[ Page 2169 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Special Provincial Employment Programmes Act (Bill 101).

Hon. Mr. King.

Introduction and first reading — 2169

Oral questions

Police force order for Smith and Wesson handguns.

Mrs. Jordan — 2169

Testing of Delta Speed Warning System. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2169

Intergovernment discussions re west coast tanker route.

Mr. Wallace — 2170

Import of proposed Saskatchewan steel mill for B.C. plans.

Mr. Chabot — 2170

Status of IJC recommendations on Point Roberts and the

Gulf Islands. Mr. Curtis — 2171

Need for controls on ownership of land by aliens. Mr. Gibson — 2171

ICBC settlement with Robert Adams. Mr. Gardom — 2171

Controls on slash burning in consequence of Salmon Arm fire.

Mr. Wallace — 2172

Prospectors Assistance Act (Bill 94). Hon. Mr. Nimsick.

Introduction and first reading — 2172

Presenting petitions

Request for careful consideration of Bill 31, Mineral Royalties Act.

Mr. Gibson — 2172

Committee of Supply: Department of Human Resources estimates

On vote 113.

Mr. Schroeder — 2173

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2173

Mr. Schroeder — 2173

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2174

Mr. Gardom — 2174

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2174

Mr. Gardom — 2175

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2175

Mr. Gardom — 2176

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2176

Mr. Gardom — 2176

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2177

Mr. Wallace — 2177

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2183

Mr. Wallace — 2187

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2187

Mrs. Jordan — 2187

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2191

Mr. Gibson — 2193

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2196

Mr. Gibson — 2196

Mr. Curtis — 2196

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2197

Mr. McClelland — 2198

Mr. McGeer — 2200

Mr. Wallace — 2200

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2200

Mr. McClelland — 2200

Mr. Speaker — 2200

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 2201

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2201

Mr. Wallace — 2201

Mr. Speaker — 2201

Mr. McClelland — 2201

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2203

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today are 20 ladies from the Victoria Women's Auxiliary to the Victoria Social Credit League. I'm pleased to have them here and I wish you bid them welcome.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): I would like to introduce to the House this afternoon Mayor Bill Moore of Courtenay and Mayor Bill Moncrief of Cumberland. Accompanying them today is John Wilson, the clerk of the Village of Cumberland. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery are part of a contingent of more than 200 senior citizens from the old age pensioners' group of British Columbia. I would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today a group of students from the Delta Senior Secondary School, along with their teachers, Mr. Harfield and Mr. Leyhurst. I would hope the Members welcome them here today.

In addition to that we have some 50 senior citizens from White Rock here today that are part of the overall contingent. They are in the gallery now and I'd like the Members to welcome them.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) I would like to recognize Mr. J.C. Lundquist, the representative of the citizens' committee in Atlin petitioning the provincial government on Bill 31. He is in the gallery today.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, seated on the floor of the House behind me is my consultant on the physically handicapped, Miss Merle Smith, who is here to help me during the estimates. I'd like to have the House make her welcome.

Introduction of bills.

SPECIAL PROVINCIAL
EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMMES ACT

Hon. Mr. King presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Special Provincial Employment Programmes Act.

Bill 101 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

POLICE FORCE ORDER
FOR SMITH AND WESSON HANDGUNS

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Hon. Attorney-General. I wonder if he'd advise the House if there's any substance to the statement that there are 400 Smith and Wesson revolvers on order with the consent of the Attorney-General's department. If the answer to this is yes, was the order put out to tender? And I'll ask the second part as a supplementary.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, there is no order outstanding whatsoever for handguns of any description or of any number.

I might say, if the Hon. Member wishes me to, that we do have a course of training of sheriffs' officers who will enable policemen to be free for police duties in the courts and therefore be resuming a traditional sheriff's role. We do have 12 guns in connection with the training of classes of these people. The first class began on April 1 of this year.

Guns will be for prisoner escorts or court security in high-risk cases only. A very limited number will be required even when these officers are trained. Basically they will be civilian. And they will be brought within the provisions of the Labour Relations Act and the Public Service Act of the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall). As I say, it will be purely high risk only. But there is no such order.

MRS. JORDAN: I just want to clarify before I ask my supplementary question. There is not an outstanding order for 400 Smith and Wesson guns. The supplementary: is there also a special order for approximately 50 police-type vehicles and has this order any bearing on the large number of peace officers and supplementary sheriffs that the Minister mentioned?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I believe there is, in connection with vehicles for the sheriffs' officers who will become officers of the court, as I say, replacing policemen who are now doing that work. I think cars have been ordered with respect to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Eight to a car. (Laughter.)

TESTING OF DELTA
SPEED WARNING SYSTEM

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Highways. In his estimates he

[ Page 2170 ]

indicated that the department would not be testing the Delta Speed Warning System. I would like to ask whether the Saturday Sun article indicating that it would is a change of policy, or whether there is new information that he'd like to add at this time.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, the department will be testing both the Delta Speed Warning System — Mr. Corrigan's invention — and also another Canadian invention. Both are Canadian inventions and we'll be testing both of them with no commitment from the department to use either or both.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL DISCUSSIONS
RE WEST COAST TANKER ROUTE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, to the Premier with regard to oil tankers off the coast of British Columbia, could I ask him whether he or the government have taken part either at the federal level recently in discussions which lead to a proposal being sent to Washington or with Governor Evans regarding the feasibility study that Port Angeles might be a tanker terminal?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): No, Mr. Member. We have written the federal government and we are prepared to table the letters asking for a detailed outline of what their plans are in the eventuality of a spill. There was some attempt to communicate by way of civil servants. One preliminary meeting took place at the civil servants' level but that is all.

I can bring forward all the correspondence that we've had on this subject if I have clearance from Ottawa. I certainly have no objection to tabling my letters to Ottawa.

MR. WALLACE: Just one supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Is the Premier aware of any meetings that are planned with these particular authorities subsequent to the Washington response?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No.

IMPORT OF PROPOSED SASKATCHEWAN
STEEL MILL FOR B.C. PLANS

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): To the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. The Province of Saskatchewan today has announced a major steel plant which will generate 11,700 new jobs in that province. As there is only a certain capacity for consumption of steel in western Canada, I wonder if that will destroy the opportunity of establishing a steel mill in British Columbia. Will this also possibly cause a postponement or cancellation of the trek to Japan?

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): To answer the questions in order, the first one is no, it will not destroy the opportunity that British Columbia has for steel production. My reason for thinking that is that it's an expansion of an already existing steel production base in Saskatchewan. It's a major expansion. The market will be available to the prairie provinces and I congratulate them for it.

The second phase of your question as I read it is that we're going to Japan for purposes of economic diplomacy. (Laughter.) We will, while we're in Japan, if you took the trouble to read the itinerary, be visiting various centres of steel production, pulp and paper, mariculture and so on. With that kind of information and the discussions that we have with officials there we will see about the potential of steel production in cooperation with the Japanese and their technical people in British Columbia.

I would ask the Hon. Member and all British Columbians not to be discouraged that our neighbouring provinces are developing industrially and economically. We should congratulate them, because it won't curtail this fantastic province from its industrial growth — it's going to move on at a great pace.

MR. CHABOT: A short supplementary question.

MR. SPEAKER: After that you want a supplementary?

MR. CHABOT: Yes. The supplementary question is that in order to feed this massive mill that will be established in Saskatchewan it will be necessary to get the raw material — the iron ore — from other provinces in Canada. Will the Minister tell me whether this will create competition in regard to this province's aspirations of creating a steel mill when there is a really serious problem with getting raw materials, with Saskatchewan, who will be looking to British Columbia, Manitoba and Alberta for her raw material?

HON. MR. LAUK: The answer is no. It won't create competition.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, a supplementary with regard to the steel mill. That line of the Minister's, I think, could be compared to an end run in rugby.

I wanted to ask the Minister to what degree he has consulted local steel industry before making his plans to go to Japan with regard to the steel production plant.

HON. MR. LAUK: A great degree of consultation, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 2171 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Supplementary: has the Minister invited any local groups to put together any kind of initiative instead of going to Japan and asking the Japanese to put something together?

HON. MR. LAUK: Insofar as the local steel industry is concerned, Mr. Speaker, the local steel industry is limited to the tertiary field. They have given us a great deal of advice and the government is grateful for it. We have not been communicating with them. In terms of putting together a consortium, this is contemplating something in the future that will have to be discussed in due course.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary to the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce: has there been any discussion between he or his officials or any officials of the government with the expansion of the mill in Saskatchewan of entering into a partnership?

HON. MR. LAUK: There have been general discussions with the Ministers of Trade and Industry of the other three western provinces. On the agenda of discussion that I have been having with them is steel production.

MRS. JORDAN: A further supplementary: does this mean that the Minister is, in fact, contemplating entering into a partnership in this expansion?

HON. MR. LAUK: I wouldn't say that the government is contemplating it, but I would say that it is a possibility that we haven't excluded.

STATUS OF IJC RECOMMENDATIONS
ON POINT ROBERTS AND THE GULF ISLANDS

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, it was a good question at 2:10 — it may be out of date by now — but I would like to ask the Premier, with respect to the International Joint Commission study and recommendation with respect to Point Roberts and the Gulf Islands, which was released in 1973, if the proposal is under study by any department of the provincial government at this time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's under study by the environment and land use committee of the government.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. When may we expect the results of that study — in a matter of weeks, months…?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have no idea when the date will be, but when they're complete with their recommendations, we'll certainly notify the House.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: will this cabinet committee report be transmitted first to the International Joint Commission or to this House?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It will be transmitted first to the cabinet itself to determine what our government policy will be, and then at that point we'll determine where to go.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, shortly I'll be tabling a document from the Senate Joint Memorial on Point Roberts, which has been transmitted to me to be tabled in the House. I'll be doing that after we complete question period.

NEED FOR CONTROLS ON
OWNERSHIP OF LAND BY ALIENS

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. In view of the very alarming figures released this morning to the effect that a full 40 per cent of the money invested in commercial and multiple-family real estate in metropolitan Vancouver in 1973 came from foreign sources, would the Minister speed up the lamentably relaxed two-year approach of the government in producing legislation on foreign land ownership?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Well, Mr. Speaker, the question that I was asked, just to clarify the statement that was in the media, was: would there be legislation before 1976? The answer was yes. That does not mean that there wouldn't be legislation long before that date. I'd like to clarify that.

MR. GIBSON: Would the Minister try for this session, Mr. Speaker?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The way the session is going it might be quite easy, Mr. Member. The matter is under active consideration by two departments of government with thorough consultation with the federal government at the federal government's request.

ICBC SETTLEMENT
WITH ROBERT ADAMS

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Transport and Communications. We've noted that Mr. Robert Adams is dismissed…or being paid, I should say, for a two-year contract with ICBC for doing six

[ Page 2172 ]

months' work. Is the Minister prepared to table those contract documents in the House?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I'll take that question as notice if you don't mind, Mr. Member.

MR. GARDOM: I'd just mention, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Minister, I believe, took it as notice about two weeks ago. I'd like your guidance on a point, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: You've been reading May lately, and I'm sure you know that you can't force that. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: I'd just like your guidance on one point, Mr. Speaker. Is it not customary that if a Minister takes a question as notice, it's on the basis that the material is not readily available? Surely when it is available it's incumbent upon the Minister to either file it, or give the House reasons for not answering.

MR. SPEAKER: We'll study it.

CONTROLS ON SLASH BURNING
IN CONSEQUENCE OF SALMON ARM FIRE

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: consequent to the reports regarding the forest fire at Salmon Arm last September, has the Minister issued any new instructions regarding slash burning? Has he taken any action on the parties that were to blame? I believe it was a 50-50 sharing of the blame between the Forest Service and Federated Co-operative Limited.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there's been active review by the Forest Service with respect to slash burning regulations. That will be a factor in the coming season. With respect to the other question, some steps are being taken internally within the Forest Service, but beyond that, the matter is in the hands of outside counsel.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: within the internal arrangements of the Forest Service, could the Minister tell the House if, in fact, staff disobeyed rules? Was it simply a misjudgment on the part of his staff, or were they in fact in direct contravention of existing rules?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I don't think it would be fair to say in direct contravention. It was a mix of various parts, all of which together produced the catastrophe. But I don't think one could say that.

PROSPECTORS ASSISTANCE ACT

Hon. Mr. Nimsick presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Prospectors Assistance Act.

Bill 94 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we come to petitions there is one matter that's been transmitted to me by the Secretary of State for the State of Washington, A. Ludlow Kramer. He states:

"Dear Speaker Dowding,

"As directed herein we hereby respectfully transmit for your official consideration a copy of Senate Joint Memorial No. 131, on Point Roberts, approved by the Third Extraordinary Session of the 43rd Legislature of the State of Washington."

I hereby table the said document in accordance with the rules.

Presenting petitions.

MR. GIBSON: I ask leave of the House to present a petition on behalf of Mr. John C. Lundquist of Stewart, British Columbia. May I have leave to proceed?

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed. First you state what the petition is.

MR. GIBSON:

"The petition humbly showeth that:

"whereas more than 1,000 residents of Stewart and Tide Lake, British Columbia, all directly employed in mining or having their livelihood dependent upon the mining industry, have signed a petition addressed to the Hon. Premier of British Columbia indicating their concern about the effects Bill 31 will have on their future.

"and whereas they have stated their fear that for those of them who are prospectors or in exploration there will be no jobs, for those of them who are miners or in small businesses, stores, hotels, et cetera, depending on the mine payrolls there will be no future in British Columbia.

"humbly pray that your honourable House will move carefully with consideration of Bill 31, Mineral Royalties Act and make a thorough study to find out how this royalty bill will affect the jobs in future of the petitioners of Stewart and Tide Lake before its enactment and is duty bound, your petitioner will ever

[ Page 2173 ]

pray.

"Dated at Victoria, B.C. this third day of April 1974."

Signed by John C. Lundquist and by myself. I would ask leave at the same time, Mr. Speaker, to table a 1,000-signature petition to the government, couched in the same terms.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you send the documents to the Clerk at the table, please?

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES:
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
(continued)

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

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): I was interested in the Minister's statement last evening regarding the change of residency requirements for Mincome. He made a statement that no longer will people be able to come into the Province of British Columbia and on the day after their arrival be able to apply for Mincome. That is, as long as they were arriving in British Columbia from countries other than Canada. However, at the same time he clearly made the announcement that there were no restrictions anticipated for people coming into the Province of British Columbia from other provinces in Canada, and at the same time cited as a reason for this the fact that the programme was being shared federally and that there had to be some reciprocal agreement between the provinces on this kind of a scheme, otherwise they would have to forfeit the federal share.

At the outset of Mincome the Minister stated that Mincome was a desire of this new administration and that they would implement this plan even if the federal government did not share either equally or in any percentage-wise in the scheme.

The question I have for the Minister today is this: surely, if we have no immigration requirements — by immigration I mean inter-provincial — the net immigration to British Columbia — by net immigration I mean the residue that would stay in British Columbia when you compare the immigration and emigration figures — this net immigration will work a hardship on the taxpayer of British Columbia unless in your negotiations with Ottawa you can come up with some kind of a fair agreement whereby other provinces would not create a pressure upon our province and make it a Mincome haven. I'm wondering, in the light of previous statements, if the Minister could tell me what plans he has. What kind of a presentation or petition do you have to make to the federal government which would ensure the taxpayers of British Columbia that this will not take place?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, the general principle under the Canada Assistance Plan is that there is no residence requirement of citizens within Canada. Free movement is the basic thing. We have not made representations to the federal government against this; this is the principle that we accept. I don't see your suggesting that it would work a hardship.

I think we said when we introduced the Mincome programme at the beginning that people coming from other provinces would, in any case, bring money with them — people, for instance, over 65 who are on the Old Age Pension, the GIS. But we have not made representations because this is a basic principle of the Canada Assistance Plan, this free movement of Canadian people in Canada.

The thing I was referring to last night was the very problem of people coming in from outside of the country. It is not our intention to pursue this in terms of in some way having them vary the Canada Assistance Plan.

I think what you are suggesting, Mr. Member, is that we get some sharing for people who come from another province. Not only is there movement back and forth…to keep track of that kind of thing would be very difficult. In any case, the basic principle is that Canadians have the opportunity, regardless of age, of moving backwards and forwards, and we accept this.

