign this. Since my last report to officials of the Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement I have not acquired any cash assets, sold or purchased any

[ Page 2110 ]

real property, received any income, changed marital status, been absent from British Columbia for more than 30 days, been hospitalized more than 30 days except as follows,' et cetera."

Now the Minister told of the problem his own mother had in filling out an application for the medical plan in this province.

"Furthermore, the individual says, there has been no change in my living arrangements or any other changes whatever, et cetera. And then the Member goes on to say,

"Cash surrender value: That's right — prepaid funeral, balance of mortgage or agreement for sale, receivable, other. I declare that the statements above are true to the best of my knowledge and believe that no information acquired or has been given' … he certainly doesn't speak English … 'cancelled or omitted.'

"How are they to know," he says, "whether or not even in filling out everything here that they have forgotten to include something that should have been revealed?"

Then comes the signature of the recipient. "Complete and return to your local office."

And he goes on to say over and over again how cruel the then Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement was; how much the government of the day was invading the privacy of the individual and his usual tirade.

Then he goes on to say also how his Government knows how to bring in a guaranteed minimum income of $200 a month for senior citizens over the years of 65. Every senior citizen in British Columbia.

Now, Mr. Minister, what is that Member partner to with you? A document that can be described as nothing more than invasion of privacy in the Province of British Columbia. When one looks at this document the first thing that comes to mind is the fact that the Minister has stood in this House on several occasions and absolutely waffled from one foot to the other as to whether or not failure to complete this form will affect their income.

What I want to know, Mr. Chairman, is why, when the Minister will not answer that question yes or no on the floor of this House, it has at the top of this form, "Your answer will in no way affect your eligibility for Mincome assistance?"

Mr. Minister, are you willfully deceiving this Legislature? Are you playing games with this Legislature? I'll withdraw.

Are you unintentionally willfully deceiving the Members of this House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MRS. JORDAN: Or, Mr. Minister, don't you know what your own forms say? Mr. Minister, if you can't tell this House what is written on the top of this form, then you deserve a vicious attack. Because either you don't know what you're doing or in fact failure to meet this commitment by filling out this form is going to affect their income.

The Minister has an obligation tonight to answer: is this statement correct — "Your answers will in no way affect your eligibility for Mincome assistance?" Is that correct, Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Chairman? Or is it in fact going to affect them and are they, by filling this out, in danger of losing some of their income from your department and the federal government? Let's hear you answer those questions, Mr. Minister.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: No, Mr. Minister, I'll stand for hours if need be until you clarify the clouds of misunderstanding that your Government has cast over this province; until you replace and state to this Legislature that you have replaced some very workable and worthwhile programmes in this province with something of your own that's workable and worthwhile, and until you give this Legislature a commitment that you will pass on to the senior citizens the money that should be rightfully theirs from the federal government.

It says, "We would like to enlist your cooperation in completing the questionnaire, and at the same time to thank you for your help." Menahem and Dunsky, I presume. "Your answers will greatly assist in our work. The answers will in no way affect your eligibility for income assistance. The information is strictly for accounting and statistical purposes."

"Trust us." That's what it says, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Minister, you'd better not let them down, because if we hear of one person who fills out this form or doesn't fill out this form that has their income affected in relation to this form, so help me we'll be after your hide.

You know, you talk about invasion of privacy. They want to know if you're single, widowed, divorced, married, living alone — what business is it of yours who they live with?

Married, living with a spouse — does it really matter, Mr. Minister? Why don't you leave them alone at this age?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, the Premier's getting all antsy again. Gads, his conscience must be really bothering him tonight. I hope it is because it's his policies and his statements that are hurting the senior citizens of this province, Now the favourite expression of the Premier of this province, when the facts of life used to be pointed out to him about federal-provincial cost-

[ Page 2111 ]

sharing and negotiations was "Aw, blame it on Ottawa, blame it on Ottawa, blame it on Ottawa." I must say he's been a good pupil for his own teachings, because every time something goes wrong he blames it on Ottawa.

Right here in this Press release — it's a very nice Press release, Mr. Minister. You made an effort to cushion it — he says "Last Friday my department," — you know, Mr. Minister, I was once told that when a Minister called a department "mine," he's on the way down. It is "our" department — "began mailing out a blue form to each of the 110,000 senior citizens of British Columbia who are receiving a monthly Mincome cheque." And would the Minister verify those figures, please, when he gets on his feet. "The purpose of this form is twofold — first, it will provide us with basic information on which we can realistically plan our department's services to meet the real needs of our senior citizens." Is that what you want it for, Mr. Minister?

What are those plans? What does this information give you that you don't already suspect or have in your files? What benefit is the senior citizen going to get from giving you this information? Please, we'd like an answer to that.

He says, "Secondly, it will permit the federal government to share in the costs of our unique and pioneering guaranteed minimum income programme." Mr. Minister, if ever there was a stretching of the truth, that's it. Your unique programme went down the drain. You're using the programme that the Social Credit government advocated and largely negotiated for you and you're ripping off on it as well. Because our government would give these people the money they should rightfully have.

Then he goes on with a little public relations about how it's still the simplest, most economically administered income assistance in Canada. You know, Mr. Minister, speaking of Canada, why is it that the pilot projects are going on in the provinces other than in British Columbia, for minimum income? Would you answer that question?

Here's the "blame Ottawa." He says, "We require this basic information for statistical and accounting purposes in order to permit the province and the Government of Canada to share in the cost of Mincome. The Department of National Health and Welfare has now advised us the Canada Assistance Plan does not permit the federal government to share in our type of plan which is solely based on a guaranteed minimum income." Mr. Minister, it only took your government a year and a half to wake up and hear what you were being told all the time, which is that you have to work within the framework of the Canada Assistance Plan.

Why do you hoodwink the senior citizens and blame Ottawa again? If you'd just followed the nice, friendly note and been truthful it would have been a good letter. I would have supported it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, the Hon. Minister of Agriculture has a lot to say except when it comes to his own bills.

I want to know, Mr. Minister, what you're going to do about the shortage of rental accommodation for elderly citizens all over this province and how many units are going to be built this year for them, and what assistance they're going to get with their rent.

If you expect private enterprise to do some of the building, what are you going to say to them that will give them some confidence in the economy of British Columbia and the advisability of putting their hard-earned money into building rental accommodation?

While we're talking about rental accommodation, Mr. Minister, I would ask you to review the minimum plan requirements for public housing for senior citizens. If you go into those little apartments, they're too small. They should be at least another 100 square feet larger.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, don't shirk your duties. You're supposed to be looking after senior citizens. Do something for them instead of sitting around admiring your handiwork.

Mr. Minister, I mentioned that you cancelled Willingdon School. As usual, there seems to be the ham-handed efforts of the Government here.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What about the children?

MRS. JORDAN: That's what I'd like to know, Mr. Premier. What about the — they aren't children — young people who were in Willingdon School? As I say, the Minister has the right to cancel any programme he wishes, but only when he's made provisions to replace or improve upon it.

If you read through the figures here on Willingdon, you find that a sizable number of students went through this school. I don't say it was perfect. But, Mr. Minister, I was there on several occasions and I've talked to the staff there — not since not being in office. I don't want to get them into trouble. I've had the pleasure of talking to a number of the students who have been there.

