1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 4, 1973
Morning Sitting
[ Page 2129 ]
CONTENTS
Morning sitting Routine proceedings Committee of Supply: Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement estimates.
Mrs. Jordan — 2129
Hon. Mr. Levi — 2132
Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2136
Hon. Mr. Levi — 2136
Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2136
Mr. Rolston — 2137
Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2139
Hon. Mr. Levi — 2139
Mr. Wallace — 2140
Hon. Mr. Levi — 2144
Mr. Richter — 2145
Hon. Mr. Levi — 2146
Mr. McClelland — 2146
Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2146
Mr. McClelland — 2146
Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2152
Hon. Mr. Levi — 2152
Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2153
Hon. Mr. Levi — 2153
Mr. Wallace — 2153
Mr. McGeer — 2155
Mr. Phillips — 2156
Hon. Mr. Levi — 2158
Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2158
Mr. Fraser — 2159
Mrs. Jordan — 2159
Hon. Mr. Levi — 2162
Mr. Chabot — 2163
Hon. Mr. Levi — 2164
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers.
Introduction of bills.
Orders of the day.
House in committee of supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION
AND SOCIAL IMPROVEMENT
(continued)
On vote 238: Minister's office, $72,484.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Okanagan.
MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last night in this debate I think we saw a pretty classic example of the actions of this government as they displayed themselves in Opposition. They used to squeak and squeal when they were in Opposition whenever they got the business. They're still acting like the Opposition. They couldn't stand the heat then, Mr. Chairman, and they can't stand the heat now.
At that time, when they were in Opposition, the carpet of this chamber practically ran red with the blood of names of innocent citizens in this province and people in this Legislature through character assassination by the now Premier of this province and many of his Members who sit with him. This character assassination continues.
Mr. Chairman, last night the name of Bill Hesketh was mentioned. I want to make it very clear for the record and the public that, in my opinion, Mr. Hesketh is one of the outstanding workers of the John Howard Society. He has served this province well since he came here from England. He has served the John Howard Society well. He has dedicated himself to those people who have needed his help. Let there be no mistake that this man's contribution is one worthy of praise anywhere in this province.
I stand fully behind this man. I've had the privilege of working with him and his associates. I resent the fact that his name is brought up in the House.
HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): In the most complimentary terms.
MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Premier, you brought up his name. Mr. Premier, in a debate like that, when you bring in the name of an innocent citizen of the public, you leave them subject to all sorts of questions. I want to set the record straight…however his name has entered into this debate, Mr. Hesketh's name is above reproach. I'm sure the Minister would agree, From the Premier on down, the Members opposite have all said that this is the most radical government in the whole of North America. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the only group in this House who is seeking to show the other side of the question are Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, the Social Credit Members.
The Liberals and Conservatives appear tired and uncommitted. They're tired, and uncommitted to anything other than going home at this stage of the session. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, the people out there in the communities know what's going on in this House. They are joining with this Opposition and the Social Credit Party to help put the other side of the question before the people. They're joining by the hundreds, Mr. Chairman, every day. While we are only 10 here, we are joined out there by tens of thousands outside this House.
These people are alarmed and they are concerned by the actions of the NDP government. While the Liberals and the Conservatives want to abdicate their role in this House, I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that we will stay and fight as long as that leader over there wants to throw his radical policies before this Legislature, his radical actions and uncontrollable actions before this Legislature, to try and force radical policies…
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
MRS. JORDAN: …that negate justice and equality before the people of British Columbia.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to relate her remarks to the estimates before us please.
AN HON. MEMBER: You said that last night to both the Minister and the Premier himself.
MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, last night's childish tirade by the Premier can only indicate that last night's questions and statements hit this government and the Premier exactly where they were designed, and that was in their conscience.
The NDP knows, the Premier knows, and the Minister of Rehabilitation knows that the NDP Government are guilty of using the senior citizens of British Columbia in a shameful political sham before the election, during the election and, regrettably, during this session. The Premier knows that he has
[ Page 2130 ]
funneled over $20 million of senior citizens' money — desperately-needed money by the senior citizens — into handicapped companies rather than into the pockets of the senior citizens and into benefits for senior citizens which they so badly need.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that to drag the emotional red herrings across this floor that the Premier did certainly only serves to prove the point that the position does not make the man.
It makes us feel, when we watch him break under the heat and the questioning of his policies regarding senior citizens, that he's tired and cynical at 40 and after only six months in office. It makes us feel, Mr. Chairman, when he breaks out into this emotional tirade when he's under pressure — and he's done it in many areas, including TV — that he's not really concerned with the plight of senior citizens in British Columbia today. We wonder if, in fact, he is not willing to stoop to any political depth to try and hide a weak policy.
That Premier has a Minister in charge of the Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement, and while I may not fully agree with the Minister's actions and his statements — and I'm quite prepared to criticize them and offer him suggestions — I do think he is quite capable of standing in this House and answering the questions and putting his own policies before the people.
The Premier said last night that there hadn't been any constructive criticism or constructive suggestions. I point out to the Premier that there are three bills, one of which is under my own name, before this House which offer realistic, practical and constructive suggestions towards the alleviation of some of the most serious rehabilitation and human problems in the Province of British Columbia. I won't mention the details of them, but there's an On the Job Training Act and a Minimum Income Programme. The Premier doesn't consider this to be constructive. What an extraordinary reaction.
I and the Members of this side of the House have consistently asked the Premier and Minister of Finance and we are asking the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement to recognize the dire plight of the renting senior citizen in British Columbia. Our constructive suggestion in this vein is not only to meet the commitment made to the people by the former government of raising that rental grant every year, but to raise it at least by $50 a year. On the basis of last year's figures and this year' s projections this would be approximately another $3 million.
When we look at the tight rental situation developing in British Columbia and the nothing but shattering rising cost of living which affects the senior citizens so greatly and so personally, there could be another $3 million added to that and we could raise it to a $150 a year. Mr. Minister, that total addition would cost the province a little more than $3 million. Is that not a constructive suggestion? The money is there. Use part of the $23-odd million coming from the federal government to assist with the minimum income plan. Pass it on to the citizens this way.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, that can be considered a constructive programme — not only in its intent, but by the fact that it cannot be taxed by the federal government out of their hands, by the fact that the Minister has his own people in the field looking at rent raises, and by the fact that the money is known to be there.
How can the Premier be critical of such a suggestion? How can he not accept such a suggestion? If he has a better plan, then let's hear it in the House this morning.
If the Minister of Rehabilitation has given this matter much thought, and I believe he has, then let him answer our questions. If you won't accept this plan today, retroactive to April 1, or whenever the bill of supply is passed, what alternative do you offer the citizens of British Columbia today to meet their plight?
I couldn't help but look on with some amusement last night when the Hon. First Member, the Liberal Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, rose in indignation and unleashed a vicious attack on me personally.
It only serves to show how bankrupt they are in their arguments. The Liberals in this House, the people of Canada, and certainly the senior citizens of Canada and British Columbia, know that the federal Liberal government policy in relation to senior citizens has for years been nothing short of ludicrous.
If the Hon. Member for Point Grey wants to wallow in the past, then let's remind him and let's remind the leader of his party who sits in this House today, who we hope will speak on this vote on behalf of the senior citizens and who was a member of the federal House of Parliament when the Liberal pension policy for 1972 was unveiled, what the Liberal largesse of that day was to the senior citizens of Canada.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member should be discussing the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement, not commenting on the policies of the other political parties.
MRS. JORDAN: I am, Mr. Chairman, because in all reality the Minister knows and I know and the Liberals know that one of his most serious administrative problems, in trying to do something for the senior citizens of British Columbia, is, in fact, the federal Liberal policies. I would be sure that Mr. Chairman himself would appreciate the point.
[ Page 2131 ]
Forty-two cents a month increase the pensioners of British Columbia got in 1972 from the federal Liberal government. Forty-two cents, Mr. Chairman. And if I'm not mistaken the Liberal Members of the House, where the Hon. Second Member for Victoria sat, gave themselves something like a 20 per cent pay increase.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement has to contend with this type of Liberal largesse and we appreciate his problem.
But in 1972, under the duress of an election, they then gave the senior citizens $3 per month, Mr. Chairman. Three dollars per month across Canada. No recognition that British Columbia has a higher percentage increase and a higher migration of senior citizens than anywhere else in Canada. No recognition by the federal government that the cost of living in British Columbia is higher because we have a higher educated labour force, that we have higher average wages, that there are many other factors such as higher transportation costs, in a Liberal policy that affects these people.
And now, Mr. Chairman, and this is where I fault the Minister provincially, under the duress of defeat, the federal Liberal government — and I might give credit to the Hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Turner) at the federal level, that he did kick his cabinet colleagues in the slats and made them realize in part their obligations to the senior citizens — has offered $17-odd more a month. It's a tired old Liberal policy, Mr. Chairman, that this Minister has to contend with, and we appreciate that, but we find it a little bit ludicrous when that Member for Vancouver–Point Grey tries to fault the previous Social Credit administration with every sin in relation to senior citizens.
We fault this Minister and this Minister of Finance and the Premier of this province for not passing those $17 per month benefits on to the senior citizens of this province.
In listening to the Hon. Liberal Member and his party in B.C., who have Uncle Davey who weeps for the senior citizens, I would remind him of the antiquated federal Liberal income tax structure which punishes the prudent senior citizen and makes it so difficult for this Minister to add some of the benefits that I feel he would like to, without having it taken back by the federal government and without, in fact, doubly taxing the working citizens of British Columbia.
The federal government taxes the senior citizens in Canada and British Columbia below the poverty level. Why, Mr. Chairman, when this Hon. Member enters this debate on behalf of senior citizens doesn't he get on that hotline to Ottawa? Why doesn't he support Mr. Turner, the Minister of Finance down there, in at least allowing what Canada considers the poverty level as a minimum income tax exemption for senior citizens who have worked hard and saved and done without, who have had priorities towards their home and their families, in a position where their income today is being taxed a second time and that their actual pocket spending money is less than if they were on welfare?
I sympathize with the Minister in having to contend with this.
Mr. Chairman, in British Columbia the Social Credit administration brought in a programme for building senior citizens' housing, believing that community involvement — and I believe the Minister supports this approach — is absolutely essential in order to see that all types of social services, not just senior citizens, have an interacting relationship with the community. So the local community put up 10 per cent and the Social Credit administration, which the Hon. Liberal Member says never did anything for senior citizens, gave the 30 per cent cash grant to these projects. The only strings attached were that the buildings be of an acceptable standard, convenient for senior citizens and hopefully in a location where the senior citizens could take part in the community — an outright cash grant. No loan, no interest to be paid back.
And what did the federal government do? What was the federal Liberal policy, Mr. Chairman, that this Minister has to contend with? They loaned them back their own tax money — not through an accepted Crown corporation, a government agency, so that there could be a low interest rate of 1 or 2 or 3 per cent, just to cover administrative costs, but through private agencies with private money so that the senior citizens of British Columbia had to borrow the money to build their homes and pay an interest rate anywhere from 6 to 8 per cent. Not a low interest rate, Mr. Chairman.
I would ask the Minister if he is going to continue a policy whereby the province will grant money rather than lend it and prevail upon this little band with the Liberal largesse to give their grants outright, so that the senior citizens can really have low cost housing. They want to be independent. Don't shackle them with interest rates that they can't possibly meet in these days of high cost of living.
I mentioned last night that it is our opinion that this Government has unleashed inflationary forces in British Columbia that were not necessary, by giving to those that have and putting those that have not in the position where even what they have is being taken away by inflation.
Why, Mr. Chairman, hasn't the federal government brought in responsible price and wage guidelines to Canada? It is going to have to come. It has consistently been the position of the Social Credit Party in this Opposition that this must be an undertaking in Canada until inflation is brought
[ Page 2132 ]
under control. Instead of doing this we had a policy of planned unemployment and spiraling inflation.
The Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement in the Province of British Columbia must accept part of the responsibility of the policy of his own government in relation to the cost-price squeeze in which the senior citizens find themselves today.
I hope that when the Liberals stand in this House to debate this estimate, they will back the Social Credit Party and the Opposition Members in asking for a rent granters increase — and let's go for $150, Mr. Minister — and that they will back our efforts to have the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement have the freedom he needs to put those $17 benefits into the hands of the senior citizens.
Mr. Minister, last night I asked you some specific questions and you didn't answer them so I'll go over some of them again. The two paramount questions are:(l) will you raise the senior citizen renter's grant to $150 a year as of April 1? (2) will you pass on the rest of the benefits of that $17 and bring it up to $225 a month?
We would like to know, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, about your rent sleuths. I don't criticize the Minister for having people go out in the field and do this. I think this is necessary. Most of the landlords in British Columbia are responsible, honest citizens, looking for just a fair return on their investment. But there are abusers — he recognizes it and frankly I think he's to be commended. But we don't really like you not revealing their names because of what you call the 'snooping' Press. If there are reasons not to reveal their names, Mr. Minister, I can accept this. But we would like to know basically what they are doing and how successful they have been and what exactly are the findings. Are senior citizens being gouged in some instances as we believe they are? Are some of them literally being turfed out into the streets by inflation and irresponsible landlords?
There are other questions about that, but perhaps the Minister would like to cover the field and then I'll ask after.
I asked the Minister some specific questions about Mincome. The first was in relation to the application form. The Minister still hasn't answered in this House in the oral question and answer period or under his estimates. I quote: "Your answers will in no way affect your elibiligy…el — el — eleg…"
HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Eligibility.
MRS. JORDAN:-for Mincome assistance." Mr. Minister, do you stand by that statement? Is it not compulsory and will not be compulsory for elderly citizens to answer this questionnaire if they choose not to? Will it in no way affect their receipts?
We want to know the actual cost to date of Mincome, the number of citizens receiving it and the average payment — single and double or couple.
We would like to know about the Mincome advertising programme. Who devised the ads? Whose voice is on the ads? What expenses did that voice receive and what remuneration British Columbia must accept part of the responsibility for the policy of his own government?
I have some more specific questions, Mr. Minister, relating to last night, but perhaps you'd like to answer those and I'll ask the others at a later date.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.
HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I would refer the Hon. Member to the order paper 152 which gives you a breakdown of all of the people on Mincome, how many there are and how many are getting what what amount of money — the average is $42. There is also on the order paper answers to questions relating to the advertising. I can't really tell you who are on the ads, who were the voices, except that they were the voices of two senior citizens and that they were paid.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That would be Votes and Proceedings.
HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, I'm sorry, Votes and Proceedings. In respect of the Mincome form, that's not an application form. It's needed for statistical purposes to comply with the federal regulations. I replied in the House the other day, I think, on about five different occasions that I am not going to say that people are going to be punished if they do not return the form up to now — and it's four weeks on Thursday that we sent it out. We have almost 75,000 forms back out of 108,000 that we had to send out. So we're in no way concerned. The forms are coming back and we're prepared to wait two or three months anyway.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
HON. MR. LEVI: I'm not prepared to do any prophesizing. The thing is that the cooperation we're getting from the senior citizens is really astounding. So that's it. I'm prepared to wait and see.
I want to just go back. The Hon. Member constantly refers to the fact that we won't pass on something to the senior citizens. We said in the campaign and in the House last October that we were guaranteeing $200 a month to people and that we would make up their income.
There was a departure from the previous government's practice. For instance, we treated couples as human beings and individuals and paid
[ Page 2133 ]
them $200 each, which is not what the previous government did.
Our commitment was $200. The programme is four months old. With the handicapped, it's costing about $5 million a month.
The Hon. Member might be interested in knowing that in 1966 there was a supplementary allowance for senior citizens which the province was paying out. It was $25 and on January 1, 1967, it was $30. At that time the GIS (Guaranteed Income Supplement) was introduced by the federal government. There were 20,000 people in receipt of the supplementary allowance. As soon as the GIS was introduced, the former government cut everybody off — 20,000 people. They didn't pass on the increase. They just kept it and dumped it into general revenue. What we're doing…
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
HON. MR. LEVI: Oh, you're darned right we do. But that's not difficult. We've got nowhere to go but up since we've taken over, so there's no problem.
The thing is that we said that there was a saving of about $24 million. You've been wanting to know what we're going to do with the money. Well, last night we announced what we're going to do with the money. We've put up the social assistance rates. We're making it possible for the working poor, the people who are working at the minimum wage level, to come to us and ask for assistance up to the level that we're giving to social assistance recipients. That's what we're doing with it. We're on our way to a guaranteed minimum income for everybody. That's what we're doing.
