[ Page 2145 ]

CONTENTS

Point of order

Request for ruling on discussion of matters concerning Dunhill Development Corporation. Mr. Gardom — 2145

Mr. Speaker — 2145

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2148

Mr. Speaker — 2148

Mr. Gardom — 2148

Mr. Phillips — 2150

Mr. Speaker — 2150

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Housing estimates.

On vote 111.

Mr. Phillips — 2151

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2152

Mr. Phillips — 2152

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2153

Mr. Phillips — 2153

Mr. Morrison — 2153

Mr. Gibson — 2154

Mr. Chabot — 2154

Mr. Phillips — 2154

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2154

Mr. Phillips — 2155

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2155

Mr. Gibson — 2155

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2156

Mr. Gibson — 2156

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2156

Mr. Phillips — 2157

On vote 112.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2157

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2157

Mr. Fraser — 2157

Mr. Morrison — 2157

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2157

Department of Human Resources estimates

On vote 113.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2158

Mr. Schroeder — 2160

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2161

Mr. Schroeder — 2161

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2163

Mr. Schroeder — 2165

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2165

Mr. Schroeder — 2166

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2166

Mr. Wallace — 2166

TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 1974

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a point of order concerning matters which were discussed in committee today, resulting from a finding and the direction that does not really appear to be a ruling of yourself, Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think I have made any ruling, because no matter has been presented to me upon which I can decide, in matters which go before a committee. As a matter of fact, things that occur in committee are really not, except by report to the House, the business or the property of the House itself.

MR. GARDOM: I gather, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Premier did rise last night and bring to your attention at the commencement of the evening session the question of Dunhill Development, and also the question of sub judice. With every respect, you listened to the submission of the Hon. Premier, and you considered the matter. It was discussed through about five or six pages of Hansard, with the net result that, in my view, but subject to your own determination of what you stated, you did not present a ruling per se to the Chairman, but did offer direction to the Chairman of the committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Only advice, I might point out.

MR. GARDOM: Advice, yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Speakers can be asked advice, and they can give some advice, but they cannot rule in advance on a situation until it is actually presented to them.

MR. GARDOM: I would like to ask advice tonight, Mr. Speaker, the same way that the Hon. Premier solicited your advice yesterday evening. I think it is a matter very deserving of your attention, Mr. Speaker, and a matter upon which perhaps you would like to further deliberate before the evening is out, and perhaps even return to the House with some additional advice to the Hon. Chairman.

In order, Mr. Speaker, for me to make the point at all effectively with you, I have to explain to you the attendant circumstances.

MR. SPEAKER: It seems to me that if you are talking about the Dunhill Development's law suit that has been referred to in this House several weeks ago, and if you are talking about what may have occurred in committee, the matter of bringing it down to debate would have to take place in committee, and be decided by the committee. In the event that there is any contest in regard to the rules, then it would have to be appealed to the House. The House would then decide without any debate and without any discussion, so that in effect you would be, by canvassing again this matter here, taking a new form of appeal from whatever may have happened in committee.

MR. GARDOM: Just presentation of facts, Mr. Speaker, which it unfortunately appears you were not aware of when you made your direction last night. If I could quote the words of the Hon. Premier when he rose last night, I am merely rising on a similar position. He said this to you:

Mr. Speaker, before we proceed to Committee of Supply, I would ask your ruling on a matter related to a discussion in committee. The item is Dunhill Company Limited, and its aspects of purchase by the government and properties it holds.

Apparently there is a court case related to certain statements around the shares, the assets, dates of purchase and other relevant material with which perhaps you are familiar. Before the House adjourned at 6 p.m. I indicated to the Chairman that I wished him to discuss this with you. I don't know whether he has or not. I wanted to bring it to your attention that we have had decisions in the past by previous Speakers about discussing matters which are before the courts as being sub judice, and we were prohibited from discussing them.

The Hon. Premier continues, Mr. Speaker,

I would appreciate a ruling from you rather than forcing the committee Chairman into the same position again.

Now with every respect, Mr. Speaker, I am rising in a similar vein as did the Hon. Premier, and I wish to present some facts to you which apparently were not before you yesterday evening.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out before you proceed that any Member is entitled to seek guidance from the Speaker by a private ruling, according to May. But it seems rather unfortunate that the whole time of the House should be occupied in your discussing with me some aspects of a question that may have occurred in committee. I cite for you page 374 of the Hansard of February 13, 1970. The Speaker there, Mr. Speaker Murray, said:

Let me simply point out to the member that the ruling is not mine. This is a ruling of the Assembly itself that was made yesterday, and this is a ruling that I am asking members to observe.

[ Page 2146 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: By the Government majority.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Regardless of what majority it was, the facts of life are that this Assembly — a majority of this Assembly — confirmed a ruling made by the Chair, and the House must abide by that ruling. I have no alternative, nor can I overrule this House at any time. So I must ask the honourable member to observe the rules as he knows them, and to refrain from discussing the matter of British Columbia Hydro rates.

That was the matter that had gone to a decision of the House. In the same way I was called back to the chair on the same question that you are now raising, I believe — a question of appraisals, of Dunhill Properties or something. That was my understanding. I was asked, as Speaker, to ask the House to sustain the ruling of the Chair or to defeat the ruling of the Chair, and the House made its decision. Now the Hon. Member is seeking somehow to subvert a decision of the House.

MR. GARDOM: I am not, Mr. Speaker. With every respect, I resent that inference.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry if I made an inference that is incorrect.

MR. GARDOM: That's right. I am happy to take exactly the same approach as did the Premier last evening. I think in all fairness, I am just a humble backbencher ….

MR. SPEAKER: I say in the meantime to the Hon. Member, the House has made a decision on this.

MR. GARDOM: No. With every respect, Mr. Speaker, you have only given advice to the Chairman. I would like you to reconsider your advice to the Chairman, that the House has never taken a position on it. This is the whole point.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order! I take no directions from anyone, but I will listen to anybody who has a suggestion that is sensible. But I point out to the Hon. Member that after this matter was raised in the House, and the House made a decision on the Chairman's ruling, the Speaker can't do anything else.

MR. GARDOM: How do you know the Chairman has made a ruling, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Because I was in the chair when I had to ask the House whether it sustained the decision of the Chair.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, let me start from square one if I may. The Premier made an approach to you last night. Mine is the same. The House has not made a ruling upon the evidence that has not yet been before you.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no way that the House can do so.

MR. GARDOM: Right. Well, I'm going to present this evidence to you right now, because….

MR. SPEAKER: You can't do anything without a motion. You can't speak without a motion. All you are doing is trying to seek a point of order in the wrong place, because there is nothing going on in this House at this moment that can possibly allow a point of order. Therefore it must be by a motion, and there is no motion before the House. You can't just speak because you want to, in the rules of the House.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, what I am doing now is exactly what the Premier did last night. He asked for some advice….

Interjections.

MR. GARDOM: It only takes two minutes. I don't know why everyone is so sensitive about this.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry to tell you that I can't make any binding decisions unless a point of order is before me. That is why I very carefully indicated that I was merely giving advice, so that everyone would know what the problem was. If you choose to break that advice, it is certainly not in defiance of the Chair.

Interjections.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, now this is…. There is so much chit chat from all sides of the House, Mr. Speaker, and you and I are endeavouring to….

MR. SPEAKER: We would like order, wouldn't we?

MR. GARDOM: We certainly would. You and I are endeavouring to do our very best to go ahead and see that this can be brought into proper perspective.

Mr. Speaker, last night, essentially, you left the matter as to whether or not this Dunhill appraisal, or Dunhill audit, was sub judice, or whether the Minister should table the documents, or whether the Minister was responsible to ask you questions about it — you left that essentially to be determined by the Chairman as to whether or not it was or was not sub judice.

[ Page 2147 ]

But, Mr. Speaker, at the point in time that you made that decision, you also, with every respect, volunteered your own personal opinion upon these statements. I say, with the greatest of respect, you did indicate to this House that you considered the statements to be defamatory. With every respect, Mr. Speaker, without evidence, without witnesses, without a trial, it would appear very difficult to reach a conclusion such as that by yourself….

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think I can agree with you there. I think what I pointed out is that in this House had been tabled certain documents, and it was a matter of public record that there was a lawsuit involving a libel, which was cited in this House and read out to this House in the House several weeks ago. Now, the question is so complex that I would not venture to suggest whether it was defamatory or not. It is not my right, nor is it your right to even discuss it.

MR. GARDOM: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker….

MR. SPEAKER: I did not discuss it; I pointed out that any discussion of it could injure either the plaintiffs or the defendants.

MR. GARDOM: If I may read to you….

MR. SPEAKER: You as a lawyer know that only too well.

MR. GARDOM: If I may read to you, Mr. Speaker, with all respect, tape 233-3-HT, the middle of the page, quoting apparently yourself:

I have no knowledge of the evidence that might be adduced in a defamation action, other than the allegations that were made on a radio broadcast, which, by their nature, appear to be defamatory.

That's the statement made by you, Mr. Speaker. I do hope you would reflect upon it and perhaps correct it at an appropriate time.

I would like to continue and inform you, Mr. Speaker, that we have some very, very valid rulings within May determining the question of sub judice.

MR. SPEAKER: I would point out to the Hon. Member that there's no way you can possibly, on the basis of what you're doing now, ask for a ruling from the Chair. I could give opinion until the rest of the night is concluded and it would have no binding effect on this House because there is no matter before the House. What you're doing, really, is consuming a great deal of time for an opinion that has no meaning in terms of the resolutions or business of the House.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, the two items we have been refused permission by the Chairman to discuss are the appraisals for this Dunhill Development….

