[ Page 2205 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 102). Hon. Mr. Barrett. Introduction and first reading — 2205

Oral questions

Legislation to control seller's price of houses.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2205

Propriety of Highways news release on summer jobs.

Mr. Smith — 2205

Supplementary grants to school boards.

Mr. Wallace — 2206

Hiring of Marvin Durning to observe FPC hearings on Skagit.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2206

Negotiations with BCFGA; approach to fruit industry crisis.

Mrs. Jordan — 2206

Talks on renegotiation of Columbia River Treaty.

Mr. Wallace — 2207

Government's position on Skagit agreement.

Mr. Gibson — 2207

Plans for Kokanee salmon production.

Hon. Mr. Radford — 2207

Preliminary surveys for rapeseed production.

Hon. Mr. Radford — 2207

Negotiations for government option on Sukunka coal.

Mr. Wallace — 2208

Effective date for reduction in gas taxes.

Mr. McGeer — 2208

Applications under Farm Products Industry Improvement Act.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2208

Negotiations for Shuswap poultry processing plant.

Mrs. Jordan — 2208

Committee of Supply: Department of Human Resources estimates

On vote 113.

Mr. Chabot — 2209

Mr. Rolston — 2209

Mr. McGeer — 2212

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2214

Mr. Chabot — 2217

Mr. Fraser — 2217

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2220

Mr. Wallace — 2221

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2224

Mr. Wallace — 2226

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2226

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2227

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2232

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2234

Mr. Morrison — 2235

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2235

Mr. Morrison — 2236

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2236

Mr. Morrison — 2237

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2237

Mr. Gibson — 2237

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2237

Mr. Gibson — 2238

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2238

Mr. Wallace — 2238

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2238

Mr. Wallace — 2239

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2239

On vote 114.

Mr. Wallace — 2239

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2239

Mr. Wallace — 2240

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2240

Regional Hospital Districts Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 104).

Hon. Mr. Cocke.

Introduction and first reading — 2240

THURSDAY, APRIL 4, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I have the great pleasure today to welcome to the chamber Padre McDonald, who gave the prayers today, and to say to the House that this gentleman did me the great honour of performing my wedding ceremony in Revelstoke some 21 years ago. I hope the House will join me in welcoming him here today.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I hope that the Hon. Minister's wife was present at the wedding ceremony. It was her wedding, too, you know — she's a liberationist.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you'll be very pleased to know that we have 10 students in the gallery today from George Elliot High School from that great area of the Okanagan, Winfield, where the beautiful peaches and apples and apricots come from. They have largely earned their own way to be here both by their attitude in school and by earning their own money. They are with Mr. and Mrs. Young of Winfield, who are community-minded citizens, and their instructor and the vice-principal of George Elliot, Mr. David Aspinall. I hope all Members will be on their best behaviour this afternoon and give them a warm welcome.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a group of students from Georges P. Vanier Senior Secondary School at Courtenay. They are accompanied this afternoon by their teacher, Mr. Leo Nepveu. And I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Mrs. Ray Bryant from Squamish, Mrs. Don Gow from Alta Lake and Mrs. Gordon Smith and Mrs. Slim Fougberg from Pemberton. They are here visiting Victoria. Their husbands are here as well, Mr. Speaker, doing some business for the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery is Mr. Lea Cowan, a teacher, and Mr. Delabois, a chaperon, and Mrs. Jessie Maisonneuve and the students from Ferndale Elementary School. I'd like you to welcome them all.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome Mrs. Hilda Hackman, who has the distinction of being my mother-in-law.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure the behaviour will be much higher today.

Introduction of bills.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Barrett presents a message from the Administrator: a bill intituled Income Tax Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 102 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.

LEGISLATION TO CONTROL
SELLER'S PRICE OF HOUSES

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier in the absence of the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson): may I ask whether the government intends to bring in legislation which would have the effect of controlling the seller's price of houses?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I am pleased that the Member asked me that question. The Minister has already denied that we have any such intention. I want to re-emphasize and re-echo the Minister's statement — the government has no intention of bringing that programme.

PROPRIETY OF HIGHWAYS
NEWS RELEASE ON SUMMER JOBS

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Hon. Minister of Highways. The Minister of Highways' office has turned out a news release dated April 3, indicating a programme which will employ some 12,000 students this summer. I wonder if the Minister will tell me if it's a new policy of the Department of Highways to issue news releases prior to the time that the bill appropriating the funds is being debated on the floor of the House. As I understand it, the bill just came into the House yesterday that will make the funds available, Mr. Minister.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, it's a continuation of last year's programme and there's no doubt in my mind that we will go ahead. Even if this programme doesn't go ahead I feel we have an obligation to hire summer students within the Department of Highways. If I have to, I'll make funds available there from the vote that's been passed.

[ Page 2206 ]

MR. SMITH: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker: do I understand you to say that regardless of whether Bill 101 passes the House or not you'll make the funds available that will employ some 12,000 students?

HON. MR. LEA: Every year the Highways department has hired students to do work during the summer months. We will continue that programme.

MR. SMITH: For 12,000 students?

HON. MR. LEA: Twelve thousand isn't the figure at all. There must be an error in the press release.

MR. SMITH: A further supplemental question to the Minister: if the funds are available regardless of the passage or otherwise of Bill 101, why do we require Bill 101?

HON. MR. LEA: I'm not saying that if the funds are not passed here we would put the same intensive programme to work. We would be hiring students.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary: perhaps in light of the comments that the Hon. Minister of Highways made that he would hire students, and a large number of them, regardless of whether this bill passes, and in keeping with his press announcement, would he advise the House, as he didn't in his estimates, under what vote he has appropriated those funds and how many students he did intend to hire and how much money there is available for them?

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, it's under vote 100. These questions are being asked, in my opinion, of the wrong Minister, in that the programme that they're talking about is under the bill that was introduced in this House by the Hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), which is a different matter altogether. And it's out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: It appears that Bill 101 is certainly not in the jurisdiction of this Minister in the House.

SUPPLEMENTARY GRANTS
TO SCHOOL BOARDS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Since this is the last question period this week and since the Minister promised an announcement this week, might I ask the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) with regard to supplementary grants to school boards, if she can tell the House whether the total amount of money has been decided and when the details will be announced?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): We haven't decided on the total amount of money. All I can assure you is that boards will be informed before April 20.

HIRING OF MARVIN DURNING TO
OBSERVE FPC HEARINGS ON SKAGIT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, Mr. Speaker: may I ask the Minister whether he has retained the services of Marvin Durning, a Seattle lawyer, to observe the FPC hearings on the Skagit Valley?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources): The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker, and I expect that next week we can have more detailed statements with regard to the whole Skagit question.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister whether it is the government's intention, then, to support the March 15 federal submission on the Skagit, which will be before the FPC at that time?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think it will become abundantly clear, Mr. Speaker, that the Province of British Columbia has an independent position that will make it very clear that we're very serious about the statements of the past year with respect to the Skagit.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the seriousness, as we all know that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) is to resign if the valley is flooded. May I ask the Minister whether he intends to request the Member for Port Alberni (Mr. Skelly) to withdraw his motion on the Skagit from the order paper so that there can be full discussion in the Legislature on this matter?

MR. SPEAKER: I think that question is inappropriate of this Minister.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH BCFGA;
APPROACH TO FRUIT INDUSTRY CRISIS

MRS. JORDAN: My question is to the Hon. Minister of Agriculture. I would just comment that I am pleased as the result of many requests and my request that he's met the need of the Swine Growers Association. But I would ask him if he would advise the House: (1) at what state of negotiations is his department in coordination with the B.C. Fruit Growers Association for their income programme; and (2) what steps is he taking in regard to cooling off the current almost crisis situation in the fruit industry in the Okanagan at this time?

[ Page 2207 ]

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the steps, there has been no meeting since the one when the fruit growers announced that negotiations had broken off. At that time I said that I would be making more calculations and then would have a new position to advance. We're not ready with that yet because we've been concentrating on another programme that should be available within a few days, and then we'll be able to concentrate on the fruit industry again.

As far as the problems in the fruit industry right now, I think they can wait until we have our programme ready, in that it's not a case of dealing with fruit that is waiting to be picked now. The fruit has all been picked and is in storage waiting to be sold, all that's left. So it's not the crisis situation that we had last fall when there was the conflict about marketing approval.

MRS. JORDAN: Does the Minister not consider the fact that fruit growers are going to jail in preference to paying fines a crisis situation? Does he not consider the fact that negotiations have broken down between the B.C. fruit growers and the government is part of this crisis situation? If there was an effort on his part to bring these to satisfactory conclusions…in fact an assured income could be helpful to these producers in meeting their concern and cooling off this situation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the question is entirely argumentative.

TALKS ON RENEGOTIATION OF
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, with regard to a report which the government had prepared on the subject of renegotiating the Columbia River Treaty, and due to recent publicity given to this subject: has the Minister had any meetings with the federal government in a preliminary way or are any such meetings planned?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: There haven't been any meetings recently that I'm aware of, Mr. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Just one supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Could I just ask if in fact the government has taken any action at all subsequent to the receipt of this study which they authorized — the internal study by the cabinet?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We're certainly developing our position, Mr. Speaker, and have reviewed the report with well-informed people in Hydro and elsewhere.

GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
ON SKAGIT AGREEMENT

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I'm a little puzzled by a previous answer of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. In view of his statement that an independent position by British Columbia will become abundantly clear, as he put it, will the Minister make it abundantly clear before the FPC hearings which are happening in two weeks?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

PLANS FOR
KOKANEE SALMON PRODUCTION

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): In answer to a question from the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson), wherein he asked me what are the plans of the department in the increase in the Kokanee production, I would like to answer him by informing him that this year 18 million Kokanee will be produced in the Meadow Creek spawning channels on the Kootenay Lake. Five million will be propagated in the hatcheries and will be planted in the Inonoaklin River, which is a tributary to the Arrow Lake; and one million will be planted in Green Lake and in other lakes throughout B.C.

PRELIMINARY SURVEYS FOR
RAPESEED CRUSHING PLANT

MR. SMITH: My question is to the Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea). Has the Hon. Minister or anyone in his department conducted any surveys or studies concerning the potential of a rapeseed crushing plant in British Columbia?

MR. SPEAKER: On which highway is this? (Laughter.)

MR. SMITH: That was to the Minister of Agriculture, I'm sorry. What is the possibility or potential of a rapeseed crushing plant in British Columbia?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, there has been some discussion about a rapeseed crushing plant in the Peace River. The feeling is that if it goes ahead in Alberta — and it seems to be very close to going ahead — this will be adequate to cover all of the rapeseed production in the Peace River area. I said from the beginning that if the plans for the one in the Alberta Peace did not go ahead, then the B.C. government would be very interested in seeing such a plant established in the B.C. Peace.

[ Page 2208 ]

MR. SMITH: Just a supplemental question. I understand the location is still fairly flexible as far as the United Grain Growers are concerned. I was wondering if someone in the Department of Agriculture is pursuing the matter of a crushing plant in the B.C. side of the Peace River block.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The latest report that I have, and it was as recent as yesterday, was that the location is now fixed.

NEGOTIATIONS FOR GOVERNMENT
OPTION ON SUKUNKA COAL

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Premier and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), with the recent attention given to coal in the province, if he could tell the House at what stage negotiations are regarding the option which the government was seeking on the Sukunka coal deposits.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Negotiations are continuing.

EFFECTIVE DATE FOR
REDUCTION IN GAS TAXES

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Could the Minister of Finance tell us when the reduction in gasoline taxes in British Columbia will take effect?

MR. SPEAKER: Are you taking responsibility for that as an assertion of fact?

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, there's been a reduction in Saskatchewan and indications that there'll be similar reductions in British Columbia. Would the Minister of Finance care to give us some indication of British Columbia's position?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have no comment on that Member's policy announcements. (Laughter.)

APPLICATIONS UNDER FARM
PRODUCTS INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I was asked a question by the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) as to whether or not we had received an application under the Farm Products Industry Improvement Act from Paradise Products, Ltd. We have. I just thought one line out of the letter might be interesting to the Members. "I must admit that much of the goings-on recently seem to be wasting your time as well as others." And with that there is an application for some assistance under this particular legislation. The letter was replied to today, inviting them to send more information so that we could deal with it.

NEGOTIATIONS FOR SHUSWAP
POULTRY PROCESSING PLANT

MRS. JORDAN: Well seeing the Minister of Agriculture's so talkative this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my next question to him and ask him at what stage of negotiation is the poultry processing plant slated for the Shuswap constituency, with particular reference to the meat packing plant in Spillimacheen.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The site most actively being pursued at the moment is one that is also being sought by the Department of Highways, and that is some Crown Zellerbach property particularly well suited. But we haven't quite resolved the discussion yet with the Department of Highways.