I was in the House in 1969 when the former Premier talked about doing it. He had lots of opportunity to do all sorts of thing but he didn't do it. We're doing it. We're having discussions with Ottawa at the same time but we know that they're going one way and we're going another, so we do it anyway. That's our commitment. In doing the kind of things we do, we tend to nudge the federal government in the direction that we're going in anyway.
I think one can be optimistic about the kind of sharing that we can expect in the future. Next month we're going to have discussions with the Ministers on two particular things. One is the children's allowance. The other will be on a redefinition under the Canada Assistance Plan of the income test.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
HON. MR. LEVI: Well, we haven't done too badly up to now. We take quite a bit of the credit for the increase that was given in January.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
HON. MR. LEVI: Well, I don't know. You never spoke to them. I don't know how you can take any credit; you were never there. No, neither was your leader ever there. You know, he's the famous man with the empty seat.
You were talking about the renter's grant. We've already made a change to the renter's grant in respect of people under 65 where there is a couple. That's not my department. I'm quite in favour of that. We're getting money to the senior citizens in a different way, through the Mincome. That's quite reasonable.
Again, we will review the situation in the fall when the programme has been operating for some months. You know, we get a programme going and four months afterwards people tell us that we have to start introducing a cost-of-living bonus. The initial cost-of-living bonus that we introduced averaged $42 which was quite a bit of catch-up over the years that you people didn't do anything.
You've referred to the fact that we're the most radical government in Canada — well, in North America. If being radical means that you deliver money to people who need it, that you deliver money to children who need it, then I plead guilty. We are radical in that sense.
As for being inflationary, there's a possibility of $60 million more going into the economy. There will be the sharing from the participation of the federal government. I'm not as pessimistic as you about the federal government. We've been talking to them continually since about October 1. We've made some pretty good strides, in terms of my department. I'm not as down on them as you are.
In respect to the rents, I announced in January that we had had three people — who were not paid, who agreed to do it for nothing — make some inquiries on our behalf in terms of the letters that we got. We found that while there was some rent gouging and we did speak to some landlords — and some, not all of them, did roll back — we felt the industry was substantially cooperative. I met with the two apartment owners' associations. They gave me the reports of surveys they had done and I said at that time, November of 1972, that they had been extremely cooperative. In no way were we critical of those two organizations which have membership of most of the apartment owners in the lower mainland area. They were extremely cooperative. There was only one instance where there was an 8 per cent increase.
But we did find, as I said last night, that there were some very serious increases in terms of private hospitals. So all in all, we've lived up to what we
[ Page 2134 ]
wanted to do. There was a great deal of discussion about the responsibility of landlords not to gouge people. We agree that we would not go the route of rent control. The only solution for that kind of situation is more housing stock. We've said all this before.
Just one final thing. The Member keeps referring to low-cost housing. I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs said during his estimates the other day that the days of low-cost housing are over. We're building housing for people. There's no more low-cost housing.
lnterjection by an Hon. Member.
HON. MR. LEVI: Well, that's your kind of economics. I can't deal with that kind of thing. I think I've answered all of the questions that you asked.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
HON. MR. LEVI: You may not be satisfied with the answers, but I've answered them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Dewdney.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I meant to be in
a committee. If I have to sit here and wait through a whole
series of people…We in the Opposition parties cannot attend
to committee work. Now, if you're going to recognize Government
backbenchers….
Interjections by some Hon. Members.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If you'll please keep the shouts down on the extreme right. The question is, Mr. Chairman, we can operate and function effectively provided there is some latitude and generosity shown by you in recognizing Members. I have a meeting on right now. The Government has an enormous number of backbenchers. Therefore I have to either be in the committee or be here waiting.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point is well taken. The Hon. Member for Dewdney is prepared to give up his place to you at this time.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I thank the Hon. Member for Dewdney but, Mr. Chairman, a certain amount of this is going to…
MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Victoria.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A certain amount of this is going to have to devolve upon you. We are quite willing to cooperate with the Government, despite the mismanagement of the House Leader up to now. But we do need to have a certain amount of flexibility so that we can attend…
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The flexibility will be granted. I would ask the Hon. Member to proceed.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Great. Very good. Mr. Chairman, the points I want to put to the Minister deal with both Mincome and the increases in welfare and also the assistance to the working poor. I repeat what was said last night by a spokesman for this party. That is, we appreciate and are in favour of the announcements of the Minister in this regard.
However, we are still faced with the problem which appears to be increasing as a result of his recent statements and the recent changes in policy. This is the problem of what you might call incentive. Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, let me go back to the Mincome as passed last fall.
The situation is that if a person gets any income whatsoever, the full amount of it is deducted from the Mincome payments. This has been illustrated very clearly in the case of the $17.12 by which the federal government will be increasing pensions in April of this year. If your income is around $200 a month, $17.12 is a substantial increase. Yet, as the Minister has made clear on a number of occasions, this will not be received by the recipients of Mincome.
The point is this. We have people who are senior citizens but are capable of earning a little on the side. But if they do that, every dollar that they earn will be deducted. We have senior citizens who have a little saved up and thus get a little bit of investment income, perhaps only $2 or $3 or $10 or $15 a month. That again will be deducted from the Mincome payment in its entirety. There will be no provision made for keeping any of these moneys which they either earn or get from minor investment income.
During the fall I went into this in some detail with the Minister in this House. I gave a number of examples. Basically, in terms of investments, the cutoff is something around $20,000. If a person has put aside a nest egg of $20,000 throughout his life, it's worthless to him under the Mincome provisions. That has, of course, been changed slightly by the federal changes. Obviously, my figures are not still accurate from that point of view. But the principle remains the same.
For every single dollar that a person gets, either from investment income or from a little work outside, a dollar is taken away under Mincome. We think that is most unfortunate. For example, with respect to earnings, I had a gentleman come to see me
[ Page 2135 ]
a short time ago. He'd been working as an enumerator. He's a senior citizen an active and capable fellow. He's retired and wanted to go out and earn a few dollars as an enumerator during the last federal election.
He went from door to door checking people off on the list and doing the normal tasks of an enumerator. That's not a well-paid job. On an hourly basis, it probably works out to something under the minimum wage for the province. It's paid on piece work, according to the number of people who are recorded on the lists, so the minimum wage doesn't apply. But it's not a well-paid job.
He got lots of healthy exercise and he says he enjoyed it. He met lots of people. He found it a lot of fun and then he found that every single dollar he earned was taken away from him. Every single dollar, every single cent was taken away from him by the Mincome provision. Now quite clearly, if he's on Mincome he's not a wealthy fellow.
Quite clearly, here's a chap who's willing to do something — a useful job for society — trying to help us in our electoral process in the democratic system. He's trying to do something useful. He's trying to keep himself alert, aware and involved in normal society, and he's doing a pretty good job of it. But, whatever he gets in the way of money is taken away in its entirety.
Now, we have provisions that came out — increases that were announced last night — and again, as I said, we welcome them. But the principle that we talked about in the past and that I'm talking about now remains, as far as I can see, unfortunately in the proposals of the Minister. That is: if you are going to subsidize the income of a person earning, for example, $320 a month — if you're going to bring it up to, say $400, to use round figures; in that $80, there is apparently no allowance whatsoever in that area for giving him a credit for extra work.
In other words, if he earned $340 instead of $320 — $20 difference — if he earned $20 more, what would happen, as far as I can see, is precisely the same thing that happens under Mincome — that $20 would just disappear. There would be no benefit for going out and working a little harder, working on a Saturday or something like that, and hustling and getting that extra $20. It just wouldn't happen that it would wind up in his pocket.
I'm not saying that it's an easy problem for the Minister to solve. I'm not saying that you can make blanket regulations which are going to be applicable in all circumstances. But I do feel that we have to have some recognition in Mincome and in the welfare payments and the supplements that are paid for the working poor, to take account of this problem.
My own recommendation, which I made to the Minister last fall, was that we should use the two to one rule. That is, that if a person earns $2 you should at least give him a credit for one of them — allow him to keep one of them. If you take away 50 per cent, which is what you're doing, I think it's a pretty savage rate of taxation or confiscation, especially when you are dealing with people who are not earning a great deal of money. Nevertheless, it will allow a person like the man I mentioned to keep one dollar out of two; it's better than not allowing him to keep any dollars at all.
It's a lot better to allow him 50 per cent of what he earns — to tax the poor, if you want to call it that in terms of 50 per cent, than to tax the poor at the confiscatory rate of 100 per cent. Not even the wealthiest in this country are taxed at the rate of 100 per cent — at the rate of confiscation. Yet the people at the lowest end of the scale are treated this way.
We just feel that in principle it's wrong. It's wrong in terms of fairness. It's wrong in every respect and certainly it's wrong in terms of initiative and in terms of trying to change the mental attitude of many people who perhaps are feeling that it's not worth struggling, they may want to give up.
In other words, in terms of incentive to get them off the rolls of the working poor or the welfare rolls, or whatever else it might be, if you have a system which confiscates every dollar they earn outside of or below the limit, you are, I think creating a psychological climate in which you are keeping these people down instead of giving them the opportunity to come up.
I know it's a difficult thing, I mentioned that a moment ago. I'm not suggesting it's going to be easy for you to do. But if it's possible under the federal government Guaranteed Income Supplement — the federal GIS — to give a two to one allowance, or I should say, a one for two allowance, surely it's possible under provincial schemes, both under Mincome and under welfare and under assistance to the working poor, to do the same thing. It's not insurmountable and if we don't do this, in my mind, we are simply forcing people into the very categories that allegedly we're trying to get them out of.
If we just do not give them any credit whatsoever, for any
initiative they show; if we don't give them any encouragement
when they try and get out of their low income levels, if they
try and rise above it, in my mind, we are simply creating a
situation in which the mental attitudes of these people will
be, "What the hell, it's not worth trying, I can sit here
earning $300 or $250 a month. I know I could earn a lot more if
I tried, but it's really not worth it." Because he doesn't know
whether he could get up to the level at which the Minister
would stop paying him money. In other words, he doesn't know
whether he could cross over the level….
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the term "what the hell".
[ Page 2136 ]
I think that's certainly…
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I'll certainly withdraw "what the hell."
AN HON. MEMBER: What the heck. What the heck.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: My more brilliant colleague behind me…
MR. CHAIRMAN: I gather you've withdrawn the remark.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right. Well, what the heck. O.K. What the heck's the difference anyway?
But as far as this goes, we have to get people out of a mental attitude. It's just as important to get them out of a mental attitude as it is to get them at a different income level. The Minister, I'm sure is fully aware of this.
This system that he's set up, I think is good from the point of view of income. There's no question that it's an improvement and we in this party appreciate the fact and we're delighted that it apparently is going to be a scheme which will be funded with joint federal and provincial funding to the tune of about 50 per cent more by the federal government and the provincial. We think this is right too. I see I have support from one of the cabinet Ministers for my suggestions here. But in any event, I wonder if the Minister could comment on this. What plans does he have to change Mincome from a confiscatory plan in terms of the people that I have referred to? What plans does he have to change the assistance for working poor and the welfare schemes so that they too make some provision for incentive?
My real fear is this: while in this House we will talk glowingly about improving the lot of these people, at the same time we will be creating mental attitudes which will pass on from generation to generation, which will mean that in the long run we really won't be doing a great deal for them.
Now, these are relatively simple points. It's perhaps difficult for the Minister to come out with a full-fledged plan, but I would like some indication of his future intentions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.
HON. MR. LEVI: I appreciate the comments of the Member. We've been grappling with this; we did talk last fall about it. Let me just make reference to the working poor, You're anticipating a little bit of what we're attempting to do. We're looking at an allowable earnings exemption in the way that exists now for $50 for single people — there is $100 for married people on welfare. We're looking at that kind of possibility.
I'm not as negative, frankly, about the…I don't feel that the kind of incentive or disincentive the people worry about with this kind of thing…it's not my experience that this kind of thing won't happen now that we've been much more generous in the money that we're making available. However, on that side, we are certainly looking at it.
Now on the Mincome thing, it's an entirely different situation. First of all, if we are successful over the next couple of months with the federal government to get the whole thrust of the CAP changed to an income test rather than a means test, then you know, it's very possible to do the thing the Member wants to do. You've got to remember that the federal people take money off as well. What we're looking at, and I think we have to be responsible in this, is that we are, of course, seeking sharing. They're not going to share in the way that the Member is suggesting. That's why we hope to have these discussions with them.
Just in reference to the person you talked about in terms of work; I personally don't feel that it's necessary for us — it shouldn't be necessary for us to count as income the kind of work that people do at Christmastime, during elections and that kind of thing. We've talked about it, and it will become a matter of policy. I don't think that around Christmastime when people have a chance to earn $120 — I don't want to see that deducted at all. I don't want to see it deducted in terms of…
AN HON. MEMBER: We exempted it this year.
HON. MR. LEVI: We exempted it this year, and as a matter of policy we're going to continue that. If there's an election, we'll exempt that too. After all, it is mostly senior citizens who are doing a lot of this work. Again, it's a windfall and they're entitled to it. By the time we go through all the business of deducting it and that kind of thing, it is a cost factor anyway — some times a severe cost factor. So I think that I appreciate the Member's remarks. He's pretty well right on in what he's saying.
But we have to find a method in co-operation with the federal government in respect to the Mincome people. But I will be announcing which technique we're going to use in terms of the working poor; I am having a press conference next Tuesday. We will have more details on the way we're going. But, I very much appreciate his remarks and I agree with them.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Unfortunately, we don't get invited to Press conferences — we occasionally crash them. But we're not members of the Press gallery and it might be an excellent idea if we were
[ Page 2137 ]
made that, because that's where most of the information around this place seems to come. The only way we seem to find out what Ministers have in mind is when we go and sit in the back of the room and listen to the Press question them.
Now, what I would like to know is why we don't have it in this House so that we can at least question you in the same way as we're doing now. This is naturally the plea from one of the disfranchised members of the non-Press. We don't have the right to question you the way the Press do in your Press conferences.
We've got a weird system, Mr. Chairman, in this province now, where the Minister makes a statement to the Press prior to introducing anything in the House. He makes a statement to the Press prior to introducing anything in the House. He makes a statement — of course he can't give them the bill or anything, so he tells them exactly what he wants, right or wrong as to what's in the thing. They print it all up; we have first reading in the House. And we don't really get a chance to question a Minister. It's only the Press that have a chance to question him because they had the advantage earlier of having the briefing in the morning. So we are probably the worst off as far as information goes.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We either ask the Press or we just read the newspapers, which isn't a very reliable source in many cases, with all due respect to the Press. It's not reliable because they've had to print what a Minister has said…
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member return to the estimates, please.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The point is this: I don't want to hear about a Press conference he's holding next week. If he's talking about assistance to the working poor, and if we are raising points which he appreciates, why doesn't he raise them now? Why do we have to wait to stage-manage, as is normally done by Ministers, this elaborate charade of getting around the Legislature of this province? That's all that we've been doing, week after week, with every expectation of doing it for weeks to come. From what the Minister said we're going to do it next week with his own proposals. Why can't he do it here and now?
HON. MR. LEVI: I think from the point of view of our department, we've been extremely frank with this House. I've tabled more reports in the last month and information documents. I'm quite prepared next week to have a Press conference at 11, ask them not to release it until 2:30 and you people will all get the contents on your desks at 2 o'clock.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
HON. MR. LEVI: What do you object to about it?
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, at 11 you brief a certain group of people, namely the Press; they write exactly what you say, because they have no opportunity generally of examining, for example, legislation; legislation is introduced and then they comment upon the legislation of which after all they've had the advantage of a preliminary briefing in the morning. We, poor souls that we are, sit around in this room while we go through prayers and other exciting things, and then we have the bill or whatever it is in front of us. Then perhaps, if the House Leader is kind enough to let us out for a minute or two without giving us too hard a time, we'll get out and caucus on a bill. It probably will be at 10 at night. This is just a ridiculous system.
What I would like you to suggest is: instead of coming forward with your proposals next week by way of Press conference at 11 in the morning, that you put them forward now during your estimates, if you wish. Discuss them at this stage so we can comment upon them.
I've raised a point — which you admit is a valid point — and I fail to see why we can't discuss it here and now in, I am sure, goodwill on all sides of the House.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Dewdney followed by the Official Leader of the Opposition.
MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Right. Mr. Chairman, when I came in last night I was looking forward to a really creative discussion on this department which, remember, is the Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement, a very vital department where the Minister works very long hours — we used to say "burning the candle at both ends." In fact, I understand he nearly burnt his house down on Sunday. I don't know if that reflects his work habits.