MR. SCHROEDER: The reason why the question comes to mind is because immediately upon the announcement the telephone begins to ring and the people…. As you know, the old age pensioners are in the city today and they have some concern that the province be protected in this regard. Of course, not all people understand the terms of the Canada Assistance Plan.

But this entire problem was well canvassed by the opposition at the time that Mincome was first introduced, when the debate took place here on this floor. I am glad that the Minister has already seen fit to make the change as far as alien qualifications for Mincome. But surely the Minister must be aware that some 200 aliens who have not been required to establish residency in the Province of British Columbia are going to be continuing to qualify for Mincome, and rightly so because their qualification has been established and you can't cut them off midstream.

Surely, the Minister must see that this is costing British Columbia some $700,000 a year just to

[ Page 2174 ]

sustain the existing recipients. Had the Minister listened to the opposition when we first debated the issue of Mincome, we could have saved the $700,000 which is an annual expense. I would say if he had listened then he wouldn't have to pay for this hearing assistance now. I say $700,000 is likely the most expensive hearing-aid in the history of British Columbia.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I would rather that this government be criticized on the side of erring on the basis of humanity rather than inheriting the choice of the former administration with their policy of saving the government the $60 million to $80 million that Mincome is costing the people of this province.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I was in this House one night when the Speaker under Social Credit prohibited us from even debating the question of Mincome. I'm proud of the Mincome Programme. I'm proud of that Minister's accomplishment. Let it be clearly understood if they every came back to power their interest would be purely on money and that programme would be in danger.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I'd just like to say a couple of words if I may, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister with reference to the Indian community.

I was most appreciative of his remarks yesterday evening that he was of the view of the philosophy — I can't quote quote him exactly — to the effect that he certainly felt that the Indians in the Province of British Columbia have to receive exactly the same kind of treatment that is afforded to the white man. But that apparently is still not the case in the Province of B.C. We still see the reserve Indians in the province being denied the services that are available to the remainder of our community.

I would very much like to find out from the Minister if he has these figures available — he may not have them all available — as to what exactly the provincial contribution is to reserve Indians. I'm not talking about the federal contribution.

I do have some figures that I've just recently received from the federal side which would indicate that some $19 million was spent on community affairs last year, some $20 million on education, some $2 million on administration and some $2 million on economic development — for gross federal expenditure of $46 million for the year-end projected to January 31, 1974.

In my involvement in Indian affairs over the past 12 years or so it has always been my understanding that the bulk of the funding for reserve Indians, whatever the need or service may be, seems to have emanated from Ottawa; and the provincial government has done precious little, if anything.

I commend this government for bringing in the measure that was long advocated from this desk: that is, making the home acquisition grant available. It was a serious injustice that it was not earlier made available to the Indian community.

But I think, as British Columbians, Mr. Chairman, we've all got to appreciate one fact very loudly and clearly: that the Indian is a taxpayer in the province, and he's not only morally but legally entitled to every law and every service that every other citizen of British Columbia has been entitled to. What we've got to do is ensure, without qualification and without exception, that those services are all made available to reserve Indians in the Province of B.C.

I'd like to hear from the Minister what programmes he has encountered over the past year, what ones he envisages for the early future, what spending has been entered into by this government for the past period and also what expenditures are contemplated in the early future.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, in terms of the $46 million which the federal government put into this province — and given the kind of administration that the Department of Indian Affairs has and the kind of neo-colonial approach that they have — that really represents some $1,500 per head of the Indians in this province who are living on reserves.

I can assure you that if you take the average family which consists of six or seven people…. To put $8,000 or $9,000 directly into Indian families would be a lot more beneficial than the existing and previous practices of that department.

With respect to what we do as the government, we are involved and deliver service certainly in the child-protection areas, in the social-assistance areas, in day care, in homemaker — in fact, all of the range of services that exist in my department. And recently we are involved in the Housing department's negotiations — the kinds of negotiations that other departments are going into.

I can't give you an exact dollar figure. I hope to be able to do that at the next estimates. But let me give you an example; we recently, some five months ago, negotiated with the Clayoquot band on the west coast for a day-care centre, for a receiving home and for a homemaker programme for that band. We have been negotiating with several bands around the province for homemaker service, for providing the money for social service workers who are Indian; they are not necessarily workers in our department. We are providing the money for this.

We are being approached by some reserves for us, on an interim basis, to administer the welfare programmes that were previously administered by the Department of Indian Affairs, so that we can train the native people themselves in doing this administration, and then handing it back. I met last

[ Page 2175 ]

week with the chief of the Necoslie band on this particular issue.

Since I have been the Minister, coordinating the function with Indians, I have met with, in the last two months, 15 or 20 different bands or band councils regarding this kind of situation.

Of course, one of the most significant inputs of money that we're involved in is the Pacific North Coast Cannery which was announced last week and is going on stream. That's no small contribution on the part of this government.

During the last fiscal year we were involved with the BCANSI on the winter warmth programme, where there was a contribution of $160,000 by the provincial government to further this programme. We are involved in the programme that was announced by the federal Minister in respect to the BCANSI housing in the north. We are involved on the 75-25 basis there.

So we have moved a great deal, certainly, from where the previous government was. What we are attempting to do is to deal specifically with the band councils and the bands on their needs. One of the things that is going on in the Vancouver area at the present time is that 20 Indian people are being trained in the day care area. We are bringing people down from the northern part of Vancouver Island where we will be putting in another receiving home and day care centre.

Mr. Member, I can't give you a figure, but certainly the number of projects is quite lengthy. I am prepared within a matter of a week, if the Member so desires, to table a list of the programmes that we are doing, and we will attach money to them for your interest, certainly.

MR. GARDOM: Thanks very much, Mr. Minister. That is very kind of you because unless I'm incorrect, say — the field of education — not withstanding that the provincial government does contribute time and effort, the actual dollars do emanate from Ottawa totally, don't they? The Minister indicates yes. I gather the same applies with social assistance; all the dollars are federal dollars.

I congratulate the government on doing this because there's no question of a doubt that your performance, with all respect to the former administration, is markedly improved. But it seems that still at the present time, insofar as reserve Indians are concerned, you are dictating your attitudes really towards specific and isolated projects.

I'm not saying that that's bad, but that appears to be the direction your government is taking with reserve Indians in the Province of British Columbia. I gather with the non-status Indians it's sort of taking a non-position — and correct me if I'm wrong in that statement. But it doesn't seem that the provincial government is too prepared to come to grips with the non-status Indian situation save and except the fact that they as British Columbian citizens…. Perhaps you should look at them in that light, and they would receive the same degree of programmes and enrichment that is available to anyone else.

But before sitting down I'd just like to mention one other small item. It's an item small in nature but very great in need. This was one that was brought up by one of our former colleagues, Mr. Barrie Clark, when he was a member of the party. It's since been advocated by myself in bill form on, I believe, two occasions. It is to see, Mr. Minister, that in all of our public buildings access is made readily available for handicapped persons.

I've introduced a bill along this point on two occasions, and Mr. Clark prior to myself on several occasions before that. I think it's an extremely worthwhile measure that when we have a building designated as a public building — a building to which the public has access — we have got to ensure that that building is suitable for use by handicapped persons.

Buildings and structures today in the province of British Columbia are not so suitable or fitted for such use. I think, really and truly, it's a deplorable situation. It wouldn't amount to a tremendous expenditure of money; and even if it did, it would certainly find its way back into the millstream. But we have got to provide compassionate, proper and intelligent assistance for these people who should receive the same kind of access to every public structure that every able-bodied citizen has.

HON. MR. LEVI: The Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) attended the conference of the handicapped last fall and stated then that all future public buildings would conform to the requirements that are covered in many of the briefs relating to architectural barriers. The committee, which was formed after that conference, have submitted to me recommendations regarding our protectual barriers and regarding the ferries. All of these have been forwarded to the various Ministers, who have acknowledged the fact that these considerations will be part of the design of all future public buildings and of the ferries. Certainly on the new ferries we are looking to some quite remarkable changes which do not exist in the older ferries.

All of the recommendations from that group have been forwarded to the various Ministers. I think it's a very active and ongoing committee. Merle Smith, who is sitting behind me, is the secretary of that committee, and is also the consultant on the physically handicapped. Their problems are very much before us all the time.

I just want to make a comment about the Member's remarks about the non-status. The non-status people have access to all of the services that

[ Page 2176 ]

are available to anybody else, but particularly we have gone to some of the special problems that they've delineated. For instance, last fall we moved very quickly on the Good Hope Lake situation when we moved in trailers. Since that time we've moved in some trailers into the Fort Nelson area to meet some of the problems there.

MR. GARDOM: How has that worked out?

HON. MR. LEVI: It's worked out very well. I hope to have a final report that I can table, because I've been questioned about it from Mr. and Mrs. Supinall who were hired by BCANSI. We've just financed it, so they're working right on the site at Good Hope Lake. Some of the children have come back from the residential school and are living in the Good Hope Lake area. Now discussions are going on about more permanent housing in that particular area. There are discussions going on about the activation of two sawmills in the area and, of course, employment in the Department of Highways depot that exists there as well.

Recently I approved a grant to the Paddy Lake band, one of the bands in the north which is quite remote. They seem to have to go through Alberta to get back into British Columbia when they want to have contact with us. We have just approved a grant of $28,000 to the Frontier College people who are going to send in two workers. This was done at the request of BCANSI, and this grant has now been approved.

We are looking at a training grant which will involve BCANSI, the status Indians and our own staff in preparing people to work in the communities. So I think, Mr. Member, we are dealing, in terms of volume of service, as much for the non-status as we are with the status.

One other thing about the status is that we've decided it is better for us to deal with the bands and the councils rather than come to grips with that rather monolithic bureaucracy of the Department of Indian Affairs. I have said that we will provide the services needed, and our department — myself and the officials — will deal with the federal people about the charge-back of money. That's important to note. We do not haggle about the money first. We only make decisions about the service. I will undertake to do the haggling about the money.

MR. GARDOM: Well, just for direction for the Indian community, I'm delighted that this government has not seen fit to establish a department of Indian affairs or anything along that line, which would be a very retrogressive step. But there still has to be someone whom the Indian community can approach to spearhead a programme, or would essentially be the ombudsman to see these various requests to specific departments are attended to. Are you that man? Are you the person sort of at the top of the line that they can come to when they find they're not getting any response, say, from Highways?

There's absolutely no provincial road building in reserves, as you know — none. And there should be. There is in Manitoba and there is in Saskatchewan. So if they can't get anywhere with the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea), should they come to you, Mr. Minister? Are you the person, shall we say, where the buck stops? Will it be your responsibility to trigger response through other departments?

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Member, I said last night that my function was to be a coordinator. We said in the statement we issued in December that Indian groups must approach the Ministers they want to deal with directly. All I've asked them to do is to let me have a copy and I will undertake to see that there is some action in terms of a response and a meeting.

I've been involved in a number of meetings in the past few weeks with different Ministers and Indian groups relating to projects and concerns that everybody has. The last meeting I had, as a matter of fact, dealt with a road that was on a reserve, with the Minister of Highways.

MR. GARDOM: Did you have any luck?

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, the road is there; what we were discussing was the price of the gravel, I think, at that time. The road is there; there is no problem about that.

But my role is really to coordinate, to make sure that requests are, first of all, answered and arrangements are made for them to meet with Ministers. And this process is working out. I do have, as I said last night, a small advisory committee from BCANSI and the B.C. union, and we meet about once a month to look at broad policy problems — not individual issues, broad policy problems. The one we dealt with effectively, I think, was the question of the Indian adoption situation, and the plans have been announced that we're going to follow through on the lifting of that moratorium.

So people do not have to come through me to reach Ministers. I want people to write directly to those Ministers, but make sure that I know about it so I can follow it up.

MR. GARDOM: Well, that's a good mechanism, and since you're talking about broad policy and that you will be the coordinator, I indeed hope, Mr. Minister, that you will see clear to establish a firm, final and conclusive government policy in the Province of British Columbia that reserve Indians are entitled to exactly the same services as the rest of the

[ Page 2177 ]

people in B.C., which includes inter alia road building and bridges on reserves. This has been totally denied by not only the former government, but by the present government.

Just one final word, Mr. Chairman, apropos of the Minister's remarks concerning access to public buildings for handicapped people. I'm delighted to hear what he informed the House concerning new structures. However, as we well know, there are far more existing public structures than there will be new ones over the next, say, 10 to 20 years. So are there any programmes now for the establishment of adequate access for handicapped people into existing public buildings? Once again, are you going to be the coordinator of this programme?

I think the Minister is just looking for an answer.

HON. MR. LEVI: As I've said earlier, we've submitted a number of recommendations. I have discussed it with the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley). We have had some discussions, particularly about this building where there is great difficulty in terms of access. These discussions are going on about how access can be made easier. I cannot announce at this time what exactly is going to happen, but we are having discussions. I will be coordinating this in terms of the handicapped because the committee is in contact with me directly.

MR. GARDOM: You have two coordination portfolios now then.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Last night we started talking about Mincome. This is a budget for $284 million, which really touches everyone, whether or not they're in receipt of a service by the government. I think it's only reasonable that there should be a little discussion of philosophy behind the Human Resources Department — and the Premier agrees — simply because there is a prevalent fear in our society of a so-called welfare state.

I'm not saying at this point to what degree that fear is justified, but there certainly is a great deal of discussion in society today about the welfare state. There's some fear about the broadening of welfare programmes which transfer tax responsibility and tax burdens to people in the employed sector of society.

One of the interesting things, Mr. Chairman, is that — I could find figures up to 1970 — in 1970 there was only 15 per cent of the assessed taxpaying public who were earning more than $15,000 a year. This really means that the tax burden falls to the extent of 85 per cent on people earning less than $15,000 a year. In other words, the low- and middle-income groups in society are becoming very concerned about the trend — I don't think it has reached a point where there is a substantial burden — towards a greater degree of tax-raising function being put upon the shoulders of the lower- and middle-income groups.

In this House we polarize ourselves into socialists and non-socialists. I think, very briefly, it's worthwhile mentioning that there isn't a tremendous difference when we get down to trying to meet the needs of people in our society. A socialist tends to talk a great deal about equality, and the right-winger gives all his attention to competition and the survival of the fittest — and that there should be unlimited material reward for the entrepreneur. I notice the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) picking up his ears because he's probably trying to decide where I fit into these two definitions. I like to think I'm in the middle.

An HON. MEMBER: You're a Liberal then.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We know you're confused.

MR. WALLACE: And the Premier interjects. But I really believe that modern society requires a political credo which recognizes that, unfortunately, all people are not equal. Some people are born with handicaps. They're born with or without certain endowments, certain intellect, certain capacity to mature and develop their physical and mental talent. On the other hand, the person who really has a great deal to offer and who is endowed with talent, I think, is entitled to a very fair reward for his labours and any contribution that he makes to society.

So I think this is the challenge when we're trying to provide tax revenue to finance social services: that the person who makes the effort and utilizes his talent in the interest of society is entitled to a fair and just reward.

But at the same time, what he contributes and the tax revenue derived from his efforts should certainly create the necessary funds to assist those who are born into poor health, poverty or to limitations on their being over which they have no control. We all talk about social justice. I think social justice is to give the disadvantaged person a fair share of our provincial wealth.

At the same time, I know there is a lot of concern in society that the person with talent and energy and good health who works very hard and earns money is reaching the point where he wonders if the tax burden makes it all worthwhile for him to put this amount of effort into society. The able and energetic individual should certainly be rewarded for his labours and should receive very adequate financial rewards so that he can provide the taxation revenue which will finance the social services.

This is a pretty basic philosophy. One of the reasons the Premier accuses me of being confused is that, on both sides of the House, I think we recognize the social need which exists but we have some differing opinions as to how the tax money should be

[ Page 2178 ]

raised to pay for them. And that's a legitimate difference of opinion.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, again, you can't kill the goose that lays the golden egg. We have to not only debate under this Minister's estimates the obvious need that exists, but, at the risk of trespassing on anticipated legislation, it would be wrong if we ignored the fact that the money has to come from somewhere. There has to be some debate and discussion as to the degree to which taxation should be raised from certain sectors of the community — the wage earner or from our resources. That is again where we differ. On this side of the House we wonder if there is a danger of depressing resource development simply by over-taxation. We can't just look at the social programme and the needs without looking at the whole responsibility of raising revenue. Society is a little concerned with increased welfare-state programmes.