MR. SPEAKER: The proper way is take an order from the Chairman and appeal his ruling. Then it comes before the House and the House can decide.

MR. GARDOM: Your advice yesterday evening to the Chair was based upon the fact that this was sub judice. I happen to have before me…. There has never been a writ of the supreme court in this House, Mr. Speaker. And as you said many, many times, the House does not have knowledge of that which happens outside of it. So it's very strange for me, Mr. Speaker, now you could possibly make a direction to the Chair that there was even an action started.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm afraid the Hon. Member was not in the House when that was read out to the House by an Hon. Member of the House.

MR. GARDOM: I heard that, Mr. Speaker; I was right here.

MR. SPEAKER: And because it was read out to the House some days ago, for you to suggest that there's no evidence before the House or that something outside the walls of this House is unknown to us is incorrect.

MR. GARDOM: With every respect, Mr. Speaker, I cannot see that there's a scintilla of evidence to back your proposition.

I would like to mention to you that I have in my hand a writ issued out of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver Registry No. 29819. The plaintiffs appear to be Werner K. Paulus, David Howard, Jorgen Dahlberg and James Wolstencroft. The defendants appear to be Garry Bannerman and Radio N.W. Ltd. It's under the seal of the Hon. John Owen Wilson; it's dated March 7, 1974. The lawyer, whoever issued the writ, should perhaps check his rules.

Apart from that, Mr. Speaker, I would read the endorsement to you. It says:

"The plaintiffs' claim is for damages for libel or alternative for slander for words published by the defendants of and concerning the plaintiffs in certain radio broadcasts over Radio Station CKNW between the 20th and 25th days of February inclusive, 1974."

The first point is this, Mr. Speaker: the words "Dunhill Development Corporation Ltd." do not appear anywhere within this writ. As far as I know, it's not a party to it. It's beyond me, Mr. Speaker, why it's not possible to ask the Hon. Minister to file these appraisals.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker….

[ Page 2148 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The simple reason I will give is found right in our Votes and Proceedings on page 3 of April 1:

"Without the committee rising, the Chairman reported that during debate on Vote 111 he had ruled that discussion of matters having a bearing on the share value…was not permissible under sub judice rule….

"That ruling was challenged."

It went to the House, and on a division there was a vote. The Chairman was sustained. How can you argue against that?

MR. GARDOM: Because, Mr. Speaker, you were put into a very compromising position by the government not furnishing you….

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. GARDOM: You were. You were put in a very compromising position. The government did not furnish you with the evidence, with every respect, whereby you could grant the advice that you did to the Chair.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Let me finish this point if I may, Mr. Premier. The government did not see fit to file a writ; there has never been a writ tabled. The government has not seen fit to table this report the Hon. Minister of Housing circulated to all of the Hon. Members on Saturday morning. And, Mr. Speaker, with all respect, how you have reached a decision as to whether or not this is a sub judice case on the evidence I fail to comprehend.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The evidence the Member seems to overlook is the fact that the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) not only made certain allegations in this House but also filed an exact document, and identified it as an exact document, a transcript from the matter that is presently in court. Therefore, the House had not only verbal knowledge but complete written knowledge of that particular transaction.

The House has complete knowledge, Mr. Speaker, and that is why there were two motions on the order paper related to that speech, both of which…would appreciate the courtesy, Mr. Speaker, of silence while I'm on a point of order. I don't expect someone to reflect all of their…behaviour, even though they have gone to private schools.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that the House does know and has complete knowledge of the total transcript related to in the writ presented by the Member.

MR. SPEAKER: On the point, the Hon. Member who is raising this point knows perfectly well there is no power in the Speaker's chair at the present time to do anything about the question. It is strictly in the hands of the Committee of the Whole House. It has appealed to the House itself on one matter. If the Hon. Member has any further points of order to raise, it's certainly not in the House when you're dealing with something in committee.

The other point is this: this fine interest in detail, relating to matters that are before a court….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Shocking.

MR. SPEAKER: … I find rather curious in the statement by the Hon. Member. He has been in this House almost as long as I have and he knows that time after time in this House, where there has been any kind of a civil action raised, the Chair has a duty to make sure that no discussion takes place around the matter that could possibly injure the parties involved in that lawsuit on either side of the case.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: To suggest that I should take part in anything that wold allow a debate contrary to the rules of the House on matters that are sub judice I find incredible.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: At the moment I don't know whose mike is on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yours is.

MR. SPEAKER: I know mine is on but there's always one other mike on on each side. Is the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) seeking a point of order?

MR. GARDOM: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do believe I have the floor at this particular point of time, thank you. I'm glad the mike is on.

MR. SPEAKER: But where are we going?

MR. GARDOM: Well, here's where we're going. There is no indication before this House that this lawsuit which I've just read to you deals with the audited statements or these appraisals. There is no evidence before the House that any matter has been set down for trial or otherwise before the civil courts,

[ Page 2149 ]

save and except the issuance of a writ, and that is all. Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote May to you at page 417….

MR. SPEAKER: I've read that. But we have several decisions in our own House that have certainly changed anything that you see on that point in May.

MR. GARDOM: Well, let me read this to you, Mr. Speaker. Talking about the sub judice ban. It applies "to matters awaiting or under adjudication in a civil court from the time that the case has been set down for trial…." This writ is only issued on March 7 and we don't know whether the action has been discontinued, settled, set aside or set down for trial.

"…or otherwise brought before the court, as for example by notice of motion for an injunction; such matters may be referred to…" — which I'm trying to do — "….before such date unless it appears to the Chair that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case."

When there is no knowledge whatsoever before this House that the questions on these appraisals are of any danger whatsoever to this case, those questions should be permitted to be asked. If you can make a ruling that the questions we're wishing to ask would be prejudicial to this case, with every respect, you have to do it upon evidence. The advice similarly that you have to give the Chair, Mr. Speaker, has to be upon evidence, and you don't have that evidence before you. I'm not saying that's not your fault; it was not presented to us last night.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. GARDOM : …is presented and most definitely, and you cannot take that stand.

MR. SPEAKER: May I read to the Hon. Member a case that was exactly the same situation on Friday, January 20, 1956? The Vancouver Sun misquoted the authority. It was Mr. Speaker Irwin who made this decision and it certainly is in accordance with previous decisions.

"There is nothing mysterious about the words 'sub judice.' A matter is sub judice when that matter is pending before a tribunal having judicial powers. The reason for the rule that matters sub judice may not be referred to in debate or upon a motion is twofold. In the first place…"

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I hope as a lawyer he is listening.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I was listening. I know what you're reading, I've got a copy of it in front of me and we don't need all these light remarks from the Hon. Premier. He's just looking forward to Japan.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

"…it might be inferred that a breach of this rule would be not only a grave discourtesy to the court but also might be considered an improper usurpation of the powers of the court, or an attempt to influence the court, an attempt of the Legislature to influence that very distinct and parallel part of government, namely the judiciary. In the second place, it might prejudice that sacred right of Her Majesty's subjects to a fair trial before the proper tribunal. This was done at a time when there was no trial or notice of trial."

I suggest to the Hon. Member that no matter what he says and what I say, the proper place to discuss this further is when it comes up, if it does, in the committee.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, you were reading from Speaker Irwin's ruling, which was at a time when there had been a writ, a statement of claim, and a statement of defence. This writ is a nullity. I'll tell you why this writ is a nullity, Mr. Speaker. It's issued by the witness of the Hon. John Owen Wilson, March 7, 1974, and a chief justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, then Chief Justice Nemetz.

MR. SPEAKER: Then all I can say is they take their remedies in court if that is so, but it is not for us to….

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you asking me to make a decision on a legal matter?

MR. GARDOM: Well, Mr. Speaker, here's what troubles me. You made this statement last night: "I have no knowledge of the evidence that might be adduced in a defamation action…."

MR. SPEAKER: Absolutely none.

MR. GARDOM: "…other than the allegations that were made on a radio broadcast, which…"

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member be seated

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't want to hear your

[ Page 2150 ]

words.

MR. SPEAKER: I know what I said.

MR. GARDOM: "…which by their nature appear to be defamatory." That's what you said.

MR. SPEAKER: I can say, just as you can, that words that appear to be defamatory may or may not be. If they are defamatory, they can still be privileged by reason of either justification or other cause. Therefore it's not for you and I to say whether words that appear to be defamatory will, in the end, be found so by a court. You're trying to say that we should make judgment on them. I'm trying to say we should not.

MR. GARDOM: That is absolutely incorrect. Mr. Speaker, that's why I'm asking you, with all respect and humility, to withdraw those words that you used.

MR. SPEAKER: I'd be glad to state over again and over again that in no sense do I wish to judge those words or decide whether they are, in fact, defamatory. That's why I said they appear to be. For you to start on that course in this House at a time when there is no business before the House is again seeking for a right that doesn't exist. We have no right at this time to do what you're trying to do, and I ask the Clerk to call the next order of business.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, may I table these documents?

MR. SPEAKER: No, there's no place for tabling them at this time. There's nothing before the House.

MR. GARDOM: May I ask leave of the House? I would ask leave of the House first of all to….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! I ask this House for order. Just on Saturday you agreed that you would obey the rules both of the Chair and of the Speaker in regard to one person being on his feet at a time. I hope you will adhere to that rule.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Throw him out!