But I want to ask just a few general questions, Mr. Chairman. I think in this department especially it is extremely important that we have an improved personnel, morale-atmosphere. I always make it a point of going regularly to the rehab offices in my riding and having coffee. My predecessor used to buy them chocolates at Christmas time. I don't have that style. But I think it's very important to find out what is happening and what the fibre is. I think as a reflection of this Minister it's certainly improving.
I think it's very important for us to remind the Legislature that we're working with literally thousands of people in the public service and it's essential that they feel that they're cut in. And I
[ Page 2138 ]
believe that they are getting cut in that they are part of the decision-making process. Remember, Mr. Chairman, the federal government, with the Glassco Royal Commission, spent a great deal of time and money to study this process and to see that there is really creative input coming from the people in the field.
So my questions are first of all to the Minister: can you tell me something about the whole moral fibre right now of your staff people out in the regions, because there have been difficulties? I think we have to acknowledge there have been difficulties.
Can you comment on what type of staff changes we can look forward to? Will you comment on the actual increases? One of the ways of rewarding your people is the increase in pay. I've tried to figure out, in looking in vote 240, what the actual increase in pay is, because this is one of the ways in which you can bring some sense of recognition and satisfaction to your people out in the field.
I would like to think that your people are less client-oriented and much more personal-oriented. If anybody has to be preoccupied with the pushing of papers and of processing cheques, at least let the case-aides do that and not the social workers as much as they have been in the past.
I want to ask the question of the Minister: with the advent of LIP and OFY programmes, which in a sense are doing some of the social work that your people would like to have done in the past, what is your relationship to some of these federal finance programmes? For instance in both Mission and Haney there is a deep-down resentment that some of the very innovative programmes being done by somewhat less organized and formalized OFY and LIP programmes is threatening to your staff who, after all, were trained as social workers and want to get on with the rehabilitating of people?
I want to remind the Minister that I think there still is a cynical attitude by a lot of young people toward work. Now presumably there must be a much closer relationship to your department and the Department of Manpower. The Minister has been very helpful, Mr. Chairman, in seeing that in Mission it would be possible to house Manpower, native Indian affairs, community services, Big Brothers, Legal Aid, mental health and the Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement under one roof where they begin to face each other.
My experience is that Manpower is a mile away from the Department of Rehab in most little towns in the province. They just do not relate to each other. Now I don't know if I'm hung up on a work ethic type of orientation. I enjoy work — not for the sense of a salary, but I find it fulfilling. I would like to think that our government is moving towards dealing with the somewhat cynical and maybe even misunderstood attitudes of a lot of people just towards the sense of fulfillment.
I remind the Minister that in my riding of Dewdney, if not in the central Fraser Valley, 50 per cent of the people unemployed are 22 years old and under. This is a confirmation of your regional director, Mr. Bingham. I think this is serious and it reflects a certain attitude.
I would like to think that the incentive programmes could be increased for some of your people. You now pay $50 incentive per month I think for 30 hours' work per month. Is there going to be any change there with the new rate structures — which I greatly appreciate? I just want to finally share some feedback which I got from one of the think sessions that I was partly responsible for promoting. These were where participation from young people came. They looked at work opportunity, the whole relationship between the unemployment situation and the welfare situation. Now I just want to itemize eight points:
These are my observations. I believe our Government is moving this way. I sent the Minister a précis back at Christmastime on the whole winter works programme which I am looking forward to. I know our Government is, in a sense, on the brink of some real new job opportunities. But still there is this cynicism and if anything can destroy us I
[ Page 2139 ]
think it's this cynicism.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Leader of the Opposition.
HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, first I want to compliment the Premier last night for making the statement that the province is in such good financial shape and can afford it. I give him credit for saying that. Not only all the cash that's there — and it's the only province in all of Canada in a position to have a programme like this — and I compliment the Government and the Minister for it — but it's only because that cash is there.
I'm not going into the reasons why it's there. I am saying this, that not only is the cash there but the thrust of the economy is there as well, which the Premier mentioned last night as well.
So I think, Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Chairman, that really we should go all the way and have this basic income plan now really, the negative income tax plan. We've had a bill before the last special session and this session along that line.
I'm not critical; I want to make it very clear that I'm not talking with any tongue in the cheek or anything like that. I'm giving full credit and no criticism, only to point out that the great basic problem in this country — and we've brought it up at these federal-provincial conferences — is the failure of the national government to realize that we are in an inflationary world and the basic exemption on income tax was based on a period when a dollar was worth a different priced dollar.
Sometimes it isn't a question so much of advancing prices as declining values of the currency. That is the point. There's been no real recognition in Canada that on basic income exemptions there should be. Surely these kinds of rates that are presented now should be completely exempt from income tax. The income tax level should be raised for that or else we're not being fair at all to our people.
The other point I would make is this: We must always have encouragement for people to seek work, even if it's part-time work. A little exercise is good for everyone, and that doesn't have to mean you have to worship the work ethic or anything else.
The other point I would like to make is that these people — I don't like to call them the working poor; they are working people with low incomes. I wish they would use that term rather than "working poor." They are not poor, really. They are good people they just have low incomes. I would think, too, that some thought should be given to this group when you bring their earnings up to what the welfare rates are. Surely they should have the benefits which the welfare people receive, such as free drugs and these other benefits. Otherwise you're going to put a bonus on a person who is on welfare rather than a person that has a low income but is working.
So those are the three points that I would like to make. How pleased we are that the government and everyone else recognizes what a good financial position the Government of British Columbia is in, and the great thrust forward in the economy that the Social Credit government left. They will agree with that. Surely you'll agree with that.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
HON. MR. BENNETT: The percentages haven't changed too much as you know, Mr. Minister.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, you will in time. (Laughter). I'll tell you this. I wouldn't have mentioned it but now that you have brought this up I must deal with it. (Laughter).
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to discuss the estimates.
HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, but I must deal with the question of the Premier, because it would be most unfair and most impolite not to make some reference to it.
When you have an economic thrust there is always a thrust that lasts a certain length of time. The longer the period of the force of that thrust, the longer it goes on. It will start to lose its force, and about three years from now I look forward to a recession in British Columbia because of the policies of this no-growth government, and so forth. But I don't want to bring that into the question this morning.
I rose not to say that. I rose to say how happy we are in the Province of British Columbia that we are in this fine financial position so that we can afford to do this for people with low incomes when they can't do this any place else in Canada, and to impress on the government to press more strongly than ever before to get basic exemptions on personal income tax upped to a reasonable level.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.
HON. MR. LEVI: Well, Mr. Chairman, through you I'd like to thank the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. It's a pity he wasn't here last night because we would have saved an hour and twenty minutes. Your colleague went the other way, but I'm very happy you are so positive about the announcements we made. Extremely happy.
[ Page 2140 ]
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
HON. MR. LEVI: Well, if you had been here I'm sure your colleague wouldn't have led us down through the swamp as we were last night for about an hour and twenty minutes.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, he gave us the money to do the thrust and now we're thrusting. We accept that. We needed the money and we've got it. The money is still coming in, so the confidence in this government is great, it's really good.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
HON. MR. LEVI: Well, then, there is the obvious question, Mr. Leader: why didn't you do it? After all, you were there 20 years.
I remember four years ago you stood up and said, "We should do it," but you didn't do it. I do thank you for your positive approach. That's what's important, that your approach is extremely positive. For that I thank you.
Just to answer a couple of questions from the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) who's now gone. We have been working very closely with the Canada Manpower people on the LIP (Local Initiatives Programme) programme. We've expressed some concern last year that LIP programmes were being financed and then as they ran out of money they were coming to us. What we wanted to do was to have some say in what programmes were going to be approved so that they fitted into our priorities. And I must say that the cooperation that we've had with Canada Manpower has been very good. We've been meeting with them regularly; they keep us informed. I might also add that we are getting the same kind of cooperation now from the Horizons for senior people. They are calling us about these programmes and I'm very satisfied with that.
Just in terms of the incentives in relation to people on welfare, we have announced that there is a $50 programme, there is a $ 100 programme and that's for people who can't work full-time. It may be that people will only work at 60 per cent of most people's capacity, but if that's the level they can operate at, then we are prepared to pay them $50 or $100 depending on how long they have been on the programme. That's going ahead.
The situation in the department. There was a question about the general morale of the department. As I said earlier, we had nowhere to go but up. My impression is that the morale is very high. I've had an opportunity to meet with about two-thirds of all the field staff at two conferences. I've made a number of pronouncements about how we are going to deal with children and families, and I do feel that we are picking up on this.
For the first time this department, if you will notice in the estimates, has a vote which deals with training. There was never one before. We will start early next month a programme of seminars for people in-staff so that they will know specifically in what direction we are going when dealing with children and families.
We have been fortunate to get 68 new staff and they are badly needed. That is nowhere near the number of staff that we need, but that's what we feel we can start with and integrate first. We'll be hiring 22 case-aides. The 22 people from Willingdon that were remaining will be given opportunities for this job. We are looking at the system itself in the field — what's going on.
I think we have to look in the future to a consideration that perhaps we have to pay a differential to social workers and staff who work with people on the line because we want them to be working at different hours than the normal 9 to 5 operation. If we want to do the kind of work we want to do with families, then our people have to be available when the family is available as a family unit, and that usually takes place in the evening. So we will have to work out some compensation for our staff on this, and of course it can be part of the ongoing collective bargaining process that will be taking place.
I've had an opportunity to go to several of the field offices and I'm always greeted with the same thing — you're the first Minister that's been to see us. I think it's a great pity that previous Ministers never went down the line to see the staff. I know a lot of the staff anyway. I feel it is very important that I find out a lot more about what is going on and get an idea of just how quickly some of the policy decisions we make get down the line.
I will be travelling in May and part of June through the province visiting some of the offices and participating in the seminars that will be taking place. That's important, I think, in terms of backing up the staff; they've never had that kind of opportunity before. I'm prepared to back the staff up 150 per cent. Considering the kinds of difficulties they've been operating under for several years, I'm amazed that they've been able to respond the way they have.
I think that is all of the questions that Member asked.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay followed by the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen.
MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think one of the most interesting aspects of this debate is that all sides of the House seem to
[ Page 2141 ]
recognize the tremendous importance of this department as an indication of our basic evaluation of people in society — the value that we place on the individual and the fact that we all recognize that a government with wealth and resources, as both the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition have outlined, have a tremendous responsibility to meet the needs of the less fortunate. I gather it isn't official yet, but I'm pleased to hear the department will be renamed the Department of Human Resources. I think that name itself comes much closer to signifying what it's all about.
I'd just like to talk very briefly on the philosophy of this department. One of the most interesting things is that in many ways it is similar to the field of medicine that we pour out money in the medical field dealing with conditions that are completely preventable.
In the area of human resources we are faced with this problem of spending large sums of money on conditions and crises which could be prevented with better planning and a better awareness of the predisposing factors. It isn't a matter of just saving dollars, Mr. Chairman. It's a question of human need and providing people with help and counseling of various kinds — supportive services in the community, which of course might prevent such things as marriage break-up and families being taken into care and so on.
That was one of the most impressive aspects of a discussion that we had with the representatives of the Social Workers Association. The whole theme of their discussion was that… First of all, Mr. Chairman, I'll digress by saying that they commented on how happy they were to sense an attitude of cooperation and consultation on the part of the Minister. They felt this augured very well for the kind of planning which they hoped to influence. As I said last night, my personal experience with the Minister has been the same. It's very encouraging when the association of social workers senses the team approach which is to be adopted by this Government. I thoroughly commend them for that.
The whole thrust of their message was that prevention must be emphasized. In some of these areas they're talking particularly about children being taken into care. This was one aspect of their brief which really distressed me. I was rather ashamed of some of my ignorance on the subject.
The fact of the matter is that very often it is the parents themselves who ask that children be taken into care, again for reasons which are preventable. First of all, the parents are economically disadvantaged. There are often health problems in the household and such problems as alcoholism, child abuse and so on. It seems very clear from the recommendations of the Social Workers Association that if we can augment the staff and community services available to advise and counsel in these situations, quite often the children could stay in the home.
In passing, there's another point which I think is terribly important. It seems that once a child is in care, financial assistance to that child is a whole new ballgame. The social workers are most anxious to get the message across to Government. They probably have done so very well to the Minister. But I think the House should know that the kind of money which is often available while the child is still in the family home is very much less than the kind of money and help that is made available as soon as the child becomes a ward of the court.
It is the feeling of these workers and I would have to accept this line of reasoning that surely it would be better to spend more dollars while the child is still in the home to deal with whatever particular problem exists, whether it's related to health, housing or some other problem that can be helped by additional funds. I would like to have the Minister's comment on that point in particular.
Once the child is a ward of the court, there's money and facilities much greater than was available in the home. I don't think anyone would dispute that the child should be kept in the home if at all possible. The sense of loss of control over the family situation and the depression which usually follows very often means that the parents' initial problem is much worse, whether it is mental depression, drug abuse, alcoholism, prostitution or what have you.
[Ms. Young in the chair.]
Housing figures vary largely. It has been mentioned a great deal already in this whole session, but I think it should be mentioned in passing. There's also a tremendous lack of special resources for children in different groups. I'm talking about the autistic child, the child with learning disabilities and the child with behavioural problems which don't reach the psychotic level.
Again, I'd like to ask the Minister a question and made a suggestion. To give you a simple comparison, Madam Chairman, if a child has pneumonia, he goes to a hospital and the parents pay $1 a day. I have discovered that if a child has a learning problem, a mental retardation problem or some such problem requiring special care — such as Browndale camps or Dr. Gregory's facility in Victoria — if the parents cannot pay the cost — and it is costly; very few can pay — the child becomes a ward of the court. This is the only way in which the parents can obtain for the child the treatment and service that is required.
Madam Chairman, in these particular cases, which are mainly medical and mental, would the Minister not consider that this kind of service should be brought under BCHIS? It seems to me that if a child is born with brain damage or is mentally retarded or
[ Page 2142 ]
has a behaviour problem, no matter what the parents' income is, consideration should be given to bringing this under BCHIS. The parents should not have the rights of guardianship, the normal rights of a parent, impaired in any way just because the child needs a certain type of care. Again, I was rather ashamed that I didn't realize that this was the situation today.
Not only should the rights of the parents be considered, but I think we'll all agree that integration and coordination of facilities is very important. The kind of coordination which the Minister of Health and the Minister of Human Resources have shown in their few months in office is very encouraging. I hope that we can go the whole way in this particular aspect and have these children covered by BCHIS at $1 a day.
I would support completely the general philosophy mentioned by the Premier: that while money isn't everything, it's the first basic element in giving people some security. I also had a meeting with the Foster Parents' Association. There again, the one subject which seems to be repeated all the time was discussed. That is, once a child goes into a foster home, the foster parents can do so much more financially and support-wise than can be done in the child's natural home. The foster parents told me — I couldn't quite understand this part — that they can give the foster child more than they can give their own children and that this sometimes creates problems. Their own children sometimes develop a sense of antagonism as to why the foster child in the home has better clothes and can have skating lessons and so on, while the family children are denied this for lack of resources.
On the whole question of teenagers being taken into care: the 1972 report stated that 117 parents were unable to provide education or training. In 20 cases it was lack of housing. I wonder if the Minister has any specific recommendations to make in regard to this question of supportive programmes to the parents before the child is taken into care, or in an endeavour to prevent them from being taken into care. I think the funding for preventative services is the new direction that the Government is trying to follow, but not much mention has been made of it up to this point.
The former speaker, the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) mentioned that the department has separated the staff in terms of income maintenance from social service. Contrary to what that Member suggested, the social workers tell me that it isn't a question of an aide of some sort doing the simple paperwork and financial provisions. In fact, what has resulted is a reduction in counseling in that fewer social workers are given the specific task of counseling.
The whole question of adoption seems to be a big problem nowadays not in any way related to the Government action. But we have two facets that I think have to be mentioned — there is the question of abortion so readily available it is resulting in a great reduction in the number of babies available for adoption.
Digressing for a moment I'd say, Madam Chairman, that I hope the Minister will instruct his department to tell it like it is; the social worker should tell it like it is. I had a very distressing case in my practice just recently where this young couple have really been given a line for about a year that, oh, yes, there would be a child, there would be a child.
Without going into all the details, the fact of the matter is that they have two children, and because there's such a shortage of children for adoption there's just no way in terms of priority that they will get this child that they wish. It's very distressing to have parents make all the preparations to have a new child in the home and then be told almost a year later that really there is no hope. So this question of abortion is having this very serious effect of reducing the number of children available.