The other sites we've considered so far just had too much going against them. There's another site available in Enderby, privately owned, that will be the second choice. It may be that we'll have to go to the Spillimacheen site you speak of. The problem is to find a site suited particularly from the point of view of the amount of sewage to be disposed of and the fact that it has to go through at a very rapid rate when the plant is operating. There is that particular problem.

MRS. JORDAN: Would the Minister please advise me if there has been a thorough investigation of the meat packing plant. If so, why the indications from the Pollution Control Branch that there would be no problems on that site?

HON. MR. STUPICH: The Coldstream Packing Plant has been examined by representatives of the broiler board and by representatives from the Department of Agriculture. They've all recommended against that site, at least at this point. As I say, we may come to it later on but it will certainly be at best a fourth or fifth choice.

MRS. JORDAN: Why?

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.

[ Page 2209 ]

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I want to discuss very briefly a sad situation which exists in my constituency, one which the Minister is familiar with, one which I have discussed with him in the corridor. I have made the details of this situation available to him by letter as well, dated March 18, outlining fully this most unfortunate situation.

I wrote to the Minister and told him that a foster child, a young girl, had been placed in a home in Windermere, B.C. approximately five years ago and that the foster mother at the time was a practical nurse in the Windermere District Hospital when the child was abandoned at the hospital by her rightful mother. There was some difficulty in finding a home for the child because of the scarcity of Indian families in my area. However, this practical nurse was willing to take on this Indian child when no one else was willing to do so and she had no hesitation in providing a good home for this child.

After this lengthy period of time, five years, there comes on the scene a new social worker in Cranbrook who wants to review all the files and rectify any shortcomings of the Department of Human Resources. She has taken it upon herself to have this child removed from this home. The reason she has given for this action was that the child needed speech therapy because of a slight impediment in her speech and that there was a possibility she might be attending the same schools as her brothers and sisters.

I've discussed this quite at length with not only the foster parents but with the social worker in Cranbrook concerned; I've discussed it with the minister of the Anglican church in Invermere; I've discussed it with the local physician, Dr. Martin; I've discussed it with Mrs. Preddy, coordinator of adoption and child-care service of the department. I've suggested in discussing it with Mrs. Preddy that I would be taking it up with the Minister. I asked the Minister not to make a decision until such time as I've had an opportunity jointly to discuss the matter with Mrs. Preddy and the Minister.

I'm also informed that there is a speech therapist in the Invermere district and, furthermore, that there is a speech therapist in the community of Kimberley which the Minister could have insisted upon the parents having the child attend. The parents would have been more than willing to have the child submit to this kind of training, even though her speech impediment was very slight.

I want to suggest that the two reasons given are not ample justification for the action they have taken. First of all, this child is living in the community of Windermere, her brothers and sisters are living in the community of Wilmer, and that is a distance of about 10 miles. The other children are attending the school in Wilmer. When they get into junior high, they go on to Invermere. This child lives in Windermere so there's no danger whatsoever that there will be this kind of problem which might develop because the children won't be in the same school.

In discussing it with Dr. Martin of that community, he advises me that the child is enjoying a good, warm, friendly, family relationship in this home and that it would be an unfortunate traumatic experience for the child to be removed from this environment. He suggested to me that, if the need did arise, he would be more than willing to express this point of view to the Minister. I personally feel at this late date, after five years in one home, it is most traumatic to move the child from its present surroundings.

It appears the decision is being arbitrarily made by one new social worker who has come to the district and has reviewed the files and feels the child should be moved on. I've asked the Minister to personally become involved in this case so that a satisfactory conclusion can be arrived at that will be beneficial to this child. I've asked the Minister on several occasions, though briefly in the corridor, that I was anxious to meet and discuss the situation. There have been no meetings.

I called the foster mother yesterday morning. She answered the phone and she was crying; she had been crying for four or five days because they've taken her child from her. It was a very tragic situation to see the child being removed from the only environment she has ever known. She didn't want to go; she was holding on to her father and her mother; she was concerned about leaving her two brothers, her dog and her cat.

I want to say that it's a very tragic situation and it certainly doesn't speak very highly of the Department of Human Resources to put this child through this most tragic experience. The foster parents have indicated to the social worker and to the supervisor as well that they're willing to adopt the child. They tell me that the speech impediment is only slight, that it might correct itself, that they're willing to subject the child to treatment if necessary in the community of Kimberley.

I want to ask the Minister to show some compassion, to give these people their child back.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Next Thursday in Mission at 2 o'clock, the Hon. Norman Levi, as Minister of Human Resources, and myself, as the Member for that area, and Mayor Bill Harris of the District of Mission will take part in a very exciting event in the history of this province — something I hope will be in a sense a prototype in this province. The three of us will take part in the opening, along with the senior citizens of the District of Mission, of a building, the old Mission hospital building, which sat unfortunately derelict for six years.

On Thursday next, a week from today, it will be

[ Page 2210 ]

opened officially as a prototype of what I think will become kind of a community agency building, a community resources building, and a building which will house the Department of Human Resources, the Department of Manpower, native Indian affairs, my offices, community services, legal aid, counselling services, day care, fine arts and many other agencies. It's through the help of this Minister who first got us the money to do the first feasibility and engineering studies on the nuts and bolts of that building.

It was his interest a year ago when politically it was not that popular at the municipal level to go into an old building, look at renovating it and seeing it as a citizens' building — a building owned by the municipality. It's a building which will bring together the fact that there were a lot of jobs even in the District of Mission.

I understand there are 19,000 jobs per day in the Greater Vancouver Regional District which are not being filled. Yet we have a lot of people who are what we call people on social assistance who are the employables, people who could, I think, with a bit of guidance, a bit of direction and a bit of counselling find work.

On that same floor, a floor which has 9,000 square feet, there is the Human Resources office with a very capable supervisor, Irene Harris and her staff, also the Manpower office. Admittedly it's what Manpower calls an "unmanned" office which seems a little strange. Yet, in that office are many, many jobs listed on a great board where people can direct dial to the Manpower office — often the same people who are clients of the Human Resources services.

I bring this up because it's been my understanding, and I'd like some direction from the Minister, that we have a seasonably adjusted unemployment of 5.5 per cent. Yet in all areas of B.C. and it's very noticeable on the lower mainland, there are many, many jobs just not getting filled. It seems that sometimes people have to be brought to these jobs. They have to be shown or guided. There is confusion; young people have identity problems. It's hoped with this very, very skilled supervisor and staff in Human Resources in Mission that we'll bring together these people.

I know there is legislation that we'll be discussing later on the whole concept of community resources. But I think that credit should be due to this Minister and to Mrs. Kathy Marcellus, the chairman of this community group which is called The Mission Memorial Centre Society. We are bringing together often fragmented agencies, and it's the leadership of the Minister's department that is helping this to happen.

I find there are many Indian groups that want to become more a part of what's happening; it's their community. Rather than sometimes having an office or having a programme that's somewhat separate, they can be a part of us and we can be a part of them.Together we can work together.

It's no surprise that the Minister sent me a telegram even this morning reminding me that he will be giving basic core funding to the tune of $850 per month, effective April 1, for the community services in Maple Ridge. Later, that will be increased. We have the core funding for the Mission Community Services through Human Resources to the tune of nearly $36,000 for the various agencies in Mission. Remembering that a lot of these agencies were overstaffed, that there was a bit of featherbedding through LIP (Local Initiatives Programme), there wasn't the best buildup to the wisest use of people. They seemed to be largely concerned about creating jobs and getting people working rather than whether there was the wisest use of manpower.

I appreciate the federal government's initiative. Mr. Trudeau and his grassroots democracy did start things happening, but now we're getting into this. The Minister of Human Resources wished there was a little better liaison and consultation between Ottawa and the provincial Department of Human Resources regarding the transition from LIP-funded programmes into programmes funded under his department and presumably under other departments.

We're appreciative that last week it was announced there were $1,640 per month through Human Resources for funding for another up-to-now LIP-funded programme, The Workshop, the citizens' rehabilitative activity workshop — again a programme started by the people. A lot of the programmes have been worked through, things have been shaken up and are settling down now. There's a very good board with a good chairman and, I believe, a really workable, operative programme for people who want to be part of the community, who want to make a contribution.

For those of us who would like to be able to plant flowers in the garden, it's these people who make the little boxes you put the flowers in. These activity-workshop people, funded by the Department of Human Resources, make what we call the flats — the cedar flats for putting the flowers in. I could go on and on describing the products but I don't think that's necessary. All of us, regardless of the disability we have, want to make our own contribution.

I appreciate the openness. People could come from Mission last year with often very little notice, arrive right on the doorstep and in the office, in front of that great desk of the Minister of Human Resources.

I'd like to say something about Indian housing. We have some very large, historic, very creative Indian reserves and chiefs in the area. I think especially of Seabird Island and Chehalis which are nationally known as very progressive reserves. It's my hope that these people, the chiefs, the band managers and people like Keith Gladstone, who is a kind of Indian

[ Page 2211 ]

coordinator for all the bands at the head of Harrison Lake, can work a little more closely with the Department of Human Resources in housing and special proposals they have.

They have a problem in that many of the Indian people, even in Dewdney riding, have become urban people. Of course, this is obvious in metro Vancouver. They don't have land, and they wish there was some way, either through Human Resources or the Department of Lands, of getting land so they could have some land for urbanized housing. Maybe through land claims conciliation there can be some swaps made in land. There certainly is a need, and yet they don't want to be guilty of a ghetto housing situation; they want to be part of the community.

I needn't remind the Legislature that the largest Indian residential school in the province is in Mission. Mission, of course, is named after the oblate mission, going back 100 years. The first Indian administrator in the province, tragically only appointed a year ago, is Joe Alex, the administrator of the St. Mary's residence. These people are working very closely with the help of the Department of Human Resources and with the money that's going now to the non-status people and the Indian Friendship Centre and various programmes, and are relating very well to the community, giving leadership.

The young fellow called Stanley, whom we know through television fame last Christmas....

MR. CHABOT: My constituency.

MR. ROLSTON: Well, let's say we share him. He lives in Mission, but I'm sure you should take claim, Mr. Member.

He's going throughout the province on a provincially-funded programme to bring the culture and the dignity and the beauty of the Indian culture to these people, and especially to children in school.

Even as a government Member, I had some problems with the accounting procedures of Mincome a year ago. There were some problems regarding the whole PR and explanation of Mincome a year ago. There were some very difficult and agonizing phone calls to a Mr. Jones and other people in the Mincome accounting division. I am very happy that that programme in a year, in the transition since December 1, 1972, has really improved and given the dignity and the credibility to the people who are giving it and also receiving it.

It is a form of income, a guaranteed income programme for all the people. It's remarkably successful among the 121,000 people receiving it. It doesn't have that stigma other government programmes might have. There is a real appreciation and welcome. I know the Premier yesterday, in speaking to senior citizens over in the Newcombe Auditorium, received a tremendous response from these people as he did under Pharmacare, another programme your department has started. Again, with good leadup, you were able to really get support from the people.

I checked with various senior citizens' groups. Through you, we have four senior citizens' counsellors: two in Maple Ridge, one in Mission and one in Agassiz. Even checking this morning, I found very, very good administrative procedures on Pharmacare and on Mincome. Also in checking with pharmacists in Dewdney riding, there were some awkward times accounting-wise back in early January, but now this is working through. The pharmacists are getting their money and the programme is being very well received.

I listened with interest to the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). I'm not aware of any overuse. The senior citizens are not using any more prescription drugs than before. Hopefully, we will use — I don't know what medical terms we say — the usual, recognized, prescription drugs. We won't get off into unusual and luxury drugs that really aren't part of that programme.

I want to say something about the day-care programmes. There are four day cares in Dewdney riding: one in Pitt Meadows, one in Maple Ridge, one in Mission and one in Agassiz. Actually, one of the oldest ones in the province is in Agassiz — nearly eight years now — and we greatly appreciate this programme. Again, there is a great necessity for the Department of Human Resources to help us in democratizing day cares.

There are awkward moments where certain staff people, or certain very domineering people on boards tend to dominate the programme. But it is to be hoped that the recipients, the parents of these children, are part of that power, that democratic process of running their own programme.

I fail to see why even a deserted young mother can't be part of the decisions that are made to run that day-care programme, even though she is working sometimes eight hours a day. I realize that time is a real problem. Yet it is very important that the programme remain democratic and not something that is just simply client-oriented. These people should be a part of this.

I understand that the handicapped coordinator is with us on the floor of the House. Maybe the Minister could help me in giving me direction regarding the handicapped people, especially in Maple Ridge. There are some awkward moments where they tend to want to have their own little building, or room.