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would, with leave of the House, like to table the document that the Minister of Housing circulated through the House on Saturday morning last, entitled "Dunhill Development Corporation Ltd. Appraisal Increments." It's two pages in length.

Leave granted.

MR. GARDOM: Secondly, in order that the House may have some evidence for which the Chairman may rely upon and the Hon. Speaker may give advice, I would like to table a writ issued out of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver, March 7, 1974, No. 29819. They are copies in each case, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

MR. PHILLIPS: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: You can't have a point of order unless there's a matter before the House.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): He can. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: I have a point of order similar to what the Premier had last night, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Do you want some advice?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I don't want advice.

MR. SPEAKER: I can give advice to the House, but I can't make binding decisions without a point of order being raised at the proper place in the proceedings.

MR. PHILLIPS: My point of order is this, Mr. Chairman. Some time ago, we asked that the government open up their entire dealings in the financial world to a royal commission.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! That has no place here. If you wish to make a motion, put it on the order paper. Then you can debate it in its proper place.

MR. PHILLIPS: What good is a motion?

MR. SPEAKER: Order! I think the Hon. Members must surely know that no proceeding can take place without a motion or a resolution or a bill before the House or a committee dealing with some matter that it is charged with. Otherwise, it's just operating in a vacuum.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
(continued)

[ Page 2151 ]

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): My goodness gracious me, Mr. Chairman. To a well-tempered House may I present vote 111, Department of Housing, housing development, $50 million, never before spent by any previous government in the history of this province.

On vote 111: housing and development, $50 million.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): The reason that it's never been necessary to spend this amount of money to provide mortgage money is because there has always been faith by the private sector and by the investment dealers in this province. Now they've lost faith, so the government has to step in and invest their own money.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would point out to the Hon. Member that the $50 million item contained in this vote I do not believe is the mortgage money. It is money which is intended for certain programmes under the Minister of Housing.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Vote against it. If you really believe what you're saying, you'll stand up and vote against it. Vote against it!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member for South Peace River has the floor. Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: It's regrettable, Mr. Chairman, that you can't control the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett). He seems to have lost his cool again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River address himself to the vote, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I find it very difficult when the Minister of Finance is over there giving instructions to this side of the House and to his own side of the House. I find it very difficult to speak to the vote before us because he's been leading the House in several directions.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to know what the future of this ill-fated company is going to be. Evidently this corporation was born of ignorance on the part of the Minister of Housing and he didn't know where he was going. The ill-fated part about it is that the Minister of Finance didn't advise him where he was going. So he's bought this ill-fated company and now he's stuck in his own glue, and the whole government is wallowing in the mire of bureaucracy. Nothing that is going to happen with this company is going to improve the lot of the individual, Mr. Chairman, who would like to buy and develop his own home. Not on any land that has been purchased by the government through Woodbridge Development, and neither, as I can see it, because I haven't had any answers from the Minister of Housing yet, as to what this company is going to do. So I would like just once more to ask a question. What will the company status be as a taxpayer? Is it going to be a Crown corporation? Will the company pay federal income tax? Will it pay provincial income tax? Will it pay provincial sales tax? And will it pay municipal taxes?

I think that's a legitimate question and we could get the vote over with if we just had some answers, you know. It's regrettable that this House has to deteriorate into the state of shouting which I've heard the Premier do several times tonight. It's regrettable. If the House and if the Minister of Finance would open up his financial dealings to the light of day, this type of debate would not have to carry on in this House, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's regrettable that you won't win the next time, my friend, but that's the way it goes. What will this new company's relationship be with the construction industry, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that we're considering vote 111 under the estimates. And while you may refer to the company, it should be in relation to this vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll restate my question. What will the new company's relationship be with the construction industry? — because it is the duty and responsibility of private construction companies as well as that of Dunhill to provide housing under vote 111. Will it be a competitor in the private sector, and in what sector?

Now, I've asked two very reasonable, two very well thought out questions that I'm concerned about as they pertain to providing housing for individuals in this great province of ours. I would like at this time, Mr. Chairman, to have the Minister of Housing, who purchased this company on behalf of the government, answer these questions so we know where this company is heading, in what direction it's heading in the future to provide the housing for which the Minister of Housing said it purchased this company, so that they could provide…because he purchased expertise.

I'd just like to know in what direction this expertise is going to be directed and how they are

[ Page 2152 ]

going to relate to the two questions I have asked with regard to private construction companies in the province. I think I'm being very reasonable, Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact, I'm being overly reasonable on this whole Dunhill deal. I have lots of time, Mr. Chairman; so have the official opposition.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Chairman, what we're looking at tonight and what we have been looking at for a number of days is something quite alien to the opposition — something new. I presume when something new emerges, a group of intransigents like the opposition naturally feel odd….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Minister….

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'm right on vote 111 — $50 million, Mr. Chairman, $50 million against zero. It's $50 million against zero; for 20 years zero. If that government had prevailed or persisted, it would have been zero today, Mr. Chairman. For the first time in their lives they've seen a government working for people, and now they have to face the people. That's why they're uncomfortable outside; that's why they make such a fuss in here.

Mr. Chairman, I have seen some of the strangest antics in the last few days that I have ever expected to see in my life. I've seen the Minister abused — a Minister of four month's standing abused. I've seen the Chairman abused like I've never seen in this House before. I've seen the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) acting like the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, I have, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Minister of Health to return to the vote.

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, there is finally tonight on vote 111….

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order….

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order. Would the Hon. Minister proceed?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we have confidence that the Minister of Housing is working for the people, and so have the Members of the opposition, and that's what scares the H out of them, Mr. Chairman. That's what scares them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'd like the interpretation of the letter H.

AN HON. MEMBER: Heck, heck!

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order. Would the Hon. Member continue?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to draw your attention to one other point. While the Minister of Housing is working to get housing for the people in British Columbia, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) is out of this House as he is every night. Yes, that Leader of the Opposition who's supposed to be worried about the people of this province — where is he?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would ask the Hon. Member to keep his remarks relevant to the vote.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry for straying off vote 111 which will provide housing for the people in B.C. And Mr. Chairman, they don't dare vote against it. Let's see them; I dare them! They don't dare.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. Member for South Peace River, would you like the Minister to respond?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'd love the Minister to respond, but I'd like first of all to just have a few seconds to respond to the Minister of Health, because….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Hon. Member for South Peace River first.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister of Health, known over there as defence Minister No. 2, stated a fact a few minutes ago, Mr. Chairman, that the government is afraid for the first time in their lives to face the people. That's what he said. They are afraid for the first time in their lives to face the people.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member address himself to the vote before us? Vote 111.

[ Page 2153 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm following the same line of reasoning as the Minister of defence, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I ruled the Hon. Minister out of order too. Would the Hon. Member return to the vote?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'd like the Minister to answer the questions, Mr. Chairman.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): The Hon. Member for South Peace River asked for a little bit of information on future directions that will be taken by Dunhill Development Corporation, asked for its status as a taxpayer. At present we are attempting to acquire the outstanding shares held by either 40, or less than 40 individuals at this point. It is our intention that this shall become a Crown corporation. As a Crown corporation its status would be such that it would not have to pay federal income tax.

Dunhill Development will play a dual role, will continue to operate in the private sector, particularly with the disposal of some of its present assets. However, we're at the same time looking toward the development, particularly, of rental housing which is badly needed. We'll be making announcements shortly. Also, we're looking at land servicing, land developing, and the company is already engaged in this.

There will be a separation though, where Dunhill is working for the Department of Housing lands. It will proceed as a contractor on a turnkey basis, so there will be a delineation and it will be run on a regular businesslike basis.

Already the company has been most useful in certain circumstances, and we will be making announcements fairly shortly concerning one fairly major rental accommodation. But a few things have to be ironed out as yet.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, where there is going to be a housing project on government-owned land which is going to be leased, will there be an opportunity for privately owned individual construction companies to have an opportunity to bid?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: These things depend on policy. But, yes, there will be…. Sometimes Dunhill will be going to tender, it depends on where the project originates. But we only see them operating in the greater Vancouver and maybe Victoria regions. Outside of those areas we will be using private developers.

Really the question is that many of the private firms cannot bid today. They are so tied up, they are committed, and I don't think there is any shortage of work at this time for the private sector. We have all kinds of other things that are out presently with the private sector. Kates, Peat, Marwick & Co. are handling properties in Burnaby, independent of Dunhill. We have other consultants and other firms looking at other properties that we have. We don't see them as the sole development arm by any means.

MR. PHILLIPS: One further point on the same subject, Mr. Chairman. Will the Minister assure me that Dunhill Developments are not going to have any advantages, financial or otherwise over the private building sector?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I can't say that there will be no advantages. They are a Crown corporation and their tax situation is an advantage. But we would look at that and take it into account in trying to figure out just how competitive they really are with the private sector.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just one further point. Originally when the government purchased Dunhill they were going to own 90 per cent of the shares and keep it as a public company. Now the Minister advises me that he is trying to buy out the remaining 40 individuals so that it will be a complete Crown corporation. Is that what I am to take from his…?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The matter of the purchase of Dunhill is not before the committee. The matter of vote 111 is before the committee.

MR. PHILLIPS: We are discussing whether it is going to be a Crown corporation or whether it is going to be a public corporation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That is a matter that would involve legislation, and is not within the purview of the committee.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): A few minutes ago the Minister was referring to the tax position of this particular corporation. I wonder if he feels that he is being a good corporate citizen to try and take that $700,000, which was a previously deferred tax credit in that company prior to their acquiring it, and listing it now as an asset in that corporation. Does he consider that this is good corporate citizenship for the government to take this type of company in competition to other companies which have to pay their taxes?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that we are trying to keep the discussion within the terms of this vote. This would not be strictly within the terms of this vote.