The other factor, for reasons which aren't so clear, is the fact that more unmarried mothers are keeping their children. I think that while that of course is entirely their right and prerogative, we should look at the question of the supportive help and counseling that this department is giving to these women. I certainly encourage and appreciate the Minister's decision about increasing day care services, because most of these unmarried mothers have to work. But I am wondering to what degree some of them are fairly immature and untrained does the Minister have any specific, programme in mind to give them training?
Another point that was raised by the workers is the whole question of the need to rewrite the Child Welfare Act. It is their suggestion, as I am sure the Minister is aware, to integrate three Acts as several of the other provinces have done. In fact I understand British Columbia is the last province that really keeps these three Acts separate. The ones I am referring to are the Protection of Children Act, the Adoption Act and the Children of Unmarried Parents Act.
I understand there are some conflicting and divergent sections in these three Acts and a great deal would be gained by rewriting one Act to cover all the facets and interrelated aspects of these human problems.
Just one or two points to finish with, Madam Chairman. There has been mention made of the special care homes and nursing homes in the 1972 report of the department. I would just hope that these special care homes are not to be restricted only to patients on social assistance. I have stated this in the House before. I hope that it will be a question of the people most needing that kind of care being treated on that basis of priority.
[ Page 2143 ]
I would also plead that in future planning the department does not locate these homes a great distance from where the elderly citizens have had their former contacts and friends. I said at the time and I still believe that the location of the Tillicum home many miles out of town with inadequate bus service — when these old people need visitors almost more than they need anything else — the isolation of being in such an institution, which can be so demoralizing to them…therefore the whole question of having visitors is all-important. That in turn, of course, is sacrificed if the home is some distance from the main community.
The nursing home situation really I have mentioned ad nauseum in this House. I simply say in passing that the large number of patients receiving social assistance in the private nursing homes is noted in the Minister's annual report. It's a very substantial number. I hope that the programmes anticipated by the Minister and his colleague, the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke), will be expedited.
The whole question of prescription drugs and appliances: I thoroughly agree that they should be made available to senior citizens. I would like just to repeat something I mentioned in the debate on health services, namely the appliances. There are many elderly persons who have various physical appliances on which their existence depends and on which their day-by-day comfort depends. I think that we should take a look at providing these under government financing.
Finally, I would like to comment just on the Minister's involvement in the drug problem — the efforts he's tried to bring about. I think this again reflects the new thrust of this department. So many of these problems start in the community and they have to be solved in the community. The idea of centralized government dishing out large gobs of money to institutional organizations to solve a problem that starts essentially in the home, I think, was wrong. It has been proven wrong.
The tremendous increase in the incidence, particularly of heroin addicts, I think has finally even got through to Ottawa. They finally admitted the figures the other day; the figures I still think are about half of what they really are. But even based on the admitted figures by the federal government, the number of heroin addicts has doubled in the course of the last two to three years.
I'm not quoting figures, because you can turn and twist them and add and subtract. The specific figures cannot possibly be authenticated. This Minister, very soon after he took office, moved into this field, which is perhaps right now in British Columbia — not to overlook some of the other problems I mentioned — probably the biggest social disaster. This is not just because of the several thousands of addicts involved, but of the families and the school friends and the employers and the many other people that become deeply touched by the tremendous damage to a person who becomes a heroin addict.
In this regard, the Minister has made every effort to awaken Ottawa. But I think it should be mentioned, Madam Chairman, from our own MPs in this area I learned that there is a remarkable naiveté by even those MPs who sit on the standing committee on health and welfare in Ottawa. I just don't know how one gets the message through.
We are always bragging that this is an integrated federal country, that it's Canada from coast to coast, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But when you get down to something as practical and devastating as the heroin problem here in British Columbia, it really shatters me to find that the very standing committee in Ottawa apparently is not impressed by the dimension of the problem that we have here in British Columbia in dealing with the heroin problem.
It certainly brings us back to the community aspect of the problem, that the people who did take the initiative in this city at least were parents of addicts. The parents have been the whole route. Most of them are financially broke, having had to bail out their sons or daughters repeatedly for forged cheques or debts of one kind or another. They are well aware that the solution will have to come from direct involvement at the community level by parents and other people who want to serve in solving this kind of problem.
It is the hope that these concerned parents will be able to go to Ottawa and appear before the standing committee on health and welfare. I would hope that, if at all possible, the Minister could lend his influence by letter to the federal Minister of Health just to emphasize the seriousness of our problem and the fact that we do have many people at the community level who would be willing to become closely and deeply involved in many of the channels that we'll have to follow.
At no time am I suggesting that anybody has the answer on this terrible problem. I am simply trying to say that first of all, get the message through to Ottawa that we do have a very serious problem.
The latest approximate figure was that 61 per cent of all heroin addicts are in British Columbia. Maybe that's why the eastern part of Canada isn't too worried. They maybe feel that's our problem and get on with it. But the fact is that some of the approaches which the Minister is considering and which, I would support will need…right off the bat we can't do some of the things we want to do without federal legislation. Furthermore, if such legislation is introduced it will have to be brought into effect and clinics implemented in all provinces. Otherwise, again British Columbia will be landed with the problem of dealing with much more even than 60
[ Page 2144 ]
per cent.
So I just bring this matter up in the hope…and the Minister may wish to comment. I am sure he is going to Ottawa himself. I am told that in order to go before the standing committee one has to have several weeks' notice and so on. I just hope that the kind of initiatives which this Minister has taken up to date might be further augmented as an encouragement to the parents who, I may say, Madam Chairman, have a great deal of respect for the Minister. They are looking forward to the setting up of the drug commission in this province which will in turn, I hope, very quickly go out to the community and set up the programmes we've discussed.
HON. MR. LEVI: Madam Chairman, I'd like to tell the Hon. Member that I am going to undertake to write to the committee and suggest to them that they make an appointment to have three people from British Columbia who are members of the community. I'd like to suggest that we have three parents from three different communities — certainly the Victoria area, the Nanaimo area and the Kamloops area are three which I am familiar with which have this problem — and ask them to invite them to appear before that committee. I'm not particularly worried if they won't fly them down; we'll fly them down. That's not a problem. But I think that that kind of input in that kind of committee is essential.
When I am down there I shall also make an effort to appear before the committee as well.
I quite agree with the Member that the problem with the committees, of course; let's face it, generally the welfare field is not terribly popular politically, but when you get into the drug thing it's positively unpopular. Nobody wants to go out on a limb and do anything about it because, certainly in the situation they have down in Ottawa where they have a minority government situation, nobody wants to speak out.
However, I fully agree with the Member that we must get some parent input. They're the people who can tell it the way it is. I don't disagree with having specialists before these committees, but we also have to have the committee respond to people who are going through the problem on a day-to-day basis. So I certainly will write to the committee and seek the appointments for them. If we have to fly them down we will do so, although I understand they have funds for this kind of thing.
We will have more to say about drugs later on in the session anyway.
I just want to go back to what the Member was talking about in respect to children who have to go into care in order to get treatment. We have now started a programme on what we call a three-party agreement between the parent, the government and the agency and there is no requirement for the child to be taken into care. This is done on an understanding basis. That's the style in which we are doing it and we will continue to do it this way. I think your point about this is well taken.
The total thrust of the department is preventative. That's the objective of our day-care centre programme — spending $4 or $5 a day now stops us from having to spend anywhere from $25 to $82 a day five or six years from now.
We are looking at methods of getting money to children in families where there are problems. I don't think there is any reason why the family cannot be declared a resource — that's the best resource anyways — and that we put money in where it's needed. When, for instance, we closed down Willingdon — and I said to the field staff, "You have to make alternative arrangements now," we'd been spending $30 a day in there.
You develop resources in the community that will take that money that was saved and we'll spend it in that way. We have to get into that style of developing resources right in the community. So the staff have that go-ahead and we are getting some response to this. We will be looking into ways that we can get the money in.
Certainly if you take a child that goes into foster care at $ 12 a day and there's more validity perhaps in putting the $12 into the family. We will work out a system by which this kind of thing can be done.
The question of youth — and this is in terms of services for youth — I have now a report that I have just received from the City of Vancouver which I am looking at. I get the impression that we are in much better shape to develop the kind of resources we want for young people outside of the large urban areas. We have an enormous internecine warfare going on in the big cities between agencies.
This was what I was talking about when I talked about welfare empires; that we have to have people in the field whose primary consideration is the people they are working with, not the primary consideration of how best they can perpetuate themselves. This is a very serious problem in the whole social service area and we're attempting to tackle this. This in no way derides the kind of service they're giving; it's only the quantity of the service and in some respects the quality.
I have no compunction in saying that part of my role is to see to the dismantling of some of these welfare empires. Because these enormous empires are so very costly to administer we're not getting the dollar down to the client.
Young people: we are looking forward to a work programme. This has already been talked about in the House. There are positions available in forestry, pollution cleanup, highways department; we will be coming up with programmes for students, so that we will be announcing these things very shortly. I think
[ Page 2145 ]
you've probably now gathered that our style is not to put everything into a document like the budget speech or the throne speech, but to give it to you as we deal with it and we'll be dealing with it. So there's no question that young people are being forgotten. We've worked out our priorities and the priorities were the senior citizens and children. Now we're moving into the employment area.
I just want to make a point on the adoptions. It's always been my feeling that we've got to call a moratorium I think on the whole business of adoption placements. We are discussing this. I think that we cannot continue to do adoption placements and home assessments when we know that people have virtually no chance of getting children under perhaps three years.
We have a programme in the department where we are trying to place older children. I think this is very valid. We have had some success in placing older children — I have in mind children over five, six, seven and eight. But I do think that certainly we have to be very frank, and I'm very seriously considering a moratorium on this whole business of adoption.
We constantly get letters — and I am sure all MLAs do — from people who are very frustrated by the fact that they're not getting any children.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
HON. MR. LEVI: No, I don't think that's the way to go. In terms of adoptions I just want to say one other thing. We are preparing now a policy statement that we'd like to present to the federal government about a Canadian position on international adoptions. You may recall that we did have the Bangladesh children problem and it was a problem, because in this province a lot of people had high expectations — about 70 families — that there were possibilities of getting children; then 15 were assured and finally we got two children. So Canada as a country has to adopt a policy and we're preparing a paper for them that we would like to bring up at the Ministers' conference.
One other thing in respect to legislation. I did announce February 16 that there would be two committees set up to study the whole question of children's legislation and pulling it all into one bill. I will be announcing after the session, once we've appointed the external committee, We are now setting up an internal committee to handle some of the details.
MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen.
MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): I have a point or two that won't take me very long. I brought the matter up previously in the Minister's colleague's estimates, the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke). He referred me to bringing it up at this particular time.
This is in relation to the mentally handicapped and those associations dealing with these sort of people under the British Columbia Association of the Mentally Handicapped. Now my concern mostly is not only with the mentally handicapped but with the handicapped generally.
We know that where these training centres are there are various categories or various degrees of trainees. Some have a relatively good productive value compared to the salary they receive. In fact in many cases the salary is less than what their capabilities indicate. Others will never, under any circumstances, rise to a productive level that would even warrant the training centre paying a minimum wage.
Certainly they need the training. I agree with this. I think it's a good thing. Any time that we can elevate them into taking their places in society and making them feel self-sufficient, I think this is a very commendable programme. The problem that the training centres run into is that they have had to level salaries off in many cases so that actually the productive level or group is actually subsidizing the lower level.
Now my suggestion would be that possibly the Government give some consideration to subsidizing the salaries of those on the lower level only. This way the training centre then would be able to pay the minimum wage or something of this level.
Now I did take this up with your department, Mr. Minister, although I haven't had a reply yet. I know your department is very busy.
I would like to think that maybe the Government might take 50 per cent of that lower category of their salaries. Certainly in due course they may be able to take their place as positions become available.
Now, that is an area in which I am particularly concerned, because I've been connected indirectly with a training centre in my own constituency, which you very likely know about. And I've noted in many cases some of the programmes have restricted the area in which they could cover maybe a greater number of people with a wider variety of handicaps. They have run into the fact that they have not been able to achieve the necessary amount of funds locally, or even through the contributions.
In some cases they have found, when they had established a relative credit which they expected to take care of their obligations at that particular time, the fact that a statutory holiday or something has interfered and created the reduction in that credit. Let's use a hypothetical case — the Christmas holidays. The staff who must work on holidays have not been able to have their salaries because it has been reduced because of statutory holidays.
So these are areas to which I think some considera-
[ Page 2146 ]
tion might be given in a more realistic funding or assistance programme.
As the time is getting on, I'm not going to take any more time. I'd be very happy to sit down with the Minister, or his deputy, if he wishes, and discuss this further, and not hold up the proceedings of the House. Thank you.
HON. MR. LEVI: Let me give just one short answer to the Member. As you may know, we've had a style of calling conferences on specific areas — drugs, dental treatment centres, and senior citizens. We are intending to call together the people who work in the field in terms of the handicapped, and we want to look at a number of the problems that they have, particularly the kind of thing that the Member was talking about in the beginning — the very low pay that some of these people are getting. We want to review all that, so we will be meeting with people and having some discussions with them, and then presumably we'll develop an approach to it.
MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Langley.
MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Thank you, Madam Chairman. I just want to make a few comments with regard to the problem of drug abuse in British Columbia, particularly as it relates to some of the statements that have been made by the Minister and other Members, and also as it relates to the position paper toward a government programme policy on drug abuse issued by the Minister.
I draw the attention of the House as well to this report — "Drug Abuse and the Floundering Society," prepared by Mr. H.F. Hoskin and A.R. Huntington. Mr. Hoskin was the former director of the Narcotics Addiction Foundation.
HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): This whole matter will be canvassed around the bill, but it's up to you.
MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Madam Chairman, it's already been…
HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, there was earlier a debate on it and it referred to the bill. There will be a bill and there will be opportunity to discuss it at that time.
MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Madam Chairman, that may be next fall sometime, and I'd just as soon canvass it under the Minister's estimates if I can. I just wanted to make a few comments. I think it's an important subject and it is under this Minister's estimates. If I could make my comments I'll be as brief as possible.
Madam Chairman, I understand that this government is not overly impressed with the work of the Narcotics Addiction Foundation but that foundation, Madam Chairman, was an important contributor in helping to solve some of the problems of drug abuse in British Columbia for a number of years. Mr. Hoskins is a noted authority in the field and I feel that this is an important document.
HON. MR. COCKE: One of the big problems that we've had in government has been that there has been real duplication…
MR. McCLELLAND: Is this a point of order, Madam Chairman?
HON. MR. COCKE: This is a point of order, Madam Chairman.
MS. CHAIRMAN: Then what is your point of order, Hon. Member?
HON. MR. COCKE: The point of order is this: the question that the Member is now dealing with comes under the Minister of Health at the present time. However, within a week we will be debating a piece of legislation which will put this question under the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement, and I thought it might be a lot more…
MR. McCLELLAND: Madam Chairman…
HON. MR. COCKE: He's out of order, Madam Chairman. In fact, if you want me to be nasty, the fact of the matter is…
MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, don't be nasty, Mr. Minister. We wouldn't want you to do that in this House.
MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must rule that the point of order is correct, inasmuch as we have covered the particular foundations in the Minister of Health's vote.
MR. McCLELLAND: Madam Chairman, we didn't cover the foundations in the Minister of Health's vote, we covered them in the Provincial Secretary's vote, to begin with, and we are not talking about the foundation or the grants, Madam Chairman, we are talking about the problem of drug abuse in British Columbia. This paper toward a government policy on drug abuse has been issued by the Hon. Norman Levi, Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement in the Province of British Columbia, so that obviously brings the problem of drug abuse under the Minister of Social Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.
I can't accept that ruling, Madam Chairman,
[ Page 2147 ]
because it does come under this Minister's estimates.
MS. CHAIRMAN: I withdraw my ruling and I believe you are in order, inasmuch as the report you are referring to was prepared by that Minister.
MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I appreciate that.
AN HON. MEMBER: Then drugs, alcohol and tobacco come under Education…(Laughter).
Mr. McCLELLAND: Madam Chairman, I really think that it is important. I do have some comments to make about the problems of drug abuse in the province as an observer and as a layman. I want to get them before this House because I want to have my comments heard. That's all that I would like to do and I'll do it if I can do it with no more interruptions.