We all understand the need for special facilities for handicapped people: toilet rooms and ramps, and the straight hardware thing. But some of us, at many levels of the municipality of Maple Ridge, can't understand. Maybe we're wrong, but we would have

[ Page 2212 ]

thought they would want to be part of the total recreational programmes, rather than having their own little building off somewhere and being somewhat separate.

I gather that on "Webster" even yesterday my name and your name were taken in vain by certain people in Maple Ridge who have been, I think, overzealous in promoting a separate little empire. I would prefer they be part of the community services programme and the Human Resources and the parks and recreation programme of the District of Maple Ridge. This, I must say, is an agony to pretty well any elected person in Maple Ridge. Maybe you could give us some direction there.

The last thing I just want to say…. Of course, there's the whole philosophy of human resources; the name is Human Resources. There are resources in all people. It would be very tempting to go off and give little illustrations of people who with various handicaps, physical and mental, have made tremendous contributions to the community. We saw only a couple of days ago in the paper the picture of the fellow playing bridge with his feet — no hands — and, I gather, doing very well.

It is my hope, Mr. Chairman, that this Minister can continue the programme of developing the resources in people who often through, I suppose, as socialists we would say social reasons, social pressures, are where they are. I also believe that it's sometimes an individual kind of disease, or an individual catharsis, that puts that person back. So I would hope that it's the resources of the people — the employables, the unemployables, the severely disabled people, all of the people — that we can truly see develop; that they don't need to be that dependent on us; that whatever income they are receiving is due to them due to the wealth of this province; that they are independent and dignified people, often able to go largely on their own.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I just want to take up a few small points with the Minister.

During the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Macdonald's) estimates I asked some questions about the X-Kalay foundation. I didn't do so with any other objective in mind than to try to standardize as much as possible the way provincial finances are handled — whether it's a government department, the Minister's own department, whether it's a Crown corporation, or whether it's an agency that is partially funded, as X-Kalay is, by the provincial government.

The director of X-Kalay didn't take terribly kindly to the suggestions I made. He wrote a letter saying I was cruel, malicious and ill-informed. I thought those kinds of remarks were reserved for Members of the government towards me. But I want to assure the director of the X-Kalay and the Minister that it is not my intention to be either cruel, malicious or ill-informed, though at times I may be all those things.

Nevertheless, the director did confirm in his letter some of the things which I said, namely that they had not been filing reports as they are required to do. I understand they have taken care of that. The financial statement, again, is not officially audited, but I understand there are some difficulties with that.

But he does say in this letter, which was released to the press at the same time it was mailed to me:

"From August, 1972, until November, 1973, we employed a business manager at the advice of our board of directors, a representative group of citizens from business, social agencies and the clergy. This man was incompetent and dishonest. He didn't suddenly disappear. A full six months before he left our employ we discussed a mutually agreeable parting of company."

I would like to the ask the Minister if indeed there was a business manager who was incompetent and dishonest. I would like to ask the Minister, with all respect, whether he is pursuing this investigation with a view in mind to seeing that the X-Kalay foundation fulfils the same standards that he would have in his department knowing that members of the public accounts committee would be examining the vouchers.

There's another subject I wanted to raise with the Minister. Other people have said this, and I'll say it too: the Minister is a delight to deal with for Members of the opposition side. He goes about his business in a very aggressive but effective manner, and we appreciate the frankness with which he deals with Members on all sides of the House. I think that all those Ministers who do that find that they quickly win the admiration and respect of those who are their political foes, and it helps us all contribute to the business of good government.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): However….

MR. McGEER: However, Mr. Minister, you're soft on drugs. Not everybody agrees with your approach to the drug problem. And your commissioner of drugs is soft on drugs too. I think the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) put it well when he said they were soft on drugs.

Now there are lots of people who are soft on drugs. The commissioner and the Minister aren't the only ones. There are plenty of them in this province. I don't happen to be one. Unlike the Member for Langley, I did go up and meet with the commissioner, and he couldn't have been more pleasant. He has his views; we didn't entirely agree. I was there for a particular reason: to persuade the commission to go into a tough research programme, because I think one possible approach might be to try and immunize drug

[ Page 2213 ]

addicts against their drugs of choice, so that they no longer get the thrill from taking drugs. The commissioner doesn't happen to agree with me, but that's his view.

What we do have to look at, however, Mr. Chairman, is performance, and whether it is the Minister or the commissioner or an opposition Member or the general public, we have to look at this drug commission and its approach critically. It is costing a lot of money. We have a terribly serious drug problem in British Columbia. The size of that drug problem must decrease and decrease substantially or we must ask the Minister and his commissioner to abandon their approach to drugs.

The Minister got up yesterday and explained that he held a meeting in Victoria. There was unanimous agreement about the kind of approach that he suggested. There may well have been; but invited to that meeting were people of like minds to the Minister.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Not so! No, that's not so.

MR. McGEER: Yes, sir. And I'll say further, Mr. Chairman, that when the LeDain commission held hearings across Canada….

HON. MR. LEVI: He was there.

MR. McGEER: Who? The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)?

HON. MR. LEVI: He was there.

MR. McGEER: Well, he's changed his mind, I'm happy to say. I consider him a convert.

I repeat what I said before. I think that commission was mischievous because they did no service in our country. When they came across Canada I remember the meeting they held in the City of Vancouver. Responsible people simply would not appear before that commission. It was a love-in with drug users because of the obvious sympathy of the members of this commission. They were picked by the Health Minister of Canada for their sympathy towards the drug problem, not their realistic attitude towards it. And the results bore out the preconceived ideas — at least, what I submit were the preconceived ideas — of those commissioners.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Is drug addiction a sickness or not?

MR. McGEER: Well, it's something which cannot be dealt with in the same fashion you deal with sicknesses where people voluntarily come to see a physician. You cannot deal with it like you can an ulcer or diabetes or cancer. You simply cannot.

Mr. Chairman, while the LeDain commission was carrying on its deliberations in Canada, in British Columbia we were experiencing a fivefold increase in heroin users — a 500 per cent increase in this province.

While people were trying to tell us that the use of marijuana by young people would not lead to multi-drug use or to heroin addiction, we had a breakout of the heroin problem from a relatively confined part of Vancouver to every community of decent size in British Columbia. That drug problem resides in those communities today.

Mr. Minister, you try and tell me that there is not a drug problem in Castlegar or Nanaimo or Prince George or Prince Rupert or in the Fraser Valley or in Victoria. There is. And it all exploded in this time when the LeDain commission was going across Canada trying to tell us that marijuana was not a problem.

That's what I mean by experience; it's been adverse.

Mr. Chairman, in the City of New York for a time — I don't know if it still exists today — the No. 1 killer of people between 15 and 25 was drug overdose, mostly heroin. Because of that the State of New York has taken a resolutely hard line towards drugs — the toughest in the nation. They have reversed the trend taken by people who were terribly well meaning, but who had helped, by their soft line, to allow hard drug usage to escape from the bounds within which it had been held.

I think we must look very carefully in British Columbia at the approach taken in the State of New York and whether or not it is leading to reductions in the use of drugs. If it does, then I submit that we should follow their course. At the same time we can compare the experience of the State of New York with that of the State of Oregon, where they've taken a very tolerant view of drugs and where some, myself included, predict that there will be an unfortunate breakout of drug use as a result of that permissive attitude.

I repeat what I've said before. The only countries that have been successful have been those who have taken a much harder line than we have ever adopted in North America. I include among those countries Japan as a democratic state and Russia as a non-democratic state.

But whatever the style of government, the attitude toward drugs and drug users is what counts in reducing the incidence. Everywhere you go there simply is a percentage of the population that is at risk of being exposed to hard drugs.

The Minister originates from a country that was the only country successful in confining drug use by giving away free heroin. But, Mr. Chairman, I think that even the Minister would admit that that is no

[ Page 2214 ]

longer working in Britain.

I detailed — and I'm not going to do it again this year — the experience of a single town in Britain which was written up in a medical journal. Three young drug addicts had moved in and had infected others in that small town until the number of addicts had risen to over 200 and the town had the highest incidence of drug addiction anywhere in Great Britain.

I'm not certain, Mr. Chairman, that we shouldn't — even in things like methadone maintenance — be charging those who are receiving methadone maintenance for their maintenance. I would certainly absolutely rule out any idea at all of giving free drugs to addicts. I'm not certain that methadone is a substitute narcotic. People have to come every day to take their drug. They get it free. But to give you an indication of how powerful the motivation is to keep taking narcotics, a trustee at places like the Narcotic Addiction Foundation — only a small percentage make it to the trustee level — is a person who is given his drug three times a week instead of every day.

Even people who are well known to that foundation can't be trusted with more than one or two days' supply. To me, this is the proof of how willpower is eroded by the physiological experience of narcotic drugs in that segment of the population which is at risk to this experience.

I think there are only two ways of conquering this. One is to eliminate the source of supply to them completely. The other is to develop some immunizing procedure or some method by which they will no longer be able to derive the excitement of the drug's administration.

Mr. Chairman, you would never think of giving an alcoholic free alcohol. I don't think that anybody would propose that. The universal experience around the world is that the incidence of alcoholism is directly related to the cost of alcohol. The old gin-mills in England were causing havoc and death in England, because gin was so cheap. And the taxes that were originally imposed for alcohol use were imposed as a safety measure, a health measure — not to bring income into government.

If we wanted to reduce the incidence of alcoholism, one way would be to increase the price of booze. It would be an unpopular way, but it's effective.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Well, you're continually moving toward that.

But the point about it, Mr. Chairman, is this: when the people on the LeDain commission, and others, were telling us how bad alcohol was, and how relatively mild marijuana was, the incidence of alcoholism in Canada wasn't increasing — at least, if it was, not dramatically. But the incidence of marijuana use and heroin addiction was increasing alarmingly. We do have to develop new ways of going at the alcohol problem. But I don't think that free alcohol would be an approach, any more than I think that free drugs would be an approach. Frankly, I don't have any proposals at all as to how we might go about reducing the problems of alcoholism in British Columbia. I wish the commissioners well.

But I do say this: I disagree with your approach on drugs. I know that we're not going to reach any accommodation on this. I will continue to voice my disagreement. I will continue to ask whether people who favour another approach are producing results. I measure results in only one way: what is the incidence of drug addiction; how much associated crime is going on in the province?

We have models in other jurisdictions, specifically New York state and Oregon state, which have taken diametrically opposite approaches to a similar problem.

Mr. Minister, I hope that if your approach — that of your commission — doesn't work, and you are still in office, you'll be man enough to change your ways. If your approach does work, I'll be the first one to compliment you for it.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I'll deal with the drug question first.

Last year when we tabled a paper, prior to the establishment of the Alcohol and Drug Commission, we said at that time that we would want to look at a number of ways in which to tackle the problem. It would not be just heroin maintenance, not just isolated communities, not just compulsory treatments, cold turkey, or even a small pilot project in terms of heroin maintenance — but a range of possibilities.

The one that has become popular with what I referred to last night as the "hard-line group" is the Japanese system.

Last August I was in Geneva and I met with the International Narcotic Control Commission. They gave me a copy of their February, 1972, report. I've made this available to the commission, and I'm quite prepared to make it available to the House.

In 1972-73 they experienced an increase of almost 1,000 addicts in terms of the heroin problem there. That relates to the different young people that they have now. What we're dealing with there is a very democratic — as the Member said — but also very authoritarian society. Nevertheless, it has not been as successful as people would have us believe.

You have in the report a range of options, both for alcoholism and for drugs.

Now last year there were discussions, as there's been today, about the LeDain commission. The

[ Page 2215 ]

LeDain commission was formed at the time when the problem was getting near to its height, and they looked at it. I don't accept what the Member says that in some way they contributed to the exacerbation of the problem, because I don't think that's true.

But what is interesting to me is a recent document that was presented to the federal Minister of Health and Welfare (Hon. Marc Lalonde) by the Canadian Medical Association. It was presented on February 21, 1974, and I'd just like to quote two or three items — one in respect to decriminalization of certain drugs. They said: "The CMA," — the Canadian Medical Association, I presume — the parent body of the organization that the Hon. Member presumably belongs to, as a medical doctor, and the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

"would again urge that there be decriminalization of the current offences of simple possession of cannabis and that there be no extension of the offences for simple possession of controlled drugs."

This is in relation to that particular problem. Now they've taken quite some time to come to this kind of decision — which they have put in a brief. The brief was to respond to the final report of the LeDain commission.