There were one or two who were very hostile, no question about it. But there were many other students, Mr. Minister, who, when they had got through Willingdon and were older, felt that Willingdon had been the one thing in their lives that had saved them. It hadn't been easy but it had been an environment that assisted them and gave them some support and had some discipline.

[ Page 2112 ]

Mr. Minister, I wonder why and I ask you why one of your first acts upon coming into office was to announce that Willingdon would have the axe. Where are the girls who were in the school? Where are the number who have almost routinely gone through the school?

HON. MR. LEVI: You've seen the report.

MRS. JORDAN: I have it here somewhere. I don't need it; I've read it. I just need it for the figures.

Mr. Minister, what is happening to these girls now? Let's not deceive ourselves. Some of these girls have real serious problems. Some are not going to get over these problems. Many of them have serious problems but also the capacity, with the right type of help, to adjust to a more mature life and to make a life for themselves. Where are they in the Okanagan, Mr. Minister? Where are they in the central northern part of the province? Where are those from the Kootenays? Where are those from the north of the province? Where are those from the Fraser Valley? Where are those from the northern part of Vancouver Island and lower Vancouver Island?

If they're in homes of various types, Mr. Minister — either their own homes or other people's homes or group living homes — what type of supportive care are they getting? Not only professionally, but what type of social involvement and assistance to social involvement are they getting? What are they doing with their off hours? Are they working? Are they studying? Are they going to picture shows? Are they learning handicrafts? Are they learning to cook? Are they learning hairdressing? What are their physical recreation activities, Mr. Minister? Are they swimming or learning to swim and taking swimming lessons? Are any of them playing on baseball or basketball teams?

HON. MR. LEVI: I hope not.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Minister, I hope they are. If a person has personal problems, being involved with people and being part of something is very important. It's very important to his recovery. The Minister should wish that they're on baseball teams or hockey teams or basketball teams. There's absolutely no purpose in these girls vegetating in their own homes with professional counseling once or twice a week, or vegetating in group homes with some professional counseling and maybe social activities once or twice a week. There has to be supportive environment 24 hours a day.

Some of them are going to run away from it. They're going to run to the easy course, whether it's somebody who is overly sympathetic and doesn't help them face the truth or whether it's an easier way of life. In their mind. In doing away with Willingdon, the Minister has a grave responsibility to tell this House where these girls are. If some of them have graduated, that's fine. But if you look at the figures through the years and you know life around you, you know that there are many girls in this situation coming up all the time. What is to happen to them. Where are we, as MLAs, to refer these people?

Mr. Minister, what about the staff at Willingdon? Where are their new jobs? When you made the announcement that you were going to do away with Willingdon — and I forget what you, called it, "Jail" or something — why did you not then set into motion (1) discussions with the staff as to what they would like to do and (2) preparations at that time for them to be phased out of their jobs into new jobs? When you have such an orderly, tidy mind with so many plans, Mr. Minister, how is it that the majority of those people got letters that fired them by mistake?

HON. MR. LEVI: It's not true.

MRS. JORDAN: The Minister withdrew these. Well, if it's not true, Mr. Minister, we want to know what did happen.

HON. MR. LEVI: Twenty-two people got fired.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, it's O.K. to fire 22 but not 44. Mr. Minister, I don't think it's right to fire anybody unless they've made a serious mistake. If the Minister tries to convince this House that 22 of those employees deserved to be fired, then he'd better have some pretty good proof. You should not hurt one person if you can help it, Mr. Minister. Why did…

MS. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MRS. JORDAN: Through you Madam Chairman, what have you done to make good your statement in the Vancouver Sun yesterday — that you promised to find jobs for remaining Willingdon workers? It's a bit late. Are you going to guarantee these people jobs of equal interest and equal pay?

There are a few people floating around these buildings now, Mr. Minister, who were shunted out of their jobs. They may be getting equal pay to what they were before, but they're certainly not in as challenging positions. One gets the impression that you shunt them around in hopes that they'll quit. I would hope that this is not the case with these workers.

Where are you going to employ these 22 people, Mr. Minister? What guarantee will you give them and us that they'll have some form of selection in these job opportunities?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 2113 ]

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, that Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) just can't keep quiet, can he?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, what about these welfare empires that you say are on the way out? So far, you seem to have singled out the Narcotic Addiction Foundation, the alcoholic foundation, the Salvation Army in their role with alcoholics and drug addiction. How many more have you singled out, Mr. Minister? Are you aware of what these people are thinking and how concerned they are?

The Minister says, "I want to get down and have an eyeball-to-eyeball talk with the volunteers in this province who can be the specialists who can give me the answers to the social problems of British Columbia."

HON. MR. LEVI: Eyeball to eyeball?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, why don't you look into what people are doing before you make more of these bombastic statements and then sit back and watch the ruination? When one reads your report in relation to alcoholics and drug addicts, one gets a strong feeling that you consider that the alcoholic and the drug addict themselves are the authorities in this problem, and that these are the people who you will look to for guidance, and that these are the people who will set up the corrective programmes.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Indeed they are part, Mr. Minister, but not the whole. People who have these problems, Mr. Minister, have certain personality defects or problems or weaknesses. If they've been on drugs for a number of years or if they've been abusing the intake of alcohol for a number of years, there is generally brain damage or neurological damage, and this generally helps dissipation.

Mr. Minister, there's no question they can put in an input but it is very disturbing to the people of British Columbia and to us as legislators to feel that you feel that they are the authorities on this subject. Because, Mr. Minister, in dealing with these people you need many people of a very mature nature, a very compassionate approach, and empathetic approach not a sympathetic approach, and you need people who can withstand stress themselves and this is not generally a characteristic of those who have been afflicted with this problem. To suggest that they're going to provide the professional input is about as far-fetched as you can get.

Mr. Minister, in that report you talked about community resource centres, and in theory this has a lot of merit. But when you read that report you get the impression that this Minister and this government think that volunteers are going to come rushing out of the woodwork to assist in this area. Mr. Minister, they're not. I'm assuring you right now with considerable concern — I don't like to say it — that there are going to be many communities who are not going to want resource centres of this nature in their community. If you don't believe me, just go back to your own association that you worked for, the John Howard Society, and find out the problem we had in our community just trying to find a place that was acceptable to put a home for some of these people.

HON. MR. LEVI: Did you kick them out?

MRS. JORDAN: No, Mr. Minister. As a matter of fact I was involved for a long time in helping them get a place but the community reacted very strongly and I don't suggest that this is the right way. I think they should be more understanding.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister has been involved for 12 years.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, I know he has.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, now. Isn't that interesting? The Premier is yakking off again, showing that he doesn't understand. If the Premier knew we are just, hopefully with the help from the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement, in the process of developing a permanent site and home for Howard House in the North Okanagan…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Premier, and I wouldn't brag about it if I were you, because I know some of the people that work for you and they would not give you a recommendation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MRS. JORDAN: The statements that you've just made are jolly good reasons as to why they would not give you a recommendation. You were considered, Mr. Premier, through you Mr. Chairman, opinionated, shallow and generally concerned more with your own ego than with the care of the people who are in your

[ Page 2114 ]

charge. And that, Mr. Premier, is what the people of British Columbia are feeling — an egotistical Premier who won't listen.

This Minister has a serious problem on his hands and he'd better be listening because he's got to do something about it.