The only reason I mention this report, Madam Chairman, is that it has to do with the problems of drug abuse. It could, as a companion to the paper issued by the Minister, be an important report. I'd like to advise all of the people in the community that if they have the opportunity to read this report it gives a rather comprehensive background of the beginning of the drug abuse problem as it relates not only to British Columbia but to the rest of the country and the rest of the world, and of the changing terms of drug abuse in our society, which since 1965 or 1966 has taken some drastic alterations, particularly with respect to the age of users, which has been dropping seriously since 1966.
The whole profile of the drug abuser has been changing since that period from the norm of those people who were normally in the lower socioeconomic level — people with poor family relationships, people with poor attendance in school and little education. Now it seems to be the other way around. We're finding the drug abuser is better educated. He is probably of a middle- or higher-income level. It's completely different from what it was prior to 1966. This report, Madam Chairman, designates that situation and I commend it to everyone in the Legislature and also to anyone in the province who is interested in finding some solutions to the problems of drug abuse.
I would quote one item from the conclusions of this report: "If there ever was a time in our history for governments, federal and provincial, to recognize the threat to our social order and the need to coordinate and implement corrective measures, that time is now." I think that we must all subscribe to that, Madam Chairman. We must also, I think, compliment the Minister on his intention to set up a drug dependency commission. However, I would suggest that, as is pointed out in the report by Mr. Hoskins, this commission must be coordinated through federal bodies and must certainly cooperate with federal bodies because the federal government, after all, really has the ultimate responsibility for the laws of the country as they pertain to hard drug use particularly — in fact, all drug abuse. Any agencies set up in isolation of the federal government simply, in my opinion, will not work, so I think that it is important that any of these councils or commissions or whatever it is that we set up be coordinated through a federal body.
Quoting again from the report, Madam Chairman, it says: "Such a council would be responsible for effective coordination of all agencies and departments working in the behavioural fields for the design and implementation of research for recommendations to update law, for guidance to law enforcement agencies, and for curriculum recommendations to the education system." That too, is an important consideration and all those things must be considered in connection with all of the approaches to the problems of drug abuse in British Columbia and in Canada.
The national government, Madam Chairman, has offered virtually no leadership with regard to these problems. In fact, you could almost say that there has been indifference from the national government with regard to the problems of drug abuse. As perhaps was pointed out by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), they now seem at last to at least be recognizing the problem, but there is no indication yet that anyone wants to do anything about it from the national level. It's not from a lack of information because there has been a constant flow of information particularly, I might say, from this province, from various people and facilities in this province, to the federal government, but they've been virtually ignored.
Not only has there been indifference, but I would suggest that there's been some degree of irresponsibility from the federal government with regard to this whole problem of drug abuse.
From the point of view of an observer and layman — no expert in the field by any stretch of the imagination — it's a little discouraging, Madam Chairman, that the comment heard most often with regard to the problems of drug abuse is that we don't know enough about it yet. "We don't know" — despite the years and years and years that we've been suffering with this problem, a cancerous problem that we've allowed to grow and grow and grow in our communities until it's now a national tragedy — and as has been pointed out, that tragedy is most evident in British Columbia. We still hear the comment from the so-called experts in the field, "We don't know enough about it yet."
Madam Chairman, that bothers me slightly — if it's true that we don't know enough about the problem yet. We find the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)
[ Page 2148 ]
and, in fact, the Minister advocating drug experiments in the field. These experiments could be potentially dangerous and if they fail, they could lead British Columbia into a deeper drug morass than we're in now. That frightens me from the point of view that we would allow uncontrolled experiments with the most important problem facing Canada today.
I'd like to briefly relate some of the costs to society because of heroin addiction in this province. First of all, I've mentioned already the increasing exposure of not the soft drugs but the hard drugs — heroin — to children of an even younger and younger age all the time. We're now finding heroin addicts of 13 or 14 years old.
I'm in sympathy too, Madam Chairman, with the people who, in all good conscience, call for ever stiffer penalties for drug pushers. Certainly those people in the business of pushing drugs need to have stiffer penalties. They need to be dealt with severely, if we're ever to attack the problem at all.
I'd like to relate, Madam Chairman, to one other problem that comes because of this lowered age of casual users of soft drugs and addicted users of hard drugs. That's the problem of children as pushers. If we totally advocate a hard line of the severest penalties for pushers, do we recognize the problem we might find? Is our neighbour's son a pusher at the school? There are young people in the community pushing drugs of one kind or another — marijuana or in fact, as I understand it now, hard drugs in some instances. Those are pushers. Those are our neighbours' youngsters that we're talking about. What do we do with them? We've got to recognize that that's a serious problem.
It's one of the costs to society of this increasing heroin addiction. It really bothers me. How do we get out of that problem? We know that we have to get the criminal on the street who is the organizer of a heroin trafficking system; give him the severest possible penalty; get him off the street and stop it at that end. But, what do we do about those children who are pushing drugs? How do we handle that problem and what do we do to eliminate it?
We know that the most basic cost to society is just the simple cost of theft and shoplifting by addicts attempting to support their habits. The Vancouver police estimate that it costs the community $10 million a year just in shoplifting alone. Not too long ago one Vancouver drug squad detective said that if you could stop the addict from shoplifting, the $25 pair of pants that you buy now would probably cost you only $16. That's an economic cost to the community.
I don't know if you can get by on $45 a day now, but I understand that a year or so ago it cost about $45 a day to maintain a habit in downtown Vancouver. It's significant that an addict would have to earn over $16,000 a year just to support that habit. In my opinion, there's no possible way that he could hold down a steady job earning that kind of money in order to support the habit. That doesn't take into account the problems of looking after his family, if he has one, and looking after any other needs he has to survive — $16,000 a year just to support his habit. So obviously there's a pretty serious cost in terms of actual hard dollars to the community, besides those other costs.
The most important cost of all, however, is the ultimate corruption of the user. There is no doubt in my mind, Madam Chairman, that the user is corrupted one way or another and probably totally corrupted in the long run.
In my opinion, Madam Chairman, we can't look at this problem of heroin addiction in total isolation. It's a problem that relates to all kinds of drug abuse. I think we have to consider all of those drug abuses right from the "mother's little helper" — as the Rolling Stones put it in one of their songs — barbiturates and amphetamines — right down to the problem of glue sniffing, which once again is attracting ever younger children. I'm told that a visit to a local hospital on almost any day of the week will give evidence of that kind of abuse at eight years old. That has to be looked at in the whole spectrum of drug abuse.
I appreciate the Minister's comment in his report that we have to go back to the community. Obviously, everything starts at the home. We have to start with solutions at the home. We also have to start in the community, where the problems really are.
Madam Chairman, we accept today the casual use of the "respectable" drugs by all of us in society — we can even start with aspirins I suppose. With the kinds of strains that we have in our society, it's just an acceptable part of the life now — drug use is okay. It seems to me that the only kind of drug use that should be all right is that which is prescribed by a doctor. I suppose that everyone has some sort of a sickness, if he needs to take drugs outside of those prescribed by a doctor. That's pretty extreme, but nevertheless it's all part of the acceptance that we've given as a society to the use of drugs.
The use of drugs, consciously or not, has been given an aura of respectability in our society. I really think that that's another part of the whole problem. The use of amphetamines is becoming more and more widespread in our society.
I'd like to quote from the World Health Organization, Madam Chairman. This is a dependence that many people in our society are now finding themselves hooked on. The World Health Organization says that it recognizes amphetamine-type dependence as "a desire or need to continue regularly or intermittently the use of amphetamines, and a tolerance and tendency to increase the dose."
The Organization further states that "there is
[ Page 2149 ]
psychic dependence, but no physical dependence and so no abstinence syndrome. But in some cases, continued use leads to severe toxic psychosis." And finally, "amphetamines and barbiturates are often taken alternatively and successively, each to counteract the effects of the other."
So that's the kind of thing we have in our society. You take a pill to get you up. Then you're so high that you've got to take another pill to get you down. It's the kind of thing that we have given a respectability to in our society. That also, as a layman and a casual observer, really bothers me.
If you check the Vancouver drugstores which have a large flow of amphetamines — and there are some in certain areas of the city that have a larger business in that kind of drug than others — you'll find that they also have that same large flow of barbiturates. So the problem of taking those two drugs in connection with each other is borne out simply by checking the drugstore sales.
I think the doctors have a responsibility here that they're not living up to, Madam Chairman. Evidence from the Narcotics Addiction Foundation suggests that amphetamine and barbiturate problems among adults are almost exclusively due to drugs prescribed by doctors. The Foundation suggests, Madam Chairman, that too often the doctors don't appreciate the dangers of these drugs. You wouldn't call it indiscriminate prescribing, but it borders on that from time to time.
Another interesting point, Madam Chairman, is that women make up by far the largest number with regard to abuses of those kinds of drugs. Something like two-thirds of the abusers of amphetamines and barbiturates are women.
I would like to comment just for a moment on the problem of glue sniffing, which once again must be related to the total problem of the abuses of these kinds of chemicals. Madam Chairman, anyone who has been even remotely aware or had even a remote connection with any young person who has been involved in glue sniffing knows the tragedy of this situation. And, Madam Chairman, it is a tragedy.
I find the term "glue sniffing" a bit confusing. It really doesn't mean glue sniffing. If the House isn't aware, Madam Chairman, that term is now used to cover a wide range of chemicals, not particularly glue. In fact, I think the problem with glue has been pretty well eliminated by the manufacturers — but there are many kinds.
Once again, if I could quote the Narcotics Addiction Foundation: nail polish remover of course, up until recently, was the most common chemical that was used, and I understand has now been virtually eliminated in Vancouver — although they can still get it.
I might tell the House, Madam Chairman, there was a drugstore up in the Merritt area, I believe, which was selling — I think it was Merritt, or in that general area somewhere — which was continuing to sell nail polish remover. Isolated somewhat from the greater Vancouver area, this drugstore didn't know about the problem, and the problem wasn't in their community.
Madam Chairman, the word got out to the young people in Vancouver and in the lower mainland area generally and that drugstore had a run on nail polish remover. They were heading out of Vancouver in their cars or hitch-hiking or any way they could possibly go, and heading up to this drugstore. The word spread so fast that there was nail polish remover available, that the kids were going up there in droves — and I mean in droves — and buying the supplies from that drugstore before the people in the store finally caught on to what was happening and removed, as I understand it, the stock from their store.
That's the kind of thing that's happening in our society today. Think of the things that our youngsters are ingesting — solvents, lighter fluid, paint thinner, cleaning fluid, gasoline, model airplane glue and ground nutmeg, which I'm told produces delirium if you eat enough of it. Can you imagine that?
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, I'm glad you're through, Mr. Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson.)
Madam Chairman, there have been in recent weeks a couple of deaths in the Vancouver area because of the abuse of this kind of chemical. It's no secret and no question now that the abuse of these chemicals causes death. Kidneys, brain, bone marrow, liver, all of these things are vulnerable to damage from these chemicals. It can also, and one of the most serious problems I think, cause severe damage to the inside of the nose, to a youngster's throat, eventually to his lungs and so many other problems that just the abuse of these chemicals — which are readily available to every youngster in British Columbia — cause right now.
Cases have been reported, Madam Chairman — I don't suggest that very many of them have been reported — of glue sniffers, once again using the large term, turning to other forms of drug abuse including heroin addiction. So again, Madam Chairman, we
[ Page 2150 ]
can't deal with the problems of drug abuse in isolation. We've got to look at every kind of drug use, chemical use, interrelate them and then perhaps come up with some solutions.
The marijuana problem, Madam Chairman, has to be considered in the total scheme as well. I'm sure that the drug dependency commission will be looking at this problem as well.
I'd like to say right now, Madam Chairman, that personally I'm not prepared to accept the proposition that marijuana be legalized. Once again I think there are too many questions. The question of dependency hasn't been answered — at least not sufficiently to allay my fears. The argument that alcohol is just as dangerous and so we should give marijuana to people — I can't accept that as a valid argument.
There's no reason, in my opinion, to open the gates to another possibly harmful drug, just because we already have countless tragic problems from one other drug. There's not enough evidence, Madam Chairman, about marijuana's effects on users in my opinion. Is it harmful or not? I don't think we know yet. We won't have those answers without a great deal more research and study.
There's no answer, in my opinion, to the problem of progression from marijuana to hard drugs. We've heard a lot of talk about it, but we've never had any comprehensive study which says that that progression does not exist. It certainly seems to lead, at least if not progression to heroin, to the use of many other mood-changing drugs, especially among the young.
Madam Chairman, despite the problems and there certainly has been a lot of fervent public discussion about this, I don't think there's any crying need in our society at this time for the legalization of marijuana. After all, there's only a very small minority of our population which presently smokes marijuana. And until that minority, Madam Chairman, can show the rest of society that the benefits of this particular drug far outweigh the disadvantages, then I don't think we should even be considering that possibility.
Madam Chairman, the availability today of soft drugs in our society is such that you can get them just as easy as going to your supermarket and picking up a box of cereal. Because of that availability, Madam Chairman, virtually every Canadian youngster will at one time or another in his life, have to make a decision about whether or not he'll try a mood changing drug.
In fact, because of the availability of heroin now — I'm told that you can go to any school in British Columbia and make arrangements for soft drugs for sure, and probably in many of the schools, hard drugs as well.
Our youngsters then, are going to be asked to make that decision on their own at the school level, because they certainly are going to be exposed to drugs. The kind of training we need to give them in advance is the kind of training that will allow them to make that answer responsibly and sensibly, rather than because of simple influence, perhaps from his peer group — or from other social pressures.
Those hard drugs, Madam Chairman, are becoming almost as available as soft drugs. At least, if the information that we get from our education people is correct, that's true. So I wonder, Madam Chairman, that in that atmosphere we're even talking about experiments to provide free heroin clinics for users. That's what bothers me — this experimental aspect of the whole thing, when we don't even know about the effects — we say we don't know about the total effects of drugs.
We don't know the answers. Why are we going to experiment with a programme that really has no merit? The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), Madam Chairman, says free heroin for addicts is worth a try. Well I can't agree with that. I don't think it is worth a try. Madam Chairman, he says he agrees with the LeDain Report, that the British system of legal heroin distribution has been misunderstood.
Well, perhaps it has been misunderstood but I wonder if it isn't the Member for Oak Bay and perhaps the Minister, if he's serious about those proposals, who have misunderstood the British system, because there's a whole lot of evidence, Madam Chairman, that the British system isn't as wonderful as some proponents would have us believe. I refer to an article in the Vancouver Sun, Madam Chairman, in which it says:
"The LeDain Commission, during its studies of the escalating heroin problem in Canada, has come to the conclusion that the British are looking just as fondly at the so-called North American approach to heroin treatment. The much-touted British system is both misunderstood and, in many instances, not directly applicable to Canada."
And that's the misunderstanding, Madam Chairman; not the misunderstanding that the system works, but that the system doesn't necessarily work.
Another item written by Karen Gmoser in the Vancouver Province,
"The number of heroin users will soar if Ottawa legalizes heroin for the addict, the chairman of the B.C. Drug Habituation Committee warned Monday."
That's Dr. Conrad Schwartz. He says it's a risk, a great risk.
"The commission is ignoring the criminal aspects of heroin in North America. You don't think that the criminals who have been pushing the stuff for large amounts of money are going to sit back and watch their customers get free heroin from clinics. They're going to go out and find a new clientele."
Here's another so-called expert who says:
[ Page 2151 ]
"Free drug project is nonsense. It's absolute nonsense to even consider a pilot project to provide free heroin to addicts." This is a psychiatrist that has worked 20 years with drug dependent people. His name is Dr. Andrew Malcolm. This is also in a story datelined Toronto from the Vancouver Province.
"Dr. Malcolm says if one province tries to introduce a scheme such as this on its own, it will be flooded with addicts from all over the continent. And there's certain to be a great increase of break-ins in stored supplies of the drugs in clinics. Dr. Malcolm says there is no evidence that the lower number of heroin addicts in Great Britain has anything to do with that government's policy of supplying the drug free to registered addicts. No one, he says, knows how many unregistered addicts there are, and there has been no decrease in trafficking on the drug black market in Britain."
and this Toronto psychiatrist is also critical of the LeDain Commission and its advisers. He calls them "The Canadian mandarins of drug dependency."
Madam Chairman, the Minister has said that he's going to develop bold new programmes, quoted in the Vancouver Sun. I'd like to ask the question, Madam Chairman: has the Minister checked with Ottawa? At the moment, as I understand it, there is no legislation in Canadian law which would allow the therapeutic use of any kind of drugs.