They also had some comments to make about heroin maintenance. On page 18 of the brief they said:

"The CMA is not convinced that the availability of heroin as a transitional measure will attract opiate dependents from the illicit market. The CMA believes that the availability of heroin as an alternative to methadone will decrease the motivation for subjects entering methadone and other programmes. While the CMA remains opposed to the use of heroin in...patients, it believes that there may be a role for the use of this drug in selected patients under experimental and controlled conditions."

Now this is exactly the statement that was made in this House a year ago by myself in respect to the report that we tabled. But there was a great, hysterical newspaper campaign from these people up here about how we were going to give it away. Nobody is suggesting that we can go dashing into this kind of thing. But here is the parent body of the medical association saying "in a very careful, controlled way" — but nevertheless, looking at it very realistically.

We have two-thirds of the heroin problem of Canada right here in this province, and we've always had two-thirds — always. Our history of heroin and opium addiction goes back more than 70 years. The present line that is being used in this province in dealing with addicts, I would suggest to you, is the hard line, and it has been for the last 40 or 50 years.

They are hunted, they are chased, they're arrested, they're convicted and they go to the penitentiary. Now that's not been happening. Sure, three or four years ago there was a lessening of offenders; that is, they could be fined. But nevertheless it has been the hard line. They have been going to jail; our jails are full of addicts. The penitentiary is full of addicts.

Addicts run the prison system, and let's not kid ourselves about this. They run prison systems all over the world, because the whole motivation when you are in there is to see whether you can get some drugs in there. Even Millhaven, that super maximum security place down in Ontario, has got a drug problem. In Matsqui the problem is so bad they had to bring the RCMP in to finally charge four guys with trafficking in drugs right inside the institution. So the hard line has been tried, and it's still being tried.

In New York in eight years they spent $1 billion going every which way. In 1971 Rockefeller announced that he was ready to agree with Mayor Lindsay's proposal that there be a pilot project for heroin maintenance — in 1971. But early in 1972, when the election was on for the president, then came out the great story about the problem of the Vietnam vets that were coming back addicted, and the whole thing turned around. By December of 1972 we had a complete turnabout, a reinforcement of the hard line.

Now if you want some information on what's going on down there: sure, if you're trafficking and you get arrested in New York State, you can go to jail for life with no option of parole. So where are they doing all the trafficking from now? — in the State of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. It's not a problem which can be tackled by one state or by one province. It's something that has to be tackled in Canada in a broad way.

We have yet to have the kind of discussions that encompass all of the provinces. We haven't had them. What we've attempted to do is to show some leadership in terms of public discussion about what we might be able to do. The Hon. Member said that he doesn't have any solutions for alcoholism. We don't really have any solutions for drug addiction, but we're prepared to try a number of things.

You know, when the chairman of the commission says that the possibility of attracting 10 per cent of the people to participate…. Perhaps we should not be so dismal. But you know, when you've worked in the business a long time, you become quite realistic about it.

Nevertheless, what we have to do, and what we intend to do, is to develop a range of possibilities for dealing with people. It's not going to be done just by the commission; the main thrust of this work is going to be done by the Department of Health, because they have a lot of facilities that we need in the first instance. But the basic day-to-day work after the

[ Page 2216 ]

detoxification part is going to have to be done in the community.

We're not soft on drugs; that's completely erroneous. We have an existing law which requires that they be charged if there's information, arrested and tried and, if convicted, they go to jail. That's the hard line. It's always been that way. It's not any easier, whether it's so-called soft drugs or hard drugs.

Well, what have we got? In all the years I worked in the correctional system I saw addicts going in and out, in and out, in and out. When we had that meeting last November, we had a range of people there — people who worked in the field, in the prisons, in the health section, in the police. The police were represented both from Vancouver and the RCMP. The Hon. Member was there and educators were there, and they had a good discussion. Out of it came what I read off last night. That's not the end of it all. There'll be some changes.

I think what we've done is we've picked up the ball which was just being kicked around in this province, because the previous government assumed absolutely no responsibility for the drug problem. You know, they treated the drug problem like they used to treat the Indians: "That's a federal problem; we shouldn't get involved in it." All right, so we've picked it up.

We expect to take a lot of flack on this from the other side, because it's a pretty dicey kind of a subject. But those people who have been involved in the situation know that we must try other methods or commit ourselves to the hard-line, costly incarceration process.

To go to Matsqui: under the old programme, when they operated for almost four years, it was costing about $15,000 to keep an addict in there in the beginning. It finally went down to $12,000 when they filled it up. At that time we were paying old-age pensioners $1,200 a year, and we were spending that kind of money in that kind of situation to try and achieve something. It didn't achieve anything. They finally discontinued it as a treatment centre.

We could have told them that. It's in the report. They tried Lexington for 30 years. They tried the hard line in New York for eight years and blew $1 billion — $1 billion just on trying to meet that kind of problem.

So I don't accept the Member's suggestion that we're soft on drugs. We're following the law, and the law is not soft on drugs; the law is hard on drugs. What we're looking at is some alternatives.

Now with respect to X-Kalay. In November, 1972, I went to meet with the board of directors of X-Kalay because at that time they were discussing their financial situation. As I understood it, and I have a report in front of me, they were in receipt of a grant of $5,000 from the drug alcohol commission. They had $5,000 from the NMUD — the one in Ottawa. We agreed to pick up the deficit funding on their operation, which averaged about $2,000 a month.

At that time when I met with the board their trustees were there. The previous government, when they gave them a grant of $40,000, asked that there be three trustees. The three trustees were Jack Webster, David Devine — who is an executive with McGavin's bread — and Mr. D.S. Bruce. They were present at the meeting. Also present at the meeting were several of their board of directors, including Alderman Geoff Massey. Also present as well was Mr. Gardiner, who was then the vice-president of the Royal Bank of Canada on the west coast, and he's now in some more senior position down in Toronto.

Now when I met with them, and we talked about their financial situation in 1972, they made a proposal to me and I made a proposal back that what we would do would be to guarantee a certain number of places on a per diem basis of $5 a day. We finally agreed afterwards, because they were not going to be able to fill at that time 40 beds, that we'd do it on a deficit basis. So we gave them during the period 1972-73 a sum varying from $2,500 to $4,000 a month.

I met with them again at the end of September at a board meeting at which we discussed their future financing. By then their NMUD grant was coming to an end. The grant under the Alcohol and Drug Commission was coming to an end and we were still picking up the deficits.

I proposed to them that we would pick up the total budget, given that we could agree on a budget. During that discussion, at which were present the three trustees and all of the board members, we agreed on a figure of $11,000 for 11 months, not for 12 because on the 12th month they had gone into an operation of their own, a money-making operation which is related to recycling, and that they would carry the 12th month. I told them that before we would agree, they would have to be in touch with the departmental comptroller's office of my department. Mr. Walter Thompson, who is employed there, is directly in touch with them in terms of the reports that they send in every month.

When you raised the question — which you did under the Attorney-General's estimates — that they had not filed their report, I frankly was surprised because I had a copy of the Price-Waterhouse report and realized that it was not the definitive statement.

However, when I met with the board — and the board has a number of very well known and responsible public figures — when we concluded the role of the trustees, for the $40,000, it was agreed that they were in good financial shape and were in a position to handle the $11,000 a month that we were giving. But I did insist that they contact the people in my department, and we do get monthly statements from them.

[ Page 2217 ]

I'm aware of the programme. They have two programmes, the one in Vancouver and the one in Saltspring. You asked the question, I think, under the estimates. They did have a building on West 7th, which they sold and had some $23,000 in a building fund. That subsequently went toward the purchasing of the operation on Saltspring. They have a restaurant that they operate and the people who are part of that group work there.

They were very useful to this department from January to June of last year when they took three young women, whom we had in care, over there and worked with them — three young heroin addicts, as a matter of fact, and they worked with them for several months. So, we have used them. They are useful to us in terms of serious emergencies because they have a staff input and also a membership input which can be useful for containing people in the drug field, people who need to kick the habit. They have that kind of capability.

I personally spent some time, on two occasions, meeting with the board last year and the year before. They had and still have very responsible members of the board. While I appreciate the Member's questions, I am satisfied, as of February when I last looked at the situation in terms of the accounts that were filed with us, that the operation is running well and that the money is being well spent.

MR. CHABOT: No answers.

HON. MR. LEVI: I'm sorry, did you want me to reply, Mr. Member?

I don't want to reply specifically. I don't think I want to deal with the specific case in public, but I want to deal with some principles of practice in relation to cases similar to this.

I can assure the Member that the decision that was made was not made by the worker in the field. As a matter of fact, the ultimate decision was made by Mrs. Preddy, the Deputy Superintendent of Child Welfare. We did discuss this particular case, and in following it down…I will share with the Member, they offered to let you see the files, so I'm informed in the report that I've got on my desk.

I appreciate what you said, and I have the report. As a Minister, I obviously can look behind any decision. You know, the book is not closed. I will talk to the Member about this decision.

I think in fairness to the field that the very serious decisions about apprehension of children, or taking children back into care, are not made just by my workers. That's why we have supervisors; that's why we have regional directors; that's why we have consultants. Even in the partial file I have here, there has been considerable correspondence and face to face contact with numerous staff members, also with other departments of government about this particular case. So, these decisions are not made in a peremptory fashion. Recommendations may appear to be made in a peremptory fashion, but they are not followed through in that way. There is a process by which there has to be consultation and then an exchange of opinion. But I will undertake and, I will say this publicly, that I will look behind the decision in relation to this case which the Member has raised.

MR. CHABOT: I appreciate very much the Minister's words. However, I'm sure that the coordinator of adoption in the child-care service is greatly influenced by the report that is submitted to her by the social worker in the field. There's no denying that because unless there is a report submitted to her, there's no action that's liable to be taken. I think some consideration should be given, even though I know your policy is concern for the child and not for the parents. I think some compassion should be shown there.

The doctor in the community has been willing to get involved. He has suggested that the home being provided is a good home for this child. The Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) can vouch for this particular doctor because he's his first cousin. He thinks it would be a….

HON. MR. LEVI: I think you had better shut up, you are prejudicing my decision. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: However, it's a situation which I think should be carefully reviewed again and some consideration given for this child. It was quite an experience for the child to be torn away from her home, quite an experience for the parents as well.

I've known the parents personally for 20 years and I have no hesitation of vouching for these people. They've been very good to my wife in the hospital, when she's gone to the hospital many times to have children, when she was a practical nurse there. I think she's providing a very good home and it's really unfortunate that your department has not seen fit to allow this child to be adopted or to continue to reside in the home after she'd been there for five years.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I feel, like the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), that this Minister is doing a fairly good job and it's a pleasure to actually work with him. The only thing I have against him is his political philosophy, with which I don't agree at all. More importantly I consider him one of the heads of the cabinet of the government because he's one of the six who signed the Waffle Manifesto. So he's a very prominent Minister in the government of the day.

However….

[ Page 2218 ]

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: I'm coming to that. I'm just coming to that.

Mr. Chairman, I note a staff increase here, which has been noted before. It's an increase of 671 people to, I think, a total of 1,400. I only hope they're all doing their jobs and will continue to look after the social problems and always come up, and keep them to a minimum.

I just want to read an article from the Cariboo Observer, the paper published in Quesnel. I'd like to know the cost of this organization; I didn't even know it existed. But apparently it's being funded by the Department of Human Resources. I would like to read part of the article, Mr. Chairman, dated March 20:

"Group for Disabled Started Here.

"A slow beginning was made in forming a group here to help people who are hurt or made sick at work and are having problems with government agencies. Six injured men attended a meeting at Helen Dickson Elementary School to hear three officials of" — and this apparently is the name of the organization — "the Society for Protection of Disability Rights of B.C. explain the purpose of the Victoria-based group. After some discussion they picked three local temporary officers" — from that, Mr. Chairman, three local temporary officers.

"Provincial vice-president Hank Shaw, and two staff members, research bookkeeper Donna Mosson and research counsellor Helen Jefferies, were on a tour of northern communities. Mr. Shaw received three cracked ribs in an accident."

And it gives his background which I don't think is important.

But he is, as I said here, referred to as the first vice-president.

"He learned other people were having problems with government agencies so the association began August 21, 1972. An office was established in Victoria and the association was registered the following October under the B.C. Societies Act. There are now about 650 members.

"Anyone can become a member even if they have never had a claim for an injury or an illness. However, all provincial officers must have submitted claims.

"The president is James MacKenzie, vice-president Thomas MacAffry, secretary Mrs. Reddy. The association is supported by both senior governments. Of the 18 employees, 13 are paid by the B.C. Human Resources department, four by the federal Local Initiatives Programme. The provincial government also provides office space."

Mr. Chairman, my question to the Minister is: how much did this organization cost in 1973? It's obvious it had been established, as I said earlier, in 1972.