[ Page 2154 ]

MR. MORRISON: They didn't take the previous tax credit.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would rule out of order any discussion of the whole matter of the Crown corporation itself. The matter which may be discussed in committee is only the relationship of the corporation to the fulfilment of these programmes contained in this vote.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, why is it that you rule me out of order when I wish to talk about that particular tax credit when the Minister discussed it quite freely for a few minutes at a stretch. You didn't bother ruling him out of order.

I think it is a very important factor. I think it is a matter that we should have clearly before us, because obviously this is going to reappear in all the companies that the government purchases. This particular company is now listing a $700,000 tax credit as an asset on the books.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. First Member for Victoria that both the question and the answer were out of order. The Chair was mistaken in allowing them to continue that line of debate. However, that does not allow the Chair to continue to allow it. Therefore I must rule it out of order.

MR. MORRISON: I simply can't understand why they could talk about tax sharing for all other citizens and not bother about tax sharing when they get involved in it.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): It relates directly to the price at which the Dunhill Development Corporation can supply housing to the people of British Columbia, as to what tax status it would enjoy. Therefore it seems to me that it bears directly on vote 111 in the provision of housing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is not strictly irrelevant in that respect.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Just a very brief question to the Minister of Housing. There appears to be a great deal of concern over the procedures utilized by the government in the takeover of Dunhill Development Corporation. There appears to be a cloud of suspicion over the…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: …way it utilized….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The matter of the procedures for the takeover of the corporation is not relevant to vote 111. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to those matters which are relevant to this vote.

MR. CHABOT: I am wandering whether the Minister would agree to an independent inquiry over the takeover…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: …of Dunhill as the Attorney-General has done with Col-Cel. It needs an independent inquiry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member be seated?

MR. CHABOT: Just one moment, Mr. Chairman, you ordered me seated without justification and without cause being given. I asked a question of the Minister regarding the cloud of suspicion….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order!

MR. CHABOT: …over the vehicle which the Minister is using to develop housing in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order. Obviously, the remarks of the Hon. Member were out of order and I did not think that he had anything further to say.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I have one further question I would like to ask the Minister with regard to Dunhill. How will Dunhill Development obtain their financing? Will they obtain their money through government at preferred interest rates at cost to the taxpayers, or will they obtain their financing through other means?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Fair enough. The present arrangements are that they have banking arrangements with the Bank of Nova Scotia. I believe that financing arrangements are with Royal Trust or with Canada Trust, but I would have to check.

MR. PHILLIPS: You should know.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Member, it is, I think, either at Royal or Canada Trust.

MR. PHILLIPS: You don't even know their contingent liabilities.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: It is certainly through one of these reputable firms, and there is no change in

[ Page 2155 ]

policy at this time.

MR. PHILLIPS: One final question, Mr. Chairman. I would like to know, on the land that the Minister has purchased, what percentage of it will be developed this year for housing for the ordinary individuals of the province. How many housing units does he anticipate being built this year? How many of them will be built on land which has been purchased since he became Minister Without Portfolio?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: This matter has been canvassed before in this vote, starting with the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), and he nods his head. It is in Hansard.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, a few brief and practical questions to the Minister. The first relates to the overall estimate of $50 million in vote 111. I wonder if the Minister would give the House a general breakdown of the expenditure of that vote.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I gave that to the Member for Oak Bay this morning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This question has been asked previously.

MR. GIBSON: I don't think it was in very great detail, Mr. Chairman, with respect. For example, yesterday he suggested to me $14 million for serviced land and other aspects of lot development. That to me is just a $14 million chunk. Where is that going? Now, the Minister….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that the proper procedure, if the Hon. Member wishes more detail than should ordinarily be provided in committee, is that he should make a motion for return or ask a question in the House.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, perhaps you could give me guidance as a new Member of the House what is the right amount of money that is appropriate for inclusion in the estimates? Here we have an amount of $50 million. At other places in this particular estimates, homeowner assistance, for example, we have an administrative officer 6 at $15,876. So I ask for guidance. What is the proper cut-off point between $50 million and $15,000?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: Surely it is lower than $14 million, I would have thought.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is an item for $50 million. There has been a general breakdown given by the Minister, and if further details are required it should not really be taken up in committee but should be the subject of a motion.

MR. GIBSON: I would have thought, Mr. Chairman, that was the whole reason of the estimates exercise…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: …that the House would have the right to question the Minister on the details of his expenditures.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I have made a ruling, Hon. Member. If the Hon. Member has nothing further to say, I would ask him to move to another subject or take his seat.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I have a good deal further to say, but if your ruling is, in fact, that I cannot ask the breakdown of a $14 million item, then, obviously, I appeal your ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before we pursue the matter further, I would ask the Hon. Member to state what point of order he is appealing.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I am not appealing any particular point of order. I asked for the breakdown of an estimate amount totalling $50 million. The Minister replied, I think, that he had given a breakdown this morning to the Hon. Member for Oak Bay. I referred to an example and a breakdown which the Minister had given me last night when I had asked him about the amount of this estimate expended for provincial servicing of lots in the amount of water and sewage. It was beyond simple servicing of lots….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Just to clarify the matter that I was putting to the Hon. Member: if he is looking for a specific item of information, it would probably be appropriate to ask a question to get that information. However, if he wants to take the committee's time to go through an entire breakdown, this would seem to be not appropriate in committee, and would tend to be repetitious.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, again I'm puzzled. How many dollars of the public's money is worth this committee's time? That's something that puzzles me, as a new Member. I'm asking for guidance from the Chair on that.

For example, would it be appropriate to ask the Chair for a mention of every item above $1 million?

[ Page 2156 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is, Hon. Member, that Ministers that come into the House in committee can't be expected to provide every detail of how every dollar is going to be spent.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, if it might be of some help: last evening I gave you four sample servicing projects, broken down by item. At present there are: 104 lots in Chetwynd 1; 120 in Chetwynd 2; 120 in Fort Nelson 1; 120 in Fort Nelson 2; 250 in Kamloops 1; 50 in Port McNeill 1; 300 in Port McNeill 2; 80 in Port Edward; 40 in Squamish 1; 200 in Squamish 2; 40 in Vanderhoof; 120 in Telkwa. That's a projected group which at present is in the planning stage — 1,544.

We would anticipate that we would require other lands during the year and hopefully get some of those on the market in the same year, so as not to be holding the land for the whole year. These which I have mentioned may not go this year — that's phase 2.

I also did, in addition to the per-acre figure we gave you yesterday, the average servicing cost estimated at $7,000 per lot. But as you can see from that, probably the per-acreage cost is a better figure to go by. It's a difficult thing to predict.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. That's exactly the kind of information I was seeking.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I believe that that information has already been previously provided in this committee.

MR. GIBSON: Well, I don't know about that, Mr. Chairman. In any event I have some new questions which I know have not been canvassed in the committee.

According to the quarterly statistics for housing starts in British Columbia, in the first quarter of 1973 — and these are seasonally adjusted annual rates, I should specify, Mr. Chairman, so you won't have to concern yourself with seasonal fluctuations — there were 26,200 housing starts. In the second quarter there were 46,900, which was the peak for the year. In the third quarter there were 38,600 and in the fourth quarter — and this is what concerns me — it was back down again to 29,900.

Now, in the fourth quarter one would normally expect housing starts to be lower. But these are seasonally adjusted, so that factor should have been taken out of it.

What I'm wondering, and what I would like to ask the Minister at this point, is whether he has any figures for the first quarter of 1974, and whether he has any reason to believe that this apparent downward trend in the last half of 1973 has continued into the first quarter of 1974.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, it would be rather difficult to have quarterly figures already. We do have monthly figures in the Home Acquisitions Branch and applications are up considerably — partially due to changes in legislation and in regulations.

As I mentioned earlier, we have had some information from Delta that approvals have been up. That is one of the most significant areas in the lower mainland. But at present we don't have detailed information on that.

MR. GIBSON: Another matter I wanted to canvass with the Minister is his view of municipal impost charges, which vary a good deal from one municipality to another. For example, in Surrey I think they are in the order of $1,000 per lot, whereas in the neighbouring municipality there are no impost charges.

In connection with my remarks recently to the effect that every additional charge on new lots raises the price of new homes — not just of that particular home being purchased, but of all of the other 95 per cent of the homes which are already in existence and therefore float up with the price of the new home — does the Minister approve of these charges? And does he see any way that under his mandate — and hopefully under this vote — that he could absorb some of these impost charges which the municipalities find necessary to impose?

Perhaps I might carry on from there and ask an additional question. I'd like to quote a reference by the mayor of Surrey, Mayor Vander Zalm, who gave his opinion of the reason for the soaring price of lots in the lower mainland. I'm quoting here from The Vancouver Sun of March 4, 1974. I'll just quote a couple of paragraphs:

"Vander Zalm blamed manipulation of foreign money in lower mainland real estate speculation for the soaring inflation. 'For awhile, particularly two years ago, money was flowing into real estate here from Hong Kong sources. There has also been an overabundance of money from European countries, particularly Germany,' he said.

"Vander Zalm said he had recently toured California and found homes on sale there for $24,000 that would cost almost double here."