It is interesting to mention the programme in Manitoba, which I am sure the Minister is well aware of, which is trying to prove another point one way or the other and gets a lot of public debate: if you give somebody a guaranteed income, does this have the effect of encouraging individuals to sit on their behinds and not contribute or even look for productive work simply because of the guaranteed income to be derived from state funds?

This programme in Manitoba, as I just mention briefly, is just getting under way this summer. It is going to involve 2,500 families who have been very carefully interviewed to determine their income needs and their general social situation. This programme is designed to give them a guaranteed income for a period of three years. The first families are to be enrolled on a pilot basis in January and it will get underway in June. The interesting thing is that the federal government is paying 75 per cent of the total cost of this programme, which will cost $17.3 million.

It is a little unfortunate but Marc Lalonde, the federal Minister of Health, seems to have prejudged the issue already. He is on record as saying that this will show the answer lies not in a guaranteed income to solve our social problems but to create jobs. Nobody denies that expanding population needs more jobs, but when we are talking about people in social need, as the Minister well knows, the Senate report on poverty showed that a very large percentage of the people, for the reasons I touched on earlier — ill health, handicaps, lack of ability and intellect, and many other social and inherited factors — cannot avoid being dependent upon whatever social programmes the government provides.

The main point in the programme in Manitoba is to find out how these families respond to knowing that there is a guaranteed income available. The report points out that this kind of programme will also provide some important research information in regard to rents, consumer reaction and general community economics. The whole of the 2,500 families is divided into four groups: a single father or mother and children in one group — single-headed families — and others where both mother and father are wage-earners. The group comprises the so-called "working poor," which is probably not a very good term to use, since their wages are generally below the national average. It is somewhat similar to what this government has done in this province by allowing welfare recipients to earn a certain amount of income above the basic welfare allowance.

The positive point of the programme is that many people will be working for wages supplemented by this programme so that there is a certain level below which they will not fall. Similarly, there is the incentive to earn a fair amount without having it deducted from the basic allowance in the programme.

This programme is to last for three years. I suppose it will be quite a while before we know the outcome, but I think this is very relevant to the general point I was trying to make earlier on. Society is wondering how best to meet the needs of the mass of the disadvantaged people in our society. Is giving them a guaranteed amount of money necessarily the answer? Should we attempt to employ them where possible and supplement their wages if they are too low or too low in relation to their family commitments in terms of dependent children, for example?

The work ethic these days is often scoffed at, I notice, when you talk with people. Maybe the Conservative gets accused of this more than anybody else, but I still happen to believe in the work ethic myself. It's one of the interesting things I find when I visit the inmates of William Head prison. We talked about many things, but I said to them, "What is the biggest continuing discomfort you have in jail?" They said it was the lack of work. They are absolutely bored; they have very little to do. We needn't go off in another debate because there is all kinds of scope to deal with that problem, but I thought it was very interesting.

Whether the work ethic is an old-fashioned approach or not, it seems to me that it is far better for society. It is certainly far better for the individual to have some useful, productive function to perform, even if it has to be done in a subsidized way.

In that regard, the work being done by sheltered workshops is a good example of this. But when we look into that situation, the increasing rate of the minimum wage has produced some difficulties in the sheltered workshop. Certainly for any married person a conflict arises. If he participates in a sheltered

[ Page 2179 ]

workshop at the rates they can pay, he would be better to be off it financially and on welfare.

Maybe the Minister would care to comment on the impact of the fairly rapid rise in the minimum wage. I am not disputing that; I am just saying it was well worth doing. But it is a fact of life now that it creates problems for adequate remuneration for people in sheltered workshops.

More specific points I would like to raise with the Minister relate to the social assistance rates. They are very well documented in this handbook, but I notice they were set in May of 1973. As I understand it, there is no escalator clause or any allowance made for the cost-of-living increases. I just looked up Statistics Canada for December, 1973, and the national index rose by 13 points, an average of 9 per cent between December, 1972 and December, 1973.

Just dealing with the very basics — food, clothing and shelter — between December, 1972, and December, 1973, food rose by an average of 16 per cent. It would seem to me that over that period of time the purchasing power of the social assistance allowances to deal with something as fundamental as food is a very important problem.

I wonder if the Minister would tell the House what plans he has to try and relate, perhaps quarterly or even semi-annually would be better than nothing at all, but preferably quarterly, to somehow relate the social assistance payments to the real need and the purchasing power of the dollar.

That period of 16 per cent raise was from December 1972 to December 1973. As the Minister knows, the federal authorities have related the basic old age pension to inflationary rises in the cost of living. I think it is only recently that the federal government has recognized that the only people who do gain from inflation are governments because more and more revenue keeps coming into the coffers and they don't have to be involved in changing tax structures because as the inflation increases there is more and more money coming into the federal coffers.

I wonder if the Minister has given consideration to applying some factor to social assistance. The Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) touched on a point that I would certainly support, that, once again, as inflation races ahead at somewhere around 10 to 12 per cent, it would make a lot more sense to increase the amount that a person receiving assistance can earn above the basic amount. In other words, the $50 for a single person and $100 for a married person could very well be increased.

Again, for those who are able and have the capacity to even undertake part-time work, I would certainly prefer to see this being increased rather than have the basic allowances increased. But obviously for people who never will be able to undertake gainful employment, the increase would have to be on the basic social assistance allowance.

The Minister touched on intermediate care. I don't want to repeat what I said during the debate on Health because the nursing home situation was covered in some detail.

But the whole challenge of keeping elderly citizens in their homes really has to be one of the priorities of this department. And it isn't just a question of dollars and cents, important as that is. It's a question of elderly people wishing to live as long as they possibly can in the familiar environment they've been in for many years. If there was one point above all that came out in our committee travels it was, indeed, this very deep feeling by elderly citizens to stay in their own home if they could. I wonder if the Minister will be able to give us more information on where the homemaker situation is at the present time.

I received the minutes of the meetings which the association has. I gather they're very eager to develop standards — a standards committee and a training committee somewhat along the same lines as the Department of Health is developing for emergency services and paramedic personnel. It would seem to me that this has been on the agenda for quite some time. Certainly at the last annual meeting in April last year, which I attended, the homemakers seemed to convey a sense of frustration that thy weren't making more progress.

One of the central questions they wanted answered was, how close are we to recognizing the homemaker as an integral part of social service? One who is entitled at least to the minimum wage for the work they do in the home. I wonder if the Minister, when I sit down, could perhaps touch on that in regard to homemakers. How close are we to having a coordinated programme across the province where those taking part will at least receive the minimum wage?

I would just like to touch briefly on Mincome. The Minister mentioned something about it last night before the House adjourned. He did mention that those who are not resident in Canada for five years could make application in the usual way to the department for social assistance. I just wonder if the Minister could briefly tell us how frequently does this situation arise, because as one listens to statements from the federal Department of Immigration, recent changes in the legislation seem to suggest that there has been a tightening up of the regulations governing people coming into this country.

Admittedly the announcements I've heard relate mainly to people wishing to settle here and acquire an occupation in Canada.

I gather there has been a redistribution of the various points that are awarded to the person depending on health, age, training, education and so on, and the availability of employment. But what, if any, investigation or screening occurs in relation to

[ Page 2180 ]

citizens over 65 coming into Canada? Whether they stay five years and qualify for Mincome, or stay five weeks and have to go on social assistance, really to me….

There may be a small dollar difference, but again we get back to this principle of the taxpaying citizen in our society becoming responsible for the financing of services to other people who may have contributed very little or nothing to this country in terms of contributing taxes or contributing social improvement or the enhancement of society generally.

The Minister didn't touch on that last night. I'm sure it was just that we were close to adjournment. On the same topic, how greatly does the provincial department have access to the federal Department of Immigration? Have there been a lot of discussions? Is it something which is on a continuing basis or is it a hit-or-a-miss basis? Once we run into problems we find that we have to deal with Ottawa.

It seems to me as more and more of the departments are debated in this House it becomes very clear that federal-provincial cooperation is of such extreme importance that I would like to think there was consultation between the two levels before the problems arise, rather than having sometimes bickering and public dispute between the two levels in trying to solve the problem once it has happened.

On the question of Mincome and related Pharmacare, I wonder at what point a person over 65 coming in to this country qualifies for Pharmacare. I read the regulations in relation to Canadian citizens, and it's 90-days residency in Canada. Once again, if an elderly citizen over 65 comes to B.C. for a holiday and stays 91 days, does it mean that again the taxpayer of British Columbia is paying for some visitor, let us say, from the United Kingdom? I think that's a question I would like the Minister to answer.

Certainly, in this party we support the concept of Pharmacare without question. I've been in the practice of medicine long enough to know that many people went with shortages of other kinds, even of food, in order to finance medication. So, we're totally behind the concept of Pharmacare. But once again I just ask the question: are we going into a programme like this without some reasonable degree of responsibility and supervision?

For example, I talked to one of my colleagues and there's a very considerable upsurge by senior citizens asking doctors to provide them with prescriptions for vitamin E. Without going into a long dissertation about vitamin E, which could last a day or two, the basic thing is that vitamin E in many quarters has been stated to be a very useful agent in preventing certain diseases and so on, which more particularly afflicts the elderly person. So it isn't unexpected, and I'm not blaming the senior citizen.

I'm just saying that the senior citizen reads in the newspapers that some people believe in the tremendous value of vitamin E. They go to their doctor. The doctor is placed in the position of, whether he believes in it or not, perhaps creating a situation — and this is happening — where the patient feels that the doctor is being stubborn or unreasonable or something else by not providing a prescription for vitamin E.

In this particular instance this medication is very expensive. Again, differing authorities talk about different doses. Some authorities recommend pretty high doses of vitamin E.

I'm just making these comments as a general warning that while the basic philosophy behind the Pharmacare programme is sound, do we open the door wide and make any medication available provided it's on a written prescription?

I might say in passing that because, of course, every prescription now has to be in writing under Pharmacare, it certainly creates a great deal more paper work for the pharmacist and the physician. Not that it could be otherwise since there has to be documentation to prove that the patient is eligible and that the pharmacist provided the drug that was asked for.

These are small points, but I think before we widen our social programmes of this nature that some of these pitfalls and some of the areas of expenditure where the Minister's department might be getting into, in such areas as vitamins, are worth considering. I don't know whether the Minister has had any actual complaints or contact with pharmacists or physicians but I can tell him that I think if he hasn't already heard he will be hearing in the future. It is creating some problem. I foresee the day when some other medication comes along which is said to create longevity or good health or prevent heart attacks and it will be a legitimate attitude on behalf of the senior citizen to go to the physician, whether or not it is really of proven value.

The other small point about Pharmacare is the fact that there is a much greater increase in requests to the physician to provide very simple medications which normally would be purchased over the counter — such things as aspirins and simple remedies for the common cold and all the simpler medications which normally would not involve the physician. Again, I just make the point that the physician has his hands full. With all the increasing demands of modern medicine and technology, there are more serious problems that he is capable of assisting, if not curing. If there is one thing that the physician doesn't need, it's more paperwork and more people in his office with very simple problems where the patient has to be in the office because they have to get a piece of paper in order to get the prescription paid for at the pharmacy.

The Minister made a statement last night about

[ Page 2181 ]

adoptions which I would like to pursue just for a moment. The changing society and the ready availability of abortion has certainly created the problem that there is a shortage of babies for adoption. I certainly agreed with the Minister when he called a halt to the ever-increasing list of waiting parents who really would be waiting with a sense of futility in that they might never obtain a child for adoption. He mentioned last night that he was again receiving applications. I wonder if the Minister could elaborate a little bit on this because I am not aware of any particular increase in the birth rate, but there is an increase in the total population of 3 per cent a year. To what degree is the Minister controlling or trying to select parents who should adopt the very relatively small number of children available for adoption?

Before I left the practice I can remember a young mother who was just in exactly that waiting list position. Every month or two she would phone the department to find out what was happening and they would say it would just be another two months or three months. Then finally one day, like a thundercloud out of the blue, she was just told that there was no hope that she would ever get a child because the department had made certain selective conditions. It is understandable, since she already had two children, and there were people who had no children who wanted to adopt, that in terms of priority she would not be able to adopt a child just because of the shortage of supply of children for adoption. The point was, Mr. Chairman, that she was kept in a state of expectation for quite a long time and then finally told that the wait was futile.

If the Minister is receiving applications again, I hope we are not going to get into the situation again where perhaps six months from now we will have an enormous waiting list that can never possibly be satisfied. I suspect the Minister will be much more practical than that, but it causes tremendous mental suffering to parents who are living from week to week and month to month in the expectation that they are going to be able to adopt a child and then they suddenly find out there's just no way that the child will be available.

The matter of the Minister's responsibility for Indian affairs is something that this party is very interested in. In fact, it's a subject in itself, Mr. Chairman. Briefly, I certainly support entirely the concept that the Indian should be treated the same as any other citizen. Of course, the corollary to that is that he or she should be entitled to everything the rest of us are entitled to.

I still find that when we read press reports and statements by Indian citizens there does seem to be discrimination, whether we like it or not. Maybe we are aiming at equality but…won't repeat all the figures I repeated in the Health debate but they certainly have a high rate of disease. They have a high rate of suicide. They have a high rate of general ill health. Hospital admissions are higher than normal. You could go on and on repeating these figures, but the fact remains that we are saying they are equal and we are saying that they are entitled to everything that I am entitled to but they just aren't getting it.

Possibly one can't solve all these problems overnight but I wonder if the Minister could at least give us some information as to whether the research and the investigation that was being carried on by the former Minister Without Portfolio (Mr. Calder) is presently being put together for a formal report or if the study is continuing in order to complete the study and provide all the information that he wants.

There is little doubt, in terms of their social needs and their social standards, that they are far behind other Canadians. I would hope that the Minister could probably outline some of the immediate plans that he has to try and help them to catch up.

I have just a little hesitation in fully agreeing that they should just be looked upon as the same as any other Canadian citizen in this regard: they certainly have a different heritage, they have a different culture, they have a different attitude in many ways and I think that in some ways the Indian people themselves would be very uneasy about being equated with the North American white man.

In fact, one of the clippings that I read the other day expressed the apprehension that the Indian people have about having their children adopted by non-Indians. They are not so sure they want their children subjected to the so-called social standards and value judgments which we have in North America. When the Minister prepares plans in the area of health and education and social services, while the Indian is entitled to equal treatment, I hope that we will always remember that he has a different culture and a different history and has had some painful events of history which he is now busy trying to rectify. In that regard it takes us into the area of land claims.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

The problem is one which certainly could take up the whole afternoon, but I wonder if the Minister would give us a little more information than we presently have regarding the involvement of the government in various meetings. As the Minister knows, the federal government back in August of last year recognized the legitimate nature of the Indian land claims. Jean Chretien has taken part in various meetings. But we get some disturbing statements in the press which maybe the Minister could either confirm or modify.

Certainly in the Sun on March 20, which isn't too long ago, a meeting was called by Jean Chrétien. It is

[ Page 2182 ]

mentioned in the report that the problem at the meeting was that Chrétien was present, the Nishgas were present, a committee from the Union of B.C. Chiefs were present, but neither Premier Dave Barrett nor Human Resources Minister, Norm Levi, responsible for Indian Affairs, was present. Instead, there were two other official representatives identified by Chief Victor Adolph, chairman of the UBCIC executive committee, as Mrs. Bernice Barber of the Human Resources department and Norman Prelypchan of the Attorney-General's department.

It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that if we pay lip service to the rights of the Indian in our society, then we have to face up to the fact that they have legitimate land claims — claims regarding their aboriginal rights, claims regarding the cut-off lands, a measure which certainly goes back to 1912, I think it was, through the decisions of the McKenna-McBride commission.

I think it will be a great mark of the sincerity of this government in its commitment to the Indian people to take an active part in discussions which must be undertaken to settle these land claims.

We have a newspaper heading on March 23, entitled: "Explosive Situation Seen Unless the Nishgas Get a Role." This was a report from Terrace. It was a little different from the land claim situation, but again it's….

Is this in order, Mr. Chairman, or is this straying from the Indian affairs?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I haven't ruled you out of order yet. I was just going to caution the Hon. Member to be sure to relate it to the Minister's responsibilities and I think they're fairly broad.

MR. WALLACE: I'll leave the particular aspect of this to a later debate, but the question is very serious inasmuch that the Indian people, while they're not threatening violence, have blocked a highway in the Interior on one occasion. If they didn't block the highway, they threatened to do it. It's an unhappy atmosphere which the Indians are expressing.