MR. CHABOT: We're sophisticated.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, are you planning to meet with the communities about these resource centres yourself, or are you going to send your staff out?

Mr. Minister, so far all you've been meeting with are a selected group of people. Have you been around this province to meet with your staff in the regional offices? Have you been around…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh yes, the directors came down to Victoria. Mr. Minister, I mean the staff that are doing the everyday work.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I would ask that the Hon. Minister allow the Member to ask the questions and answer them in due course.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Does the Minister intend to meet with his regional staff on their ground and listen to their views? Does the Minister plan to meet with the communities themselves before establishing these resource centres, and does he intend to pay the volunteers or call on them for volunteer help? What does he intend to do about zoning problems? And what does he intend to do about the general public attitude, let alone the medical attitude, on the programme that he is proposing?

Mr. Minister, I will have more statements and more questions but I'd like you to answer some of these when convenient.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I have a few comments to make. I will try to be as restrained as possible and attempt to avoid the personal vituperativeness that has been the hallmark of that Member this whole session.

Madam Chairman, first of all I would like to refer the House to some degree of reality in terms of the actual records and the matter of fact that we are dealing with, rather than the matter of emotional statement and wished-for positions.

Fourteen years ago I appeared before the then CCF caucus as a civil servant about to be dismissed after presenting two papers to the then government outlining the problems faced in Willingdon School for Girls, Brannen Lake School for Boys and the Oakalla Prison Farm. I was hired at that time as a professional and returned to British Columbia to do a professional job for a government I was under the impression was concerned about people.

After I presented those papers I was told that I was not to express a professional opinion, and the consequences of that led me into politics.

My entry into politics has been an extension of social work. It has been expanded since that time, and I don't regret that expansion. But I have never seen in my time since I returned to British Columbia such unmitigated gall as I have tonight.

I'd like to refer to the records of this House, Madam Chairman. At one time we had no records at all, other than on the votes. But the votes themselves reflect the personal commitments and the political commitments and the political philosophy of the Members of this House.

In 1972, Madam Speaker, we had an opportunity — a rare occasion — to vote on a principle of an amendment rather than on the actual amendment being out of order. We all recognize, whether in Opposition or in Government, that the role of amendments is political and amendments are used to either illustrate a problem or to embarrass a government or to make a point.

On most occasions, almost 99 per cent of the time we never get an opportunity to vote on the meat of the amendment itself. We are forced to vote….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If you don't like the lecture, Mr. Member, we had an hour and 20 minutes of the most sick kind of lecture that I've heard in this House.

In 1972 one of those rare occasions occurred when this House actually voted on the substance of an amendment rather than on whether or not it was out of order. The substance of the amendment, placed by the official Opposition and then endorsed by the Liberal Party, was as follows:

[ Page 2115 ]

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Let's check the records, Mr. Member, on page 45 of the 1972 Journals:

"Mr. Barrett moved a subamendment 'That the amendment to the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair be amended by adding, after the word 'province' in the fourth line, the following measures:

"(1) the provision of a guaranteed minimum income of $200 per month…'" and a number of other things.

Mr. Speaker, in May, seventeenth edition at p. 795 it was ruled that while the subject would involve expenditure of public money it was nevertheless framed in sufficiently abstract terms that, if agreed to, the subamendment would have in no way an operative effect on public expenditure.

The government would not have been committed to spending $200 per month. It was just an idea, a statement of principle, that a guaranteed minimum income of $200 a month, which all the Opposition agreed to, which represented 60 per cent of the vote at that time in the Province of British Columbia, not a minority. That's what they said at that time. And I want the House to recall that not a single Social Credit Member voted for that subamendment at that time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would think that if the Member for North Okanagan was not a Member of the House at that time it would be reasonable for her to excuse herself and allow her to make the almost cynical comments that were made tonight. But she was a Member of this very Legislature and it was her government that voted against it and that was a real part of the reason why they were defeated last August.

I'm sorry that this debate is not on television. I'm sorry that the people of British Columbia do not have the opportunity of seeing that Member defending the Hon. former Minister of Rehabilitation, one P.A. Gaglardi. That Minister was the Minister of Rehabilitation and we all recall the interview that he gave on September 10, 1972…

MRS. JORDAN: Point of order! (Laughter).

MS. CHAIRMAN: What is your point of order?

MRS. JORDAN: I would ask the Premier to withdraw the statement that I defended one P.A. Gaglardi. (Laughter).

I defended, on the basis of the Minister of Rehabilitation's own report, the work that was done by the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen, and I would ask the Premier to withdraw.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I withdraw any public allegation that that Member supports P.A. Gaglardi, but that's on her conscience. I don't know who supports P.A. Gaglardi. (Laughter).

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: But I withdraw the allegation. If it offends her to know the public of British Columbia knows that she in any way supports P.A. Gaglardi, I withdraw the allegation.

MRS. JORDAN: Madam Chairman, if the Premier would get off his ego trip.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have the floor I think, Madam Chairman. The Member made the statement…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would both Members sit down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Sit down! Sit down!

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: Is the Minister going…

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I withdraw the allegation that she supported P.A. Gaglardi. Let that stand on the record. As a matter of fact she voted in support of P.A. Gaglardi every time it was recorded in any one of these journals. But if she wants to refute the Journals, let that be on her conscience, not on mine.

Madam Chairman, the allegation has been made by the Member for North Okanagan that we have crippled the economy of this province and we have crippled the programmes of this province. Last month's revenues were up 14.5 per cent over what they were one year ago in the Province of British Columbia. If that's crippling, I'd like another year of it.

Madam Chairman, as far as crippling the programmes, the Member did attack the Minister, and Hansard will show it — that the Minister withdrew Mr. Gaglardi's programme of the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen. One of the best things that Member did since he became Minister was to eliminate that pork barrel programme that had absolutely nothing to do with the problems of the unemployed.

I have spent 12 years in this House and every one

[ Page 2116 ]

of those 12 years I spent was a debate on the estimates of the Minister of Welfare — or the Minister of Rehabilitation, as they were known over that period of time. During those debates the Member for Kootenay (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), the Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and other Members along with myself consistently stood up in this House and asked for an increase in the social assistance funds.

In 1961 the United Church presented a petition and a brief to the government of the day and asked that there be a substantial increase in social assistance allowances. Later on, in 1966, there was election of three women who were immediately put into the cabinet by the Social Credit administration. Those three women were not given portfolios; they were Ministers without Portfolio and the alleged responsibility of those three Ministers, according to the then Premier, was that they were there to be concerned with the problems of families and children and that's why they did not receive a specific portfolio.

I cannot recall on one single occasion hearing one of those Ministers standing up in this House asking for any single thing that that Member has spoken about tonight. As a matter of fact, when their estimates were debated there was a notable silence. Their votes usually went through in 10 to 15 minutes because it was a matter of contempt on the Opposition's part that those Ministers didn't do a thing worth even questioning. And that's a matter of record.

Tonight, with a matter of sense of pride and with all the yelling and with all the cynicism and all the hysteria exposed by the Government on that side, the Minister on behalf of all the people of this province has, announced significant increases in social assistance. I say, very, very simply, I want to thank all of the people of British Columbia who've made this wealthy province rich enough to pay these decent social allowances for the first time in the history of this province.

We heard the Minister talk about Willingdon School for Girls. I'll come to that in a moment.

The Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan)…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I am an MLA in this House…

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The original purpose of my coming to this House was to debate these very estimates. If I had to get all the way to be Premier to finally see something decent happen in these estimates, I have no apology for that whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, the Member for North Okanagan spoke about "poor work patterns" and spoke about the dependency on social assistance. The philosophy as espoused by that government not refuted by any single cabinet Minister or any single backbench Member was that people on welfare were "deadbeats."

Now, the Member suggests that we should provide something more than money. I want to tell you something, Mr. Chairman; that government robbed people on welfare of their dignity and self respect, and that's worth a lot more than money any time. That at last has been given back.

You know, that Member for North Okanagan said that a piece of paper helps a person. That's the argument to justify the programme for the particular matter of dealing with the job-training programme. Well, I want to tell you, if that Member for North Okanagan can tell me anywhere in the world where you can take a Social Credit "piece of paper" into a supermarket or a store and turn it into groceries, then we'll hand out more of the certificates. In the meantime, we'll give people more money because that means more than pieces of paper that Social Credit gave them.

The Member talked about Willingdon School for Girls and gave us a picture as if swimming and sewing classes were the great solution to the problems of those emotionally disturbed children. I remember the debates on that particular estimate when the former Minister of Social Welfare, now an administrative assistant to Social Credit after he was attacked for the Willingdon School went over to Willingdon School and had the girls write letters to the Legislature and attack the Members of the Legislature for raising their problems. When unabashedly he was found to have actually been involved in that kind of letter-writing campaign — that he was discovered for having been involved in that — he shrugged it off. Those children were used politically by the then Minister, Mr. Dan Campbell.

Then of course we had the former Member for Vancouver-Burrard, Mr. Price, who said that the girls in Willingdon weren't worth a "plugged nickel," or "wooden nickel," as I recall it. That was said in this House as well.

Then to hear that Member stand in this House and say that swimming lessons and care… I want to tell you that the Kingston Penitentiary is housed with 60 per cent of their inmates directly from the Province of British Columbia, 40 per cent of those young ladies were people who had been through Willingdon School where their first experience with promiscuity and lesbianism took place right here in our provincial institutions. That's a matter of record.

Don't tell me about swimming. Don't tell me

[ Page 2117 ]

about sewing. Sixty per cent of those inmates in the Kingston Penitentiary, the women's penitentiary, are from British Columbia; 40 per cent of that 60 per cent are graduates of the Willingdon School for Girls. If we want to go back to that kind of swimming and sewing class — not on my head will it happen. Not on my head.

Case history after case history of those girls in Willingdon School reveal that the former administration, after 20 years in office, went through juvenile courts in this province on the kind of volunteer help that she said wouldn't be possibly achieved. And that's true. It wasn't achieved. These girls were coming to court; there was no mandatory workup; there was no age limit; they were not seen automatically by physicians or psychologists; and they were sent to that institution on the basis of a charge of incorrigibility.

Those children came from emotionally disturbed situations; they had no semblance of treatment at home. When they arrived at the institution they automatically went on the escape route.

The Vancouver City Police have catalogued case after case where girls from Willingdon School, at the ages of 16 and 15, escaped from that school, went downtown and immediately went into prostitution — an opportunity that did not exist in the small towns that they came from throughout this whole Province of British Columbia. But as soon as they arrived in Willingdon they were made available for that prostitution market.

Nobody wants to defend that system. Nobody wants to justify what was going on. But it is a matter of fact that it was going on and it was going on under that previous administration time after time after time.

The Member suggests that I suffer from an illness. If it's an illness then it's a passion and a sincerely held one, rightly or wrongly. It led me into politics to oust a government that was totally unfeeling and hypocritical when it came to services of people of this province. If we've ever had an illustration of it, we got the illustration tonight from that Member herself, who sat on these Government benches and who did nothing for years. Absolutely nothing!

All that Member has had to offer in the debates is personal insults, invective and attempts to slander the Members without one constructive sentence here tonight or at any time during this legislative session. Has she suggested at any time, when she was a Minister in this House, that the social assistance rates were too low? The answer is no.

Has she suggested that there be a province-wide probation programme for young adolescent girls? The answer is no. Did she ever vote in this House against sending 12-year-old children and younger to institutions housing children over the age of 12? The answer is no. These are matters of record. I find that I'm moved to something more than just simple passion in replying to that Member. I'm sick to my stomach at her performance tonight and I only wish that all of the people could have seen that kind of hypocrisy from that Member.

What nerve! What gall! What sense of lack of understanding of a responsibility that led to 20 years of neglect for child care in this province! And then we have to be subjected to that kind of twisted, tortuous thinking.

In terms of the Mincome we never said anything more than we would guarantee a minimum of $200 a month to every senior citizen in this province. That's exactly what we've guaranteed. They would never have seen it under Social Credit. To have that Opposition announce had they been in government it would have been more is a mark of hypocrisy that is almost beyond belief!

I notice that their leader is not here tonight.

AN HON. MEMBER: Again.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Again. And I notice that his absence is probably a reflection of his own conscience. To sit through that kind of diatribe from that Member, having the conscience of 20 years of inactivity in this particular area, is something even he couldn't stand.

There's a great deal we intend to do in the area of human services. No government, regardless of how kind, how considerate or how understanding can elevate every individual human being to the maximum potential that may be in him. But there is a spark in every human being that can be developed to a potential. That spark must be nurtured on the basis of a government providing a framework within which that person can operate with a minimum of government interference or choice in terms of directions for an individual.

One of the things in North American society that gives the kind of freedom that's necessary for a maximum degree of choice is economic security. I'm not saying that's good, I'm not saying it's bad; I'm saying it's a reality. Money in one's pocket determines a freedom of choice.

Fifteen years ago there was a major study done of the poor in the United States by Professor Cloward. He discovered, much to everybody's surprise, that one of the major things wrong with the poor is that they don't have enough money. It's quite true.

Our purpose as a government and through this programme is to give people some degree of freedom by raising their minimum incomes to a level that they can start making choices for themselves rather than the government making choices for them. We intend to guarantee incomes for our seniors. Along with cooperation from the federal government, we hope to guarantee incomes for many, many other people.

[ Page 2118 ]

And I must say that the federal government is beginning to show an interest in providing that kind of flexibility on income.

I'm not moved to making these statements out of cooing, out of electoral victory — something that I'm very satisfied with. I'm not moved to make these statements on the basis that this party may know what's best for people. That's not true either. But I am moved to make these statements on the basis of an honest experience in this House after having suffered through an administration that sat for hour after hour in cold indifference to the pleas of Members from the Conservative Party, from the Liberal Party and the then CCF-NDP party — sat there in their smugness, sat there in their indifference, and didn't move at all on behalf of these people.

Tonight, when we've had a shift, a move and an attitude that reflects not what the NDP wants, not what the Liberals want, not what the Socreds want, but what the ordinary, decent person of this province has longed for in terms of social justice all these years — it's finally beginning to happen. And to have that kind of speech with that Member giving it, while she sat in the cabinet and said nothing, is a little bit too much to stomach. I'd be embarrassed, if I were she, to go any further in these votes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) that the Minister has not yet responded. After he has responded I'll give you the floor.