The first question is, has there been any input from Ottawa on this problem? Have we consulted with the Health and Welfare people in Ottawa, Madam Chairman? Because, if we haven't, it seems a little irresponsible to be making those kinds of statements.
Speaking of interim solutions, we know full well that we don't have that power within our jurisdiction at this time. Unless we know full well that we can get a federal programme going…that is why I mentioned in the first place that any drug dependency commission should be geared at the federal level so that we can cooperate with the rest of Canada and do this in cooperation rather than in isolation.
Once again, Madam Chairman, I must stress that I am speaking only as a layman, but the problem as I see it with regard to the provision of free heroin to addicts is that there is no treatment or rehabilitation involved. You do nothing really but cope with the casualties of heroin abuse…
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MR. McCLELLAND: Madam Chairman, that would seem to be the philosophy of the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), because that's the only comment he's made in the debate so far — that it's necessary for us to develop some kind of a programme of free heroin clinics. It seems to me, Madam Chairman, that all we do is treat them. We don't get at the problem — we treat the symptom and we do nothing but cope with the casualties of a tragic heroin problem in British Columbia.
First of all we have to isolate and confirm the reasons why young people get into this situation. Why do they start drifting into a life of drug use and drug abuse? Why do they start drifting into a life of alcohol abuse? I suppose you could even ask the question: why do they get into a life of tobacco abuse? It is all interrelated, Madam Chairman.
We have to enforce our legal control and establish a good system of legal control. We have to establish a good system of education, starting with our youngsters at as young an age as possible.
Madam Chairman, it might have been unintentional, and I'm sure it was, but the Minister, in making the statements about the free heroin clinics…The statement, I believe, was, "We'll try some new programmes, we'll shake up the drug agencies in our communities, and if it doesn't work in four or five years, then we may go into the business of providing free heroin for addicts."
Madam Chairman, in the light of those comments, it would seem to me that the Minister has really perpetrated an act of some kind of cruelty on the addict because in the meantime, in this four- or five-year interim, if this system doesn't work, what is the addict going to do? The addict is quite a manipulator. In fact, he is a very skilful manipulator and maybe he's just going to sit back and make sure that the programmes don't work, because all he really wants to do is reinforce his addiction, and keep his supply of heroin open at all times. So perhaps if he can ensure that these programmes don't work, Madam Chairman, then perhaps he knows that in three our four years he's going to have that supply of free heroin from the provincial government.
Madam Chairman, the Minister says that there is no known cure for addition. Once again we say that the addict has to have his heroin. As things stand now, over the years he'll seek to discredit any programme, in my opinion. The addict will seek to discredit any kind of educational programme or supportive programme or anything else. Just so long as we get the message loud and clear that he is going to be uncooperative, that no interim approaches are going to work, the addict is going to work towards that final solution which will be the provision of free heroin for the addict.
For the Minister to hold out those kind of hopes, Madam Chairman, if there hasn't been any consultation with the federal government, which has absolute power over this field — we must remember that — is extreme cruelty, in my opinion. It is not the kind of logical and sane approach that we should be following if we want eventually to get to the roots of the drug
[ Page 2152 ]
abuse problem in British Columbia, if we want eventually to come up with some of those solutions that obviously we don't have at this time.
Madam Chairman, we can't quarrel with the comment in the Minister's paper that everything starts with a well-balanced and happy family. That's obvious. We can't quarrel with that at all. We can't quarrel with the suggestion that we've got to overcome the peer group pressures among the young, particularly, because that's where the ultimate problem lies.
Madam Chairman, I would just like to make one more comment about free heroin clinics for addicts. It's not my comment, it's a quote:
"I wish we could debunk for once and all the idea that the British have found a magic cure for drug abuse, and in part, opiate dependence. We have enough abuse of other drugs such as LSD and cannabis to show that we are as vulnerable as other countries…
"The ultimate goal of treatment policy in the United Kingdom is total abstinence, but I am afraid what is simply in essence a difference in the timetable in achieving this is mistaken by those tourist experts as a sole reason for the differences in the scale and nature of the problem here," and he is talking about the United Kingdom and Canada.
"There is no magic cure in the United Kingdom. The goal is not maintenance but total abstinence".
Madam Chairman, that quote comes from a Mr. H. Spear, who is in the drug development office in the Home Office in the United Kingdom. So there is no magic cure in the United Kingdom.
We must stop those "tourist experts," if that is the correct term, who are perpetrating the myth that the United Kingdom has somehow found the ultimate in all-time solutions to the problems of drug abuse. There is, I repeat, no magic cure in the United Kingdom.
I'd just like to close, Madam Chairman, with another quote that comes once again from the Narcotics Addiction Foundation. It says: "H in addict jargon means heroin, and the road to H is usually also the road to hell, even if short periods of what seems heaven are experienced."
Our job, Madam Chairman, is to help ensure that the road to 'H' means the road to hope and health. Thank you.
MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Madam Chairman. I just would like to ask a few more questions of the Minister regarding Mincome. The particular problem that we are up against allegedly is the heavy hand of the CAP (Canada Assistance Plan). I wonder whether the Minister has looked into the question which I raised for him back on October 26, 1972, of gearing the provincial supplement (in other words, the provincial Mincome payment) to the federal GIS (Guaranteed Income Supplement), making it a percentage of GIS.
If we did this, Mr. Minister, in my mind we would avoid all the problems that you outlined back in October as well as now, and which you have found to be virtually insurmountable during that six-month period. At the same time we would allow the thrift factor, what I called the thrift factor back in October, which I still think is a very worthwhile one, which I mentioned this morning, which would allow anyone who earned a certain amount of money, anyone who is on a Mincome or on a special subsidy programme for low income people or even on welfare, to keep a reasonable percentage of what they earned.
The question is really quite specific: can it not be done this way?
MS. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, excuse me. You have a motion on the order paper pertaining to this.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On making Mincome a percentage of the federal GIS?
MS. CHAIRMAN: You are discussing revision of the Mincome in relation to exemption for incomes from savings, investments and so on.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well that would be, I would think, another way of dealing with the same problem, but this one would be a specific percentage of the federal guaranteed income supplement.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, that's perhaps what the Minister will comment on. I personally think that you could do it this way. Now, my examination of the Act may not be as much in-depth as that of yourself, Mr. Minister, or the officers of your department. Nevertheless, I can see the difficulties when you run into dollar figures. I cannot see the same difficulties when you start dealing with percentages of a federal payment, and perhaps you could comment on this because, as I said, I raised this back in October and you've had six months to mull it over.
HON. MR. LEVI: They deal with dollars, not percentages, and we wouldn't be able to achieve the kind of sharing. As I said earlier to your other questions, we will look at the thrift factor. We are trying to find ways around that, but it's a little difficult if they insist on going the needs test way. If we get a change in that thrust under the incomes test,
[ Page 2153 ]
then we're okay. But we'll work on it and I hope to have something more to say about it.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, but on percentages.
HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, but Ottawa doesn't deal in that kind of thing. They talk about dollars and sharing in dollars.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Ottawa perhaps hasn't thought of this scheme. Why don't you propose it in terms of percentages? It's all very well to say that they talk about dollars. Sure they do, in total numbers, but if they're dealing with percentages of a particular scheme such as this… After all, we have percentages on welfare — it's 50 per cent federal, so much provincial, so much municipal. We have percentages on a whole number of schemes. I don't see why we couldn't put percentages into schemes such as this.
While I'm on the question of percentages, we have dealt with the estimates of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), and yet your proposals, unfortunately, Mr. Minister, through you Madam Chairman, to the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement, are going to put another substantial burden of approximately $4 million on the municipalities. I wonder whether he might indicate to us at this stage whether he has discussed this with the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Municipal Affairs or anyone else so that the burden being thrust upon municipalities against their wishes — undoubtedly if they're going to spend money it'll be against their wishes — might be met by some other provincial funding. Perhaps he might comment on that as well.
MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister.
HON. MR. LEVI: Well, the only comment about the municipalities in respect to the amount of money he just talked about — we had Alderman Rankin here from Vancouver with his committee, We met at a public meeting, and he said that what we should really do is to go for 15 per cent across the board in terms of the rates. When we calculated what that would cost to the municipalities we were looking at around $5 million.
I said, "In your particular municipality you are looking at possibly $1 million more. Have you checked with your council about this?"
And he said, "Yes."
So that committee had the confidence of council.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
HON. MR. LEVI: We're going to be talking to the UBCM about the other proposal which deals with relieving some of the burden from the municipalities
We will be talking to them about it. We have an obligation to deliver the rates that people can live on. Certainly it puts a load on the municipalities, and Vancouver is the one that will shoulder most of the load — but the elected representatives have approved that. So that's where we are on that situation.
Let me just say one other thing about the Mincome. We did suggest to the federal government when they were amending the old age security that they were to keep the Act open and suggested the possibility of amending that section, part 2, on the GIS (Guaranteed Income Supplement) so that they would share in the supplements so everything ties together. But they didn't accept that proposal from us. We thought it was quite a common sense proposal, but they didn't.
MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.
MR. WALLACE: Madam Chairman, I don't propose to get into a long debate on heroin again, but I think certain statements made by the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) should certainly be corrected.
It is not my opinion nor am I aware of even reading that anyone is suggesting that the provision of heroin to established addicts is some panacea or solution. The Member himself pointed out that heroin addiction is part of the whole spectrum of human dependency. Neither I nor anybody that I have talked to in government is anything but fully and totally aware of that fact.
The opinion he expressed that I personally am simply promoting the question of maintenance drugs or maintenance heroin without all the other positive, ancillary counseling types of assistance which this department can provide would be totally false.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MR. WALLACE: If the Member had had his ears open on more than one occasion he would have realized that I have said in this House and out of this House that this programme could not even begin until we have national legislation, and I said this morning if he had been listening that it would have to be implemented in each province in Canada. I am aware of these practical jurisdictional problems.
What I am trying to say is that heroin is a part of the total problem but it is a unique part of the drug problem. There is no drug in the last 5,000 years of civilization which has had anything like the total physical, mental and moral control over an individual. To talk in fanciful terms that the solution is abstinence is like asking the waves to go back because you're getting your feet wet.
The fact is that heroin is a unique part of the dependency problem with damage and degradation
[ Page 2154 ]
and the involvement of innocent individuals far beyond any other drug in the drug scene.
The frequent discussion about the British system, Madam Chairman, should be put in perspective, even if we are only talking about proportions. I have a document here put out by the British Information Service in Ottawa, and it points out, for example, that at the end of November 1968, in Britain, with 50 million people, they were treating 1,250 addicts. Two years later the total was 1,249 in a population of 50 million. Might I just ask the House the question: if Britain, with 50 million people and apparently something in the order of 1,200 to 1,500 addicts feels concerned enough to try out this programme, doesn't it seem reasonable that British Columbia with 2 million people and 5,000 addicts at least, should be looking at methods of further trying at least to contain the problem?
I agree that the British system has been no panacea and that such a panacea solution doesn't exist. But surely, Madam Chairman, our goal should at least be a measure of containment of the problem. If Britain has done nothing else, the problem has remained at least at the same level, whereas in Canada, as I pointed out this morning, even the federal government is now admitting that the numbers have doubled in two to three years and goodness knows how many more in the next two or three years if we take the same attitude.
But above that, Madam Chairman, if any Member in this House is in any doubt as to the feeling of utter desperation on the part of parents when they discover that their child is hooked on heroin and the absence of ways and means to try and grapple with the problem, then I think that is the source the Members should go to — to the parents of the addicts.
There are many addicts who are desperately eager to try and get off heroin, who make the effort and do not have the facilities, either in terms of methadone or any other kind of facility, plus the fact that there is the ever-present risk of arrest. I am trying to point out some of the positive aspects that I would like to see followed and I kind of resent the suggestion that because it's experimental the Member for Langley should be so disparaging. Any reasonable social or medical progress in society starts off usually on something of the nature of an experimental basis. When this problem is so obviously widespread, so serious and so disastrous in its long-term effects on both the addict and his family, surely it would be a very stubborn and obstinate mind which would say, "No way will we try this out."
The other subject which is so often dragged in at this point, the question of capital punishment or life sentences for pushers, is a different part of the problem — a vital part but a different part. I am simply talking about treating sick people. If you haven't got the answer — and there are many other sick people in society who have to be maintained on psychotropic drugs or anti-depressants or tranquilizers or what have you — why should there be this moralizing by society because the heroin addict took it of his free will and became hooked, that we should take a more punitive or holier-than-thou attitude than we take to the person on barbiturates, for example, whom the Member for Langley talked about.
Just to put the record straight, Madam Chairman, let me have it recorded very clearly in the House that amphetamines are illegal in Canada as of January 1 this year. The doctors no longer can prescribe it even if they want to. So that the suggestion by the Member for Langley that amphetamines are readily available wherever you go, it's certain that if they are on the illegal market. I would say in passing that maybe the House should recognize also that we are reaching a phase of society where well-needed drugs which benefit a certain segment of society, used judiciously, have been denied in order to try and stamp out their illegal use.
Really, if you want to take this right down the line to the end of logical reasoning, there really should be very few drugs that the doctors should be allowed to prescribe, if you bring the same attitude to bear on these other drugs as has been brought to bear on amphetamines. Some patients do benefit from amphetamines.
I am not debating the pros or cons at this point. I am simply trying to get the point across that the federal government has made amphetamines illegal. Some people in society who would get some benefit from them are denied them because they are being widely abused by people who don't need them.
Now, if we are going to do that with amphetamines, I could list you a dozen others right now where you could quite easily bring in the same kind of restriction on the medical men in the province or in the country to prescribe drugs which do have some value.
I didn't want to make a long speech. I just want, Madam Chairman, to have the point made very clear. I never have said and don't propose to say now that the idea of a study of provision of maintenance doses to heroin addicts is some golden solution. It is not. But it is a line of study that is worth while, in my opinion. It is a measure which apparently a very old country with a great deal of wisdom has considered worth trying and which has brought a measure of containment.
Thirdly, it would not in my view be simply a matter of dishing out the drugs and turning the man back on the street; it would be a question of tying in the maintenance dosage with all the ancillary help which this department and the Minister' s department can provide.
Finally, it is a measure which would give those addicts who seriously want eventually to get off
[ Page 2155 ]
heroin counseling and medical supervision and would free them from the criminal element, if that were their choice. They have no choice at the moment. It would, hopefully, bring some measure of help to the person who is trying to get off drugs and who is trying to stay away from a life of crime.
MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver-Point Grey.
MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Madam Chairman, I am afraid I am forced to disagree fairly substantially with many of the remarks of the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and to commend the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland). I say this with some professional experience, too, because as a research scientist my major activity for some 15 years has been in the field of drugs and their effects on the mind.
It's not a question, in my view, of moralizing, regarding the effects of drugs. It's a question of reflecting on the experience that many nations have had over a long, long period of time with respect to drugs of abuse. The only one that's new, really, that's come along in this century has been LSD.
The others have had a varied experience in different nations in different times in history. At one time in British Columbia heroin was advocated as a treatment for morphine addiction. You could buy it in all the drug stores right here in British Columbia.
Prior to that we were dealing with a form of narcotic maintenance in the opium dens that we had in British Columbia, which in many ways were similar to the opium dens which existed in Hong Kong. It is possible to operate places of this kind and to achieve, I suppose, a measure of containment through that device. But it isn't going to provide any relief to the families of people who have one of their members caught up in the drug culture.
I do sympathize and agree with the Member for Oak Bay about the shock of finding that a member of the family — where there's tremendous pride in family as well as love and a desire to support — has slipped into something which is not only completely physically debilitating but is regarded as a moral disgrace as well.
Really our objective — and I think the Member for Oak Bay will probably agree with this — is to prevent the spread and to see that families that have been spared so far are not caught up in the future by continued condonation of the use of drugs by making them more available, as certainly we would do, no matter how closely guarded a programme of heroin maintenance might be.
There are countries in the world that are experiencing less difficulty with heroin, certainly than North America, but also Britain. There are countries where heroin is virtually unknown. These are countries that are totalitarian in their approach; that take the very strictest attitude towards the use of drugs and have the additional advantage of not having people using drugs to spread it among the population.
Britain did do fairly well for many years in containing the problem. But there weren't that many people to spread it among the population. Nevertheless, it did become necessary to restrict physicians in their freedom to prescribe heroin to an addict, where at one time it was thought safe to do so.