If we have the federal acceptance of responsibility by both levels of government, I wonder if the Minister would tell us when the next meeting will take place and whether he personally has been delegated by the cabinet to deal with this matter, or who has been delegated. I think it is only fair to the Indian people that if the provincial government is to take part, the representatives at the meeting should be someone of cabinet rank. I would expect that the Minister is the most automatic choice.

To return more specifically to some of the needs of the Indian people, I wonder if the Minister could tell us to what degree the programme to increase the availability of court workers is progressing. Here again, I read that the prison population has something of the order of 18 per cent, although the Indian population is only 5 per cent of the total population of this province. There is often no representation in court. The accused is not clear as to what the charge is. He frequently pleads guilty out of ignorance and, of course, lands up in jail and receives nothing but incarceration and no attempt at rehabilitation and, in fact, tends to be simply on a treadmill. I wonder, since the programme has already proven to be very successful, and because of the numbers that have been brought into the Indian court workers programme, whether the Minister could tell us to what degree it has expanded and what he sees for the programme in the future.

We have had a visit today from senior citizens in the province. I very much appreciated the Minister's remarks when he spoke in the Newcombe Auditorium about an hour or more ago. The Minister's statement about Mincome was certainly welcome, as indeed was his explaining to the audience on Pharmacare, but he didn't, as far as I'm aware, deal with pre-retirement counselling which he mentioned last night. This again, I think, is an enormous area for potentially minimizing sickness in the elderly — emotional sickness, depression and apathy. Furthermore, many of these people, if counselled before retirement, could be brought in in a voluntary capacity to provide volunteer assistance in many of the programmes which the Minister is developing.

Furthermore, I certainly pay credit to the Minister's open approach on the appointment of counsellors. This certainly is not any political patronage situation. I understand that the Minister asks the MLA in each area of each riding if he knows of suitable people who will act as counsellors to the elderly citizens. I think that's an excellent idea and I appreciated the opportunity I had in Oak Bay to recommend certain individuals who would do a tremendous job in advising the elderly.

Just in closing, Mr. Chairman, I couldn't agree more with the Minister about the need to do more for the handicapped. I seem to recall — I can't just lay my hands on the clipping — that there was for the first time a conference last year at which the handicapped were listened to and were given an opportunity to present some of the problems. The Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has already talked about access to public buildings. The Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley), I think, has also made a statement. So it's encouraging to realize that things are being done.

I understand that an advisory committee was set up after that conference. I've been trying to find out just exactly what the advisory committee has brought out in terms of policy and recommendations, and perhaps the Minister could touch upon that.

I would support I think it was the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder), who suggested that the

[ Page 2183 ]

handicapped, as any other recipient of social assistance, should be allowed to earn a larger amount of money if it's within their physical capacity to do so, for the very same reason that they respond to incentives. There's nothing more important than for handicapped persons to have some independence in being able to be responsible for their own financial future and their budget and their other economic requirements.

Lastly, on the question of foster homes, I don't know whether this point was mentioned by anyone else, but I still would like to know if the situation which existed recently still exists or has been altered whereby a foster parent with a foster child can receive up to $130 a month. But if the situation in the child's own home improves and the parents are able to take the child back into the natural home, the amount reverts to the equivalent of social assistance for one more dependent which is about $50, as I recall. For example, a total family size of four would receive $350. A total family size of three receives $300. In other words, it's $50 if the child is being cared for in the parents' home, whereas….

It seems to me a very complicated formula as to how the money is decided when it's a foster home, but what should be the difference? It would seem to me that if a child is having difficulty in his or her own home, for whatever reason, it makes no sense if the natural parents have to get by on a much smaller sum of money than the foster parent would have. I have corresponded with the Minister on this and I drew his attention to one case and I received a grateful letter from the natural mother saying that the affair had been improved — I think that was the word she used — but I got the impression that she still wasn't getting the same amount of money that was being provided for the foster parent. I wonder if the Minister could give us some comment on that.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Member, I think I'd better reply because I'm going to lose track. I'm going to start from the back to the front.

The particular question the Member refers to in terms of the rates and the child living in the home will be subject to changes under the new regulations. At the moment we have gone through a number of drafts on the regulations. They're presently out in the field. We've asked for a critique from the staff about them. One of them is covering that particular question that you talked about. The other one is the child in the home of a relative which we hope to change to make money available in the normal way.

I will say something about the meeting with the Indians in respect to the federal Minister. In February myself and the Attorney-General and some staff met with the Nishgas, at which time they made presentations to us and requested some action on this. At that time I said to them that the total question that they were raising was indeed a very important one and something that we would want to report back to cabinet on and that we would also request of cabinet that sufficient time — and I don't mean something sneezed in the agenda of cabinet's normal business — be allotted for the discussion of this total question. We have not been able to do this at the moment because of other pressing matters. However, this is fully our intention to have this kind of discussion.

In respect to the meeting with the Minister, we felt at the time that it was a preliminary meeting and that we had a representative there. The woman from my department was actually the stenographer who took the minutes for us so we had a full report on it. So the position is that this is subject to a raw discussion in terms of cabinet and I think that has to take place first, but we have to find an appropriate amount of time to do this.

We are in discussion with Indians on other matters. I know this issue constantly comes up, but it is something that has to be the subject of full cabinet discussion. That request, I'm sure, will be achieved once we have the time in which to do it. We are not going to squeeze it in as another matter.

I want to just go to the handicapped. In respect to the conference, there was an advisory committee set up. The committee meets every two weeks and has made a number of recommendations to me which I've passed on to other Ministers.

The committee has submitted to me an agenda to travel around the province and I've approved the travelling. I have some questions about where they are going; I've suggested to them that they should be going to other centres than the usual centres where we tend to go for these things. I'm interested in finding out how the handicapped people make out in the more remote areas. I'm not suggesting that Prince George isn't a long way from here, but I'd like to see us look at Prince Rupert and Dawson Creek or Fort St. John and see what kind of problems exist there for the handicapped, as well as Cranbrook and into the Kootenays and Revelstoke. The principle of travelling is agreed to; where they go is something we still have to discuss. I'm hoping we can arrive at an itinerary and that they can be doing this within the next couple of months. They will travel. Half of the committee, of course, are handicapped, and special arrangements will be made and staff will have to travel with them.

You asked me about the Indian court worker programmes. That, as you may know, is under the Attorney-General and has been expanded. I am now looking at a request from the Indian court workers in respect to the provision of counsellors to do a particular role in the drug-abuse area. We have agreed to the grant of $80,000 to them. I'm announcing that now, as they're aware of it. We have to work out

[ Page 2184 ]

some of the details of where this will take place, but the principle of the submission has been agreed to. We will deal with them as to where it will take place because, again, they were looking at major centres and, frankly, my thrust is very much in the centres that we tend to overlook. So again, that thing is agreed to.

On the time in counselling, the Member is quite right. I did not mention that at the meeting in the Newcombe Auditorium. I'm hoping to get a response from the various councils of churches. I did speak to the council of churches here in Victoria and we will be contacting a number of groups. I expect to be meeting with some of the senior members of the church within the very near future to discuss this particular programme and another role that the church groups can play in some of the programmes we're doing.

Now on the Pharmacare programme. I met twice with the B.C. Medical Association. The question was raised of senior citizens bringing pressure to bear on individual doctors for particular prescriptions, saying, "My friend goes down the road and can get it."

We agreed at that time to assist the doctors by putting together an education programme, in which we would involve as many senior citizens as possible in doing this kind of interpretation to other seniors, about what the role of Pharmacare is and the whole question of drugs. We have the first stage of that completed. We have a workup on it in terms of how we will present it and it's being done in cooperation with the B.C. Medical Association's PR people.

At the beginning of May there will be a conference in Victoria. Last year there was a conference on seniors and we brought down a number of people. I made a commitment in March of last year that we would bring back the same group to see whether we had been able to deliver any of the recommendations they made. We will be bringing other people in; we will be involving senior citizens in a broader way. Then we will present to them the kind of presentation we want to do and see how they react to it. If there's agreement, we will then do it right across the province.

It is important that we assist the doctors in getting some of this pressure off them. We're quite aware of it and we said we would do this programme. It's now in the works. We hope that in May the public will be more aware of it because that's when we'll make the presentation.

The vitamin programme. As you know, only by prescription. I really can't comment on vitamin E; that's right out of my ability to comment on. Certainly I have had very few letters in which we've had requests for broad programmes in respect to vitamins. It has not been the case, but if it's prescription, then, of course, it's part of that that is agreed to.

Terms of the qualifications. Of course, the qualifications for Pharmacare are those of the B.C. Medical Plan: landed immigrant; 90 days residence in the province. It's not in any way desirable to have any restrictions in that area. People who come here, of course, can only take advantage of it if they are landed immigrants so I don't think we have an issue in terms of people coming in from out of the country. We are not subject, I don't think, to the same kind of abuse that the British medical scheme went through in the first couple of years.

On the question of Mincome and immigrants. I just want to say something about this. Atchoo! You better send me out for some vitamin E, I guess.

AN HON. MEMBER: Vitamin C.

HON. MR. LEVI: Oh, it's vitamin C, is it?

MR. WALLACE: He needs a little brandy, actually.

HON. MR. LEVI: You may know that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Hon. Mr. Andras) is putting out a green paper — I don't what the difference in the colour is — in which he is looking at some amendments to the Immigration Act. While he did tighten up the immigration regulations — and we did meet with the immigration people just before Christmas — there are two ways in which people can come to Canada. One is under the sponsored immigration programme. This usually refers to relatives and grandparents and this kind of thing. There's the nominated way of coming in, and that generally does not apply to people over the age of 60 unless they're handicapped. The other people come in as sponsored immigrants. Now, through the nominated immigration route, you have an obligation to look after people for five years. That's a commitment which apparently you can't get out of.

The sponsored immigration is a problem because in certain cases sponsored immigration plans break down — the financial situation of the person doing the sponsoring becomes difficult. These people have been previously going on social assistance. I think one can have some concern about this. For instance, the average British immigrant brings with him $60 a month, which is the pension they get. A lot of other people who come in from other countries are not in receipt of pensions. Some countries will not pay pensions to people who are living overseas.

I did have an opportunity to talk to Mr. Andras when I saw him in Ottawa about this problem. However, I think now that we've stated very clearly that we will not accept applications from people who have not been here five consecutive years, the problem will not become quite so apparent. We did know this. One of the reasons we decided to confirm

[ Page 2185 ]

the decision I made in December was because there was a noticeable trend in people coming here for the very specific reason.

We are reviewing the social assistance rates at the moment. Last year one of the basic things we accomplished was to set a flat-rate payment. We got out of that whole hassle about overages and that was very important. We improved the rent overage to 75 per cent. That's the only overage we do have in respect to the general payments. Of course, we have a special needs programme in which we can provide up to $500. These decisions can be made by people on the line.

On the indexing, we are looking now at indexing for social assistance rates. I'm not sure whether we're going to go the quarterly or the yearly system, whether we will use the consumer price index or whether we will use the industrial composite, which is what is being applied to the Canada pension. The industrial composite reflects in a much more direct fashion what gains are being made by the labour force and tends to reflect some of the basic needs. But we are still looking at this.

I hope we will be announcing that we will not go past June 1 on new rates. We obviously have to increase them; we realize this. However, in answer to the increasing problems that have taken place in the last year on the cost of living, it should be recognized that we did undergo in Canada a change in the family allowances. In October, $12; in January, $70. This puts income into people's families, and that's what we look at when we are trying to calculate people's income. Our welfare rates in the future will reflect the children's allowance. It won't be something that will not even be talked about, because it's part of the income situation of that family.

In a small way, we did announce in December, 1972, that there are certain periods of the year when people have an opportunity to earn extra income in terms of working in the post office at Christmas or participating in elections.

We classify that as windfall income and we do not deduct it. It's worked out that it is far more expensive to work out the deductions than it is to let them keep the money.

On the general question of earnings exemptions, this is something, of course, we have to do in concert with the federal government, because we have agreements with them about what is reasonable income, what can be exempted. We have to make a decision, perhaps in relation to the handicapped people, whether we want to go it alone on the earnings exemption. They have at the moment a $50 earnings exemption on top of the $218.

These are questions that we do have to deal with with the federal government and we have had some discussions with them.

On the sheltered workshops, I have suggested to some operators of sheltered workshops that they should seriously look at the possibility of making sheltered workshops into cooperatives, where people can have a feeling of being part of that operation. They are not operations that are going to make any money, in that sense. You know, there is always the question around about that these people are working for low income. Of course, all handicapped people are entitled to receive the handicapped person's income allowance.

Now we will be discussing with the advisory committee and we will be broadening the programme in terms of the sheltered workshops and the activity centres. We have quite a broad programme and it will become broader. We work on a formula basis in terms of the number of people there, plus the number of hours the people put in, and we are paying some of the staff costs.

I want to just say something about the homemaker programme. That will be a very significant thrust of the department in this coming year. It will broaden the homemaker programme.

Most homemakers are making at least $2.75 an hour. We are paying something like $3.10 to the various agencies and I think that they take off 25 to 30 cents in terms of their administration costs.

We are looking at a number of ways to go in providing personnel to work in it. We are looking as to whether it would be desirable for the department or particular groups of people to fund it on a permanent staff basis. That is that homemakers would be available in certain areas on a full-time basis and they would be able to work at a regular schedule.

Now this, of course, is a cost factor and we are now looking at this. We are now undertaking a complete review, and I expect to have a report within less than a month on the total picture of homemaking in the province. It will be not only the costs of the number of operations — there are some 35 that we are funding at the moment in 35 areas — but also training, how people may be trained. There is some discussion and some argumentation going on whether people should be trained three months or one month, and what kind of training.

But we are going to give it a particularly large thrust. It may be that we will decide that for women who are supporting families and who are on social assistance, we will, in this particular programme, say that the earning exemption will be considerably higher than the $100. We would take it up so that the pay and the welfare are commensurate with what someone can make in the community without being on welfare.

I think we will move into that kind of direction in any case, because this is a very special kind of programme.

Interjection.

[ Page 2186 ]

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Member, you are quite right. It allows people to get that experience and eventually, as we move towards more permanent employment or homemakers, there's also the whole question of saying to people that there is career potential in the homemaking field. This is very important.

You raised the question of the work ethic. The only thing I want to say about it — because the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) is sitting here, and I don't want to get too deeply into it — is that one of the things we did discuss at a recent federal-provincial Ministers' conference was the work ethic — also the question of the large number of jobs that are still not filled.

Speaking personally, I feel that sooner or later we are going to have to look at why those jobs are not filled. I am not now talking about the skilled jobs, because that is an issue in terms of training. But there are many jobs in our community that are low paying and are essential jobs.

Now we have at the moment young people who see the work ethic in a somewhat different way than we do. I see the work ethic somewhat differently than my father saw it. But one of the things they have showed us — the young people — particularly in the fields I am responsible for, is that they are capable of making tremendous contributions in terms of the whole social service people business.

I mean, one has to look at some of the very worthwhile programmes they have been involved in. They tell me that while it is important to make reasonable pay — that is, more than $110 a week or the $100 a week that they get on the LIP programmes, they are prepared, in some way — and these are young people — to trade job satisfaction in part and not argue the case for very high pay. Now that's the point of view they have expressed to me.

In dealing with those jobs we cannot fill, those hard, dirty jobs, it could very well be that those people may become something of the aristocracy of the wage earners, because we will have to pay people to do those jobs where there is very little satisfaction in doing the job — you know, the hard, drudge work.

But generally speaking there are great expectations from the way our young people are looking at the total question of services to people and in the environmental area. Certainly there is going to be a change in the work ethic; there is no question of that. And I don't think that it is a particularly bad thing.

In terms of the young people that are on welfare, and as I said last night, those people on welfare roll over at the rate of almost 3,000 a month. They are on for a couple of months; we have very few single people that are on permanently. If they are, we take a look at them. It is mostly when they are between jobs and situations are bad — they don't have unemployment insurance — they are on and they are off again. Of course, who is going to stay on welfare at 70 cents an hour when you can go out and get a job for $2.20 or $3.00 or get into some other worthwhile kind of work?

AN HON. MEMBER: Adoptions.

HON. MR. LEVI: Oh, adoption, yes. Let me just cover the adoption programme relating to the moratorium that we put on on July 1 last year. One of the reasons we put it on is because there were over 1,000 studied adoption homes that were waiting for children. It appeared, certainly, that it would be two or three — and in some cases, four — years before we would ever be able to fill those homes in terms of children. So I announced a moratorium.