So I would ask a second question to the Minister at this time. What would be the importance, in his view, of foreign money coming in for the purchase of British Columbia real estate, thereby raising the prices of homes in this province — and, of course, the costs which his department must necessarily incur in carrying out its duties?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, my view of imposts

[ Page 2157 ]

is that while I can perhaps appreciate the problem that some municipalities find themselves in, I think that using this method tends to inflate not only the cost of the new housing units coming on stream, but tends to set the price for the used housing stock as well. So getting, perhaps, $1,000 on impost probably causes as much as $30,000 of inflation.

We are aware of this. The municipalities are using what is at their disposal at the present time. We are certainly mindful of the problem and would hope to come up with some solution. It's not a simple thing, and it spreads over many departments.

In the case of foreign money, certainly there is a great deal of foreign money. Sometimes when you check what you think is held by a naturalized Canadian, when you really get digging, you get to a Swiss bank or something of that nature. There is a terrific amount of it. The talk was that they were paying more for rental premises over the last couple of years than what their revenues warranted. This has probably gone toward the inflation of these stocks…and then the pressure to increase rents latterly.

I recognize these problems as being part of the problem. But I think that sufficient supply could handle the foreign money and leave them poor and holding the bag.

The matter of impost, too, needs something. We don't visualize grants coming out of the housing fund in lieu of imposts, though.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, just before we leave this last, large amount of money in the Minister's vote, I would like to take this opportunity to wish the Minister success in the coming year. This Minister, Mr. Chairman, has a fantastic obligation to all of the people in British Columbia. I want him to know that the fact that we have asked him numerous questions during his vote is because we are concerned.

I would certainly say, Mr. Chairman, that he deserves a great amount of well wishes from all of us. It's a new portfolio, as he pointed out — new in all of Canada, new in North America. He's new in the job as a cabinet Minister. I certainly hope, on behalf of all the citizens in this province, that he is able to fulfil the tremendous obligation he has, that he has the wherewithal to live up to the responsibilities he now has as a cabinet Minister.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, just one word of caution. Next year he will have been a cabinet Minister for a full year, and he will have to answer to this House for his actions, for what he does in providing housing for the people. I hope that when the estimates of the Department of Housing roll around one year hence, the Minister is able to give a good accounting of his providing housing for the people of British Columbia.

Vote 111 approved.

On vote 112: housing management commission, $1,100,000.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, could the Minister indicate the manner in which he expects to incur a $1,100,000 operating loss of the housing management commission? Has the commission presented a budget to him which discloses such a loss, and if so, could he either provide us with copies of the budget or give us some indication of why we're going to run at a loss?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: This is subsidized housing, supposedly rent-to-income housing under federal-provincial partnership. I think all of these projects are under section 40 of the National Housing Act, and this is under a federal-provincial agreement. The federal government pays 75 per cent of a share of $4,057,191, the 1973 deficit. Our share of that is $1.1 million.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): does this apply to elderly citizens' losses — elderly citizens' housing projects?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: To the senior citizens' housing under section 40, it does, but not under the Elderly Citizens' Housing Aid Act.

MR. MORRISON: On the share that we're talking about, which is the provincial share, could you give us an indication of what the federal share actually is? How much do they actually contribute?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Approximately $3 million, and us approximately $1 million. It's on a 75-25 splitting formula.

Vote 112 approved.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm recognizing you on a point of order.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon in committee, I ascribed to the Minister statements suggesting that he had said, in an earlier sitting, that housing starts would drop in 1974. I've now had an opportunity of examining what the Minister said in the advance draft transcript of last night. And he did not say those words, I therefore wish to withdraw and apologize to the Minister.

[ Page 2158 ]

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

On vote 113: Minister's office, $107,504.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'd advise we pass this one quickly so we can get on to the detail of the other votes, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.)

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): It's really a pleasure to be in such an arena of equanimity right now; I've been standing in the wings like a bridesmaid. But I just want to say a couple of things and make some announcements, then I'll sit down and let everybody else talk.

I just want to make some reference to the Mincome programme, particularly the 60 to 64 programme. When we introduced the programme of October, 1973, we said at the time that we were not able to estimate with any real accuracy the number of people who would come on this programme or what kinds of phenomena we might find. We were able to estimate some 22,000 people. At the moment we have some 16,000 people on it.

One of the problems we observed in December of last year was that there were some people coming from overseas who were getting on Mincome. Actually a figure of 208 people, as far as we can estimate. We have gone manually through all of the applications. On December 19 I ordered a stop on all approval of applications for people who had been in the country less than five years. Since that time we have done some research on what we now see as being a phenomenon of some people coming to the country, specifically at the behest of the families, and then applying for Mincome.

I'm announcing tonight that no one who has been in Canada less than five years will be eligible for the Mincome programme. This means that the 800 applications that we have will not be processed. We will contact all those people and advise them that they can take advantage of the normal social assistance programme that is available. In some of these cases, for people over 65, this will be at the rate of $200 a month because the federal government has agreed to share in what they call the geriatric allowance. That is the procedure in respect to the Mincome programme.

I also want to make one other announcement. Last May I announced that as of July 1 we would not receive any more applications for adoption of newborn children. Since that time we've observed that the number of studied adoption homes has gone down because we've been able to move into adopting children of a slightly older age group. I'm announcing now that as of July 1 this year, we will again accept application for newborn children in the province.

I would like to make some reference to the moratorium on adoptions that we placed in October as a result of the Tyrwhitt-Drake judgment at that time in discussion with the Indian people who had some objection to the large number of Indian children who were being adopted in non-Indian homes. We placed a moratorium on at that time because we were not able in any case to process the applications.

Since that time, in cooperation with the B.C. Union of Indian Chiefs, we have done a study, a survey of adoption and child welfare services to Indians of B.C. This study was done at my request and was undertaken by Mr. Gene Elmore who is a consultant to the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, by Sharron Clark who is a worker and now a consultant in the department, and Sharron Dick who was on the staff of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. Later on tonight, I'll file the report, and Members will be able to have a copy of it. We have sufficient copies for everybody in the House.

The outcome of the report has led us to set up a small task force with the status and the non-status Indians in order to work out training and arrangements of staff that Indians themselves will select, both on the reserves and in committees, whom we can train as social service workers.

We are not looking to do long courses in training. At the moment there are some 43 Indian social service workers on the reserves. We would like to bring out about 20 of them, match them with another 20 whom we're asking people on the reserves to select, put them together with some non-status staff and our own staff and have a training session. Then send the new people back to the reserves with the experienced people to get some on-the-job experience, because there is a great need for us to move this way.

These findings are not particularly new, but I will just mention to the House that based on the data we had from the report…. We did use a lot of the data both published and unpublished that was done at the university by Professor Stanbury and Mr. Fields who produced the report some seven years ago, actually for the previous government, but it was not released until we came into office. The data confirms that: 40 per cent of the children in the care of the province are of Indian descent, and Indians only make up 5 per cent of the population of this province; that the Indian rate of social welfare dependence was eight times the provincial average for non-Indians; that the rate of illegitimate birth remains very high — in 1972 some 56.5 Indian births were considered illegitimate, as compared to 9.8 of non-Indian births in the province.

We recognize that we have a very long job to do in respect to the Indians in this province. And we have started; we started well before I took on the responsibilities for Indian matters.

In November of 1972 I was in Prince Rupert with

[ Page 2159 ]

my colleague, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) and the then Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Calder) who was responsible for Indian affairs.

I said at that time that the policy of the department would be to make services available to Indians on exactly the same basis as any other citizen in this province and that we would not stand on ceremony in respect to the financing, that we would provide the programmes as they were needed and I would undertake to deal with the Indian Affairs department about what kind of sharing or charge-back that we would get.

This is the procedure that we have followed and this will be the procedure that we will continue to follow. We have been involved in a large number of meetings around the province. The field staff have done a great deal of work on the Indian reserves and we are also working very closely with the Non Status organization. My colleague, the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson), mentioned today the statement by the federal Minister of Urban Affairs (Hon. Mr. Basford) about the programme they are going to do with the Non Status. The federal Minister omitted to say that there was some kind of participation by the provincial government as well in that.

I was with the Minister of Housing last week when we met with the federal Minister and we were talking about a fairly substantial programme. At that time we agreed — at least I thought we had some kind of agreement — that we would make no announcements until we could meet the Indian people and also that we knew exactly where the programme would take place. But I guess the Minister couldn't wait, as he's released that. Now we are not any closer to understanding just where this housing programme will take place. Nevertheless, they have indicated that they will participate in the programme and that in itself is a very good thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Because of a federal election.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes. Well, I understand that some time in the very near future there will be an election and that will have to be done.

I just want to talk briefly on the general thrust of the department. I want to pay particular credit to the staff of the department because I think that in terms of the number of programmes we've loaded onto the field I don't think there's any doubt…. I would urge all of the Members, if they have time and can get used to the slightly different design of the annual report, to read it. Everyone has one in their desk if they haven't found it.

We decided to put in a great deal of information because we have been involved in a large number of programmes.

Mr. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), I think you have one inside your desk. They were issued during the supper hour.

Just to touch on some of the programmes that we've been involved with, we've done the Mincome programme and the 60 to 64 programme. The Pharmacare programme was one of the most smoothly introduced programmes that we've done and I think that's particular credit to the two men who were employed by the department, Pat Tidball and David Schreck who really have done a great deal of preparation work under the Minister of Health's health security team. That programme has gone in extremely smoothly and I am happy to say that the costs that we anticipated are a little bit lower than we thought. I am not suggesting that they will be under by the end of the year but it is going quite smoothly and it is the best programme that we've been able to introduce.