MRS. JORDAN: That's not the point.

lnterjections by some Hon. Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member for North Okanagan be seated, please. I'll give the floor to her as soon as the Minister has responded so that she'll have a chance to answer.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: After the Minister has responded to all three of the MLAs who have spoken.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: May I first congratulate the Government and the Minister in bringing forward improvements in the social assistance, which are 20 years overdue in this province. To the public who may be surprised at the substantial amount, may I first say that I heartily support such amounts and our Liberal Party agrees with them. They are large, but they must be large because of 20 years of denial.

I want to compliment, Mr. Chairman, the Premier on his finest hour in the Legislature. I've been here almost as long as the Premier; I agree with every word he said. I thought the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), who sat on the Treasury benches and was a participant in this denial, showed more than unmitigated gall this evening; she showed consummate hypocrisy.

I don't agree with the economic philosophies of the present Government. Everybody recognizes that. I'm a free enterpriser. But I will say that if there is anything that has discredited free enterprise in this province and a government that carried the banner of free enterprise, it has been the denial of human dignity and human justice.

I say to those in British Columbia, if you are disturbed by some of the directions that the present Government is taking, that there is a penalty being paid because there was this denial of human justice for so many years.

A year ago I said in this House, in putting forward a motion on behalf of the poor of the province, "What is the matter with us in British Columbia? How much of a surplus do we have to have before we can give something to the elderly people of British Columbia?" Millions and millions and millions were not enough for that government. And when the figures were finally toted up it turned out that the federal government, in those mean old days, was putting up $157 and the provincial government was putting up a maximum of $19.30. That was what her government thought was appropriate for the poorest people of British Columbia.

Now, just a few months later, we have that Member rising in the House to ask for more for the elderly people of British Columbia, to criticize the provincial government for what they've done, and not to mention once that all the years she sat in the cabinet, the hundreds of opportunities she had to stand up in this House and to say something on behalf of the poor and the elderly — all she did was defend the meanness and penury of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett) whom she served. She was serving him, she was serving that government and she never had any intention of serving the people that she claims tonight the NDP Government is denying.

I'm even moved to recall, Mr. Chairman, that when the last election campaign came along, boxes and boxes of literature were delivered to Social Credit Members claiming how much they were doing on

[ Page 2119 ]

behalf of the elderly citizens of British Columbia — at government expense. Some of us were moved to say at that time that we wished that money had not been spent on trying to re-elect the Social Credit Members but had been given to the poor of British Columbia instead.

No, Mr. Chairman, not in the time I've spent in this House have we ever seen anything approaching what that Member gave us this evening.

I hope that the Social Credit will now reconsider what their responsibilities have been over the years and will have just a little bit of conscience and penance for their own record. Mr. Chairman, I specifically exclude the new Members of the Social Credit Party and even the ones who were here on occasions in the past but didn't have to sit here during the previous three years, for not recognizing what went on in this House during that time.

I was here and I heard the speeches. I say without any hesitation that it was not just unmitigated gall but consummate hypocrisy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I believe that the use of terms such as "hypocrisy" and so on are terms not really worthy of this House. I am sure that no Member would impute to any Hon. Member of this House anything of that nature.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, my point is right here — in the Votes and Proceedings. When the time came to vote on Bill 49 in the last session of the Legislature — how many Members recall that? Here's what it says and this is what the Social Credit Party voted for unanimously, including the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). Her vote is recorded in the Journals on that particular bill. It says:

"In accordance with the regulations, the Minister, in his discretion, may determine the eligibility of persons for social assistance, fix the rate or amount of social assistance for those persons, and discontinue, reduce or increase the rate or amount of social assistance."

That's the kind of odious legislation that is on the records of the Social Credit Party when that Member served in the cabinet. Not a word against that bill. Not one Member — and so many of them are not back here now — voted against that kind of odious legislation.

If anything, Mr. Chairman, I think my remarks this evening have been flattering.

I want to say this about some of the things that are still to be done. I think the Premier recognizes that. Mr. Chairman, if the Premier doesn't mind for a moment, of the amendment that he referred to, he very carefully read only subsection (1). He didn't read subsection (2). I'd like to remind him of what that says:

"The supply of medical drugs under the British Columbia Medical Plan free of charge for senior citizens."

He didn't recall that tonight but I'd like to recall it to him. It was certainly part of the Liberal charter of rights for the elderly and has been part of our provincial Liberal Party platform for some time. Certainly that should be the next step on the plate of the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

We don't ask that it all be done at once. We certainly concur that to date the Minister has made spectacular strides. The budget was, of course, lower than the revenues will be. All of us in this House know that adequate funds exist, providing too much of it doesn't go on Flyers and pulp mills, for us to give these benefits to the senior citizens.

Mr. Chairman, they come first. Private enterprise can and should look after itself. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will not be held up in his programme because tax revenues are taken for investments in Crown corporations when they should be spent on the needy of this province.

Mr. Chairman, we note with interest that the Province of Manitoba will be the first one to experiment with a guaranteed income. I'm disappointed that it could not have been British Columbia.

Having said some unkind words about Social Credit this evening, for a moment may I agree with some of the ideas that the former Premier had. Although I condemned his budget every year and I condemned his allocations for the needy of the province, I think he was correct in saying that we should have a guaranteed income plan. I'm glad that the Member and I can agree on that point at least.

I hope that the Minister and the Premier and the federal government can somehow get together in discussions and find some way to introduce it in British Columbia too.

I'd like to agree with the Leader of the Opposition, the former Premier, one other respect. That is his philosophy regarding equalization payments. Like the former Premier, I think the concept of equalization payments is wrong and unfair. I agree with him that that money should be used for distribution directly to the people and not to other provincial governments. If we were to take the equalization payments and see that lump sum of money combined with whatever other resources the federal government might wish to place behind the needy of the province to develop a guaranteed income plan that would suit all of Canada, then I think this would be a happier and more prosperous country.

Whether or not that comes in the future, Mr. Chairman, there will be many poor and humble people in British Columbia who will be happy tonight. They are getting the best news that they have had in 20 years. Mr. Chairman, I think that every Member in this House — every Member — should be happy with them.

[ Page 2120 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): I think it's important to understand some of the high emotion that we've had here tonight. The Premier and I have shared about 14 years of companionship in this particular area. Once we had made our announcements tonight, I felt that it was inevitable that he was going to get up. I'm glad that he did.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, you're damn right. He took you apart like you've never been taken apart before.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. A point of order.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Minister to withdraw the word that was used that was offensive.

HON. MR. LEVI: What was the word that was offensive?

MR. CHAIRMAN: "Damn."

HON. MR. LEVI: Oh, I withdraw that. Yes, of course. She's still apart but I withdraw it.

Now look, I sat here and I had to listen to that Member over there talk about the Social Credit Mincome policy. What was the Social Credit Mincome that she kept talking about? There were 1,200 people receiving $191 in this province when you were the government. Twelve hundred people. Right now you have 108,000 people who are receiving a guaranteed income of $200, with an average payment from this Government of $43. That's what the reality is, Madam Member.

You talk about Willingdon. We know about your trips to Willingdon. You pop in and you pop out and you have a degree of specialty already. We had a previous Minister here who spent three days there and was suddenly an expert on corrections. I was in the House in 1969 when this….

MRS. JORDAN: What are you an expert on?

HON. MR. LEVI: I spent 17 years in the field. That's why I'm here today.