What has happened since then is that we have adopted some 375 children. Many couples wishing to create a family through adoption have found it possible to broaden their request from a new-born baby with no problems.... In one instance, we had one couple that took a family group of six — six children — from the same family. This is certainly one of the very interesting cases that the Child Welfare Department has dealt with. Six children, who were apprehended because they were abandoned, are with one couple in one house, all together. That's a phenomenal kind of thing, to be able to hold children together that way.

But then we have had other people who, because the children simply aren't available, newborn children, have looked at the children who have problems. We have been able to place some children with handicaps; we have been able to place children who are somewhat older than what is considered an adoptable age — say two and under.

What we have now is 500 approved homes available for placement. And it is in order now for us to lift the moratorium because we don't have such a long waiting list. We are not going to get that tremendous pressure we got previously from people who were at the far end of the waiting list, constantly asking us when they are going to get the children, asking us what possibilities there are of getting children from overseas, and this kind of thing.

It was putting a great deal of pressure on the community and a great deal of pressure on the parents. So as of July 1 this year, 1974, we will again accept applications for new-born children.

In respect to the Indian children, once we have gone past the 60-day period for appeal through the supreme court, we will then lift that moratorium and that should take place around June l. But that situation will be freed up.

We have no great expectations for the availability of children to be adopted. The situation internationally, in terms of overseas adoptions, is also not very clear. In B.C. as a government in April,

[ Page 2187 ]

1973, we presented a paper to the working party that is attempting, first of all, to rationalize the system in Canada. Then we will take a look at what is going on overseas, as to whether there is, in fact, a possible source for getting children, or if there isn't. We are now looking at this in a very real fashion.

I think I covered all of it, didn't I?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Mines.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): I would like to interrupt you for a moment. When I first came here in 1950, there was a man sitting in the House who was here from 1920, Mr. Tom Uphill, who I thought a great deal of. Sitting in the gallery is his son, Mayor Vern Uphill from Fernie. I would like you to give him a hand.

MR. WALLACE: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman. I would like to follow up on this adoption thing. If, at the time of the moratorium, 370 parents obtained a child, that leaves 630 who didn't.

You've now opened the waiting list again, as it were, and I don't really see, with respect, how we can fail within a very short time to repeat pretty well the situation that caused the Minister to introduce the moratorium. I don't think this problem can be solved, but I feel very strongly for the parents who in the next few months may be putting their name on that waiting list, expecting that it has some meaning and that they're going to get a child. I presume that some of the 630 who came off the waiting list and disappeared into limbo and who still want a child will be the first ones to get their names back on the list.

Just before I sit down, there was another point on adoption that caused a great deal of distress last session. The Minister mentioned that adopted children should learn as to who their real parents were. I remember at that time the Minister said there would be a great deal of discussion and investigation before any official policy was adopted. Could the Minister tell us whether that discussion has led to any positive conclusion or has he abandoned the idea? As he knows, it's fraught with some difficulty. Many adopting parents wrote to us after that discussion expressing their great concern.

HON. MR. LEVI: As you will recall, Mr. Member, last year I made a second statement in which I attempted to clarify very carefully. We answered everybody in terms of the mail on this.

We have had some discussion on this but it is something that is fading from view. We still have a number of letters from people who are asking for information. You will recall that in my second statement I reiterated what I actually said in the first statement: this would not apply in any case to anyone under the age of 19. In any case, it is not one of the foremost priorities in the department and it is not something that has been discussed, certainly over the last few months, but I still get mail.

On the question of the number of adoption homes, when we meet, when we accept applications again, we hope to be able to say to parents in a very realistic way what their expectations can be. We were not able to do this before because we inherited a large group. This way, we will have to very carefully interpret to people realistically what the chances are if they are past that 300 or 400 mark, which is about what we are able to come up with at the moment. That's one of the things we will have to do in a very careful way; that's one of the reasons we put on the moratorium. We had to stop the pressure and the anxiety. Now we have to be very careful how we interpret it in the future.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I would like to leave the matter of adopted children and go back to senior citizens for a few minutes, if the Minister wouldn't mind.

There are a number of concerns I am sure the Minister is aware of. But we don't seem to have talked, certainly not this afternoon, about those who have worked hard in their lives and who have been prudent and who have put a little bit of money aside but are finding this money absolutely zapped out from under their feet right now with inflation.

As the Minister knows, one of the major problems for helping senior citizens of any group is the federal Income Tax Act. It seems every time you reach out to help these people in a way that's compatible with them, it affects their income tax status.

The former administration, very much directed and spearheaded by Mrs. Dawson, was embarking on a number of programmes in consultation with senior citizens and counsellors who were in Victoria for their meetings and whom she met around the province to undertake some programmes that would assist them but would not affect their tax situation.

One was a programme right through the province whereby senior citizens at certain hours of the day and certain times of the year could, if they belonged to the senior citizens' club — and that wasn't on the basis of a means test or supplementary allowance — buy meals at certain restaurants for half-price.

There was another programme she was entering into which would have got together with the motels and hotels and resort operators in British Columbia, and hopefully spread from there right across Canada, whereby, at certain times of the year, senior citizens travelling would be presented with a reduction in rates. This had quite a compatible effect to it because there are many motels that were open anyway and, at certain times of the year, they were very glad to even

[ Page 2188 ]

have a half fee in order to cover their operating costs. There was the same in terms of train travel and bus travel right across Canada and, in cooperation with Greyhound, to the American states. I know some of these are coming to pass, but I haven't seen much evidence of these others I was talking about in relation to motel and hotel accommodation. I certainly can't seem to find any senior citizens who have. I would like to know from the Minister if that programme was carried on and if there is in British Columbia today a card for any person over 60 and anyone who is handicapped who is travelling in accord with these regulations so they could take advantage of this benefit.

I would also like to know what the Minister's feeling is in regard to assisting with transportation for senior citizens in non-metropolitan areas. The former administration did have an allowance of $3 initially in the supplementary allowances for transportation but this has long been eaten up by inflation. There is some help for those on Mincome in the metropolitan areas, and, as you know, Hydro has a reduction for them.

But transportation is becoming a major problem of almost catastrophic proportions in the non-metropolitan area. Because of redeveloping downtown cores, downtown senior citizen living areas are being moved out either through inspiration of social housing programmes or because there are not the options for them except to move further out. In all these areas from Penticton to Cranbrook to Fort St. John there are not municipal bus services that extend beyond the city limits. Also, there is the problem that, where there is a small municipal bus service, the hours are most limited.

We have growing in the province a serious problem. Many activity centres are developing, many programmes are going on for senior citizens in the core of communities, but the senior citizens simply cannot get to these meetings. I have long recommended to the Minister and I would like to recommend to him again an assistance for these people forthwith so they can take advantage of many of the programmes and so they can be independent. They might like to see "The Exorcist" or something. I wouldn't, but they might. There are concerts that are nothing to do with senior citizens. There are carnival programmes; there are picture shows; there are dances. Certainly we know the senior citizens in British Columbia are just about the most dancing bees there are in any area, and they just can't take advantage. How can an elderly gentleman on Mincome take an elderly lady to a dance when he lives in the south of town and she lives in the north of town and never the transportation shall meet?

There is a very serious need in this area. I would urge the Minister to make this available to the people in the non-metropolitan areas. I have proposed many programmes, many bills. I won't go over them all now but I hope he has taken this to heart. Perhaps today he will announce something.

I would like to know what the Minister's programme is in relation to the removal of the funds that came through the New Horizons programme from the federal government. In many areas programmes have got started but they are now in the position where their funds have run out or are running out. They might have an activity programme going but they have no funds for equipment. If it is a craft programme they haven't got funds even for the paint and clay. With inflation the way it is today, it's very difficult for those with limited incomes to be able to provide much of this on their own.

Perhaps the Minister would enjoy a comment about the elderly gentleman who wants to court the elderly lady: "He lives on the morning side of the mountain and she lives on the twilight side of the hill." Perhaps if my words don't move the Minister, that lovely poem will.

Some of these centres have been stimulated by having people in there paid for under the New Horizons programme. I certainly don't advocate that we should continually pay people to go in and stimulate elderly people or older programmes because I think these senior citizens are quite capable of carrying on this type of administration and initiation on their own. But there frequently does come a problem in the area of factual administration, bookkeeping and accounting. Sometimes these programmes are cut off so quickly that there is no transitional stage.

I wonder if the Minister will make available some funds for elderly groups who are in this transitional stage in order that they might be able to hire some of their own or have some type of assistance to carry on their programmes so that they don't just fall flat on their face.

I think there should be a spearheading through the department, frankly, and the people in the field encouraging more and more community people to become involved with senior citizens. There's a tremendous tendency for these programmes to become stereotyped and for small groups to develop. There needs to be a spark of life in there to initiate new programmes, even swimming programmes that I saw done, which everybody thought would never work, but in fact did work, and new ideas to help them overcome the problem of coping with arrangements. We have to remember that many of the senior citizens in the old age pension groups are people who've had to cope with limited budgets all their lives, and have not had a great opportunity to travel and who find themselves in a position where simple overcoming of red tape and overcoming of organizational plans is quite difficult. This spark needs to come, I think, in some communities from

[ Page 2189 ]

the department itself in a manner of just making various organizations aware of this need.

We're fortunate in many of these senior citizens' groups that there are real spark plugs there, but they don't want to stay in charge all the time and they want to move on. I think that because at times they do get tired, we have to recognize that there is a time when they need a reliable hand to come in and give them a boost. I certainly saw this in the area that I have the honour to represent, where I was most anxious to get a senior citizens' recreation centre going. We just couldn't. Much as everybody wanted it, there were a few barriers to break down. There was the need to get over it and I couldn't be at all the meetings. We finally got a council woman who was just ideal. She was there at all the meetings to support and she was there with a great deal of diplomacy to put in the little bits of guidance that were needed to get the lawyers that they needed to donate their time in drawing up their societies act. I feel this is something the department itself is sensitive to and should be encouraged to do more of. They do know what's going on and they can judge where this assistance is needed.

I'd also like to ask the Minister how many new senior citizen counsellors he has hired. He circulated a letter very kindly some year-and-a-half ago. Our group sent in three names and to my knowledge no one else has been hired. I would like to know how many new ones he has taken on and in what parts of the province.

Again, I must go back to the area of those who are not eligible for Mincome but in fact find themselves in a very restricted financial position today because of inflation. I've always made it clear to the Minister, and I guess I will today, that I feel that his government should have initiated this. It should have increased the homeowner grant to those over 65, over and above what the rest of us get, and I'm not going into detail, Mr. Chairman. We must do everything possible to give senior citizens the right and the option to stay in their own homes.

Widows. This is a very serious problem today because through the estate tax, a lot of their cash is wiped out. They find themselves squeezed in by lawyers' fees, accountants' fees and death duties. In fact, what assets they had are diminished. I know the Minister knows, if he studied the case, that these are not rich rip-offs; these are very hard-working people who may seem all right at the time of the death and within three or four or five years with inflation are in a position where they have to go on Mincome.

A matter that should be of concern to the Minister is in relation to repair and assistance to elderly people living in their own homes. I'll discuss that more under my bill, but this is something that the Minister should be aware of. It shouldn't apply just to those on Mincome; it should apply to those people in the grey area who have worked hard, who have saved their money. Really, it wasn't the Minister's comment but the Premier's comment when he said they want to err on generosity. All he said was: "spend you assets and go on Mincome." I'm sure the Minister agrees that this is a very stupid attitude and I'm sure he wouldn't advocate it.

These people are having more problems, Mr. Minister, in terms of diet. I would bring specifically to your attention diet foods for diabetics and people with extreme allergies who are not on Mincome. These foods are not covered by any type of a drug programme.

I would urge the Minister to make available during high inflationary periods food coupons for people on special diets in order that they can meet these needs. Special dietetic foods are most expensive. A can the third of the size of an ordinary can of raspberries, for example, costs almost three times as much, and yet they're just water packed.

People on special diets are having an extremely difficult time because inflationary pressure, particularly in British Columbia, is on our staple foods. We have a milk income subsidy programme in British Columbia, and it's designed to help the producer and hopefully help the consumer. It's all right for all of us to stand up and say the consumer has to pay, but the cost of milk to a senior citizen today is getting too high. Their diets tends to be milk and eggs if they're not on the tea and toast diet. Vegetables they have to buy in small quantities.

I have looked around the stores and I'm darned if I can find 2 per cent skim milk in a half pint carton. Maybe the Minister would look into that. I think a lot of elderly people drink 2 per cent milk because they're aware of the cholesterol situation. A lot of them are prescribed to use 2 per cent milk because of high blood pressure. To my knowledge, nowhere in British Columbia can you get 2 per cent milk in the half pint carton. If they're on a diet, the use of a whole quart of 2 per cent milk takes four or five days. It's expensive and by this time the milk has absorbed the flavour from the refrigerator and isn't really as palatable.

So I'd urge the Minister to encourage a programme in British Columbia where foods would be packaged in smaller quantities for senior citizens. Some stores carry half-pound and quarter-pound packages of butter, but it's not as common as it was. The matter of eggs, for example, is extremely difficult. You can go into any supermarket and you look at eggs and you see that the dozen is perforated so you can take it apart, but if you ever tried to take it apart, you've got nothing but an omelette on your hands. You have to go and find a clerk and then he looks at you and says: "What do you want half a dozen eggs for?" You have to go through this explanation. I would urge the Minister to — I don't think it needs to be legislated —

[ Page 2190 ]

get in touch with the major supermarkets in British Columbia and urge them to have available at all times very obvious half dozen quantities of eggs. Some of them do put a knife out and this would be fine, but there should really be a sign saying: "Feel free to purchase a half dozen eggs." As the Minister knows, I'm sure, many older people are very shy about asking for this sort of thing in stores and at times the clerks are very unsympathetic.

The matter of assistance to special diets. Again, I bring up under the Minister's vote this matter of certain necessities, and I'll use diabetics as an example because it's so classic. Their insulin is covered by the Pharmacare programme, but their test tapes aren't, I don't believe their vitamin B12 is, and their needles and syringes are not covered. So frequently their diet and these allied medical assistances that they need outstrip the cost of the insulin by far. This is where they're having problems.

I don't want to go into any bills, Mr. Minister, but I wish you had added another $50 per year to the elderly renters' grant along with the $30. This would have given them an edge over the rest of the people in British Columbia who can work. I don't want to go into it in detail, Mr. Chairman, but I wait patiently, breathlessly, for the Minister to stand up and say that they would be eligible this year for $130 a year in their renters' grant, which would be of great help to them.

Mr. Minister, this problem of urban redevelopment is hitting senior citizens and older people and handicapped people much harder than the public is aware and that I've ever heard the Minister express. I really don't know what a lot of these people are going to do, some that own their own homes and others who are renting. It's not only in the metropolitan areas.

One of the things I would suggest to the Minister is that he discuss with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and in turn with the municipalities — and I think specifically of the Greater Vancouver region — to allow zoning changes in small shopping areas so that living accommodations and quality accommodation can be developed above stores.

Take Dunbar shopping centre, if the Minister is familiar with that, and I believe he is, as an example. It's got blocks and blocks of shops — little butcher shops and grocery shops and gift shops and hat shops and everything — all one storey high. It seems to me that it would be very practical — and I would qualify again that it should be quality development — to allow these people to build at least another floor of apartments for elderly people right in these shopping areas.

Certainly there is a large percentage of elderly people, in my experience, who don't want to live in group homes. They don't want to live in big apartments. They don't want to live out of the action. They want to live right downtown where the action is, in the shopping area.

When you look at Dunbar, it's not a noisy area at night. There's a theatre. There are often community concerts. There is a bus service. As I say, there are possibilities of housing 1,000 senior citizens just within that major shopping complex, if the city would relax its zoning laws and if the government itself would put out an incentive to those building owners and put it on a limited profit basis like the federal 5 per cent income programme, encourage them to do this, back their loans, give low-cost loans and give them a grant, if you will. If you give them a grant then you can limit the profitability and you can also have a say in the quality of housing that they produce.

I would recommend that you look very closely at roof gardens in these areas, so that there is an attractive area for people to sit, which is not necessarily in the park area.