We had a number of conferences particularly involving senior citizens, because they are now making it known in a very clear way that they want a lot more service than just income maintenance. We have had some discussions with senior citizens and church groups about the kind of role that the government can play — and hopefully the churches and other groups in the community — on preview time and counselling.

There is a very great realization today that people cannot work 40 or 50 years of their lives and suddenly go into retirement where their whole life is geared down, much to their reluctance in most cases. I think that the government can give this kind of leadership where we will have to do preview time and counselling. I am not talking about two or three weeks before somebody retires but with the idea that a year before someone is due for retirement we have an obligation to allow some people time off — a day in a month — to attend seminars and get some orientation towards what is involved in retirement.

One thing I can say in terms of the people field that we are involved with is that literally hundreds and thousands of senior citizens are not actively participating in the voluntary sector. A lot more want to do this but they are not too sure how to go about it. I think it is one of the roles we can play in the preview time and counselling of not only our own civil servants, but also generally. I will admit it is taking place in a small way in industry, but as we are a very large employer we also have an obligation to do this.

I just want to say something about some of the phenomena that we have discovered under the 60 to 64 programme. People who are working, who are not well, who had no future security, have been able to retire. That in itself is a very important thing. We have had a number of letters from people who, had they not been able to retire, would have died on the job simply because they could not afford to retire in

[ Page 2160 ]

any way. Some people have taken early retirement. Some are situations in families where the parents have been living in families because they had no future security and would not take advantage of the social assistance scheme that we have — and there are many, many people like that. The 60 to 64 programme has opened up a range of possibilities for people that previously wasn't there.

I started by talking about Mincome and the restrictions that we put on. It is a restriction that does not affect that many people. We have about 280 people on the programme at the moment and they will stay — we will not take anybody off pay. Considering that we are giving Mincome and handicapped pensions to some 125,000 people, 280 or 300 is not a phenomenal problem.

I want to talk for a moment about the day-care services because this is a programme that we started to launch very early and I am happy to say that we've increased the service by 400 per cent in the past year. When we came in in September, 1972, we were servicing some 2,400 children. We are now servicing over 10,000. That's just scratching the surface. There's a great need for more work to be done and we hope in the next year to be able to get into broadening the programme.

One other programme that we want to spend quite a bit of time on and to develop is the homemaker service programme. We do have a considerable homemaker service programme and at the moment there is a review taking place so that we can go into broadening the programme. I think that the key to broadening the programme will have to be that we go from what we have at the moment, which is the means-tested scheme, into an income-tested programme.

I am happy to say that when we introduced our day-care programme last year, we introduced an income-tested programme. We discussed it with the federal people and about three weeks ago the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare (Hon. Mr. Lalonde) announced that an income-tested day-care programme was now the thing that was happening all over Canada. It's been a great boon to a great many people.

I think, after examining the number of people that are trying to work out where the levels are, that we want to go into an income-testing programme for homemakers. This can be partly the solution to the problem of the chronic-care field. I think that the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has spoken out on this thing. It's only part of it. Certainly there have to be sufficient facilities but homemaker care in the broad way can help keep people in their homes — and this is extremely important — and at the same time reduce the kinds of demands that are on us, and we realize this, so that people can, with some help…. I must pay tribute to the groups that exist in the community under LIP and some that started under OFY that we are moving to funding now, which will be doing this kind of work. We hope to be able to give this as big a focus as we have given the day-care programmes, and that is very important.

I want to talk for a moment about the services that we hope to be developing and are doing some work on now in respect to the handicapped. As you know, I have a consultant on the physically handicapped. There is now an advisory committee that met last October in Victoria, came out with a very specific number of demands that they wanted from the government — architectural barriers, the question of personal care, education, sufficient income security and the very serious question of giving them larger earnings allowance when they are working so they will have a basic pension and a greater exemption on the earnings. We are looking at that as well.

I hope to be approving it in the next two or three days. It's purely a question of the places that the committee will go to but the advisory committee on the handicapped will be travelling in the next two months around the province. I have asked them to go to some of the remoter centres, not particularly to the large centres where they have services. We also have to look at the kinds of problems handicapped people have in the remote areas or areas where services are not that well developed. That is on. They will be travelling. It is just a question of us working out where they will be going.

With the cooperation of my colleague, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), we initiated a broad programme on the battered child problem. We had a very broad advertising campaign; we had some very good responses to it. In the very near future we will be discussing the second phase of that programme. Our consultant, Dr. Segal, has now completed his paper and we are looking at the document he has submitted to us.

Dr. Segal, incidentally, is a member of the Berger commission which is studying the problems of family and children's law, and, in co-operation with my colleague, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), that thing has now been truly launched and we are into the stage where the unified family court pilot project is well under way.

I think that's all I will say at the moment and I'll wait for the responses from them.

MR. H.S. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): It is a delight to be assigned the task of being the critic for this particular Minister. He has obtained and maintained a certain level of obscurity in that the amount of paper out of his office to our office is limited. Therefore, as a result of this, to develop a criticism around the material he has presented to us is a little difficult. It is a little like shooting rabbits after

[ Page 2161 ]

dark. If you get the light right on them, you can see them, but other than that you really don't know where they are at.

Just by comparison, let me use the man who is involved with rabbits over there, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford). He sends us maybe two, three, sometimes four memos a week so that we know absolutely everything that is happening in that man's department. He tells us when there is a new park assigned; he tells us when he buys another acre of land; he tells us if there is a two-day change in the hunting season; he tells us how many ducks have been shot, what colour they were — absolutely everything. But the Minister of Human Resources, by comparison, sends approximately one communiqué a month to our offices.

As a result, this time is not going to be spent so much in criticizing what you have done; it will be flooded with a lot of questions as to what has happened as a result of the few announcements you have made and perhaps some questions as to what we can look forward to in the future.

I must commend you in that you have handled your portfolio well. There are no scandals; you have nothing to be afraid of, as far as I am concerned, in this criticism. So it is going to be a rather friendly criticism.

First of all, to even insinuate that this department is operating silently or unobservedly would be an understatement. As we look at the estimates for this next year, the department is going to be involving some 561 new people. This is in the administration, both of the Minister's office and the field services. I added up the total and there are 561 new people. That's not since the new administration has taken over; these are just the new people over last year. Of these 561, 398 of them are in the field services.

This means that we are going to be looking forward in this next year to a fantastic increase of accessibility to the department through the field services personnel — nearly 400 new people. I am not going to delve into the kinds of people who are involved; I will do that particularly under that vote. Nonetheless, to administer some $284 million, leaving $264 million of that actually to be placed in the hands of recipients, using only $20 million of it in administration, I think is a noble effort and this needs to be commended.

I was glad to hear the Minister's opening remarks, particularly the remark about application of landed immigrants and aliens for Human Resource assistance. I was taken aback when I heard of the broadcast in which the Premier announced that, to his knowledge at that time, some 54 individuals had applied for and had been processed and had been approved, as I understood it, for Mincome in British Columbia. This noise got around rather rapidly. It wasn't too long before people, even in my constituency where people have a tendency to be very conservative, were thinking in terms of having parents come in from the prairie provinces, having perhaps a mother-in-law all the way from Nova Scotia — these were two instances drawn to my attention — come here because they believed that British Columbia was going to become a welfare haven. There were no residency requirements.

The announcement meets with great approval and much enthusiasm from this Member. A five-year residency requirement may be a little severe, but at least a one-year residency in British Columbia after having been a Canadian citizen for five years likely would be a rational approach. Nonetheless, a very welcome announcement and I appreciated it very much.

HON. MR. LEVI: I wonder if I could just correct something because this is very important. The five-year period that I put on has nothing to do with people who live in Canada; this only deals with people who are coming from outside of Canada. We are not putting on a residency requirement within Canada; we would not be permitted in that sense to do it because of the sharing under the Canada Assistance Plan. If one of your constituents has a mother-in-law in Nova Scotia and she comes, then presumably she will be eligible. But we are talking specifically about people who are coming from outside the country into Canada.

MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Minister. My very next question had to do with negotiations with Ottawa: how was progress coming with those negotiations, particularly as they related to Mincome? I think it is safe to make the statement that you can't possibly solve the B.C. welfare scene apart from interlocking it with the federal scene. My question, which you answered in anticipating the question I am sure, was how were we going to apply these residency requirements. I hear you say now that there would be none as long as the person applying is a Canadian citizen, having lived in Canada for a period of not less than five years.

I have a question that involves the volunteers. I would like to know what the Minister's attitude is toward volunteers whom we have always had in the administration of welfare. In years gone by we have depended perhaps too much upon the volunteer labour in the community services aspect of Human Resources. The Minister has made several statements about centralization, and then he has made other statements about decentralization. He has made clear that he wishes to leave as much of the decision-making as possible out in the outlying areas, in giving the community services as much autonomy as possible.

Nonetheless, in his actions he has taken to himself and to his department much of the responsibility,

[ Page 2162 ]

even when it was out there. As examples, the Children's Aid Society, the Vancouver resources board, and particularly the Capital Regional Board in the Victoria area which he took to himself. He said perhaps he would give the autonomy back to the Capital Regional Board as soon as they proved they had sufficient expertise. The Minister said some time ago that he was going to use the Capital Regional District as a model and to observe rather closely because it was close at hand. If the model proved satisfactory, he was going to use the methods employed in the Capital Regional District throughout the province.