When we closed Willingdon, we said that there was no room for a place which committed children because they had behaviour problems. We committed them because of sexual immorality, because they were incorrigible. What kind of problems are these?

Can you identify them?

You talk about "students." What do you think we were running there — Crofton House? It was not a Crofton House. That's why we closed it down. It was not a Crofton House.

You're asking "Where are the children now?" We have made arrangements for them. They're in a number of different situations. We expect to improve on the situations. We have had a response from the people in my department from the field to do something about these children in their own communities. That's the focus of this department — in their own communities. No more dumping grounds.

You talk about Vernon. You're the Member from Vernon and you talk about it. The John Howard Society has been there 12 years. For 12 years they've been doing a job for that community and you keep telling me that they're not accepted by the community. We don't accept that any of the work that we do in this department is very acceptable to anybody. That doesn't mean to say that we don't carry on doing the work.

Let me tell you something about the residue of the problems that we have inherited from that side in respect to children. This department and children's aid societies are responsible for 10,167 kids in this province in care. That's the legacy that we inherited from you because you would pay no money for resources. In 1969 you introduced a juvenile detention Act and the whole business of the provincial court Acts. You said to the children's aid societies, "A superintendent will now look after these children. You assist him." You gave no more money. You just said do it. You provided no resources, no help. It was easy for you to just push it aside.

Now, what did you do? We've got over 3,000 children who have been in care more than five years. We've got children coming into care, over 900 of whom should have had something done in terms of their family situation, and it was never done.

That Member who is not here tonight should be because he bled those children white. They didn't get the kind of assistance they needed.

You think we're a bunch of bleeding hearts? Why do you think I spent 17 years in this field for? What do you think I'm in this House for? Because I know what has to be done; we over here know what has to be done. You never accepted that. Never. You make chipping remarks about what's going on in pulp mills; we're talking about people, that's what we're talking about.

What did you ever do for senior citizens? You get a government that's prepared to move, that's ~prepared to push the federal government to assist. And that's what we've been doing. We see our role; we are showing leadership in this province and in this country. We've got to cooperate to some extent in terms of our Mincome programme. That's what we've

[ Page 2121 ]

done; we've shown leadership.

You could have shown the same leadership, but you didn't. You didn't do anything of the kind because you had a one-man government. He was the guy who called the shots. You couldn't do a thing about it anyway.

It was delightful to watch the three Ministers without Portfolio in this House five years ago, sitting there writing piles of notes as though they were going to get up for two hours and make a vicious attack on the government. I can remember one time I moved a motion. It took 12 seconds to get rid of you.

MRS. JORDAN: Are you proud of that?

HON. MR. LEVI: You're right on I'm proud of it. What are we talking about when we talk about community resource centres. Let's get this straight. Neither this government nor the federal government is ever going to be able to provide the kind of money that you need to deliver all the services that you need in the community. Obviously we have to rely on volunteers and obviously we have to rely on the community.

When we talked about a solution to the drug problem, to the senior problem, we took it right back to the community and said, "We've got to get the assistance of the community." And that's where we're going.

And you say to me, 'Have I met the community?' I spent an awful lot of time in the seven months I've been over here, meeting with the community in the community. I've meeting with the community in the community. I've met two-thirds of my field staff at two regional conferences and talked to them. They know what we're talking about; we're getting the word down to the line there. As soon as this session is over I'm going to be travelling throughout the province.

Our mail and the kind of representations that we're getting from people tells us they want to cooperate with us on the community development of their own resources. That's where we've got to go. We're not going to build big structures and somehow think that that's the solution to a problem, because it isn't.

We know what we have to do. We've spent a number of years in Opposition trying to figure it all out. Now we're trying to implement programmes.

The Mincome form — this is the great issue with you. One of the reasons we want the Mincome form is because we want to get the federal government involved in this. We are the province right now that's shown the leadership in North America and in Canada in terms of the $200 a month. But very shortly, Madam Member, there are going to be two other provinces that are going to follow us because they are interested in what we're doing. Don't think for one minute that what the federal government did in January was not a direct result of what this Government did in October. Don't ever forget that. That's the kind of leadership…

We met here in November with the Ministers, and we got unanimity on what we have to do with children's allowances and we got unanimity on what we have to do with programmes. That's leadership, and that's the kind of thing that we're going to continue to do.

In respect to these 10,000 children, the focus of this department is on children and the family unit. That's the whole core of this province. Without them, we don't have anything. And if we're going to spend money, that's where it will be reflected — in terms of children. That's where it will be reflected — in terms of healthy people. We have developed healthy situations in terms of medical services, and you as a government let people ride when they needed the right kind of food to continue the kind of healthful life. You didn't do a thing; you just sat there and that's all you wanted to do.

Now let's see if I can answer one or two of the questions. You meandered so far it is very difficult for me to know where to start. It was like going through a swamp.

PAB (Provincial Alliance of Businessmen). You talked about all those people that worked for PAB, all 26 of them. We had to find jobs for 24, and we ultimately found jobs for 15. Nine we didn't agree to find jobs for. They were not acceptable to the civil service, not to us. I said to the civil service, "Offer people jobs; it's on your discretion." They offered 15 people, nine didn't get jobs because they were there…

Had the previous minister, my predecessor, been that interested in them, he could have put them through a lot quicker in terms of the civil service. But he didn't; he decided in June of 1969 to do it. We had an opportunity to kill it, and we killed it stone dead. Stone dead.

Now let's talk about the whole question of employment. You say, "What's happening to these people?" All right, let me read a report dated March 8: "Gainfully employed welfare recipients."

"Total in the province for February 1973 moved off welfare — 1,1410 people. April 3: gainfully employed, March 1973 — 1,678 people."

Now what are you talking about, Madam Member? What do you think this is? What do you think is going on out there? Do you think all of a sudden the world…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LEVI: It's there; there are the facts. Do you want me to file them? I'll file them.

[ Page 2122 ]

MRS. JORDAN: Why didn't you put them in before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

HON. MR. LEVI: Oh, Madam Member, please. It's nearly time to go home; don't knock it.

All right, let me give you just one other topic because I don't want to stray too close to the legislation that's coming in.

You talked about rents. O.K., we were concerned about rents when we brought in the Mincome because we had an awful lot of reports from people that their rents were going up. We examined several hundred complaints. But the tragic part about it was that we found that the bulk of the complaints were coming from people that were living in private hospitals. And that's a problem.

We talked to some of the private hospital people and said, "Be reasonable in terms of your increases." And they weren't prepared to be reasonable. In fact they said, "If you don't pay us the kind of subsidies we need, we'll put the people out on the street." That is where we were. We sat with it because we had no room to maneuver. We never at any time talked about rent control. We know what the solutions are in terms of that problem. I'll leave it at that.

Let me just say one other thing. Sometime in the future after the session we will be having discussions with the municipalities. The municipalities feel that we should be relieving them of the welfare burden.

I have said that before we make this decision to give some relief, we have to discuss with the municipalities what part they are prepared to play in financing some of the local core services. By "core services" we mean the kind of things that have been developed in municipalities like information centres and activity centres. We feel that they have a role to play in it. Once we've had these discussions obviously we will sit down and talk to them about a reduction in that kind of cost.

We know that the municipalities are picking up almost $20 million in welfare costs. If you look back over the figures, the previous government was very good about shifting the burden from the provincial government to the municipalities and getting more from the federal government and never giving any credit anywhere.