The next area I would like to discuss with the Minister is the problem of alcoholism in elderly citizens in British Columbia. I'm not aware of any major figures or really any major studies that have been done about this in British Columbia, but I understand it is a significant geriatric problem in many parts of North America.

It appears that the person who is an alcoholic in his elderly years follows two patterns. One is that he always had a tendency to alcoholism — and he's very difficult to deal with. The other is that it is a developing symptom of loneliness, loss of family, and feelings of isolation.

I wonder if the Minister has anything to report to us on this. If not, I wonder if the Minister would undertake to have this matter studied. It should be in other than the metropolitan area as well to find out if this is a growing incidence and problem in British Columbia. I would suspect that it is, which leads again to the reasons why, and this is isolation and loneliness of elderly people.

In spite of the programmes that are and have been going on in Vancouver, you can just meet a senior citizen every day who is lonely and needs friends, and who would like to get out. I honestly don't know exactly how you combat this, Mr. Minister. They are not people who are on Mincome necessarily, but again this forgotten few, the people who are being squeezed, who maybe have worked all their lives, are single, and they don't know how to socialize. They are very shy about going to any drop-in centres and they also are very nervous about going out at night.

I would suggest that there needs to be a much broader expansion on a volunteer basis of people finding these elderly people and encouraging them or helping them to meet other people with a common interest. And this doesn't necessarily mean going to a

[ Page 2191 ]

centre. There are lots of senior citizens who would like to go for a drive with someone. They have a car but they can't find anyone who hasn't got a car. Because they have been addicted to the work ethic and have worked all their lives and have done very little socializing, this business of getting over the barrier of meeting people is an extreme obstacle.

I also would like to know from the Minister what representations he has made to Ottawa to raise the exemptions for elderly citizens. It's now, I believe, at $3,200 or $3,600 a year — $1,600 apiece, anyway — and Mr. Minister, this is just a disaster to these people who have garnered a few savings. If they get an increase in their pension it's zapped off by the income tax. Anything they do is taken off by income tax. I would urge the Minister to urge the federal government to have a minimum of $3,000 per year per person exemption for those 60 and over. This would increase the opportunity for these people to enjoy life a little bit more instead of having worked really for nothing except to keep a roof over their heads. I hope he will tell us what representations he has made.

Again, I'm sure all of us have talked to senior citizen after senior citizen who gets a small increase in his little dividend from a company. What does that do? All it does is cover their income tax. I think this should be a very pressing priority of this government, of all of us in British Columbia, and I think the government in B.C. should set the example by exempting its 30 per cent of what they pay now under the provincial income tax.

Again, I would ask the Minister to prevail upon the Minister of Finance to return the resource dividend from the windfall oil revenues, to remove the 5 per cent tax from heating fuels in order to help our senior citizens. It's great to have power in British Columbia and we are very fortunate that we do, but it's not so hot if you can't afford to use it and you live in one room.

I'd like to know what the Minister is doing in relation to the regulations in the Hastings Street area in Vancouver, in the East End, that have been enforced by the Vancouver health department, which are resulting in the closure of a number of hotels in that area. I recognize these are not examples of happy living grounds, but I think one has to recognize that some of these people are happy living there. They are not going to be happy being shunted out into remote areas where they can't see their cronies. I would hope that the Minister has some sort of an emergency programme for these people right in the downtown core area, unless they have a desire to go elsewhere.

I always remember an elderly gentleman telling me very thoroughly to mind my own business when we were…. He had to move into a senior citizens' home and I was telling him about it, trying to convince him that he would be happy there, and told him it had carpeting, and it had television, it had refrigerators and all the benefits, and he told that he'd never had a carpet in his life and he wasn't interested in one. He didn't give a hoot for television. He wanted to live in his one-room apartment that certainly wouldn't have appealed to me but appealed to him.

I don't think we have the right to impose our sense of values on people who don't want to accept them. The Minister talked about a new lifestyle for youth, and he obviously believes that welfare for young people is something that we should be prepared to pay. If that's the case, then let's at least leave the senior citizens to live their own lifestyle, and let's put as much emphasis on them having the right to do their own thing, and to assist them to do it, as we do the young people.

I suggested this to the Minister last year, and would like to know if any progress has been made in extension programmes through regional colleges and universities for senior citizens and elderly citizens. I think the problem at UBC and in the metropolitan areas is probably not so great, but I would hope that he would encourage regional colleges to go out and actively solicit senior citizens to come to their college programmes, to try and put on college programmes that would interest them, and in fact establish a form of recognition for retired people who have succeeded in achieving a number of courses at a regional college or at the university.

Again, avenues to meet people are extremely important. Many people, we think, because they've got a little bit of money are enjoying their old age, when in fact they are very lonely and they're shy. Some of these people might be most encouraged to come in and take a course in real estate, art, business management or law. They might even take some sort of a training programme to be counsellors or to assist their fellows, or in consumer affairs, so that they could form part of the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) programme around the province and become involved and have the feeling of being useful.

I have some more questions about the handicapped, but I will bring those up later.

HON. MR. LEVI: I just want to raise the question related to income tax exemptions. You were suggesting what — $3,000 as a reasonable exemption? I don't know whether you are aware of it — and far be it for me to give kudos to the federal people — but they already have an exemption of $1,700, plus $1,066 if you are over 65. So that exemption is $2,772, which is pretty close to what you're asking for.

In terms of representation, my party has a very eloquent and capable man that makes this kind of presentation regularly, as I'm sure the leader of the

[ Page 2192 ]

Liberal Party knows: Stanley Knowles. He is constantly making these kinds of things on behalf of the people of Canada in respect to this. And I can add my voice to it, but one has to look. It is $2,700 for people over 65.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: Sixty and above? Well, you know they don't recognize anybody…. In the federal parliament nobody's a senior citizen unless they are over 65. We are trying to convince them that that should come down to 60.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, that's true, yes.

You were asking earlier about the courtesy card that the previous government started. We have continued it. At the moment there are some 96,000 courtesy cards out and presumably in operation. Even those that we issue still carry the name of the previous Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) because we don't want to reprint them. The courtesy card is there.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member use her microphone?

HON. MR. LEVI: What we've done is to continue the programme. I think that because of the onset of Mincome and the quarterly increase by the federal people that we've passed on, people's needs are not quite as…. Certainly the need is always there with seniors, but it's not quite as bad as it was under your government. You know, we've eased the situation quite considerably.

We're not really looking to do those kinds of — with all due respect — Mickey Mouse programmes. But we did not take it back.

MRS. JORDAN: You want them under your control; that's what….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member, if she wishes to comment, wait until the Minister is finished, or else use her microphone?

HON. MR. LEVI: You were asking about the downtown hotels. Now we are actively involved as a department. We are meeting on the 18th of this month with the B.C. housing foundation. What is it called — the United Housing Foundation? They are undertaking the remodelling of three hotels in the downtown area of Vancouver down by Gastown. We will be discussing with them provision of funds for furnishings and also a kitchen that is going in there for this kind of thing.

I don't hold any brief for any hotels in the downtown area that are rat-traps. I think that the Health department has moved, albeit a little late in some respects. But we're quite happy to participate in the more positive thing of the rebuilding or the remodelling of three hotels that the United Housing Foundation is doing. And we will be providing funds for the furbishing of that kind of operation — and the maintenance, of course; that will also be involved.

I think the loneliness certainly is a point on which I agree with the Hon. Member. This is something I did raise last year. Fortunately, there are a number of programmes that are still going on. We have continued a number of senior citizen programmes — one or two cases from the Horizons for Seniors and also from LIP programmes. There is in our report, if you want to look on page 59, a list of some of the programmes we're funding. We are moving towards a broadening of the activity centre programme, and that of course will — in part, not completely — help to offset that loneliness and also deal with the alcoholism problem.

Interestingly enough, with all of the meetings I've had with representatives of senior groups, this is not a question that has come up. I'm aware of it because of the studies, but it's never been something that they themselves have raised. We've always talked in the broad question about the loneliness factor.

One of the things we will be doing again this year is that we will have some 70 young people in the field who will be seeking out again the seniors. We will be able to identify some more of this need and the need to plug people in.

On the transportation question: at the present time the department is involved in funding to a level of $5.5 million in community transportation. We've had some discussion with the bureau of transit and with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) about whether in fact we should get further into this kind of function.

We met recently with the B.C. Association for Crippled Children — the bunny-bus people, and I've now called a meeting of all of the managers of these transportation systems — that is, the ones in the community, not the bus line. What we want to do is discuss a number of questions: whether in areas where there are a number of them, they have common dispatching systems; what kind of people they are carrying.

We are, of course, funding programmes; for instance, we fund a programme in Armstrong, one in Prince George and two or three other places in the Interior, which I can't recall at the moment. But this is a very serious question. As a matter of fact, in discussions with the federal Minister, they have recognized that the need for a transportation grant is

[ Page 2193 ]

certainly something that we can do.

Now under our Social Assistance Act we had $10 as a transportation grant. We will be taking the ceiling off the grant and looking at it in relation to what transportation is available in a particular area.

I would like, if it's possible, to have discussions with some of the cab companies about whether in fact they could become involved with us if we were able to schedule services for people who need to get to activity centres or people who particularly need to get into town.

The other day I met with a woman from Princeton who outlined for me in some detail the kind of transportation system she's operating and the kind of work she does for senior citizens in bringing them in 30, 40 and 50 miles to doctors' appointments and occasionally to participate in senior citizens' recreation.

I think that we've looked at it, and we are now going to have a meeting about it with all the people involved. The next question is whether really it's something I should be doing in my department or whether we can perhaps integrate it into a transit system. We have talked about integrating school buses as well when they're not being used as a transportation system.

What we recognize as we move toward broadening the number of activity centres and the role of the senior citizen, is that we have to provide transportation; there is not question about it. How we will do it, of course, is the big question.

On the question of the diabetics and the test tapes and the syringes: we are doing a review of all of the needs of people who are on that kind of permanent medical treatment. It also includes cancer patients and other people that need these kinds of bandages and things. At the present time — and I've answered a number of letters on this — we are not proposing to make any changes. I think we have to have more months of the programme under our belts before we can make a complete review of it, in terms of the Pharmacare.

I completely agree with you on the small packaging in stores in relation to senior citizens. We are funding a small programme in the downtown area. Their specialty in terms of what they are doing is to make small packages of foodstuffs available. I will discuss it with my colleague, the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young), and undertake to write to some of the large companies to get some response about smaller packages.

I certainly agree with the Member that we seem to have lost sight completely of the needs that senior citizens have in terms of small purchases. There is no question about that, and I am quite prepared to follow through on that.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that it's not in Hansard if you speak from your chair like that.

HON. MR. LEVI: In relation to the New Horizons, I am meeting with the new director for Horizons for Seniors, Mrs. Pat Fulton, next week in my office — as I did with the previous director — about what they're doing, about what kind of funding they will be doing and where we become involved once that funding is finished. So the relationships there have been pretty good. We have followed through on continuing grants, not necessarily on the same level; but we have continued to follow through on most of the programmes.

You did ask about this repair and assistance programme for seniors. We do fund at the moment in three or four centres such programmes. I have asked for people to give me a report on the effectiveness of this. They arose originally out of LIP programmes. The Children's Aid Society in Vancouver ran a very excellent one for some time. How far we want to develop this kind of thing…we get involved in who we employ. At the moment I can think of one programme we're funding which involves eight men, most of them handicapped, who are able to do a variety of tasks in this area in a very small way. It's a programme that's been going on for almost four years.

We will be looking at what we are spending in this area and see what possibilities there are of broadening it. It's been a very useful service, not just for seniors but also for women, single women, who have trouble fixing various things in their own home.

On diets, we have given some consideration to the whole question of nutrition. I've been discussing this question mainly with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) because they have that kind of capability in that department.

In respect to this, one of the things I asked about when I first came in was the whole question of diets and diet sheets and the availability of the kind of food the people need. Part of it is an educational programme which we'll be able to do now that we have more drop-in centres and activity centres. But it is basically a health function. It is very much something the public health nurses can get involved with and the nutritionists that are being employed.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) and myself have an understanding that he's in the health business and I am more in the rehab. business. We have discussed it.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): At the outset I would just like to welcome the presence in the gallery of 50 students from Carson Graham High School from North Vancouver.

I am going to be brief on the Minister's estimates

[ Page 2194 ]

today. I am not going to be critical, because I think his heart is very much in the right place. I have some concern about the directions he is following, but in general I would like to ask him just one or two broad questions of policy, one of them having to do with the guaranteed income and the other to do with his responsibility for Indian affairs.

In a wide ranging article of March 5 in The Vancouver Sun, the Minister was quoted as saying:

"What British Columbia wants includes one simple, guaranteed, adequate income plan for all Canadians which would replace the whole range of programmes now; that is to say: social assistance, welfare, unemployment insurance, workmen's compensation, disability pensions, and provide the basis for family allowances. Eventually the programme could be expanded to include the Canada Pension Plan."

Later on in the same article Mr. Levi is quoted as saying that he is convinced that guaranteeing an adequate income to people does not remove the incentive to work, though it may affect the sort of work they will take.

He referred to a federal-provincial experiment that is going forward in Manitoba, which I'll get to in a moment. And he referred further that the 160,000 jobs vacant in Canada at present — those would be the Statistics Canada job-vacancy surveys, I assume — were for the most part dirty jobs without job satisfaction. "People will take these jobs if they pay enough," said Levi.

He predicted that in 10 years there will be an elite, well-paid to do the dirty jobs. I think he's probably right in that last statement. I think people in our economy who do have to do the miserable jobs — because somebody has to do them, even with advanced technology — should definitely receive a premium payment for that.

I would like to come back to the question of the work incentive which, if I understand it correctly, has been increasingly vexing people who have previously gone for this idea of a guaranteed annual income.

The experiment in Manitoba, which is called Mincome Manitoba, three-quarters funded by Ottawa and 25 per cent by Manitoba, uses in its basic programme three different, what are called reduction rates. A reduction rate is the amount of money a person is allowed to keep — money that they earn — in addition to the guaranteed basic income they are provided with. The reduction rates, which are, in effect, tax rates, being used in Manitoba range from 35 per cent, through 50 per cent, and up to 75 per cent.

In other words, under the Manitoba programme one family taking part in the pilot project might go out and make earnings of $1,000 a year, of which they would be allowed to retain only $250. Another family might go out and make earnings of $1,000 a year in addition to their basic government-provided annual income, of which they would be allowed to retain $650.

I have two questions for the Minister in that regard. No. 1, given his beliefs about the way that British Columbia would like to break ground in this area for Canada, does he have any hopes that Ottawa might be induced to enter into yet a third experiment within Canada which might take place in British Columbia? I know they have thus far said they are not going to go for anything beyond two; but given the special circumstances we have out here as a high-income province with a large number of people coming in each year, I wonder if they could be induced to reassess that.

Secondly, I wonder if he would have any comment as to what the right reduction rate is. My own view is that the right reduction rate is something below 50 per cent. He might have a view on that. Unfortunately, it makes the programme much more costly.

I would like to move to the question of Indian affairs and ask some specific questions. Back in the days when the Hon. Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) had specific Ministerial responsibility for this question, he undertook that a report would be prepared and presented in due course to the House, I believe. I would like to ask the Minister if that report is still in the course of preparation with any of the officials he inherited from the previous Minister, if it's been completed now and if he will table it in the House.

The second representation I would make to him would be to give consideration to making it possible for British Columbia Indian reserves to have the same right as do Indian reserves in three other provinces.... I think; it's certainly Ontario, and I think it includes Saskatchewan and Alberta. It's the right for exclusive levying of taxes on reserve property.

At the moment the British Columbia Municipal Act provides that the municipality within which the reserve is located has the right to tax the non-Indian interests on that Indian reserve. This leads to a number of anomalous situations. For example, the federal government, generally speaking, pays around $847 per child per year for the education of children on Indian reserves, and yet municipalities assess school tax on commercial properties located inside Indian reserves.

I don't underestimate the difficulties that this sort of a revision of the law would cause — for example, to the extent that Indian bands might have the power to tax non-Indian interests that are located on the reserve property. How are those non-Indian interests to have a democratic representation in the taxing authority?

Other provinces have been able to work these

[ Page 2195 ]

things out with reasonable satisfaction; and there is the protection that there is a 40-day disallowance period, for any inappropriate tax by-laws that may be passed by the band, by the federal Minister of Indian Affairs. Alternatively, the provincial provisions might suggest that the band tax rate would be no more than the municipality within which it was located, for example.