I'd like to know what this organization has cost in the way of salaries and travelling expenses, as well as how much they're paying for office space, because I had someone go to see if this office actually existed in Victoria and it does. That's something that I would like to find out from the Minister.

I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister that I thank him, I'm sure on behalf of all municipal residents of the province, for the reduction of the net cost of welfare from 15 to 10 per cent, which is going into effect for this fiscal year. I hope that he hasn't stopped working on the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) to further reduce this burden on municipalities because really we're only back to where we were in 1968, if I recall, when the percentage was increased from 10 to 15 per cent. So keep up the good work and keep knocking it down. I think it should be zero; I don't think the municipalities should be paying any part of this net cost of social allowances.

The Minister of this department of government now gets more money — I'm not saying this, but I want to point it out — than probably my favourite department, the Department of Highways. From the year 1971-72 with an expenditure of $148,500,000 in the Department of Human Resources, we're looking at this budget this year of $284,820,000. I don't deny any of this money but I only say to the Minister that I hope that it is spent properly. As we all know, it's public funds, and that is a lot of money to be spent on human resources. I say, I don't deny it, but I only hope that we spend it properly and efficiently.

On that subject, I'd like to refer to page 10 of the Minister's annual report for 1973 where they break down the dollars spent. I appreciate that 96 cents of every dollar is paid out to different services, and only 4 per cent for administrative costs, and I congratulate you on that. It shows here for social allowances that 46 cents of every dollar goes to that.

The item that I'm concerned about is the item of 19 per cent for the aged, and I assume that means Mincome. Not to take away from social allowances, but I really think that the time has come…. I think Mincome was a good programme and is a good programme brought in by this government in December, 1972, at $200 a month, but the only increase in that since December, 1972, has been from the federal government. I might be out a dollar or two but it's my understanding that now it's $213.85 for a single person or $427.50 for a couple. I would like the Minister to give urgent consideration, if he's not already doing so, to increasing Mincome. In the period from December, 1972, there's been a terrific

[ Page 2219 ]

increase in the cost of living of practically everything — fuel, accommodation, food and all the rest. I suppose it's about 20 per cent at least. I think these people probably should be getting $250 minimum, but in any case they should be getting beyond $213.85.

We discussed the subject of Mincome to non-citizens, and that has been of great concern to our citizens. I'm pleased to say to the Minister that he has brought a stop to it. I just wonder how many funds were paid out before the department caught up with these people. How many did slide through and are on the programme at the present time? I understand that some got through the different administrative red tape and I don't imagine they can be knocked off. I don't know, but really this is where the money can come from to increase to the British Columbia citizens rather than spending it on non-citizens. I appreciate what the Minister has done. Maybe if he got a little tougher on some of these others he would be able to get the increase out of the saving made there.

Another item, Mr. Chairman, I haven't heard the Minister say anything about is the fact that the senior citizens on the lower mainland and Vancouver Island get a Hydro pass that the Human Resources department paid $5 for and it gives them a pass for six months. I'm happy that they're getting that but I would like to point out to the Minister that probably half the senior citizens of the province can't avail themselves of a B.C. Hydro pass for the simple reason B.C. Hydro doesn't exist. I was wondering if the Minister would consider some other form, maybe give the other citizens $1 a month, I don't know, in lieu of the fact that there's no B.C. Hydro. Here we are making second-class citizens of some senior citizens. I think all senior citizens would agree that some other arrangement should be made.

In the Interior I don't think B.C. Hydro will ever be there. In a lot of the smaller communities — I'm referring to 10,000 down to 5,000 — I don't think they're ever going to have community bus service even if the government were paying for it, because the demand isn't there. But the senior citizens in the Interior of the province, outside of the greater Vancouver, greater Victoria area have transportation problems as well. Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, I know what they're doing in the Interior — they're hiring taxis to get around because they have problems. I would like the Minister to make a note of that and see if he is considering. I'd like to hear what his attitude is on it.

The other thing, Mr. Chairman, is just a word or two about the adoption of native children. As an MLA, I have citizens in my riding who are trying to adopt native children. They've had them in their custody and it's very frustrating to them, and I'm pleased to see that this court case has cleared it up. I believe the Minister's latest statement was that he will start processing these adoptions again on June 1. I believe this is because of a legal problem. You want to wait 60 days beyond the latest court ruling, but maybe you could get the department to get some of the red tape done on the basis that it is going ahead and start them now. It's a real concern to the adopting parents. They are living in a state of not knowing from day to day whether they might lose the children.

What I'm really saying, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, is let's start the administrative process here for these adopting parents and then it's a case of just formalizing the administrative work and the adoptions could be put through. I can see that if nothing is done on them until June 1 it will probably be towards the end of the year before the adoptions are legally finalized.

I might say I've had personal experience of this. My wife and I are parents of adopted children. After you get through with all the lawyers and the red tape and so on, it takes a long time. Anything you could speed up for these parents who are waiting would be appreciated.

I want to say something on Indian land claims. I spoke earlier to the Attorney-General but Indian land claims are a problem that has to be faced up to. It seems to me the situation that exists now is the fact that the federal government wants the provincial government to get with them and the B.C. Indian chiefs to sit down and discuss this. So far nobody from the province has done this at the elected level. I know the Minister of Indian Affairs (Hon. Mr. Chretien) was out here recently. He even had our MP with him from Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand), who is his executive assistant. They met the B.C. Indian chiefs but the province only sent civil servants to this meeting. I was quite disappointed about that.

I feel sometime during this year in the Interior of the province, because of not getting down to the nitty-gritty, we're going to have some serious stoppages of work that will affect not only the natives but other citizens of this province. I refer to roadblocks where they're arguing that they own the land and so on. I hope that it is the intent of the government and this Minister that they will attend — I believe another meeting is scheduled for May. I understand that this has already been asked in this debate but it's my information it hasn't been answered that you or somebody from the cabinet will attend. I'd like to hear you say something about that.

Just in closing, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, I think one of the things that I believe was done by this Minister was to increase the allowance that a person on social assistance could earn. It's presently $100 a month that doesn't affect their social assistance. I would like the Minister to look, in view of inflation and so on, to see if he would consider increasing that

[ Page 2220 ]

allowance further, say to $150 or even $200 because I have known people who are not really interested in the $100 but would be if they could make up the $200.

What I'm really getting at here is that if we can get them up exempt to $200 I think the next thing along the road is that they will drop from the social assistance rolls entirely and of course that's what we're trying to do. If the allowance were higher for the earnings they could make without barring the social allowance…. I'm really saying I think they'd really like it and the next thing is they're moving into full employment and we have rehabilitated an individual and probably have seen the last of him on the social assistance rolls.

Thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman. I would be interested if the Minister has any answers.

HON. MR. LEVI: On the association regarding compensation, we only actually came in the funding process for January, February and March of this year. It was previously under an LIP programme. When we had the request, we discussed it with the Department of Labour because I wanted to have the thing looked at. They gave it their wholehearted approval and we have now agreed to fund it for a year but we will be looking at it sometime in October, as to exactly what the function is.

It does have a very good function. There are a lot of cases in terms of the Workmen's Compensation that are in limbo. This is an organization that originated in Ontario and has done a great deal of work, particularly in those cases that are back injury cases where there have been some real problems. So after consultation with the Department of Labour we did agree to fund it for a year starting April 1. We had no commitments in '73, our commitment started…in the fiscal year — January, February and March. We get $900 a month.

In terms of the adoptions, I appreciate what the Member is saying about the process. As a matter of fact, we have started the process of the documentation on that and as soon as we're sure that 60 days have passed there is no problem. We will move. We'll probably move, I think, before June 1, but I've used June 1 simply as a date that we can give to people.

I just want to say one thing about that. We had a question of trust with the Indians about this. They came to us and were very exercised about the problem. As it happened we had a legal hiatus so we agreed to put the moratorium on. I tabled the report yesterday which gives you a good idea of what the problem has been with Indian children and the whole question of that in the province and that we are now working towards putting in some real services with Indian people delivering the services. So we've come that far in terms of this last few months.

On the rates, I did say yesterday that we are reviewing the welfare and social assistance rates. We reviewed them last year. What we're looking at is the formula for indexing so we can do it on a yearly basis, maybe a quarterly basis. We haven't completely decided this. We want to include in the rates the family allowance, because we have to look at income and we want that to be reflected in there as well. We're aware that there has to be an increase. What we're looking at is getting some procedure whereby we can have an across-the-board increase on a regular basis because last year we did eliminate the overage system which was giving us a lot of trouble.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, well, you're also talking about the earnings exemption in relation to welfare. I did say the other day that that problem has to be discussed with Ottawa because we share that programme — the social assistance programme — with Ottawa and earnings exemptions are subject to mutual agreement. We've had some discussions with them. To go up to $200 is frankly not in their "philosophical" approach to it. They don't see that as being that kind of incentive. We would hope that they might change but so far they haven't.

On the Mincome, Mincome has gone from $200 to — as of yesterday or Monday — $218, which of course includes the 60 to 64. This is the 63. The chunk you've got there related to what we did in that fiscal year. The other thing, of course, in Mincome is that where we've been able to make more disposable income available, we've got Pharmacare. Of course, Pharmacare is saving the average person over 65 anywhere from $7 to $15 a month in drug bills. So that, in effect, has increased the Mincome. Some people have much higher bills. Some people who are not even covered by Mincome had bills of $20 or $30. We have delivered in that way to senior citizens more disposable income, and that's really the name of the game.

In terms of the transportation outside of the lower mainland area, I spoke on it yesterday. There is a grant under the old regulations for $10 per month. What we're going to look at is removing the ceiling and looking at relating some realistic amount of money to the area where people live. That is, where there is absolutely no transportation, not even cab, we have to look at alternatives. At the moment the department is funding $0.5 million worth of transportation programmes in Prince George, Salmon Arm, Delta, Surrey, New Westminster, North Van, West Van, a little bit in Kamloops, a couple on the Island here. We're having a meeting of all of these people within the next two or three weeks including the bunny bus people. We're asking the bureau of transit to be present and see whether they can't

[ Page 2221 ]

rationalize this kind of thing.

The other question is that I want to, frankly, in the department, not get into the transportation business. We have other departments. As we develop more services for people, especially seniors, we do have an obligation to try to make it possible for them to get there. That's always been a problem. We spend enormous amounts of money on capital funds for these buildings and people can't get there. I think it's more proper for the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) to deal with this. As I understand it, he will be having something to say about it in his estimates.

On the Indian land claims thing, I said yesterday, as we had said to the Nishga when we met with them in February, that this whole problem was something that would need the undivided attention of the total cabinet at some time when we could give sufficient time, and I'm not talking about squeezing it in the agenda. That has not been possible. We've been extremely busy in the session. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and myself made a report to cabinet and that will have to be discussed. We have informed the Nishga of this, we have informed the union of this, we were aware at the last minute of the meeting, of course we were only wired a few days before the meeting, we sent an observer, I had a stenographer there giving me a complete report on it and we did meet with the Minister in the evening. I think that this is a subject that must be dealt with by the whole cabinet. That's the situation and I'm not in a position to comment any further on what future meetings there may be.

MR. WALLACE: I have no wish to go into great debate on this drug and alcohol problem but it certainly should be mentioned. I would like to clarify some of the misunderstandings by the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) who made his impassioned comments and then left the chamber, not to listen to the rest of the debate.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: I'm being reasonable. He chooses to make very inaccurate and incorrect comments and then when he knows that there will be further debate he doesn't stay around to listen.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Well, you send him a note. Why don't you send a note and bring him back in the chamber?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. WALLACE: The question of drug addiction and alcohol addiction, as the Minister has pointed out, is no new phenomenon to the human race. Anybody who thinks that there is just some simple magical solution that you just simply become extremely firm with the law…. Some countries apply the death penalty — that's one approach. I think that the very persistence of drug addiction and the very severe penalties in countries like Turkey and Iran, which in recent months have executed about 158 people and the addiction is still rampant, the question of whether just taking this blunderbuss approach that if you just get tough enough and put enough people in jail and probably hang a few of them solves the problem. I just say that while the alternative isn't to be completely complacent or soft, as the Member said, on the other hand this rather bland and all-too-simple statement that we just need firmer laws and more jails and more heavy penalties to me is not the solution.

The only part that stiff penalty and incarceration should play is in the trafficker and the person who himself or herself is trafficking and is not an addict. I think we have two distinct persons. There is the person who traffics to sustain his addiction and the other person who certainly is not an addict and who is making a fortune out of the misery of others. I couldn't care less if you shut that person up in jail for the rest of his life, but in terms of dealing with the established heroin addict, I think the answer must lie in diversity. It's also another aspect of taking a very firm approach, Mr. Chairman, perhaps done in some lack of direct contact with the suffering of the families of addicts involved.