We have made a commitment that we will relieve the municipalities on the welfare system. But we want to talk to them about the direction we are going in terms of core service in the community. Once we've got some agreement about that, then we will make a decision about what we are going to do. It's quite simple.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay. I would give the Conservatives a chance to speak first.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a free-enterprise party I would like to say that we also recognize that any government regardless of its philosophy has a social responsibility to provide a reasonable, fair, just standard of living for those people who cannot help themselves. We are very pleased with the announcement made tonight and we support the action of the Minister and of the Government.

I personally have had a great deal to do, Mr. Chairman, with the Minister concerned. I find in him an awareness and a conviction about his work and his dedication to people that is most refreshing. My particular contact has been in the realm of drug abuse which I would like to talk about later, but the hour is late.

But what is so often misrepresented publicly is the fact that there is some disgrace about being in receipt of social assistance. This is so far from the truth as I've quoted in this House many times before, inasmuch as they who are living in poverty have neither the choice to live otherwise nor do most of them have any hope of improving their situation unless there is a productive and positive programme by governments to provide — as the Premier has said — in the first instance, money, and in the second instance, programmes to develop what potential these unfortunate individuals have.

The senate report on poverty made very clear that some 90 per cent of people on welfare and living in poverty do so through no choice of their own and through conditions which they're all but powerless to control or alleviate.

In a society as rich as our modern society, regardless of which government is in power, whether it's socialist or Conservative or Liberal, surely one of the first responsibilities is a moral one.

The Government should make available to that disadvantaged segment of society a reasonable, fair and just fraction of the provincial or national revenue.

How this is spread between federal, provincial and municipal again is another debate. But I would congratulate this Minister and agree entirely that the federal action in recent pension increase is a direct result of the initiative and enterprise shown by this Government in bringing in the $200 a month minimum income.

There are many other aspects of this department, Mr. Chairman, which I would like to discuss later. But I want it very clearly understood — and in fact the Premier on previous occasions has said this, even although he and I are at odds on the philosophy of free enterprise versus state control — there's one area in which Conservatives and socialists are very close together. They've proved this tonight. I hope one day

[ Page 2123 ]

I have an opportunity to do something similar. We believe in people.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to say a few words in the debate about the policies or proposed policies by the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) with regard to drugs and drug abuse. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if there's any possibility that you'd accept an adjournment, or would you like me to continue past … or pull the vote, I don't care.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the House is to sit tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock, there is a notice on my desk indicating a meeting of the committee on Forestry and Fisheries tomorrow at 10 a.m. I do not see how the committee can officially be sitting at the same time as we are meeting in the House. I would ask the advice of the Chair as to whether that can be constituted as a duly legal meeting of the committee while this House is still in session.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, speaking to that point of order, it is my understanding that the Speaker has no knowledge of the House committees' activities or notices. However, if a Member wishes to bring, by leave, the attention of a request or the attention of a cancellation, I understand that is the order. But until that time of a request for leave, it is my understanding that the Speaker has no knowledge of the activities of the committee.

MR. SPEAKER: What happens in committee or where the committees meet is really not the business of the House itself. The only thing is, that I note on the orders of the day it is true. The difficulty is that the business of the House takes precedence over business of committees; and secondly, there is no right for a committee to sit while the House is in session at present under our rules as they exist.

HON. MR. BARRETT: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I call Resolution No. 41.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Education.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I move the motion appearing in my name on the order paper. (see appendix).

MR. SPEAKER: Does the House have the resolution in front of them?

Is there any debate on the motion? The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN, (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, the motion asks permission for leave for Select Standing Committees and special committees to sit while the House is in session.

I have mentioned before that the fundamental of the democratic process — the fundamentals of this parliament — are the debating of the monetary allocations. We are in the committee of supply. We are debating every dollar that is being spent by the various Ministers. This matter should concern every Member of the House as to how that money is spent — and suggestions and criticisms.

We feel in the Opposition that when the House is in the committee of supply that all Members' first responsibility — with the exception of emergencies — should be to be in attendance in this House. With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, we cannot accept the motion. We will oppose it. We feel that the Leader of this House knows very well what he's doing when he asks this House to sit consistently from 10 o'clock in the morning until 11 at night.

The Premier of this province is entertaining punitive action because the House is not moving in the manner that he thinks it should do. If that is his choice, then he has every right to do it. He has the right to do as he's doing, which is making this House sit in session longer, on a consistent basis, than it ever has in its history. And we are quite willing to go along with this. We are quite willing to spend whatever time is necessary on debating the business of this House.

Mr. Speaker, the business of the House is in the House. The responsibility of the elected Members, when this House is in session, be they private Members or cabinet Ministers, is to be on the floor of this House, not holding meetings in the corridor or in their offices or anywhere else, Mr. Speaker. That is a fundamental responsibility in the British parliamentary system and in the democratic process. We intend to meet this obligation, Mr. Speaker.

If the Premier wishes us to have special committee

[ Page 2124 ]

meetings, we are quite willing to do this and to take our part in them. But we insist that those meetings be held at a time when this House is not in session. We will meet at 7 o'clock in the morning, if necessary; we will meet at 11 or 12 o'clock at night, if necessary. But let me make it very clear, we will not meet with meetings in committee when this House is in session. We would not support this motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Highways.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): I agree with the Member who has just taken her place that supply is a very important part of the proceedings of any parliamentary system. I note with regret the absence all evening in the discussion of supply of the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

I suggest too, Mr. Speaker, that this motion is completely in line with the whole British parliamentary system because in the House of Commons in Ottawa committees do meet while the House is in session or in committee; and in the "mother" of parliaments in London, committees meet while the House itself is in session and in committee of supply.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, we will support this motion. I agree with the Minister of Highways that it is in the parliamentary tradition, even though it would be hoped we could avoid the conflicts.

But again, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to listen to a lecture from the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), or anybody who sat with the former government, on what British parliamentary tradition is. How many times, Mr. Speaker, did they vote against a Hansard? How many times did we sit all night in this House having "legislation by exhaustion?" If any group needs to learn what the parliamentary traditions are in this House, it's the Social Credit Party and the Member for North Okanagan.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I simply say "amen" to the sentiments of the previous speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Speaking to this motion I just want to say that it's a very serious attempt on the part of the Government to ram the committee meetings while the very important debates are taking place in this House.

Mr. Speaker, you said just a few moments ago that the affairs of this House have precedence over the committee function. We're debating some very important estimates involving the expenditure of millions of dollars, millions of taxpayers' dollars. I think that the role of the Members of the Opposition is that of opposing certain facets of government expenditure, I don't know how we can possibly effectively oppose while we're sitting in a committee, when our first responsibility rests in this House.

There appears to be a very serious effort on the part of the government to attempt to silence the Members. We feel that our responsibility is to scrutinize the expenditures of public funds and that is our first responsibility. This motion really is in contravention of the standing orders of this House, and we certainly will oppose this motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to draw to the loyal Opposition's attention that last night we debated $46 million in 46 minutes and, you know, that's the kind of situation that we have in this House.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I don't see what difference that makes. The Minister didn't make a very good point there. But as a new Member in this House I believe that I can talk with some degree of authority from the point of view of what I want to get out of this House. I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, particularly during these estimates, since the estimates began, I think it's the duty of most of the Members of the House, of all of the Members of the House, to be in the House as much as possible. And I try. I try.