This, I think, is a move which could assist in the march of Indian bands in British Columbia toward greater and greater self-government and virtual municipal status.

Next, I would draw to the attention of the Minister a situation of which I know he is well aware, but which I think is worth putting briefly in the record. The Vancouver Sun of January 21 reported a picketing occurrence at the north end of the Lions Gate Bridge by the Squamish Indian Band. The reason for that picketing was to draw to the attention of the people of North Vancouver and of the province a long-standing grievance of the Squamish Indian Band, which is one aspect of a very broad provincial problem. That is, the so-called Indian cut-off lands.

As the Minister will be aware in his time with this responsibility of Indian Affairs, the Indian people have a long memory — and, unhappily, much cause for a long memory and a sense of grievance in some areas — of their treatment by the rest of society.

The Capilano reserve, in particular, has a situation where these cut-off lands were cut off in specific violation of the words of the commission that came to hear their representations.

Let me just give a little bit of history. The Capilano reserve at the north end of the Burrard Bridge was established before the end of the century. In 1912 the Canadian and British Columbia governments entered into an agreement between a special commissioner, Mr. McKenna, appointed by the dominion government, and Mr. McBride, the then Premier of the province.

A part of that agreement, which was to be concerned with the investigation as to whether the lands of various Indian bands were adequate or not, says:

"At such places as the commissioners are satisfied that more land is included in any particular reserve, as now defined, than is reasonably required for the use of the Indians of that tribe or locality, the reserve shall" — and I emphasize the following words — "with the consent of the Indians, as required by the Indian Act, be reduced to such acreage as the commissioners think reasonably sufficient."

During the following years the commission held hearings. And wisely, for the protection of the Indians, these hearings were very often taken down in verbatim transcript. Thus we have a record of a meeting of the commission on July 17, 1913, at the Mission reserve in North Vancouver. That is another one of the Squamish band reserves, but not the one that the cut-off lands refers to.

The chairman addressed the assembled Indians as follows, Andrew Paull acting as interpreter:

"You know when the commission was here before at the time we explained the nature of our work and heard some evidence, we told you to what our work was confined, by virtue of the commission itself, and I think we told you that when our work was finished and the reserves were confirmed, they could not be sold except with the consent of the Indians."

Of course, by that I mean the Indians interested in the reserve.

The commissioners gave further assurances on June 21, 1913, very specific assurances. Then in 1916 without giving any reasons, subject to what pressures I know not, issued a report recommending that 132 acres of that particular reserve be cut off and indeed, I think, throughout British Columbia something like 37,000 acres.

Then in 1919 the province passed the Indian Affairs Settlement Act, Chapter 22 of the statutes of that year, which have the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council power to effect that commission report and in 1920 the Dominion government passed similar legislation which provided — this is a shocking thing — that the land could be cut off, taken away from the Indian bands concerned without the consent of the Indians affected.

This is a specific case example, well documented in the history of this particular band, well known to every member of that band, which is one of the rankling pieces of injustice that makes it difficult for the Indian band members concerned to feel that they have been properly dealt with by the British Columbia community at large.

The band has sought meetings with the provincial government and has had difficulty in obtaining such meetings. I know, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that there is a matter of great difficulty involved here. The 37,000 acres is not a question to be taken lightly; there are heavy potential financial costs involved.

At the same time, I must represent my constituents. I can say that in this case most of the 132 acres of land concerned are vacant or else very lightly used. Most are in the present ownership of the provincial government and could be quickly turned back.

I appreciate that the government might have a wish for tidiness in settling all these things in one package, but on the other hand I would suggest that this is a particular case which can be settled very easily because the lands can't simply be returned. There are other areas perhaps where the land can't

[ Page 2196 ]

simply be returned, but here they can. I would suggest, first of all, that this is a case that may be solved relatively easily. Secondly, this is a case that merits another early meeting with the Indian band concerned.

As a final representation to the Minister with respect to Indian affairs, I would say what other Hon. Members have said, that the Government of Canada having now formally recognized that the so-called B.C. land question should be negotiated with the Indian bands, it is very important that the provincial government should join itself to those negotiations at a senior level.

I appreciate when the federal Minister of Indian Affairs was out here a couple of weeks ago, the province did not at that time feel that it could have senior representation there, they simply had a watching brief at the meetings. I hope the Minister might be able to assure the House that whenever the next meeting is convened, the provincial government will be there at a level equivalent with that of the federal government so that finally these negotiations can get off the ground and a step made along the path of redressing this ancient grievance which is something that simply must be redressed before the Indian people can truly feel that they have been properly treated by their fellow citizens of British Columbia.

HON. MR. LEVI: In respect to the question of the cut-off lands, as you know, we met with the Indians, and the Attorney-General wrote to the B.C. Union of Indian Chiefs. I'll just quote from the letter:

"I indicated to you that the government was prepared to underwrite the financial costs incurred for legal assistance in the preparation of a brief for a submission on the legal and constitutional issues related to the Indian cut-off lands. The offer would also include counsel fees should you decide to seek judicial determination of the issue.

"In the latter connection I indicated to you as well that the government would not impose any procedural barriers on an appropriate test case on the question being brought through the courts."

We have sent that and we have yet to receive a reply on it.

I covered fairly broadly the other questions that you raised with your Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) on the Indian issue. You don't want me to go through it again.

MR. GIBSON: The problem on the cut-off lands, Mr. Chairman, is that it will be very difficult to win a court case in this matter because there is statute law both at the federal and provincial level which provides for these activities. The activities were completely morally wrong, in my view; the land was taken without consent. But the law is there and therefore the court case is unlikely to provide the redress that everyone would like. I would hope that other negotiations would go forward contemporaneously with the court proceedings.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): The previous speaker, the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano indicated how he feels about the Minister's abilities. I associate myself with those remarks. I also would like to make the observation that in this debate he's been very helpful as we've discussed vote 113, and I congratulate him on that.

Interjections.

MR. CURTIS: Yes, drop him immediately. It's rare for this side of the House to compliment a Minister. I think this particular Minister has attempted to pull together a very tough department, put it into a good working unit, and some of us on this side of the Legislature recognize that. It should not go unnoticed. We are poles apart philosophically, but that's another matter.

Earlier today there was considerable discussion with respect to the allowances for the elderly. I think that was pretty well canvassed. But it is too easy, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, to overlook the difficulties in which the recipients of social allowance payments find themselves. Changes have been made — on page 34 of the document, which the Minister distributed very recently, we see table 19, basic social assistance rate schedule. Taking it just a little further, though, I think in a province which is as wealthy as British Columbia, we are still not meeting the basic needs of those people who find themselves in very urgent need of social assistance or social allowances.

In the correspondence I receive and in the comments which are directed to me in the course of my work representing one constituency, I don't read too much criticism about the social allowance recipients. There is far more criticism with respect to those who abuse unemployment insurance throughout the country than those who are genuinely intitled to social assistance. I'm pleased that in the discussion yesterday and again today we have not zeroed in on the — what are they called, Mr. Chairman? — the five-per centers, the relatively small percentage of men and women who do abuse social allowance.

I think the committee should examine in cold, hard cash, the dollars which are delivered to families that find it necessary to turn to the provincial government and through the province to the federal government for social assistance: the single person total of $140, we're all well aware of; we look at two

[ Page 2197 ]

persons, one adult and one child, this includes the $20 allowance for the child — $160; three persons, comprising one adult and two children — $340; four persons, one adult and three children — $410; and in the larger family units, six persons, as an example, two adults and four children — a total of $525.

Now, for the purposes of reciting this afternoon, I have not taken into account the August-September clothing allowance and other overages, the rental overage which was referred to earlier. We're still talking about very little money in today's inflationary era for a mother or a father, a single parent and a number of children, on a 30-day basis.

I in no way begrudge the money given to senior citizens under Mincome. That's well and good. But I think we have to compare, and correct me if my figures are not exactly right, Mr. Minister: two senior citizens receiving Mincome, $418 a month; a family of four, a single parent and three children on social assistance, supplemented by $20 per child family allowance, $410 a month. Two seniors, $418; a family of four, $410.

We really can't hold our heads high in British Columbia yet on the amount of money available to the genuinely deserving social assistance recipient. I hope that day will come some time soon.

I would also like the Minister not to talk about his desk, but to talk about his two executive assistants. I don't believe they have been mentioned in the debate on vote 113. This is a $35,256 item in that vote. What specific assignments has he given to his executive assistants? I'm not looking here for the general terms of reference for others in other departments engaged in that type of work. I would like to know what these individuals are doing, where they are located most of the time and the type of work which has been assigned to them. If he would comment on that, please.

Briefly, on day care: hopefully the Minister has overcome some of the earlier dissatisfaction with the mechanics of day care — not where the youngsters are being cared for but in the relationship between the parent or parents and the office.

In the Victoria office, I've been told on more than one occasion, an individual has real difficulty in getting the kind of information he or she requires. It was very tough to get through by phone; when one went into the office, there seemed to be a lack of staff. There seemed to be a lack of coordination between the staff; the left hand didn't know what the right was doing. There was the feeling that some members of that office were at that time, and I'm speaking of several weeks ago now, operating without a strong direction. there was rather a drifting in the office. There's an abundance of form-filling, a great deal of paperwork for the adult who wished to take advantage of day-care services. And then the very annoying business of change of the coupon. I'm still not clear as to why the coupons were changed. These require considerable time and effort in filling out. Then suddenly, as I have been told, the existing coupons were withdrawn, new forms were issued and the individual had to go through the whole process once again.

I think it follows quite naturally that the parent who is most interested in day care has the least time to worry about paperwork. He or she has a job to go to, has to hurry home to look after the youngster. This surely should be simplified. The less paperwork, the less form filling, the less duplication of effort and the more prompt answers available to the applicant, to the person who is telephoning or visiting the office, then surely the better. Perhaps the Minister would touch on those few points.

HON. MR. LEVI: First of all, I'd like to thank the Member for the compliments in respect to the general performance of the department, and my performance. But I can assure you that without my two assistants, I just couldn't do it. I'll be very frank with you about this. I have one assistant who is here in Victoria with me, Ray Wargo. I have one who works in Vancouver. You realize that the Vancouver system, that whole system over there, is one-third of the total system of the province. We were involved in a whole series of negotiations in trying to rationalize the process for well over a year and it became absolutely essential for me to have somebody there on a full-time basis. Also, that assistant, Joe Denofreo has been absolutely invaluable in respect to the development of the transient youth programme and the employment programme which he coordinated for us in the department.

There's no question that I needed those two individuals. I couldn't produce the kind of standards that we have produced without their assistance and, of course, without the assistance of the rest of the staff.

In terms of the day-care situation in Victoria, it's true that we have changed the form. Fortunately, it's been changed because something extremely positive has happened in Canada as a result of the initiative of this government. Last year we introduced an income tested day-care programme. I'm sure the Members are familiar with the pamphlet we put out. That income-tested programme has now been adopted by the federal government across Canada. Now, that's a pretty severe departure from the needs test principle that existed in the Canada Assistance Plan.

We have got in the thin end of the wedge in making the point, which we've been attempting to do for the last 18 months that I've been attending these federal Minister's meetings, that there is a need to go from the means test-needs test situation to the income test. And we've achieved that on the day-care programme across Canada. The federal Minister made

[ Page 2198 ]

this announcement the other day.

Yes, we've had some adjustments to make in the office in Victoria. I met with all of the staff; I met with them on two occasions. They have a perfectly legitimate beef about their salaries, and I've taken this matter up on their behalf.

We integrated the Family and Children's Service into the government system. They've done a tremendous job. They've quadrupled the amount of day-care service in this area. A tremendous job. They've been under a lot of pressure. I have met with them twice now and I've undertaken to deliver for them what, obviously, is their due. There is an anomaly compared to what our other day-care information centre people are getting. So, that should improve the situation. The demand is there; the expectation is there. We could put in 100 phones, but we're going to have to have at least 50 people manning them. That's not practical either.

The paper warfare: we inherited it. We are trying to find ways of reducing the flow of paper. It has no relationship to the fact that we own pulp mills, but, god, the paper just flies all over the place. We are trying to do something about this paper flow.

In terms of the sharing, the arrangements that we have under the Canada Assistance Plan, I must say that they inflict on us fantastic demands in terms of stuff that has to be in writing. It's just enormous, the amount of paper that has to flow and the accounts that we have to keep in order to charge back on the Canada Assistance Plan.

You wanted to know about the rates…I think you were out of the House, Mr. Member. We are undertaking a review of the rates. We are looking at an indexing of the rates. What we attempted to do last year was to get a flat-rate payment. First of all, we increased the rental overage to 75 per cent. Of course, we do have the special needs board. But there will be announcements about the rates. We are looking at a formula for the indexing of the social assistance rates.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley) : Mr. Chairman, just a few comments. I want to speak for a moment about the Alcohol and Drug Commission which has presented a report in the last few days to the Members of the Legislature.

I too, Mr. Chairman, want to compliment the Minister of his department, particularly his own office and the Mincome office, the two with which I've had the most to do. I must say that I've had admirable cooperation. I wish every department of government was as good as yours in relation to that kind of cooperation for MLAs.

I also want to echo the comments made by the Member for Saanich with regard to the differing philosophies that we find on that side of the House as compared to this side of the House. With that in mind I want to say that I'm distressed about the approach we seem to be taking in relation to the alcohol and drug dependency problems in British Columbia. I believe the reason for that distress can be laid mostly to the fact that the chairman of the Alcohol and Drug Commission has the wrong attitude, in my opinion.

To begin with, he seems to reject the possibility of success in any kind of treatment programme. He has, on previous occasions also offered a pro-drug bias, in my opinion. I don't believe we can allow that kind of bias to infiltrate the Alcohol and Drug Commission if we are to use that commission as a vehicle to solve the problems of dependency in British Columbia.

I recall a time when the present chairman of the commission was a member of the LeDain commission and he publicly, in a high school in Vancouver, made some very pro-marijuana comments before the students of that school. They even raised the matter in the student newspaper, The Joker, with regard to the question of should marijuana be legalized. On the basis of the comments made by the now chairman of the Alcohol and Drug Commission who was then the commissioner for the western provinces of the LeDain commission, The Joker newspaper from the high school says that if the newly appointed commission of inquiry into the non-medical use of drugs has its way, it will be.

The commission was supposedly to study fully the drug situation. But many aspects of the study, however, are being set aside in favour of the "legalized pot" theme.

Now, that concerns me for a couple of reasons but most importantly, Mr. Chairman, it concerns me because it shows the biases — more clearly than anything else could have — of the chairman of the Alcohol and Drug Commission. I wonder how we can justify his appointment to this very sensitive area of concern in British Columbia, given those known and very obvious biases.

I also want to ask the Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, where he stands in relation to this tug-of-war that appears to be going on between his department and the Attorney-General's department (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). Now, we know that the Attorney-General's department has issued a report showing one method, one route that we can travel in relation to the drug dependency problem.

It was contained in what we have referred to in this House as the "Matheson Report". That report has received the acceptance of a number of people in our society, many of whom I consider to be very responsible citizens and very responsive to the needs of our society in relation to drug dependency. It's been given a very high degree of support from those people.

On the other hand, we seem to find the Human Resources department, through its Alcohol and Drug Commission, advocating a completely different route

[ Page 2199 ]

to follow. So there seems to be a tug-of-war in relation to the directions we will go to try and bring into control and into some kind of manageable proportions the problems of drug dependency in British Columbia. I'd just like a comment from the Minister.

I don't intend, Mr. Chairman, to go on — I have spoken on this subject three times since the session opened. On each occasion I think my points were noted by the government and by that Minister and I won't have to repeat them.

I would say that I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the Chairman of the Alcohol and Drug Commission has made some incredibly irresponsible statements in relation to drug dependency. I don't think he's the man for the job and I think that we should adopt a new attitude — one which recognizes that there can be some successful treatment available and that people in other parts of the world and other parts of the country seem to be moving in that direction more and more with some measure of success.

I don't think we can adopt a totally negative attitude and hope for any kind of success.

Now, Mr. Chairman, briefly I want to comment about the special report to the Legislature of the Alcohol and Drug Commission. I wish we could have had this report a long time ago, because it's a pretty good one and it outlines some courses with which I think everyone in this House can agree. It also outlines some philosophy with which we don't agree. But nevertheless I wish we had this report — I understand it was finished around December, or something. Somehow the press got ahold of it some time ago. I wish the Members of the Legislature would have had the opportunity as well.