In the particular experience that I have had in the field with the parents of addicts, the tremendous anxiety which they suffer is largely based on the fact that even when they and the son or daughter want some kind of assistance there's none available.

So often, as many Members have pointed out, many addicts have no wish whatever to change their habit. I recognize that problem and realize that this is a large part of the problem which is difficult to tackle.

On the other hand, there do happen to be many addicts who do want help and certainly their parents want some form of facility and advice and rehabilitation available. Up until recently there was practically nothing in this province to provide that kind of assistance, even to the patient or the parents who were trying to obtain assistance.

Certainly the treatment of the acute addict through the vehicle of detoxification centres is only a small part of the overall programme. But I think the government should be given credit that in a short time it has, at least, not only accepted the importance of detoxification but has started to implement certain plans. I'd like to ask the Minister a few questions about the situation in Victoria — but only to

[ Page 2222 ]

demonstrate that progress is being made, albeit in a small part of the total spectrum.

I understood that the commission was hoping to buy a large house close to the Victoria General Hospital as a facility to provide some follow-up in the detoxification phase, and that the matter was presently being priced. I wonder if the Minister could tell us whether this house has been purchased and at what price.

I understand also that arrangements were being made with the Victoria General Hospital for such services as food service and laundry. As I've often said in this House, the treatment of the alcoholic has been under some confusion with regard to financing with BCHIS. While this may strictly be a question for BCHIS, could I ask whether the detoxification arrangements being developed near Victoria General Hospital have been done through mutual arrangement with BCHIS?

I wonder if the Minister could tell us whether physicians and nurses have been engaged and on what basis. I hope this is not some sort of — for lack of a better word — a sideline for certain medical people. I think it's becoming an area where a great degree of expertise is required. And I wonder if the Minister could tell us to what degree physicians and nurses have been employed.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

I understand that an administrator was hired, or that there were plans to hire an administrator, but there was some difficulty about public service classification. I'd be interested to know if this is an administrative difficulty which has been circumvented.

I understand that a fair degree of contact has been made with medical and community authorities and the police. I hope, above all, Mr. Chairman, if we're on this track of detoxification, that we'll remember the principle very clearly that the Minister outlined last night as a result of a seminar that was held in Victoria. That is, that a person addicted to hard drugs is a medical problem.

If they're picked up by the police once we have detoxification centres, I certainly hope that we're not going to go on the old arrest, jail, incarceration routine. I hope that it's clearly understood by the police that we are making progress, and that when a person is picked up obviously under the influence of drugs, he will in fact be taken to the detoxification centre, and the question of what justice procedure might be carried out is secondary to the medical aspect of treating the acute intoxication.

I notice today in The Province newspaper that there's some real difference of opinion about detoxification in Vancouver. I understand the commission employed Mr. Curler as a consultant.

There seems to be a definite divergence of views, with the city council wishing to have one central 75-bed detoxification centre with mandatory admission of the patient...or whether or not there should be four smaller units in different parts of the city.

I'd like to touch briefly in a moment on the alcoholism subject, and it is also mentioned in the newspaper today. But I think the impression that might have been created by the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) that the meeting which took place last November was a group of people all with preconceived ideas and one particular philosophy really is not a fair appraisal of that meeting.

For example, as I recall, was not Dr. Hogarth present at that meeting? He has subsequently been appointed to the provincial police commission. Dr. Matheson, of course, was there; and one could hardly suggest that Dr. Matheson's approach has been a soft approach. Certainly, if anybody has seen the futility of past efforts, it must be people of the experience of Dr. Matheson.

Again, I would say in response to the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey that however inadequate present efforts may be considered, I think we can reasonably look back on the past and say that the picture was completely futile in the last 10 or more years that I've been involved. So it sounds like very small progress, but surely some of the plans that we're proposing offer some hope compared to the futility of what's happened in the past.

Mr. Chairman, I would assume that since my bill was withdrawn last night, there are no restrictions on my saying a little bit about what was in that bill.

The whole purpose of the bill was to provide some of the care, the attention and hope for the addict and for the addict's parents in those cases — and I admit they're not the majority — where there is a real desire by the patient to be helped and a real willingness by the whole family unit to see the young adult treated in some compulsory facility.

My bill incorporated many of the ideas that Dr. Matheson had mentioned. That bill tried to chart some kind of middle course between the penal justice system of just incarcerating people who had committed crimes while under drug influence and the so-called soft approach. It seems to me that there's tremendous flexibility in the provisions of that bill whereby people can go voluntarily.

On the other hand, there are cases where the decision can be taken by the medical authorities, or after the committing of a crime, or for the transferal of a person presently in jail to one of these facilities in the hope that the management and the treatment they will receive will put them back on the street with some hope of staying away from the drug scene.

It's an enormous subject and we've all talked about it many times. I don't think too much more

[ Page 2223 ]

needs to be said except to emphasize that there has to be some diversity of approach; that there certainly has to be the heaviest penalty against the trafficker; and, thirdly, that some of the very sound and basic measures that we can do involve detoxification, which is strictly an acute medical challenge.

I think that with the development of these detoxification centres at least we are making a serious and reasonable step in the direction of positive assistance to the person who is ill. Hopefully, if this is then followed up…. I don't know if the Minister would care to comment on how far the commission has got in terms of the follow-up management of the person when they leave the detoxification course of treatment. Obviously simply to sober up someone who's drunk or to bring them down from heroin is only the very first initial step in trying to give that person complete treatment.

Of course, we often lose sight of the fact that alcohol — and the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) has referred to this — is a much more frequent problem than the heroin addiction. There are some interesting statistics also in the newspaper today which point out that while there are 30,000 alcoholics in metropolitan Vancouver, 24,000 of them are so-called middle-class persons who manage to sustain a — I can hardly say normal — reasonably managed life. And they're not the image so many people have of drunks on skid road.

On the other hand there are 5,300 chronic drunks who live on skid road and are frequently arrested — and native Indians represent one-quarter of that total.

Here again, Mr. Chairman, we're back to the sad recognition that the native Indian people, above all others, in the field of Human Resources require not only to be treated like any other Canadians, but be given some extra special attention to help them catch up socially, and in health terms and education terms, with the general population in Canada.

There's a very interesting report from the Ontario Addiction Foundation, which was written by Dr. David Archibald — who heads the Addiction Research Foundation in Ontario — in regard to alcohol. There's a point I can't recall having heard before, that of all the various factors that have been said to contribute to alcoholism, such as more outlets and a lower drinking age and the style of drinking, and so on, he came up with one very clear, definable factor which resulted from the study of figures in various nations, not just in Canada. He says that it shows quite clearly that the lower cost of alcohol in terms of personal disposable income, the greater the consumption and the higher the rate of disease and death.

From 1949 to 1969 per capita disposable income has increased 57 per cent, while the average price of liquor and beer in relation to today's income in dollar values has actually declined. So, in relative terms, alcohol and beer is cheaper today than it was 20 years ago.

So many of us stand up and speak in this House, and we describe the problems at great length; but we so seldom come up with positive proposals as to what to do about it. I would suggest that of all the world-wide research that has been done on alcoholism, it would seem from the figures here that the only one definable statistic that is really meaningful is that the cheaper it is the more it's consumed. I would think that the more we increase the price, there would be some chance that there would be less consumption.

But we are all politicians and the political involvement in putting a higher price more progressively on liquor, I suppose, is something which any government considers more than once. Maybe they don't just take a second look; they take a third look and a fourth look. But if we really are serious in trying to diminish the consumption of alcohol, I think one of the most effective ways would be to make it exorbitantly high in price.

If we look at the political difficulty in persuading voters that this is justified, maybe we should try to provide the information about ill health and disease, the costs of hospitalization, the demands on medical personnel, the increase in motor vehicle accidents and all the carnage and disability and expense that follows from that.

In passing, Mr. Chairman, now that the government has to pay for fixing up all the motor vehicles, maybe the government might have a more intimate sensitivity as to the amount of accidents that are caused by alcohol-related causes.

Again, one could go in great detail into alcoholism, but I wonder if any consideration or any study has been done in British Columbia in comparing 1949, let us say, with 1969 as to whether or not liquor is actually cheaper in this province than it was, relatively speaking, in 1949.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I think they should shove the price up. I think that I'm in favour of increasing the price of alcohol. I think that it will not solve the problem, but it seems to be the one statistical factor that has been demonstrated to discourage consumption.

I would like to say one thing to the Minister. The Minister mentioned he has authorized a study on the battered child. This is a very tragic situation in our society that really is not given enough publicity. Regretfully, not even enough of us physicians remain adequately aware of the number of children who suffer abuse which goes undiagnosed. I think that the Minister mentioned Dr. Segal as the doctor who had studied this. I'm looking forward to reading the report. But I think, in a debate on Human Resources,

[ Page 2224 ]

we're all agreed that the children, in terms of their social environment and their education, are the hope for the future of the province.

I just wanted to quote very briefly, Mr. Chairman, from one of the most recent studies that was done at the child-development clinic of the Children's Hospital in Winnipeg. It showed, in the time period that the study was done, that from 1957 to 1971 they saw 132 cases, and these are only the cases that were actually detected. There were 132 at this one hospital in a period of 14 years.

Of all these battered children, 78 per cent of them were under three years old; in fact, 10 per cent of them were under six months. They often present some medical evidence which actually obscures the underlying trauma that's been inflicted in the first place. The condition so often appears as multiple bruises — and often with fractures — which unfortunately are often missed on diagnosis, or there's bleeding under the skull as a result of head injury.

One of the interesting facts that has been discovered also is that some of the cases of so-called crib death, where an infant or a child is found dead in a crib for unexplained reasons, have been associated with the child having been abused.

It's also interesting that out of 88 cases which were followed up, eight of the children had actually died — which was again 10 per cent of the group involved. It's a tremendous challenge to the medical profession and to the social services in this province to become more aware of the fact that these tragic incidents happen.

The other interesting factor when research is done, Mr. Chairman, is that of the parents involved in these tragic family situations, many of them have previously sought psychiatric help. The statistics show that they've had a great deal of contact with various social agencies, whether it's marriage counselling or social assistance or some other social agency. So there is a tremendous challenge to the combined forces of social services and the medical profession to be well aware of the fact that these battered children occur with a frightening frequency, and we must expend all the effort we can on the educational area.

I wonder if the Minister can tell us what he anticipates.... . first of all, whether the report is available from Dr. Segal, or is it still to be completed. If it's completed, will it be tabled in the House? If it is at that point, does the Minister have anything to tell us as to the next step he proposes in an attempt to prevent or cut down on the incidence of the battered child syndrome?

As I say, I don't want to go into a long dissertation on the subject. I'm just trying to point out the basics. But the fact is that the follow-up studies done on these 132 children in Winnipeg showed that in later years there's a very marked incidence of mental retardation, a general failure of the child to develop normally. Even those who are not mentally retarded — a substantial percentage — show a degree of difficulty in their mental development and normal emotional maturing.

Of course, it's difficult to know whether the trauma causes that or not; but certainly the statistics suggest that these emotional mental problems and retarded mentality are higher than the average in the population. So it's very highly suggestive that even those children who suffer this kind of abuse and survive are certainly less than normal individuals in later years.

The last point I'd just like to make in passing — and I think the Minister had a letter from this gentleman — is referring briefly to Mincome and the handicapped. I'm talking about the handicapped person between the age of 19 and 60. I don't know that I fully understand the eligibility factors for such a handicapped person between the age of 19 and 60.

But so that we can perhaps get it clarified and up to date, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister could comment about the case of a man who suffers from such a disease as MS, multiple sclerosis, or muscular dystrophy or rheumatoid arthritis. He struggles along as best he can for many years but, say, around the middle 40s he finally has no way he can continue to support himself and go to work.

Under the circumstances, such a person has usually not been able to afford to buy a home, and is renting. My understanding is that at this point in time they cannot have assets which exceed $2,500. I wonder if the Minister could clarify the eligibility of such a person for Mincome and differentiate between this business of a means test or an income assessed test, or whatever phrase it was you used. I am getting the phrases mixed up. That's the first thing: I'd like to know to what degree it is assets or income that is related to the help such a person as this gentleman can get.

Secondly, to what degree is that determined in provincial government policy by the federal attitude? Has the provincial government chosen to follow this policy with regard to the handicapped, which I consider strictly a means test, because of a federal attitude? Is it that the provincial government chooses for other reasons to apply a means test to a handicapped person between 19 and 60 when no such test is applied over age 60? Thank you.

HON. MR. LEVI: On the handicapped pension. I think the Member made some reference to a house. It's true there is a cash asset level of $2,500. This does not include a house or any of the normal things that go such as a car and anything else he might have. The criterion is the employability. If he's not employable because of his health, then he will go on.