How has this been progressing? What is the Minister's opinion of the model as it has been observed now for 1½ years in the Capital Regional District? Can we assume that this model and its operations or similar operations will be utilized throughout the province?

The next question I have involves the election of the community service board, the Vancouver Community Resources Board in south Vancouver. Is the Minister happy with this route? I know we are anticipating some legislation, which we are not supposed to have any knowledge of at this time. So I want to talk about the Vancouver Community Resources Board per se. I know this was a model. Was the Minister happy with the way that the board was formed?

I know there was some disappointment in that there was some political influence in the boards. There was some political bias, particularly in the candidates who were running. I know it must have been a disappointment for the Minister to find that few — or to be more precise — none of the candidates of NDP persuasion happened to win on the ballot.

I'm wondering if the Minister is attempting to change the method by which these community resource boards will be created. Is election going to continue to be the way, and if not, then could we have an answer, perhaps today and without looking into coming legislation, as to what method may be employed?

I have another question about the creation of a department of Indian affairs. There is no other vote under which I can discuss this, so I have a question for this Minister.

I have been personally very, very much interested in the welfare of our native people. For the past several years I have been responsible for housing…I hate to call it low-cost housing although I try to make the housing as low cost as possible…housing in which people of all types of ancestry were welcome. And I had the opportunity to observe the family lifestyle of the native people who lived in. my yard.

I have to tell you that although we tried every possible way we knew how to integrate them and to make them a part of the community on our 3.5-acre site, nonetheless we were aware of some pressures that existed which caused difficulties in their lifestyles, even on our yard the pressure brought to bear things like separation, desertion, divorce, child-beating and so on and so forth.

I think I would like to suggest to the Minister that rather than anticipate a separate department for Indian affairs, I think they would far rather come to the Minister of Human Resources when they have a question regarding human resources. I think they would far rather come to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) when they have a health problem.

Rather than create what might — even though it may only be a mirage — give them the impression that there is some discrimination, I think that we should treat them as individuals like we are, and in that way try to integrate them into our lifestyle without doing injury to their culture. I would like to hear the Minister's remarks in this regard.

Also, I would like to ask a question about how the Minister is progressing in the difficult task of trying to coordinate the three responsibilities of Health, Education and Human Resources which are definitely interwoven as far as they affect an individual concerned. The Minister of Human Resources is undoubtedly going to have to assume some of the responsibilities of Education and of Health in order for him to operate properly, satisfactorily, to the wishes of the client.

Since they are interwoven as drastically as they are, I'm wondering if you are experiencing difficulty in this regard. What can we expect as far as announcements regarding those three responsibilities?

The next question has to do with the multiplicity of services to the needy. Even though we have in the Chilliwack area and in the Abbotsford area, as you know, a very, very efficient community services bureau, nonetheless there seems still to be a discombobulation or an uncoordination of services that are offered by these central community resources.

There are services like Meals-on-Wheels, home care, Big Brother, and bunny bus — all the various services. I want to know, since there is such a multiplicity of these services and since it is the aim of the Minister to coordinate these, put these all under one roof if possible, put them under one administration, if possible, what is the progress you can report to the House in this regard?

If the community services we have in Chilliwack is a model, then I fear for the ones who are still developing community resource boards in their area and have still to go through all of the growth pains we have already experienced in the 12 to 13 years that our resource board has been in existence.

There are many other questions that I have, but rather than give too many at the risk of not hearing the answer, I'll sit down now, listen eagerly to your

[ Page 2163 ]

answers, and ask you some more later, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. LEVI: I would like to just deal with the questions relating to Indians. On December 12, 1973, when the Premier and myself made an announcement with respect to the appointment of myself being responsible for Indian matters, we said a number of things at the time. I would just like to quote to you what was said:

"It has never been the intention of this government to create a department of Indian affairs, but it is necessary for one Minister to coordinate requests from native Indian groups and citizens."

— this is quoting from what the Premier said.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: I'm sorry. What?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would request the Members not to speak from their seats.

HON. MR. LEVI: Then I went on to say that native Indian groups will continue to contact individual Ministers on specific requests. And that, in fact, is what has been happening.

I get a large amount of correspondence a lot of which is copies of requests that have gone to other Ministers. I do not involve myself unless I am requested by a particular Minister to attend the meeting, and I attend a number of these meetings. But my role is really to see that they got answers, that there is some kind of action, but it does not come through my office. The only thing that comes through my office and my department are those programmes that we can provide for Indian people.

I have attended meetings with a number of Ministers dealing with particular problems that Indians have brought to these Ministers. That's really the role that I'm doing. It's a coordination role, it's a contact for them, it's occasionally, if you like, clearing away some of the apprehension that some of them had, because previously it was not easy to reach Ministers on questions relating to Indians, in the previous administration. It was always said, "That's a federal problem. Go down and see the federal people."

We have taken the position that Indians are citizens of this province and we will give them any service that anyone else in this province gets. My role is simply to facilitate that.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, Garde, you're going to make a speech later on the other thing and we'll get into that afterwards.

[Mr. Gabelmann in the chair.]

HON. MR. LEVI: That is clearly the role as we saw it, and, I think, as it is being interpreted. We do have, by agreement between the B.C. Union of Indian Chiefs and the BCANSI, a small advisory group. Each group supplies three people — myself and whoever I need — to be there at any particular time to discuss the issues. As a matter of fact, as a result of one of the first meetings we agreed to review the report that I'm tabling tonight on the whole question of Indian adoptions, and agreed we want to then move into putting in some services in a joint way. This is, in fact, what we have done.

Now, before I answer some more of the other Members' questions, I want to deal with the question of the Indian adoptions because I don't think I completed what I wanted to say.

The moratorium which was placed last October…the case has gone to appeal and I will, for the interest of the Members, file a copy of the judgment that came down from the B.C. appeal court. There is a 60-day waiting period for appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Once we are assured that this has been cleared and there is in effect no appeal, we will then announce the date when we will lift the moratorium and proceed.

I would think that the date would be sometime after June 1. That will give us enough time to make sure we are clear of the legal implications of this kind of thing. Certainly before June we will be announcing the plans that we have in respect to the training of Indian personnel to deal with the problem of the Indian adoptions.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: No, as soon as we are sure there is not going to be any appeal, we will then move to let the children go towards adoption. The difficulty is, if we go ahead and we find there is an appeal, I don't think that we could then process the cases through the court and we'd be in the same situation as we are now. So, I think it's just a matter of waiting. I think the 60 days is more than halfway through now, anyway.

The Member was asking about the multiplicity of services. Now, I agree that one of the reasons we have been discussing — and I don't want to get into the community resource board legislation — is the municipality of services and the large number of requests that go through my office for funding from every community in this province.

The basic idea of developing a community resources board where there would be an umbrella

[ Page 2164 ]

group to look at programmes in the community is why we have been talking about this for some 15 months. I think there is a great deal of excitement around the province about the possibility. What we need is legislation to firm it up.

We have started in one specific area. Campbell River now has a full budget; we are looking at two other areas. Once we get the legislation we can then move in a broader way.

There is no question that we have had to look at this kind of vehicle simply because we cannot deal with requests from communities on an individual basis without looking at the implications of that particular service, what exists, and what the need is. We can't make those decisions in Victoria; those basic decisions really have to be made in the community with the people who live there and with our staff so that we can get some kind of rational approach to this.

As I understand it, in your own riding in Chilliwack, there is a move towards setting up such a resources board. These are not easy to do; it will take some time for people to understand the process. I don't think there is any doubt that it is going to work a lot smoother and with a lot less pressure than the kind of thing we undertake now, which is to get literally hundreds and hundreds of requests for financing. And we can't operate that way.

You mentioned the voluntary sector. For the past 18 months I've been saying that there is a very clear role for the voluntary sector, a very clear role, of developing innovative service. That's the thing they can do best, because outside of the government structure it is easier to do the small projects. You can look at them, prove out, and then bring them to the attention of the government. If this is a service that's proved, the government should take it over.

The other role for the voluntary sector is that of advocacy, particularly in the area of children, and criticism in a constructive way. That is also very important.

The voluntary sector in the sense of people who were previously agencies and now are not agencies — there are two or three like that — are reconstituting with new aims and new objectives. They can have a role in things I have just talked about.

We are never going to be able to pay for all of the work volunteers do. Part of the success of the whole system of social services in the province and in this country is because we have the volunteers who are prepared to spend a great deal of time contributing. There is no question of that at all; we will never be able to pay for that kind of thing. So the role is there. As a matter of fact, the department is now considering the employment of volunteer coordinators who are people who will be full-time coordinating volunteers.

In terms of the government, we want to have volunteers working in conjunction with the services we are doing. One of the big programmes we have launched as of last October is our Special Services to Children programme which is going on in a number of communities around the province. Children are remaining in their own homes; we are putting in staff to assist, and we want to develop a voluntary input as well. That is important.

In respect to the coordination that goes on between Health, Education and our department, we have what we call the children's committee. We meet quite often; we know there is a kind of overlap. We have understanding of what's going on, particularly in respect to children and in respect to senior citizens, with my colleague, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), and, of course, with the alternate school models we have been involved in with the Education department. There is a cabinet committee made up of myself, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). That is the children's committee.

As a matter of fact, we met this morning to look at the next stages of….

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: We met at 8:30. It was too early for Alex, but we met this morning. My colleague, the Minister of Education was there. We met to discuss the next stage of the Berger commission's implementation of the unified family court. There is a great deal of co-operation going on there with Mental Health, with Probation, with the department staff. That project will become very visible in the next few weeks; there has been a great deal of work done on that.