There are some comments however, Mr. Chairman, with which I must emphatically disagree. Near the beginning of the report on page 4 where the commission says: "for the last several years original thinking about alcohol and drug abuse has been virtually embalmed. In our opinion, the field has not been much noted for its ingenuity."

Well, I would take complete exception with that statement, Mr. Chairman, because I believe that there was all kinds of original thinking about alcohol and drug dependency in this province by those very agencies which are being condemned in this report and I would say that the only problem was that nobody listened to them.

The federal government didn't listen to them; the provincial government didn't listen to them, but certainly that thinking was going on all of the time. It was well-documented on a number of occasions beginning in 1967 or 1968 and continuing as late as last year but nobody listened. That was the problem — not that those people weren't concerned — not that those people weren't aware — not that those people didn't know what the problems were and not that those people didn't offer solutions to those problems. Those people did do their duty but unfortunately they weren't listened to.

The commission also made some conciliatory statements in here about the cautionary aspects of their future role in the drug dependency situation and one of the statements they make is: "When we err, it will be on the side of caution." I suppose that's a statement designed to calm some of the fears of the opposition, I guess, in relation to this whole problem.

I don't think we necessarily want caution, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order?

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) does have a Bill 99 on the order paper on the subject of drug addiction. I think we should wait for that debate. I think this is unnecessary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the Member's point is well-taken. Would you avoid that until the bill comes up for debate, Mr. Member?

MR. McCLELLAND: You mean that I can't discuss a report which was handed to me by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) just prior to his estimates coming before this House?

You are going to stifle the debate on that very important report. Mr. Chairman, I think we have every right and every duty to discuss that report in these estimates and this is the only place this report can be discussed and it has to be discussed under the Minister's salary vote and with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I'll continue to discuss this important report.

We don't necessarily want caution, Mr. Chairman, we want action and that's been the cry that I've been making for the last several weeks in this House. The lack of action.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask you, Mr. Member, to respect the Chair's ruling in that this is better discussed under a bill that is now on the order paper. It shouldn't be discussed at this time.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I must differ. On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. This special report to the Legislature was, I presume, given to us especially so that we may discuss it under the Minister's vote and I believe that that's what the Minister meant when he gave us this report because he was trying not to give me a copy of it a bit in advance.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that you are acting contrary to the House, if you don't allow me to discuss this important vote, this important report

[ Page 2200 ]

under the Minister's salary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am trying to go by the rules of the House.

MR. McCLELLAND: I don't want to be stifled and I don't believe in closure and I want to be able to discuss this report.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we have order, please? Mr. Member, I don't want to stifle debate, I am merely saying that according to the rules of the House this item should be debated under the bill that's now on the order paper.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I can't accept that ruling and I must challenge it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) was speaking on the estimates of the Minister of Human Resources and wished to discuss the Drug and Alcohol Commission report. I ruled him out of order in that there was a bill on the order paper dealing with the matter and he challenged the Chair's ruling.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): May I rise on a point of order. I think that the Chairman, himself, has misunderstood the rules of the House and made an incorrect ruling which perhaps doesn't even deserve to be challenged but could be dealt with by yourself through an explanation.

This bill, Mr. Chairman, has not been printed. The Member has not had an opportunity to read the bill. He doesn't know the contents, nor do I. This bill can't be brought up for second reading since it hasn't been printed. We don't even know it will be printed. We certainly don't know the contents of it and to rule out discussion of a point that a Minister has tabled in the Legislature on the grounds that some bill that hasn't been presented is just absurd.

MR. SPEAKER: All right, one minute. Before we proceed. Where is the bill shown on the orders of the day?

MR. McGEER: Page 20.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I see. The bill in connection with this is one by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). First reading, March 29, Drug Addiction Rehabilitation Act, 1974.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not in our bill book.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I presume the bill has been presented in the House.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the bill has been introduced but it has not yet been printed.

If I might speak on the point of order, I would regret very much if this bill, which has not been read by the Members of the House, should in fact stifle discussion by any Member of the House on this particular report which the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) was trying to debate when the challenge to the Chairman's ruling occurred. It certainly was never my intention that this private bill should in fact prevent the discussion of this very important issue. If it is absolutely necessary, I would be prepared to withdraw the bill.

HON. MR. BARRETT: To assist the House in coming to a decision, we are faced first of all with making a decision within the rules as they exist now. When the opportunity comes for the Member to withdraw the bill, I would see no reason why leave shouldn't be given at that time, but we are faced with the situation as it is now within the rules, and I don't see how we can alter the rules, based on what may be done in a few moments. There is no choice but to uphold the Chairman's ruling. If the Member wishes to withdraw the bill at the opportune moment, then of course the rules of the House will be able to function. But we can't alter the rules.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why can't we?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: One at a time, please. On that point of order, Hon. Member, I really shouldn't be discussing points of order, but perhaps we may facilitate some sort of solution.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, the point that I wanted to make is that not only do none of the Members know what is contained in that bill but neither does the Chairman.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think that is a proper point.

MR. McCLELLAND: Of course it is.

MR. SPEAKER: No, it isn't.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, how does he know I'm trespassing then on the provisions of that bill?

MR. SPEAKER: The very simple answer to that is that a bill that is tabled in the House and introduced and given first reading, whether it is printed or not, is

[ Page 2201 ]

still a matter of record in the House. That isn't the argument that we are really concerned with. The question really is that all that the Speaker can do is ask that the House determine whether the Chairman's ruling shall be sustained without any argument.

My suggestion to the Hon. Members, which is informal, is that perhaps when you go back into committee the matter may be resolved by leave as to what you can discuss; or later on, when the House reassembles, leave might be given to the Hon. Member for Oak Bay to withdraw the bill at this time, and then it could be got on with later. All I can do now is put to the House whether the Chairman's ruling shall be sustained.

May I point out while we are waiting to take the vote to the Hon. Members, without any rancor, that surely you can understand that if a bill is here, even though it may not be in your book, it has been tabled and the context of the bill is available in the Clerk's office.

The second point is that it may surprise you to know that even a notice of motion rules out any discussion — not just the motion on the order paper, but the notice of motion, which is surprising.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 31

NAYS — 15

HON. MR. BARRETT: I would ask, Mr. Speaker, if the Member wishes to withdraw the bill, that he ask leave while the Speaker is in the chair rather than the committee Chairman because I don't believe the committee Chairman could have the authority to ask for such.

MR. SPEAKER: I can only do it with the consent of the whole House, of course.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to withdraw Bill 99.

MR. SPEAKER: The proper request would be to discharge the order for second reading of the bill. Is that agreed?

Leave granted.

The House in committee of supply; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of other things that I want to talk about in regard to this report. One of them deals with policy studies which have been done by the Drug and Alcohol Commission. One of them is a 36-page report regarding community resource boards, which apparently was finished on November 20, 1973, and which the report says contains a number of very specific recommendations.

It also, in recommendations for the implementation of this policy study, says: "We recognize Community Resource Centres as principal agents for the coordinating and integrating of service to alcohol and drug dependents."

I wonder where that policy study is. It says that it is available to the public. I wonder why it wasn't distributed to the MLAs as well so that we might have had some advance knowledge of the directions in which we might be moving.

I don't agree, Mr. Chairman, that community resource centres should be the principal agents with regard to the integrating of this service. I think that rather than integration it will cause further fragmentation. I don't think that the people who are concerned about drug dependency will take very much pleasure from that kind of report because I believe the policy has to come from Victoria. It can't come in some fragmented manner from every community resource centre in the province. You can't have one policy for downtown and one policy for uptown. If you are going to solve this problem, you have to solve it with some kind of meaningful policy from the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) or whichever Minister is charged with the responsibility of looking after this problem.

Again, another policy study, with regard to the Narcotic Addiction Foundation and the Alcohol Addiction Foundation, was apparently concluded near the end of the year, but we never saw it.

Another very important study is a 29-page study which was completed on December 1, 1973, with regard to the clinical treatment and training centre, which is the real core of this whole report. It's a very comprehensive study, so why so bashful? Why

[ Page 2202 ]

weren't the MLAs given the opportunity to have a look at this study as well? We might not have had to debate problems to the extent that we did in earlier times. We could have known then where the thrust was coming from, and we could have then just been able to much more intelligently decide on a position in relation to the way this government was moving.

There's a statement, Mr. Chairman, in the implementation of this clinical treatment and training centre proposal which says that the proposals have been approved in principle by the commission and the budget figure has been included in the estimates. Well, it sounds to me like the commission is running the government in this regard. Who is running whom? And where is that? We can't find it in the estimates, Mr. Chairman. Where is the money that's included for these clinical treatment and training centres? If it's in those estimates somewhere, then I suggest that it's all the more important that we should have had an opportunity to look at that study so we would have known how to discuss it in the terms of the estimates.

The study also apparently says that it will be going into some kind of an opiate maintenance programme for heroin addicts. That frightens me, Mr. Chairman. I think that the commission's fallen for a snow job by the addicts. Why do we want to forge ahead with this opiate maintenance programme regardless of a lack of any kind of proof that that kind of programme can be effective? In fact, I would suggest there's much more proof that it won't be effective.

It says that the methadone maintenance programme is a field of some controversy and I would say that's a fantastic understatement.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the commission on its proposals for detoxification facilities, and for some of the other proposals it made with regard to education, because that, too, is one of the pleas that I made in this House, for some kind of a meaningful education programme at the lower levels of elementary school, to get started and get those kids where it's really necessary — not in grade 8 or 9, when they've already had the opportunity to get involved in the drug scene or not.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the authority that the commission seems to have taken on itself, it says again with the implementation of another policy study with regard to halfway houses:

"We have reached agreement with the Department of Human Resources to assure that the commission has authority over approval of per diem rates for such facilities. By agreement with the Provincial Secretary, we will assume on April 1, 1974, funding authority, previously held over the expenditures not related to social assistance at halfway houses."

How is it that the commission gets this kind of authority? Where does the Legislature come in in relation to the estimates, and to whom is the commission responsible ultimately if it has now been given that authority? It seems to me that we are removing the responsibility, the accountability for the expenditure of public funds from this Legislature and placing it in the hands of an appointed authority, and that frightens me as well.

The comment made by the commission in the education research part of this report is right on, in that it makes the education in the whole context of effective living and decision-making, and it's my opinion that we will never solve the drug dependency programme until we go that route in the long term. The health education programmes are also excellent, as are the impaired driver programmes which are mentioned in the report as well.

Mr. Chairman, I question a comment made with regard to the voluntary or compulsory treatment question, and here of course is where we differ, I think, most substantially.

I believe that there must be both a voluntary and compulsory programme as laid down in the so-called Matheson report. I don't believe, for instance, in the comment made by the Stein commission that non-voluntary methods should only be implemented if and when the voluntary methods have been shown to have failed. I think we must travel both routes, and travel them quickly.

I don't understand what kind of a nonsensical statement has been made with regard to the statement where it says:

"The compulsory unit at Matsqui in this province did even worse. Indeed, in a long-term comparative analysis between inmates there who received treatment and those who received none, the latter group did better in terms of drug use, criminal behaviour and employment. The treated group simply became more effective drug users."

Mr. Chairman, I can't accept that statement. I would ask the Minister, through you, whether he would tell us upon what kind of documented scientific evidence that statement was made.

HON. MR. LEVI: If you sit down, I will.

MR. McCLELLAND: I would like to see that comparative analysis, for one thing, Mr. Chairman. I wonder whether he would table that in the House.

In relation to the programme in Japan, the commission says that it's partly true that that programme was successful, but I'd suggest that it's more than partly true because it works. It's proven to have worked. I'm not saying it can be transferred to Canada, but it does work. It has eliminated the hard drug addiction problem in Japan, and where the commission says that "recent reports indicate that amphetamines, hallucinogens and alcohol continue to be a major problem," I suggest that's an error, in fact.

[ Page 2203 ]

I know that alcohol is still a major problem in Japan, but the people in government in Japan say that the abuse of amphetamines and hallucinogens has dramatically been reduced, as has the abuse of hard drugs in Japan.

Mr. Chairman, the commission says it calls upon the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), the Minister of Human Resources, and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) to commit themselves to the kind of programme which they have suggested in their summary. If that means that the programme will be totally community based, I don't believe that volunteers by themselves can cope with this problem.

If this programme means that we will not establish any kind of a compulsory programme, if it means that we will accept the statements of the chairman of the committee that treatment is doomed to failure, then Mr. Chairman, I say no, no, no. We cannot accept this programme. We must not accept this programme, and we must get on to developing some kind of a treatment programme which will work and which will attack the problem before we become unalterably caught in a mire of drug and alcohol addiction in this province from which we can never escape.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, this is the fourth time I've listened to this Member make the same speech. First of all, in respect to the report, we attempted to bring into the House the most up-to-date report that we could get from the commission, given the fact that the commission was set up in July. It didn't actually become operative until some time towards the end of August. If you look at the report you will see that a great deal of work has been done. This report was tabled on March 15.

The other thing that I want to say to the Member is that I appreciate his point of view. I don't agree with it, but I would have been a lot happier had the Member taken the trouble to go up to Fort Street and meet with the Alcohol and Drug Commission, because I think that that is where your argument is weakened. I made a specific point of inquiring as to whether you had been up there. Have you spoken to Stye? Have you spoken to Milligan? Have you spoken to any of them? If you are that concerned, as obviously you are, you've had opportunity to see these people over the months.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He knows it all.

HON. MR. LEVI: What you've decided to do is to align yourself with a particular group in this province that are committed to the hard-line approach to this business, and we are not committed just to that hard-line approach.

You asked about Matsqui. The Matsqui study was done by Brian Murphy. It is a study that is published by the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Allmand) of the federal government. It is available, and that was the startling result of the Matsqui experiment. Four years, and I was involved in part of that experiment. So don't tell me that's not based on scientific proof. It is. It was a long, detailed study and the general conclusion of Matsqui, as many of us said, including myself and the Premier and the Second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) that it won't work. We knew it wouldn't work intuitively because we worked in the field, but then they had to go through four years of high expenditure to prove that it didn't work. Surely one of the things that the commission has said is that we are not going to try again the things that it fails.

You have in this report a blueprint of what can happen in terms of this problem. I would refer you to pages 48 and 49 of this report. Last November we had a meeting in Victoria at which were attending police, the judiciary, the Health, the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), the treatment people from the penitentiary, the people from the community.

What did they come up with, unanimously? It's all written on page 49. They said "chemical dependency is a medical-social problem." That was agreed to. "Thus possession and use in the absence of other criminal offences or drug trafficking should not be dealt with in the criminal justice system." A unanimous conclusion.

"The management of such drug dependent person will require medical and social facilities and personnel laid out in this report. As a first step in providing the comprehensive range of services, detoxification facilities must be made available as a first priority..."

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. LEVI:

"...associated with local acute care hospitals and funded under BCHIS."

A meeting was held just the other day with the Minister and the commission and these things are being discussed.

These are not the only way to go. There are a whole range of ways to go.

Number 5: "The second priority is to make access available for drug-dependent persons to medical, social and educational facilities presently available to the general public."

Number 6: "The third priority is the creation of community-based programmes to meet any special needs not available within the existing structure."

We are not proposing that communities will run different programmes but we want them to run the programmes — programmes that will be laid down by policy, but they've got to be run in the community.

[ Page 2204 ]

Seven: "Non-voluntary methods of managing drug abuse should only be implemented…a compulsory one if and when the above prescribed programmes have been shown to have failed."

Eight: "An integral aspect of all these programmes must be on-going evaluation, research and public education." We have just hired the foremost researcher in this country who has been involved for 18 years in this field. He will be starting in one month.

"This group calls upon the Minister of Health..." and Youth Centres. In eight months this group, Cy Milligan, who has long years of experience not only in this province but back east; Waddell, who is admired as a young lawyer who has defended addicts and understands the problem, and we will have Irene Peters who is an Indian who works on her own reserve up in Williams Lake; we have Quent Creech who worked in the Mental Health field and understands this problem; we have Charles Barber who worked in the field and knows about the young from the youth point of view, and John Dick who has worked long and hard to try and bring about the detoxification programme that is inherent in this report.

Now I do not accept your attack on the members of this commission. These people are all very experienced.

But most of all, Mr. Member, tomorrow in the morning go up and meet with them and make your point. But don't stand up here with that sanctimonious idea that somehow you know and nobody else knows.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House. Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.