[ Page 2225 ]

There is a struggle, and it is a struggle, we're having in discussing with the federal people the means test versus the incomes test. There is now a social security review going on and a working party that will be dealing with this question of the formula for the Canada Assistance Plan sharing. We have been pushing as a province for the incomes test. As I said last night, we've been successful in achieving that test in our day-care programme; I hope we will be equally successful in the homemaker programme.

In the broader programmes for the handicapped — social allowance, and the Mincome — while we have from our point of view in Mincome an incomes test, the sharing is still based on the needs test. They only share so far. For instance, in Mincome the federal people will only share up to $200; they won't share beyond that. We are trying to rationalize this and this will take some time. Whether we want to go it alone is a very costly factor. It's a 50 per cent sharing and we recognize that we get a great deal of help in all of these programmes from the federal government.

I think the criterion for people on handicapped is if they are able to work. Then we look at the cash assets. When we looked at the Mincome programme, about 70 per cent of the people had no assets at all; they were just living on what was coming in on a pension. So we decided to go that route.

In terms of the cases you've explained, we are very reasonable about that one; I don't think he would have any trouble getting the pension. The fact that he has a house really doesn't make any difference. He's entitled to that.

I appreciated the Member's remarks about alcohol because in this House of late we tend to get in the exotic discussion about drugs and heroin — and that is the real problem.

In respect to the Victoria area, the commission at present is looking at six sites, trying to select a site from six possible ones for the detox centre. There have been an enormous number of discussions with all ranges of people in the community: the health; the police; the BCHIS is involved (the commission sees them regularly); the hospitals and whoever else has any interest in this. They've met with a large number of people.

In terms of cost, there is in the report we tabled the budget for the commission for next year. Under the item at the very back, the Cordova detoxification centre, the staffing will be of that order. You will have an administrative officer, $10,000; director of medical services, $13,000; and then nurses, orderlies, in a range. That operation over there costs $133,000 for operating. In Victoria it would be around $100,000.

In Vancouver we are looking at four other detox centres. But the important thing about those detox centres is that they will relate, if you like, to the social-economic groupings. We will not be just putting them in the skid road area. The skid road alcoholic represents about 3 per cent and he's the one who has always had the visibility and consequently appears to get some of the attention. But we have to look at the other 95 to 97 per cent of the problem. In Vancouver there will be four of them. We will put them in areas where they relate very much to where people are and not just skid road addicts.

I notice Alderman Rankin is still pushing his 80-bed edifice. We are not going that route; that is not a route to go. Again, we have to do these things in small, manageable units. We can't do them in these great massive units because they become extremely expensive and you are not able to give the kind of attention you want to give to the patient. You have all sorts of other problems that go on there.

I was interested in your remarks about the cost of liquor. Other studies have shown that if you make it more expensive, then alcoholics and the heavy drinkers will still buy it. But then they really do damage to themselves health-wise because they spend less money on food. They opt for that kind of thing. So there are all sorts of ways you can go on the sanction thing in respect to alcohol.

When I travel around, I usually find myself asking people all around this province what they pay for a bottle of whisky. I'm amazed at the amount of money some people will pay. I'm not talking about people who are drunks; I'm talking about people who just drink socially. It seems that the more decrepit the area, the higher the price people pay. We have in this province aircrafts that are on a kind of a milk run, bringing in booze all over the place.

Looking at the price thing, I don't know; you might have an answer, you may not. In any case, that's a question for the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) and my colleague, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). But I don't think it really would meet the urgent problem we're trying to deal with.

I must say that there's been extremely good cooperation among the commission, the Health department and BCHIS on discussion of all these matters. That all goes well for the kind of facilities we can develop. I have been one who says if you develop the facilities in the community where it does not necessarily become part of the medical model but is part of the community model, that's also the way to go. A lot of the medical work is important but then there's the followup work.

In relation to this, I didn't mention that we have now engaged Dr. Hearn who is one of the foremost specialists in the country and was formerly employed at the Collingwood Acres in Alberta which has done a great deal of work. His specialty is particularly in the area the Member asked about: the 40-day followup. That's the thing he spent a great deal of time studying and had experience in seeing what was going on.

[ Page 2226 ]

Then, of course, underlying all of what we're doing will be the kind of thrust coming from the development of the training centre we are setting up in Vancouver. People from communities can go and will be involved, whether they are volunteers or staff people, to be trained in the work with the drug- or alcohol-abuse people. That's where the training will take place; that's going to be the focus. That training is important. There will be research going on; there will be some service going on in there; there will be alcoholics and drug addicts going on in there. That's probably the first time perhaps in Canada that we have such a centre where we will train people. We are talking about community-based services and we hope that thing will be on stream. The plans are now being developed. I think the Member has the copy of the paper. Do you have a copy of the paper, Mr. Member? A very important focus of this is the training part.

The battered child. We started between myself and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) the first phase of the programme to alert the public to the fact that we have a problem. We had a very broad publicity campaign. That was the first phase.

The second phase was to be the publishing of a paper by Dr. Segal. We now have the drafts which we are looking at. I hope within the next two or three weeks that will be finalized and then we'll make it available. That's the second phase: to get that out to the public. It will also be accompanied by a second stage of advertising.

The third stage will be, of course, dealing with the preventive and remedial measures for all of this. That will be closely connected with the programme that we've developed into our department with our Special Services to Children. Also what happens in the Health department.

We wanted to first expose the problem. That, I think, we have done. The next stage will be the paper; the third stage will be the preventive and remedial treatment. That will be on stream certainly this summer.

MR. WALLACE: Could I just follow up with one last question? I kind of missed the point, I think, when we talked so much about the diversity of approaches to the treatment of the drug addict. I wonder if the Minister could give some idea as to the general acceptance or otherwise of the mandatory treatment which might be created.

We ran into some difficulty during the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Macdonald's) estimates as to whether we should be discussing that under his estimates or under the estimates of the Minister of Human Resources. We really never resolved the problem but I know I am speaking for many parents in this city when I say that they feel very frustrated about the inadequacy of the facilities available to them. As the Minister well knows, they spend a few hours on the emergency department at one of the hospitals and then they get sent back out onto the street.

I know it's a very important question of civil liberty as to whether a person should be restricted and lose his or her freedom for treatment in this kind of facility. It is part of the diversity of approach which I think is well worth trying, but you can't do it by putting them in Wilkinson Road Jail. That's for sure. I just wonder if we're close to the point where even a pilot project might be attempted in metropolitan Vancouver or in Victoria over a period of a year, let us say, to measure its worth. I'm not asking for an absolute commitment but I think it would be very encouraging to many parents in this city at least to know that we're moving in that direction even on an experimental basis.

HON. MR. LEVI: I'll just answer the Member. There have been discussions with the Attorney-General's department about the use of what I think you characterize as "compulsory facilities." They, after all, have incarcerated a number of people. They have that kind of control and that is being discussed in cooperation with the Alcohol and Drug Commission.

MR. WALLACE: I don't just mean people who have committed a crime.

HON. MR. LEVI: No, that's the first stage. The focus at the moment that we're developing is in the voluntary aspect. We are going to get enough trained people who want to come forward. One of the weaknesses of the compulsory treatment argument, to me, has always been: "Where are you going to treat them, if you do it? Where are you going to keep people for three months?" You're not going to keep them in the jail because that's not pleasing. Then you have to look at staff input and I'm suggesting that if you go that route in any broad way you're going to be looking at per diem costs of $75 to $100 per day for patients. I kid you not, that's the kind of money you're looking at if you're going to do the kind of work you say you want to do with them over the period of three months.

So the first thing is that we have response from the community. You notice in the report there is a very long list of projects that are going on all around the province, so we have the base. We have the involvement with the training that we can really… We have enough to do initially with the voluntary for those people who want to come forward on their own. There is what the Attorney-General's people want to do in terms of people they have in custody and they can in some way have, if you like, a compulsory conditional thing relating to parole or

[ Page 2227 ]

even related to probation after prison.

We'll be looking at this, but I think in all frankness as far as looking at the compulsory aspect of setting up the treatments, arrangements in the community, we're probably a year away from that because we have to develop first the other aspect.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I've been waiting in this debate to say a few words about a couple of problems that I think are very important. I understand that the Minister has a bill on the community resource boards but perhaps he'd like to indicate to us — I don't know whether the bill covers it, I'm looking in the index and haven't found it yet — whether or not he's going to continue the programme to have 50 per cent of those on the boards to be users, consumers.

HON. MR. LEVI: There is no such programme.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, is it still your view that it should happen that way? Perhaps he could give me his view on that because it's something which I think people are concerned about. I'm concerned about it because it indicates that there is some sort of professional user of Human Resources department services and I dislike the idea. I think the idea should be to get them off the rolls of the Human Resources department as fast as possible. Representatives who might be long-term, and thus might have an almost professional interest in being there, are just about as much a concern as the professional who winds up in so many other fields of users of government services. I'm leery of that concept and I wonder if he would say a word about that.

The second point I'd like to mention, Mr. Chairman, is Mincome again. I've discussed this many times with him, right from the very first mini-session, mini-Mincome session, that we had in the fall of '72. We're in a situation now where we still have the same basic problem, and that is that anybody who is on a small pension from a railway, from the government, from any commercial or industrial organization which is relatively small is barred, dollar for dollar, from taking advantage of Mincome. I use the term "dollar for dollar" and the Minister understands me. What it means is that for every dollar of pension that he gets from the railway, government or organization, he loses a dollar of Mincome. I would at this time most strenuously urge, as I have so frequently, and the Minister knows this, that we have the one-for-two ratio instead of one-for-one ratio. In other words, for every $2 of other pension that he gets, he only has to count one for the purposes of Mincome.

The Minister has indicated all sorts of reasons, most of them very vague. He's indicated that federal legislation is somehow difficult to deal with and other things like this but he certainly has no real problem dealing with the raising of Mincome to take advantage of federal pension increases. I think it should be quite possible to work out some sort of deal on the two-for-one ratio which they have for the guaranteed income supplement from the federal government and which I at this time most strenuously urge on him. I'll say not much more about that except that if he could do such a thing I think that it would make a great difference to people who resent Mincome at the present time because they feel that they have made some little effort to put money aside for their future and they now discover that they're the sort of hard-working ants, if you like, and they find at the end of their lives that all the grasshoppers are getting exactly what they got. People who did not put money aside, who were profligate, who were careless, who did take the Premier's advice and take trips to Hawaii and things of that nature…. I think that you're in an area, Mr. Minister, which is very important to a lot of people. They do not like the concept of the care that they have taken for their future and the carefulness of their planning in past years to have been swept aside as is done under the Mincome provisions.

I have mentioned to you, sir, before that if you're advising your parents or any other person as to what to do if they do have a pension of some $50, $60 or $70 a month, there is only one thing to do and that's to try to take the capital and blow it. Just spend it on Irish Sweepstake tickets is my recommendation because then you have the chance of becoming a millionaire. You take the $20,000 that gives you your little monthly income, your $20,000 nest egg and you buy $20,000 worth of Irish Sweepstake tickets and you have the chance of becoming a millionaire and if you lose the whole thing, Mr. Chairman, it doesn't make a bit of difference because that pension money will be made up by Mincome.

It's a crazy thing to have to recommend to people but that's one thing they can do. The other thing they can do, of course, is to spend it on a swimming pool or some addition to their home or they can simply spend it as they see fit, go down to Las Vegas or anywhere else in the world and have a riotous six months living as high on the hog as they can, burn up the $20,000, come back to B.C. and they're in exactly the same position as far as their future income is concerned. To encourage such antisocial behaviour, Mr. Minister, is wrong. And yet given the position that you may find yourself in frequently, and I find myself in from time to time, how do you advise a would-be Mincome recipient who is the beneficiary of say $20,000 in investment, without giving him that advice?

I might add, Mr. Chairman, that the person who really does lose under these circumstances is the person who doesn't have the opportunity of capitalizing his pension — the person who has worked

[ Page 2228 ]

for the railroads, who gets money from the CP or CNR or BCR or whatever it might be. He can't take that nest egg which represents his pension income and burn it up; he can't go and spend that as he only gets it on a monthly basis. To have that person put in such a disadvantageous position is not fair. There are no two ways we can describe that; it simply isn't fair. It's government policy which makes it not fair and I personally believe it's government policy which should be changed.