Mr. Speaker, I try to be in this House as often as I possibly can…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member proceed.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I try to be in

[ Page 2125 ]

the House as much as I possibly can and I try to make my breaks as brief as possible when I do leave the House. But I rather think that if a Member is to learn the procedure of the government and is to learn the routine of government, I think he has an obligation to be in this House as much as possible.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I really cannot bring myself to attend lengthy committee meetings while the House is in session. I really ask the government if they'd reconsider this motion and give us the opportunity to have our committee meetings… I'd like to take part in all of the processes of government.

During the election campaign and since the election campaign, the Premier in particular, Mr. Speaker, has made a big point of talking about the MLA having a responsibility to take part in the functions of government, about the MLA being given the opportunity to take part in the functions of government. It just seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that that opportunity is now being eroded and the Member doesn't have those opportunities to take part as completely as he should and most of us want to.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sentiments of the new Member and the faults of this House in previous sessions cannot be laid at his doorstep.

However, I would like to point out to the Member that responsible opposition with responsible leadership in the British tradition has a shadow cabinet. Under that delegated authority there is a schedule of debate with allocated responsibilities in the estimates for the shadow cabinet to lead that debate and to ask the questions. There is no doubt that in the past we have seen that pattern develop on some occasions in this House.

This year the official Opposition is notably absent of that pattern simply because of the absence of its leader. We have noticed with the other two opposition parties there has been a delegation of cabinet response authorities. As a result we have seen orderly debate. But when there is no official Leader of the Opposition present throughout the two-thirds of the session, without the delegation of authority that is responsible for a shadow cabinet, the system breaks down.

To avoid that breakdown we must carry on with the business. It is up to the official Opposition to determine who its spokesmen are. The House cannot limit its business because they're completely disorganized on their benches.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. FX RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): It's very disturbing to me as a Member…and in fact that the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Development's estimates have been before the House tonight.

I particularly have some matters that I wanted to discuss with the Minister. I am on the committee that is going to sit tomorrow. I can't be in both places and I feel that my obligation is here. I am representing a constituency with matters that they want me to bring up with the Minister.

There was a meeting of this same committee on March 28 which I couldn't attend because of the debate and second reading of an important bill. This is very, very difficult and certainly I am expected to be in the House here. I also want to be in the committee to carry out my duties in that committee because that is an important committee.

The situation as I see it makes it virtually impossible for a Member to do his duty. Certainly you may have shadow cabinet ministers as the Premier has suggested; that's true. But there are also responsibilities on the individual Member in relation to his constituency.

I can't represent my constituency tomorrow in this House when undoubtedly the Minister's estimates will be before the House and I have to be in this committee. Now, where is my responsibility? It's in this House. I'm sorry, but I can't support this motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The First Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, I, too, cannot support this motion. As a new Member in this House, and as I understand we are going to have additional sittings, probably in the fall, I don't believe that any of these committee meetings are that vital that they should take precedence to the House. I, too, like to be in the House as much as I possibly can. I realize that I have a great deal to learn. Frankly I would hate to have missed this tonight because if I read it tomorrow I won't believe I heard it. (Laughter).

It certainly has to be one of the most unusual experiences of my lifetime. And frankly I would be very disappointed to see committees held at any time when the House is required to sit.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Kamloops.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise, as a couple of the previous Members, as a new Member in this House. I intend to support this motion — reluctantly.

After spending 14 years of my life in Ottawa and visiting the House many times down there and learning a little bit about parliamentary procedure, it was my hope that we could carry on the business of this province during regular hours and hold our

[ Page 2126 ]

committee meetings in the mornings.

But because of the deliberate obstructionist tactics of this group in the corner to block the parliamentary procedure and the democratic process, I have to support the motion. I'll vote for it. I'll vote for it really with no regrets — a little reluctance, perhaps.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I'm amazed and dumbfounded at the Premier's cavalier and insensitive approach to the interests of the Members of this Legislature, both on this side of the House and for his own backbench.

I'm not a new Member of the House; I had a little recess. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier has lost control of the House, he's lost control of this session and he's lost control of his temper. Yes, we've witnessed that tonight. He's endeavouring to take out his ire on the House.

He would like to have control of the House, Mr. Speaker. He would like to whip the Opposition into shape so that they wouldn't see through the legislation that he is bringing in, Mr. Speaker. He's tried that and he can't do that, so he's using his last resort; that is to keep the Members working from 10 o'clock in the morning until 11 o'clock at night without dinner, without lunch. This is his way of trying to get control of the House again, and as I say, I am completely dumbfounded.

However, Mr. Speaker, I have to say this. I think probably … and that's fine, sure I've had a lot to say during this session and I've said it all in good faith and that's what I was sent down here to do. There might have been attempts at certain times to place a price on my talk here in the Legislature and there have been other attempts to force the Member from South Peace to curtail his remarks. But I have to place before the Legislature and place before the wonderful people of this province my feelings on this socialist legislation that is being put before us.

However, Mr. Speaker, I want to say this: I'm on two committees; one is the oil spill committee. The committee situation is breaking down. We've accomplished absolutely nothing; we've done nothing. That doesn't really bother me that much.

I'm also on the Agriculture Committee. We've met one group of farmers during the whole session. This agricultural committee, Mr. Speaker, was supposed to go out and sincerely and honestly try to solve some of the problems we have in this province with regard to agriculture. We met a group from the Minister of Rehabilitation's riding, Mr. Speaker, who wanted to set up a co-op, but that's about all.

In the meantime, the Deputy Minister of Agriculture goes around the country making announcements as to what the Department of
Agriculture is going to do. So I don't know. Maybe the whole committee system has broken down. Maybe it's the intention, Mr. Speaker, of this Government not to have committee meetings during the sitting of this House so that the Members can come back after the sitting. There's $100,000 there for committees. Maybe that's the whole intention behind it.

I certainly am going to vote against this. As I say, if the Premier of this House wants to take his ire out on a Member, it shall be remembered by the Members on this side. We shall go out and we shall tell the people of this province how the Premier is taking his ire out on us and he's whipping us every day — how hard he's working us. He's starving us to death. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker…

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, it's quite obvious that the Member for South Peace (Mr. Phillips) took a vacation from this House for a few years. He wasn't here in 1972 when this House sat for 22 hours at the direction of the man who sat in the chair of the Premier — 22 hours. He refused adjournment after adjournment after adjournment. Twenty-two hours — from 2 o'clock one afternoon until noon the next day without stop.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, it's a new day. Mr. Speaker, this House has control of its rules. The authority for the House to accept this motion is found in the 18th Edition of May at page 626. It's quite clear.

While we're talking about democratic procedures, may I also remind the new Members — and I thank them for entering in this debate — that one year ago, when the subamendment was introduced by the then official Leader of the Opposition and accepted by the Speaker, the Premier of that day and every Member of his party overruled the Speaker. If that isn't a denial of the parliamentary traditions of Britain and the British Commonwealth, I don't know what it is.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 42

[ Page 2127 ]

NAYS — 9

PAIRED

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11: 20 p.m.

APPENDIX

That all Select Standing and Special Committees shall have leave to sit during the sitting of the House and while the House is in Committee of the Whole and on any day notwithstanding any adjournment of the House.