I gave figures in the House which I am sure the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) has in his possession and probably the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) too, as well as the Minister, indicating that the containment has no longer worked in Britain and the number of drug users has in fact doubled in the past year or two there. I brought into the House on a former occasion a classical epidemiological study from a small town in Britain that had gone from a drug-free community to the highest per capita incidence of drug abuse in that country, which could be traced to three individuals using drugs in that particular British town.
I think it's also well known that Britain is now giving consideration to experimenting with the methadone form of treating drug addicts, one I know the Premier thinks is a total failure and which certainly hasn't been a success. But on the other hand, it's possible that other methods could be worse, including, I would suggest, heroin clinics.
So I hope that we would not contemplate here a unilateral experiment which might prove an attraction to drug addicts from other parts of Canada. No matter what restrictions the Member for Oak Bay might make on his particular proposal, it's not necessarily the one that others, keen to embark on such an experiment, might take up for themselves.
The point about it is that if British Columbia were to become the leader in a heroin maintenance programme for addicts and other places were to be more cautious than we were, then we would assuredly wind up with an even larger population of addicts than we now have.
With the greatest respect to the Minister, whose motives I very much admire…I think that he's doing a splendid job in his portfolio and I think his short-term solutions of establishing a drug dependency commission and involving the parents are also to be commended. But at the same time may I as a Member of this House preach caution on this experimental proposal, no matter how bold it may seem, because it's an experiment that carries with it considerable risks and it is an experiment which has not been it was tried for many years, they found that once the usage had broken out from the narrow confines where it had been maintained for many years, there was an escalating problem just like we have; they see no end in sight just like we see no end
[ Page 2156 ]
in sight.
But whether it's amphetamines as in Japan, morphine and heroin addiction as in Hong Kong, or hashish usage as in the middle East, promiscuous use of any drugs which affect the mind has proved to be universally disastrous. If there's anything that we should preach, to society and to the young people, it's, "Don't take our word for it. Examine the lessons of history. Know that other nations have faced these problems in other times."
When all is said and done human nature doesn't change that much from generation to generation. The only experience that has proved successful in any country with any drug at any time has been to preach abstinence, individually and as a society, to bring the strongest moral and legal suasions that we are able to bring to try and limit the availability and the use of these drugs. It would be the purest folly for us to enter into any other kind of arrangement with the hope that we would find some solutions that have escaped mankind up to this time.
MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.
MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'd like to say a few words about drug use. I've talked on this in this House before.
I want to say, Madam Chairman, that I am certainly no expert. I am not a doctor and I haven't experimented or had that much to do with them. I speak strictly as a layman and as a parent; a parent who, as I said before — and there are many others like me in this province, who are afraid for their own children — as a parent who is afraid for the grandchildren that I hope I shall someday have.
We have a situation which has been described as being a "cancer". It's described as being a deplorable situation; it's a growing situation. And while all the experts decide how it's going to be solved and really come up with no solutions whatsoever — every one they come up with seems to be ruled out and we have had commissions on this — we still don't seem to come up with any solution to the problem.
Yet, as the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer),has just said, there have been previous societies in history that have dealt, and dealt severely with this problem and have solved the problem.
What bothers me, Madam Chairman, is why our society today cannot seem to take a lesson from what has happened in the past. The Member for Vancouver–Point Grey also said that human nature today is no different than it was centuries and centuries ago. The only difference in human nature today seems to be that we who are in control of this situation — politicians, police forces — seem to be going soft in the head or getting to become a soft society. Because we don't really seem to want to come to grips with this problem.
It leads me to believe that somewhere we must be going through a situation like we went through with prohibition.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it could be "intellectual menopause," Mr. Member. It could be a number of things. But I sometimes wonder if the graft and the greed and the crime that goes along with this drug abuse somehow must have control of some politicians or something somewhere — and I speak as a layman. We know there's a situation…You can't pick up a paper today but what there's more ink devoted to the drug situation than there was to Bill 42. And that's a lot of ink. Yet, we still don't seem to be solving the problem.
There are new drugs coming on the market. I just happened to read an article out of the Christian Science Monitor not long ago. And here is a new drug. The Member for Vancouver–Point Grey said there weren't any new drugs coming. Here's a new one — it's called the new "Jekyll & Hyde" drug. (Laughter).
I don't think it's a laughing matter. Because I'd like to read you what this "Jekyll & Hyde" drug is all about.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MR. PHILLIPS: Now listen. This drug situation, in all sincerity, Members, is no laughing matter. It's one of the greatest problems that faces this province today. It's greater than the economic problems of this province. It's greater than anything that we have. We've got to, as legislators — as I've said in this House before, we have to face up to this problem or we will be the ones that in future years will be condemned. And I'm not going to say what's happened in the past and the growing situation. This is 1973; this is the situation today. We are the ones who have to come to grips with it. It's a tremendous responsibility, but this is the obligation that we took when we ran for politics. And we have to come face to face with this problem or we will be condemned. It will be the ruination of our society, the ruination of our nation and the ruination of our province.
[Mr. Dent in the chair.]
Now as I say, there are new drugs coming on the market. This one is "a new drug has burst onto the American drug abuse scene. Virtually unknown two years ago," — and I'm quoting this article from the Christian Science Monitor — "it now can be bought
[ Page 2157 ]
almost as easily as candy near many American college campuses, high schools and in ghettos as well."
The article goes on to say, "Two years ago no one had heard of its being used illegally. Yet today it is among the top ten drugs of abuse in the United States — among such notorious drugs of abuse as amphetamines, barbiturates, says the Department of Justice Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. It is mostly abused by the young, from teenage through to mid-twenties. The new drug is methaqualone, a sedative medically useful as an aid in sleeping, among other purposes. Drug control authorities say it is especially sinister because until now youths had thought it as a safe drug, that it gave an escape from reality like alcoholic drunkenness, but that it was not addictive. Now they have found that it is addictive."
Now there is another new drug that has come on the market, Mr. Minister.
MR. McGEER: Keep pushing it.
MR. PHILLIPS: Now, don't be ridiculous. I'm merely saying that where does this situation stop? Where does it come to an end? You said a few moments ago, Mr. Chairman, that there were no new drugs on the market.
AN HON. MEMBER: You're popularizing it.
MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not popularizing it. I'm merely saying that there are new drugs on the market.
What I'd like to know, Mr. Chairman, is how are we going to solve this growing problem?
In Japan they have taken, if you want to use the old cliche, "the bull by the horns." They send their heroin addicts to an isolated island. As a result drug abuse in Japan is relatively low today.
I'd like to quote from an article, dateline Ottawa: "Heroin 'Siberia' Urged.
"When it comes to solutions for the heroin addiction problem in Canada, everybody, doctors, politicians, law enforcement officers, scientists and self-appointed experts" — which as I said before I don't propose to be — "seems to have an answer. But nobody really has the answer.
"In British Columbia, where the problem rages almost out of control, former B.C. Liberal leader Dr. Pat McGeer reportedly suggested beefing up the RCMP drug squads and giving them the power to tap telephones of all those suspected of being involved in the drug trade. Heroin users, he added, according to reports from the provincial Legislature, should be shunted off to an isolated community free of drugs."
Mr. Chairman, the Member for Point Grey recommended that we do the same thing in British Columbia that Japan has done. What I want to know, Mr. Chairman, is why has his suggestion not been acted upon? If it is working effectively in a country as large as Japan, why can we not take a suggestion from a Member right here in British Columbia and take something that has worked?
"Others in Canada have preferred the establishment of a Canadian 'Siberia' for drug addicts. And it's all not in the realm of rhetoric. Dr. A.B. Morrison, head of the federal health protection branch, notes that Japan, among other countries, does in fact ship all of its heroin addicts to an isolated island. As a consequence, Japan has very little of a heroin problem."
Now why cannot we learn, if a country is doing this and doing it successfully, Mr. Chairman, why can we not learn to do the same thing? Maybe if we start giving a little harsher treatment to the heroin users and, maybe a little harsher treatment to the heroin pushers, and I'm not referring to the user-pushers; I'm referring to the people who bring this drug into this province. As I said before, we have a problem because of our large coastline and our proximity to the United States and to the rest of Canada. That's not in this Minister's department.
But here is a picture — and I'm not going to back down on my previous recommendations — of a man standing before the firing squad in the Philippines. "Most countries of the world employ capital punishment. Here a convicted heroin trafficker awaits death by firing squad in the Philippines." What is the drug abuse situation like in the Philippines?
The report goes on to say:
"Opinion polls made in abolitionist countries where capital punishment has been banned as well as the retentionist countries show a majority of people favouring capital punishment. The death penalty is always used when a particular problem seems to grow out of proportion and frighten public opinion."
Mr. Chairman, after I talked in this Legislature on the drug problem I had a call from a gentleman whose son was killed last summer from an overdose of drugs. I felt very sorry for this gentleman, because it was not really his fault. I suppose you could go back and say it wasn't really the fault of the son, who was an innocent young man, but who became a victim, Mr. Chairman, of the society in which he happened to be born.
I say this, Mr. Chairman: there will be more parents like this unfortunate man, and there will be more sons and daughters like the unfortunate ones, and there are cases, more and more of them all the time, Mr. Chairman, who are going to be born into this society and who are going to have no control over the situation with which they are confronted.
All I am asking, Mr. Chairman, is that we as legislators come to grips. If we have to take harsh methods, we have to take harsh methods, but we will be very sorry in the future unless we face up to our
[ Page 2158 ]
responsibilities. I would like the Minister to give me some comments on his thoughts on this problem.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.
HON. MR. LEVI: Well, it's a pity we're not saving all this for a debate on the bill, but if we must go through with it, let me say this. The Member raised a question about the Japanese technique of isolation. When I made a statement in February about what we should do in terms of the drug problem, I said that we should try a number of things: continuation of the methadone programme; isolation treatment; aversion therapy; antagonist drugs; one-to-one therapy, which is going on in Battery Foundation; the community-type thing that is going on in X-Kalay. I said that we will have to have a considerable public debate, which is now going on, about whether to enter into an experimental project in terms of heroin.
Now that's at least seven alternatives of going at the problem, which is about five more than are going on right now. But it seems that everybody has to pick up on the heroin when there are other things going on as well. We know that it's not possible to do this without the agreement of the federal government, but what we've done is to start a debate.
The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) talked about what goes on in totalitarian countries. Well, that's very nice. They don't have the problem because they won't permit it. We have the problem and it's not just going to go away. We can't dream about that kind of a world. We've got it and we've never really done anything about it.
In this whole province over the last many, many years, even since the Stevenson Report in 1954, we took no leadership in dealing with the problem. We left it up to Ottawa, which really didn't want to deal with it anyway. We've had discussions with people in Ottawa now about the drug programme. They check with us about the grants they're going to make.
It looks to me that because we have 61 per cent of all the addicts in this country here that we are going to have to take some leadership in pushing the federal government into some kind of approach to this thing.
I'm not interested in getting into a discussion on the effectiveness of the British programme, whether it is or isn't effective. It's a technique — that's all it is. It's not a panacea. There are no panaceas in this kind of thing. There are a number of other techniques that we may be able to develop.
But, you know, for the first time in this province in 20 years has there been some real focus on the possibility that we'll do something about the problem. We are going to introduce a bill about the commission. What we want to do is coordinate everything for a start. We're spending almost $3 million in this government, giving it out to 84 different agencies on alcohol and drug abuse, and we see no change in the situation — only that it is getting worse. So what we are trying to do now is take a look at it in a very rational way.
There are a number of ways we can go about it. Certainly it is the most horrifying problem that we have in the province. There's no family that isn't touched by this problem — no family in here that doesn't know about somebody who is on drugs, or who has had a drug experience or an alcohol experience. But we've always avoided doing something about it. All that we are trying to do in terms of leadership in this government is saying the buck stops here. I agree with you, Mr. Member. It's right here where the responsibility is. All of the elected people here will have an opportunity to vote on the bill that we are bringing in, which we hope will be the focal point in our approach to what we want to do, and then in talking to Ottawa.
Don't get hung up on the heroin thing — that will require a change in legislation and it will require a lot more debate, but there is no suggestion that we can't go ahead with all the other ideas.
We had a proposal from an individual who wanted us to give him Ocean Falls. He thought that would be an ideal kind of retreat community where they could operate in isolation. Well, there are other things for Ocean Falls, but there are ways of setting up these isolated communities. It can be done. And we have to try that method. We have to try a number of methods, but we can't sit still. That's our position. We are not going to sit still anymore. We are going to move on it.
So what I say is this: when the debate comes up again next time, don't spend so much time on the heroin thing. Talk about the other things that we've also talked about. They are in that report as well.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Victoria.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Just in terms of administration, is the Minister now responsible for the $25 million fund in drugs, alcohol and tobacco? That's with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly), but presumably it's going to be shifted from one Minister to another. Actually, I was unaware of it when the time your estimates were up, Madam Minister.
Can we sometime in the future, perhaps not now, get a statement indicating how this money is being spent and at the same time, perhaps even prior to that, whether it's being held in reserve or whether it is in actual fact being handed out and how decisions are made under this fund? It's a substantial chunk of money — $25 million — and apparently it has disappeared into limbo as far as Ministerial responsibility goes.
[ Page 2159 ]
HON. MR. LEVI: Well, let me just say that I'll discuss it with the Minister of Education. I think that in fairness if we can get a report ready at the time we bring the bill in it would be of interest for the House to know what's been going on since then. I will undertake to do that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Cariboo.
MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I want to change the subject a little here, Mr. Chairman. I would refer to the welfare costs of municipalities. I've brought that up every year in this House. I brought it up last year and nothing was done. The sharing formula is 50-35-15.
I realize that the Minister, Mr. Chairman, has commented that he won't do anything about it until he goes out to discuss things with the municipalities. I'm very surprised with the new allowances given that he not only won't do anything for the municipalities, but he's only making things worse by increasing these allowances, because this increases the amount of money to the municipalities and they'll already have a tax structure this year with an increase of 10 per cent. Now the increase in the welfare allowances is a further burden on the municipal taxpayer and I'm not so sure whether you're going to make more poor people by this increase to the poor. You're only going to add to the list because, believe me, people who are working for a living find their municipal taxes very high. Now with this increase in allowances it's going to increase them further.
I would suggest to the Minister that he immediately change the formula for sharing with the municipalities to 10 per cent and then go and talk to the municipalities. After that they'll lower it below 10 per cent. If the Minister is not prepared to do that, I think I will go the Minister of Finance and ask what he'll do about it if this Minister won't.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Okanagan.
MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to enter the debate today on the drug situation, but I would like to ask the Minister one question, because I missed it in the debate. Is he aware of the percentage of so-called known addicts in British Columbia who are more or less British Columbia born and bred and reared, or essentially reared, or are immigrant people from other parts of Canada, the United States, and perhaps other countries? It seems to me they are very important figures when one is debating this issue, and I would ask, if he has them, if he'd let us know.
I'd like to refer now a change of subject brought on by the Hon. Member for Cariboo — and that is in relation to the policies of this government…
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
MRS. JORDAN: …in municipal social welfare costs,
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This would be more of a subject to be considered under the Minister of Finance's estimates. However, in terms of recommendations by the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement it is relevant, and it may be discussed in that light.
MRS. JORDAN: Thank you. Well, that's the way I'll present it, Mr. Chairman, because what I'm hearing from the municipalities is that they want to know why they are caught in this short shuffle, a change of policy.
The NDP, the Minister himself and the Premier, prior to the election said that services to people were a matter that should be borne by the province and that services to property should be borne by the municipality.
Now the Minister himself is saying that it's important to keep a logical share of social services at the municipal level. I can understand this, but what they want to know and I want to know, Mr. Minister, is what caused this sudden change. The rates were reduced to 15 per cent by the previous administration and the plans were well on the way to reduce those rates to 10 per cent.
Indeed it was a positive approach through the Guaranteed Income Plan which would have removed the allowance cost totally. This would have left the local governments as partners with the provincial government. This could have worked very well in the rehabilitation field — particularly in the preventative field, in the service care for special groups and the special problem cases.
Mr. Minister, this would have left municipal social service staffs together with your provincial staff, their service partners, in a position where they could have got rid of the dispensing business of cheques and got on to this business of rehabilitation. Then they could truly have been sore at the service-orientated in their programmes.
They want to know, and we want to know how come this forward-looking design by the Social Credit administration has been cast aside so suddenly by the Government? The Minister's own words are being taken up, because before the election it was very much a statement of the policy of the NDP Government.