With that kind of co-operation there is an attempt at integration within the departments. I have no desire to pursue the educational model. As the Minister of Education announced a couple of weeks ago, it's clearly under their aegis. After all, school boards provide the teachers. We are providing some of the upgrading capital, some of the child-care workers, and whatever staff we need to give them support. There is a very clear role for us, and it is clearly in the education area, but we are working with the Department of Education and the school boards.

You asked about the election on the Vancouver Community Resources Board. I was quite satisfied; the outcome did not disturb me in any way. The big question that has come out of it, as I understand, is that there are no consumers represented.

Last week when I met with the members of the Vancouver Community Resources Board over here, we had a discussion about the definition of consumer. A consumer is not just a person who is in receipt of social welfare. In the department, we give far more

[ Page 2165 ]

service to people who are not on social assistance than we do to people who are. We have a day-care programme; we have services to the handicapped; we have services to seniors; we have the income maintenance programmes. All of these people are consumers. The term consumer has to be seen in rather a broader sense than as seen by some people who raised this issue. It is much broader than that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: I have not gone into the private lives of the people on the board. It may very well be that at least one or two are in receipt of day care or some service. I am sure that is quite possible to identify.

In terms of the integration in Victoria, this has now been going on formally since July 1. We are now starting to develop the evaluation process. We are just approving that research piece that will look at what is going on.

Integration has not been easy. After all, there has been the merging of a large, private agency. We were attempting to spread the knowledge and service of that agency over the whole Capital Regional District. We removed the municipal boundaries in terms of the social assistance service and the rehabilitation services. We only opened one other office because we had the offices and we were able to identify where the population groupings were. That in itself has been reasonably successful. The integration process takes some time because staffs which work for private agencies don't readily integrate into a government system.

Three weeks ago I had the first meeting with the advisory board appointed to look at some of the problems. I was at the first meeting and they will be meeting on a regular basis. There is and there will be a continued cooperation with the regional district with respect to what their role could be in terms of this whole operation. We are in the beginning stages of doing the evaluation.

Just one other correction I would like to make to the Hon. Member: your figure on the number of staff we are getting this year was very generous. That is really not the number we are getting; we are only getting 189 staff in the coming fiscal year. If you look on page 13 and 14 of the report, you will find you were also including in that the integration of staff from the Capital Regional District. There was almost 300 of those who came in.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we proceed, Hon. Members, I would ask all the Members to be very careful in treading on the question of the community resources boards. I think both Members were probably out of order at some point in their comments.

MR. SCHROEDER: I will try not to break the rules of the House in that regard. I tried to keep my questions in relation to the board that already exists rather than a board that is being created.

I have this question to the Minister. The regulation as it now stands allows for a single individual, if he is a welfare recipient, to earn $50. That $50 is exempt from any penalty. If he earns more than $50, then whatever amount is over $50, as I understand it, will be subtracted from his allotment or his allowance. If he is a married person, that exemption is increased to $100.

I wonder whether the Minister, because he has clearly stated on previous occasions that he is concerned about the dignity of the individual, would consider increasing those exemptions to encourage improvement in employability of these individuals. Here's a single fellow. He's a recipient of social welfare. He is penalized because he is only allowed to earn $50 and anything after that is deducted from his allotment. It is no incentive for him to change the place of being a constant, continuous welfare recipient into a place where he could well care for himself.

I would like to suggest that he be allowed an exemption of perhaps $150 as a single, and perhaps $250 as a married person so that he could earn at least that amount before it is being deducted. He would then begin to get into the habit of earning rather than in the habit of being a constant recipient.

I am wondering whether the Minister is warm to that concept, or would he shoot it full of holes?

HON. MR. LEVI: No. It's a very interesting concept. We have a problem with the federal people about the sharing in that exemption. They tend to look very closely at what we consider our earning exemption. Now we have this under review. We have a number of requests, particularly from the handicapped who are getting $213. We allow a $50 earnings exemption and they have made a very forceful case that the exemption should be larger but what we have to do is to really look at the total package.

For instance, one of the things that we have been looking at, which is in relation to people who have been on welfare, are people who move off welfare into training. I will give you an example of a woman whom I met the other day who went to a training course and she is getting $72 a week from Canada Manpower. Previously when she was on welfare she was getting $309 plus $100 she could get from the opportunities programme. Under the Canada Manpower, her total income, even including the children's allowances, was something like $350 or $360. Therefore she was $50-odd off the pace in making an attempt to improve her situation.

We have looked at this and we have obviously to

[ Page 2166 ]

get into a position where if somebody goes into training we will subsidize their income up to the level they would have got on welfare. Without a doubt we will do that. We will also talk to Canada Manpower about making the training allowances much more realistic. The total question of earnings, exemptions and the kind of example I have given you is under review, because we realize that we have to move in a much broader way in terms of this.

As for the single individual, they are the largest group in terms of cost, but the turnover is very, very high. Most single people who are employable don't remain on welfare for more than about two to three months. The turnover is that significant. The unemployable people are the ones who tend to stay on longer than that.

MR. SCHROEDER: The next question, and you have already touched on it in your answer, has to do with people who are welfare recipients but who wish to take training. For example, I have a young couple who are on welfare. The lady wishes to take a hairdressing course. There is a shortage of hairdressers in my city. They live in Chilliwack. They want to better themselves. They would sooner earn their way than be on welfare.

However, when she goes to the Canada Manpower offices to qualify or to see whether she qualifies or not for this training allowance, they tell her that she cannot take the training in a school of hairdressing, which happens to be right in our city; she must take that training at a specified location and the school happens to be in Burnaby. I have nothing against Burnaby, but the lady who wants to take the training certainly does because it means that she has to uproot her family — and she has small children — move her entire family to Burnaby for the duration of the training and then come back to take her place again in society in Chilliwack.

It doesn't make good sense to me, Mr. Minister, that we should follow this kind of a procedure. Why is there a limit as to the number of schools that are certified? Why could not the school in Chilliwack be certified? We could save a whole lot of money, not disrupt the family, and I think do a greater service to the community and to the people. Maybe all it needs is a stroke of the pen from you and we could change that.

HON. MR. LEVI: It would be nice if it were that easy. I can certainly discuss with the Manpower people about it. But they use a quota system in terms of the number of places that they purchase in terms of accredited schools, I guess — that's the situation, It's not always the case that you can have these kind of situations existing in every town. Mind you, in Chilliwack I presume you have a very good case for this. It is a question of the number of places that the Canada Manpower people purchase, and where the courses are in the first instance.

You may know that their remuneration for hairdressers in training is not all that startling anyway. We can talk to the Manpower people about this but this is basically a Manpower provision. This is not a provision that we are involved with. This is something between the individual and Manpower. We may do the referral, but they are the ones who purchase the positions because they are paying the shot. We are not involved in that.

MR. G. S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I was very interested in the Minister's comments on Mincome and I would like to pursue the matter a little further. The point has been made with regard to persons "coming from overseas" — I think those were the exact words that the Minister used — that it had been decided on December 19 to suspend applications and to decide that only people who had lived in British Columbia for five years could apply.

I hope that isn't considered too conservative a move by this government. I think there is a great deal of thinking all across Canada that while governments have social responsibilities to look after citizens who are in difficulties financially or otherwise, nevertheless in the older age groups the access to this kind of assistance should have some basis both in terms of residency and previous contribution by the individual to our society.

I certainly feel that the decision the Minister made was a sound one. I think it would receive the support and approval of very many people, not only in British Columbia but all across this country. The direction in which the social conscience is moving, I think, in our modern society is that the people who work and provide income should assist those in need, but I think there is a tremendous concern, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! There seem to be too many conversations on the government side of the House. I would ask the Members to be a little quieter.

MR. WALLACE : It doesn't seem to be quite as interesting as Dunhill, Mr. Chairman. I realize that, but we are dealing with people, nevertheless, and I think it is a very important subject.

So often I seem to get into philosophy rather than nuts and bolts but I think there is an important point of philosophy involved here that with an ageing population and with a greater awareness of our social obligations to senior citizens and to the handicapped and so on, I think, Mr. Chairman, that it is very important that the producing segment of society, the people who earn money and pay the taxes, should not be overburdened by providing social benefits to people who themselves at no time have made any

[ Page 2167 ]

contribution to this society. That's why I strongly support…. In fact, I am a little surprised and the Premier is blinking a little bit and it is because I am agreeing with the NDP government that the decision regarding the five-year residency for Mincome is something with which the Conservative Party can agree.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I've got him all worried now, Mr. Chairman. When the socialists and Conservatives are in agreement, I suppose the cabinet becomes worried.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Frank Moores isn't worried.

MR. WALLACE: Maybe I should ask at this point if you have made up your mind whether there is going to be any B.C. money going to Newfoundland….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the vote before us?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Step outside and we'll discuss it.

MR. WALLACE: I think you should give equal time, Mr. Chairman. The Premier asked a question. I was simply following up on his comment.

I might say that there are a few questions which have been awaiting a decision and I have heard more general comments in the population about this question of residency. It's not that people are hard-hearted towards an elderly person requiring help in our community. It goes far beyond that to this basic thought that I think more and more citizens realize that the so-called working….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please! I would request again that the Members on the government side of the House be a little quieter, please. Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. WALLACE: Maybe at this time of night after all the furor, Mr. Chairman, we're all ready to go home and perhaps the committee should rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:50 p.m.