Yet now we see articles such as in March 28, in a local paper, "Hike in welfare aid pondered by Levi. Rehabilitation Minister Norman Levi said Tuesday the provincial Government might"…this is what they're considering — the short shuffle; first, before the election it "was", but now it's "might"… "reduce
[ Page 2160 ]
the municipal share of welfare payments, but only if certain conditions were met."
Now this is another part of the short shuffle, because the Premier of the province said in his budget address, and has consistently said through the various debates, that there would be no strings attached to municipal grants. No conditions would have to be met; yet all of a sudden the municipalities are hearing from the Minister that they will have to meet certain conditions.
He says, "the municipalities will have to satisfy the government that the savings will be spent on core social services. Levi told the annual meeting of the B.C. Yukon Division of the Canadian National Institute of the Blind."
Now, Mr. Minister, the statements before the election were to the municipalities. They are conflicting now with the statements the Minister's making, and he makes it to the National Institute for the Blind, not to the municipal people themselves. Just what's going on? What is the policy?
HON. MR. LEVI: Sit down and I'll tell you.
MRS. JORDAN: And as the Minister announced the increases yesterday, and we've spoken for our side, we're very glad that the province is financially capable of carrying this out. But the municipalities today want to know what the burden is going to be on them. Did the Minister discuss this with the municipalities?
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MRS. JORDAN: It may very well be, as the Member says, another million and a half dollars.
Did the Minister discuss it with the Institute for the Blind? Did they speak for the municipalities? Did you tell them? I go on to quote — he says,
"It is important that the municipalities realize that before we do, "
and I assume he means reduce the rates,
"we would want to have discussions with him about the kind of commitment that they are prepared to make to financing core services in their own areas.
"Following the speech, Levi said the 5 per cent figure was hypothetical and only used as an example. The government is not considering any particular percentage figures, he said."
Is the government considering any figure at all, Mr Minister?
"He added, the decision to reduce the figure hasn't been made by the Government."
It's funny; it was made before the election, but now that the Government's in a position of responsibility, it hasn't been made.
This is another example of impressions that were created before the election which have not been met by this Government — as I say, putting the municipalities in short shuffle. What this government wasn't going to do for municipalities was hardly worth mentioning, and that's exactly as I said. That is what's happened. It isn't mentioned because they haven't done anything. Two dollars per capita, no strings tied; now the strings are tied; hypothetical figures are used, but costs are being imposed upon them.
He said that the government could conceivably pick up more than one-third of the municipal 15 per cent share, if the core services merit it. Well, Mr. Minister, it's not only the municipalities that are confused by the conflicting statements and the on again, off again policies of this government; and it's not only the public that are confused; and it's not only those people that are involved in the services who may be wiped out at the swipe of a hand that are confused.
I would read you an article from the Daily Colonist, dated April 3, 1973; the same old deal.
"If Rehabilitation Minister, Norman Levi, speaks for the British Columbia Government, then it can be taken that there has been at least one complete change of policy since the NDP sought and won the voter's favour. The new deal for people which served as the party's election manifesto made much of the plight of the cities, with their chronic inability to pay for the services that people needed.
"It promised that under an NDP Government, only services to property will be paid from taxes on property. Services to people will be financed by sharing the province's resources, revenues and general revenues with municipalities and regional districts."
Well it's a funny type of sharing that we assume went on in this House yesterday, Mr. Minister, and we hope you'll clarify what the statement will be and what the cost will be to the municipalities when this programme comes into effect. But it goes on to say,
"Nothing could be more of a service to people, nor less of a service to people than social welfare."
But here is Mr. Levi, as quoted in a Vancouver paper saying, and I quote:
" 'It is essential that local governments participate in the delivery of social services. They will be obliged to pick up some of the costs.' Further, he is reported to have added, that the provincial Government had not yet decided whether it would assume any of the municipal welfare burden.
"No one could expect that the new provincial government would deliver its new deal for cities, part of the new deal for people, all at once. But no one would expect either that it would so abruptly change its mind after the election."
Now; those are the statements of the editor, Mr.
[ Page 2161 ]
Minister, not mine.
We would like clarification today before your vote goes through as to what exactly is the position of the government; and please don't say you've got it under review. This whole province is being reviewed to death. The municipalities want to know; did they get the short shuffle from this Minister and this government?
While they are reviewing, if they want to sit on a review, what are they going to do about the costs today? The previous Member has told the Minister about the increased costs the taxpayers of British Columbia are going to face and pay through the actions of this government.
Are they being asked to pick up an increased tab on welfare through the introduction of a very worthy programme, but which hasn't been discussed with them ahead of time, and what is that cost going to be?
There are one or two other questions I'd like to ask the Minister. One is about the Chilcotin Training Centre — and I have seen this facility. There were Ministers who got around the province and visited the rehabilitation offices, Mr. Minister, in spite of your statements. Some of the staff increase in that area might well be attributed to that visit.
This is a tragedy on the part of the federal government, but in itself it's a unique and vast resource with vast potential for the future. It's a large acreage of forest lands and recreational lands really — natural recreational lands with housing of a unit type, training facilities in the way of kitchen training, and other facilities.
There was, when I was there, probably a half a million to a million dollars worth of heavy-duty equipment — graders, trucks, marvelous equipment — all bought by the taxpayers and sitting there rotting. I realize that the people in the area have ideas of what this should be used for.
My own feeling was that it might well provide a unique opportunity for family orientation programmes. I'm not thinking necessarily of drug problems, but where there are deep rifts in a family of a curable nature and when there needs to be a training of many members of the family — perhaps the mother and the father as well as counseling and psychiatric aid that this area, because of its ideal surroundings for children as well as its equipment and as well as its isolation, might well prove an ideal setting for such an experimental programme.
While I am discussing the Chilcotin area, I wonder if the Minister has had time to pay attention to the growing problem in the Cariboo area. There's an immigration of people from other parts of Canada, particularly the Maritimes, who have not enjoyed the same educational standards that the people in British Columbia have had, and who do not have the same ability to adjust to a faster pace of life such as we have in British Columbia. There are real economic problems and the breeding grounds for real social problems.
These families who are moving into the Cariboo don't become involved in the communities. They tend to go to isolated areas around the Cariboo. This is easy to do. They don't socialize; they live unto themselves. It's my understanding that there may well be an area of concern as to child abuse and as to what is going to happen to these people.
This type of person might be an excellent candidate for a family rehabilitation programme at the Chilcotin training area. I would ask if the Minister is aware of this problem, which I understand is growing, and whether or not he has had an opportunity to assess what might be done in order to look after these people and also see that the problem doesn't grow.
In relation to day care centres, I would like to ask the Minister if he is receiving a response. The Minister's getting the credit and I'm glad to give it to him. But I was the person who initiated the idea that, in part, day care centres should be involved, in suitable circumstances, in industrial parks and in certain commercial areas. I would like to know if he's getting a warm response from the unions and also if he's getting a response from management in carefully selected industrial areas.
In relation to his annual report on day care services, he says on page 12 that families who qualify in needing help to pay for day care services can have their child paid for at any licensed or approved centre, but not those centres that were started under the Opportunities for Youth or LIP (Local Initiative Programme) programmes. How many centres are there under the LIP programme in British Columbia now that are ongoing? If they're ongoing, how are they being financed once they've got the initial programme and then the support?
Without going into a lot of detail about day care centres today, Mr. Minister, I must express my concern that the Minister and his department move with extreme care in the development of day care centres for children under three. There is no question that there is a need for this in certain areas. But there is much professional information to suggest that the alienation from the mother of the child under the age of three can have lasting effects.
With this caution, I would point out to the Minister that his report didn't say anything about his emphasis on home care for children. The day care programme was three-pronged. One of the prongs was an emphasis on trying to encourage care of the child in the home. The financial assistance was not adequate; nor again is the federal income tax situation adequate.
I would ask the Minister the first question and,
[ Page 2162 ]
secondly, are you going to continue that aspect of child care where we would continue to try as much as possible to keep the child in the home when there is a working single parent or a working family?
My colleague from Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter) brought up the matter of assistance to sheltered workshops. There is a compounded problem which he didn't mention. This involves the relocating of many people from such schools as Woodlands and Tranquille and decentralization of these services — taking them back at least to the region, if not the community, and having them live in boarding homes and other suitable areas.
The problem here, Mr. Minister, is that the decentralization began, proved reasonably successful and overpowered the ability of the staff in the area to cope with them. Also, the concern is what sort of a programme will these people be involved in in the communities. So far, it seems to be falling on the shoulders of the sheltered workshops or the training centres. They just don't have the financial resources to do this.
At one time there was talk that there would be a way of juggling so that the federal government would contribute to this and a possible monthly payment would be made to the sheltered workshop for the student. To my knowledge, this hasn't materialized. Certainly any efforts I made were not successful.
I wonder, Mr. Minister, how many students are now in regional or local homes or boarding homes. Of these students, how many are attending sheltered workshops and how many are just vegetating in these homes, which would be a tragedy. Many of them can perhaps do little more than be motivated to daily activities, but it would be a crime if there was no emphasis, even within the home, on keeping them active. I'm sure the Minister appreciates this.
There's one other point I'd like to mention in relation to sheltered workshops. The Minister has publicly announced that he may well review the standards of day care centres. I won't comment on this at this time. He also suggested that the Government might go into bulk-buying of equipment. Before he embarks on this programme, I would ask the Minister to examine very broadly the type of equipment that should be in day care centres. I think a lot of it tends to be far too sophisticated.
Then he should talk to the sheltered workshop people and other handicapped people about their potential ability to manufacture this type of equipment. The sheltered workshop in Vernon, for an example, has a contract to build all the wooden pop kegs for western Canada. They themselves have embarked on a business venture. They bought out a company and they're producing lawn furniture from raw trees.
As the Minister may know, the departments have been making flag posts for surveyors and for the government. If the Minister's department knew what they wanted, I think you would find that there would be no need to set up a new company. There would be every opportunity to disperse this type of a contract around to a number of the sheltered workshops in the province. Those who had never undertaken this sort of a programme might well look at the examples set by the others. I would ask his views on this.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.
HON. MR. LEVI: I'd like to reply first to the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). When we say we've got it under review, we mean it. We've been doing a number of things and made announcements about programmes.
I don't think you were in the House when I mentioned that the City of Vancouver welfare committee came over. They had proposed a 15 per cent across-the-board increase in welfare rates. I asked Alderman Rankin if, in fact, he had the agreement of council about this. He did have. That kind of increase represented about $1.25 million increase on their tax burden.
We're going to have discussions with people. I've been in communication with a number of municipalities by letter and by phone. We've taken the burden of some municipalities in terms of the administration end of the welfare. We're continuing to do this. We've done it with Kelowna and Kamloops. We've got a number of other requests to do it. We'll continue to look at this. We're making decisions all the time.
But this thing is under review. I hope that perhaps after the session we can have a meeting with the UBCM and come to a decision about it.
In respect of the Fish Lake centre which the Member referred to, as you may know, there's a proposal from the B.C. Union of Indian Chiefs for the use of this. I might add that that centre has been closed for three years since 1969. It's a terrible waste of a very good resource. They're spending…
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
HON. MR. LEVI: Yes. That is under consideration from their point of view. They're asking us to cooperate with this. We're just reviewing it.
I've heard about the family problem situation in the area referred to, with the newcomers coming into the province. Frankly, I think we have to just deal with that problem the way we deal with most problems in the community. We cannot isolate people in terms of where they come from because they need special kinds of training. But I've heard about that problem.
On the day care centres, I think all of the questions you've asked have been covered by the
[ Page 2163 ]
announcement we made with our new subsidy programme. There's a very broad range of services that are available in home day care. We're even looking at kindergartens and private kindergartens where it's necessary, where there aren't any. There's a very wide range of service there.
You asked about the handicapped people. I think you might have been out of the House, but I mentioned that we were having a conference on the whole handicap situation within the next few weeks. There are 29 activity centres for the retarded right now that have been approved through our department and have been getting financing from us.
Reviewing the standards of day care is not in my department. It's in the Minister of Health's department.
Regarding the manufacturing of toys, we've had a discussion with two or three people who are running opportunity workshops. There's one in Vancouver. I spoke to somebody here, and they're going to give us some specifications about the possibility of doing this kind of manufacturing. We will talk to sheltered workshops as well about the possibility of doing this.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
HON. MR. LEVI: Oh, yes. I think that's fair enough. But we're looking at what's most feasible.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River,
MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the recognition on this very critical vote. There are two questions and I'll be as brief as I possible can in posing these questions to the Minister this fine Wednesday afternoon.
Last night I heard the Minister say that he had never suggested that there should be rent controls proposed in the Province of British Columbia. That's not in keeping with what you've had to say in the past, Mr. Minister. Because October 30, 1972, on page 1 of the Vancouver Sun there was an article as follows: "Controls of rents boosted." And it goes on — I'll just read bits and pieces of it. It says, "The Minister told a meeting of 200 senior citizens he will legislate to control them." I assume you were talking about rents and not the senior citizens you were going to control. And you went on to say, "I will recommend that we institute rent controls."
Yet last night he suggested that he had never discussed the question of rent controls. Now I'm wondering whether the Minister says one thing and does another. There's a certain degree of inconsistency in what you're saying and what you're doing. So I'm wondering whether the Minister, once and for all, will clarify really what his intentions are.
He even went further to point out the fact that he was considering rent control. He set up a rent increase investigation board or probe, whatever you want to call it. One was a lawyer and one was a housing specialist. I don't know whether he appointed the third member to this great probe. He never did really divulge to anyone who these people were.
The reason why he didn't do it, he stated, was because he wants them left alone by the "snooping Press."
AN HON. MEMBER: Your friend already covered that this morning.
MR. CHABOT: I am wondering, further to that, whether you are willing at this time to give us a report on this very question as to the cost of this probe.
HON. MR. LEVI: No cost.
MR. CHABOT: No cost?
HON. MR. LEVI: No cost whatsoever.
MR. CHABOT: No indirect costs? Not five cents of public money?
HON. MR. BARRETT: That's what he said.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Member to place his questions and when the Minister answers them, would he please be seated.
MR. CHABOT: I'll speak to you, Mr. Chairman, if you prefer. I am wondering if the Minister would want to give us some information as to who these people were who so graciously carried out this searching probe on rent gougers? Did they find any landlords who were gouging and abusing the senior citizens of British Columbia; I think this is an important question — whether the probe was justified or unjustified. I hope that the Minister will tell us now, once and for all, that he has been told by other people in the cabinet that we're not going to institute rent controls. Because he strongly advocated them himself just a few months ago. Now he's saying, "I never said any such thing."
But you must have got the message somewhere, Mr. Minister. Somewhere the message was given to you.
HON. MR. LEVI: It was a public statement by the Premier.
MR. CHABOT: Oh, I see. He corrected you in your direction. He told you what direction to go in.
You also made other statements relative to…
[ Page 2164 ]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I'd ask the Hon. Member to please address the Chair.
MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MR. CHABOT: I never said that.
You did indicate last fall, Mr. Chairman, that you were going to subsidize strikers through welfare payments. I am wondering whether you've changed your position in that respect, because I'm sure you must realize by now that there is, in my opinion, and I am sure you must realize, a serious intrusion in the process of free collective bargaining. The only result of subsidization of strikers through welfare payments is to promote the delay of labour dispute settlements. You must know that Mr. Chairman. This could lead to a very disruptive move on your part, Mr. Minister. I hope that you will confirm once and for all, that you will not interfere into the process of collective bargaining in British Columbia through subsidization of welfare payments. I hope you'll make it clear. Those are the only two questions I have, Mr. Minister.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister.
HON. MR. LEVI: I'll reply to the second question first. We're following exactly the same procedure as the previous government in respect to people who are locked out, who are secondary strikers — meal tickets and food where the need is demonstrated, in keeping with the Canada Assistance Plan. There's a statement on the Votes and Proceedings about it. It's no different from what the previous government did. We have to take care of women and children. There's no issue about that at all. You can interpret it any way you like on that. We're doing exactly what you did. No different. You know, you did the same thing and we're doing it.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
HON. MR. LEVI: I led the people to believe we're doing exactly what you're doing, because that's the human way of approaching it.
In terms of the rent probe; there was no rent probe. I had two or three people looking at all the letters we had…following up on calls. I made a statement at the end of January in which we said that we have found no substantial complaint. In terms of that, that we had met with the apartment owners' association and we complimented them because in their own survey there was no considerable increase there. We did have some telephone conversations with two or three landlords. One did agree to roll back; the others didn't and that was it. There was nothing devious or anything about it at all.
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.
Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 1: 55 p.m.