I'll give you one example, Mr. Minister — I'll give you two. One to start with: a constituent of mine, after 46 years with the CNR, gets $475 per month, in addition to which he and his wife receive the OAP (Old Age Pension), plus $35 Canada Pension. After income tax he makes only marginally more than he would on Mincome. In other words, if there was some way to commute his pension he would be better to do so, spend the money as I suggested on simply a fantastic trip to Europe, really throwing the money around. He and his wife would have just a tremendous time and then he could come back and be in exactly the same financial position thereafter. Were he to do so, of course, he would be acting, I think, in a socially irresponsible way and of course because his money (his pension) is tied up in the railway or the railway pension fund he can't do that. Yet someone else who had made provision for his pension by private means would be able to do so.

This person, whose name and address I have here, and I'll discuss it privately with the Minister, would be essentially advised, if you could advise him to do this, to just go out and spend that money in any frivolous way that he feels would amuse him for six months because he'll wind up in the same position.

You simply have never faced up to this problem, Mr. Minister, although I must admit you've faced up to other problems that I've brought to your attention, such as the OAP increase, the GIS increase and passing it on to pensioners in the province. So perhaps he will give me a state of the union message on what he is doing to improve Mincome along the lines that I have suggested, because he has improved it along the lines that I suggested back in October, 1972. He has taken care of some of the problems that I pointed out to him at that time and this is a very real one.

It's time that he gave some sort of recognition in Mincome of the savings that people have made either through pension plans or on their own with the savings that they have made for retirement years.

Second point.... Did I say I was only going to make two points? I'll make a few more than that.

Mr. Minister, I have spoken to you on a number of occasions and asked you two questions in the House about welfare administration costs in some of the other municipalities other than Vancouver. Surrey was the one that I specifically referred to.

The government has taken over welfare administration in Vancouver, Chilliwack, Kelowna, Penticton, Kamloops, Victoria and Saanich, but it has not treated the other municipalities in the same way. Surrey is thus losing $306,000 according to their calculations.

I refer you to the January 29, 1974, edition of The Vancouver Sun which had a story to this effect, and of which your department is fully aware. There is a substantial loss to the municipalities which have not had the welfare administrative cost taken over. I wonder whether the Minister would indicate to us, when I sit down and he gets up to answer me, what he is going to do for municipalities such as Surrey. That's the second point.

He's taking notes, and I appreciate the Minister's attention to this.

The next point I'd like to make deals with the really absurd situation that is developing on day care. We're into a nightmare situation. Mr. Chairman, to refresh your memory of this if you're not as familiar with it as some others of us, we have a situation where the schools themselves — built for children, with play areas where people can shout, scream, play football, run around and make lots of noise — being adjudged not adequate for day-care programmes. The Minister nods his head and looks very sheepish about this, as well he should because this is just the height of lunacy....

HON. MR. LEVI: I'm not the right Minister; it's the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) you have to go to.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister of Health.

HON. MR. LEVI: It's under his department.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, in any event, I would like to have.... The Minister is involved in this; he seems to get copies of letters, or he seems to be the recipient of letters which are addressed to him from Vancouver, from Victoria and elsewhere. I'd like to read him just a few lines from a letter from Victoria. This is from the Jiminy Crickets Kindergarten in Victoria. March 6, 1974, addressed to the Hon. Norman Levi and the Hon. Dennis Cocke:

"Dear Sirs:

Please be advised that due to a recent decision of the Community Care Facilities Licensing Board, Jiminy Crickets must close at the end of this term.

"'The financial risk that would be incurred in trying to meet the demands of the board are more than I" — the signer of this letter — "am prepared to take.

"In review, our centre proceeded many of the provincial regulations and unlike other

[ Page 2229 ]

centres, offers classes for grades 1 and 2. As a result we've never really fitted into the artificial categories developed by the board, and we've probably been a source of frustration to them and their advisers for some time. This was not something done deliberately on our part, it just was the way things developed from our attempts to meet changing community needs and the board's attempts to create uniform province-wide regulations."

It goes on to say that:

"Mr. Gorby has been most understanding and helpful in my dealings with him. I don't think the board has handled the situation at all well."

It's signed by Alfred Peterson, the administrator.

Essentially what it is is a facility which is being forced by a series of new regulations to so adjust the buildings and the furniture and the actual physical structure of the kindergarten that they simply cannot meet the teachers' salaries and at the same time keep the fees at a reasonable level which can be afforded by citizens in the community.

For example:

"The board has refused to grant us a licence to carry the number of pre-school children that the centre is designed to handle, namely 150 children, and has told us to reduce our current enrolment down to 115 children. This means that we will have to close two of our nine classrooms in order to comply with the ruling."

When I said this whole situation with respect to kindergartens was lunacy, I think this is a good example of it. To comply with the board's ruling they're going to have to close rooms in their kindergarten, in their day-care centre. It just doesn't make any sense at all, Mr. Minister. You know that; I know that. We seem to be at the beck and call of regulations which just are not applicable in the present case.

I don't want to go on through this press release, Mr. Minister. If you fail to answer my questions on this, I'll repeat it again and read you a little more. But I would like your views on this because we are reaching a situation where day care is not being provided, not because facilities are not there, not because people don't want it but simply because you've got some nutty regulations which are essentially regulations for the whole province and do not apply in individual circumstances, and certainly do not apply in previously existing facilities.

You're forcing these previously existing facilities to close down. You're cutting down on the amount of day care and kindergarten, and it is just nonsense. That was in reference to a commercial operation; Jiminy Crickets is a commercial operation, but the same is true with respect to non-profit operations in the City of Vancouver.

I'd like to read a letter which was sent to a colleague of mine, Mr. G. Gardom, MLA. Dated March 29, it's a letter from Mr. P.S. Bullen, chairman of the Vancouver School Board. And the Minister knows much of what's in it because he's received similar letters.

"Dear Mr. Gardom:

I am writing to ask you to use your influence to help day-care needs in the Vancouver area. As you will see in the attached correspondence of February 8, 1973, a letter to the Minister of Education," — who should be hanging her head in shame over this whole thing — "the Vancouver school board made a very positive move in this direction on February 5, 1973, a move that was much appreciated by all involved with day care in this city and also much appreciated by the Minister of Education.

"However, we are still today running into criticism that we are not being cooperative. These criticisms seem to stem from a problem that we pointed out to the Minister of Education in our brief. See underlining in the attachment of our letter to the Minister of Education, dated March 23, 1973. The same problem was taken up both with the mayor and the Minister of Education in letters dated June 6, 1973, and their replies are also included, dated July 11 and July 31 respectively.

"However, the problem still remains, as seen in our latest letter to Dr. Larsen."

And I'll get to the Larsen letter as well as the others in due course.

"One of our trustees not directly involved with day care remarked that the rules and regulations led her to believe that their intention was to prevent the setting up of day-cares. This may be an exaggeration, but it does indicate the exasperation felt by the community groups trying to set up day care as a result of the runaround the regulations seems to give. Please, any help you can give would be appreciated. Yours sincerely, P.S. Bullen, Chairman, Vancouver School Board."

Well, that's the latest letter; obviously it was written very recently. It gives an overview, perhaps, of the problems that we are facing, Mr. Minister.

I would just like to talk of the Larsen letter. Unless you fail to answer my questions fully, I will not read the others. If you fail to answer them, I will read the others. Once again, a threat of further correspondence.

Dr. Andrew Larsen,

Chairman,

Community Care Facilities Board,

Department of Health,

Victoria, B.C.

March 27.

[ Page 2230 ]

Dear Dr. Larsen:

I am writing to express a few concerns felt by the Vancouver School Board about regulations which are hampering the provision of child-care facilities in vacant areas in Vancouver schools

Our board at its regular meeting of February 5, 1973, went on record as 'allowing community use of vacant classrooms for the purposes of operating non-profit day-care centres, so long as this does not interfere with the school's normal educational programme.'

Since that time, very little additional use has been made of school facilities, and we have received criticism of the delays and roadblocks encountered when seeking approval for the use of school facilities for child-care programmes.

Some of the problems faced by child care groups using schools are

a) the requirement of a specially fenced play area within an already fenced schoolground.

Try to explain that, Mr. Minister. You'd be a better man than I am.

b) the requirement of special additional washroom facilities.

c) a requirement of 30 square feet of 'clear floor space'

— that means no cupboards, no lockers, nothing like that —

30 square feet of clear floor space for each child.

d) the requirement of additional exits or of firewalls in the first floor classrooms.

- which are not needed for grade 1 kids.

e) the length of time required to get approvals through city child care inspection.

Almost all centres established today in Vancouver schools are for the care of school-age children in kindergarten and primary grades under 'latchkey' programmes. Children in primary grades are accommodated before and after school, and kindergarten children are supervised in addition during the half day that they are not in school.

Our board requests that the present regulations be reviewed in the light of these out-of-school programmes. It seems absurd that accommodation which is quite satisfactory during school hours should be rated unsatisfactory for the same children before and after school...

Boy, that seems like an awfully sensitive remark to me and I see you shaking your head in agreement, Mr. Minister.

...and that a classroom which houses 25 to 30 children for school purposes is rated a maximum of 17 of the same children when used for child care.

Our board is also interested in providing accommodation for preschool child care, especially in areas where disadvantaged children could be helped to gain a better start in school Such a class would provide the equivalent of a junior kindergarten in needy areas, but to date, no such programme has been established in a Vancouver school.

A recently opened centre has had its licence restricted to kindergarten and grade 1 for unspecified reasons. Our board is interested in a new approach to child care as a preparation for regular schooling, and believes that the present regulation should be reviewed in the light of this new approach. It seems that many of the present regulations are written for the days when such accommodation was provided as a creche. We would be pleased to provide someone to act on any committee you set up to review present regulations.

That was from the chairman of the Vancouver School Board to Dr. Larsen of the Department of Health. I appreciate, as the Minister said, that this is an overlapping responsibility. It goes beyond him, goes beyond the Minister of Health, goes even beyond the Minister of Education. But we're obviously in an absurd situation, Mr. Minister; and as you're up for bat today, and as I'm not on this subject today, you're going to have to answer some questions, I trust.

Now, as I mentioned, I'll leave that to you. I hope you'll come up with some positive suggestions because both in the public sector, with the public school system in Vancouver, and the private facility problem, which I mentioned, of Jiminy Crickets, we are reaching an absurd situation. Jiminy Crickets, that nine-classroom facility, is going to be turned into office space. Why? — because of the dumbness of the regulation. Now that really doesn't help children very much in the City of Victoria. I just don't think that office space is going to help them one little bit. So I hope we're going to get some positive approaches there

I'd like to mention another subject of which the Minister is fully aware, and I've told him I would raise this during estimates. It is the question of the seven-beds programme, a programme which I think has a great deal of merit. It's the programme to take the single parent who has young children entirely out of the environment that she has been living in — generally it is a female, of course — taking care of her kids, taking her completely out, giving her some sort of a break for a few days, sending in proper child-care specialists to take care of her children so she has complete confidence that they're being well looked after, and giving her the opportunity of getting a break.

Now, Mr. Minister, you know full well that many of the psychological problems of the single parents stem from the fact that there is no escape from what they consider to be the trap they're in. They're always there to take care of their kids. There is no opportunity to get out, generally because there are no funds to hire babysitters. There's no opportunity the married woman who has a husband can use to get away from the home.

They're just simply trapped. Some of them have psychological problems, which the Minister of Health knows well, simply because they cannot escape from this environment. They're just there to take care of their kids. They're often on welfare, and that's that.

Now the seven-beds programme was designed to get around that. The seven-beds programme was

[ Page 2231 ]

designed to take the single parent, give that person — and as I said a moment ago, it was almost invariably female — an opportunity to get into a totally different environment.

They've had assistance from the Catholic church in Victoria. The Sisters of St. Ann have been most generous. The Queenswood House of Studies, in particular, has taken these ladies in, while at the same time the programme has sent proper people quite qualified to take care of their kids; and the mother has no worries whatsoever about her children. This point was stressed to me time after time when I met some of the mothers involved who have taken part in the programme previously.

I'll just read one letter from one of them — just a paragraph. She says

"It's very nice to be able to leave my five children and feel responsible for nothing but myself. And what is super terrific is knowing that my children are being looked after by someone of the seven-beds staff, who leave me with a comfortable feeling that they are going to be looked after well, not just 'held together as a family'" — that's in quotes — "by a Red Cross homemaker who feeds them and supervises them, but by someone who really takes care of them."

Well, that's not bad, I'll read another one just for the record. Another lady writes: "...had a marvellous time, made all the difference in the world. I'm more relaxed. I'm rested." She enjoyed it thoroughly and she appreciated having her hair done. A very minor thing, but the opportunity was there. "Would not go again if professional homemaker came in to look after children. Would come again if seven-beds girls were still the homemakers. Housework is not as important as the happiness of my children." Now I have a lot of material on this, and I'm again in the position of showing my normal restraint in taking up the time of the House.

I'm sure the Minister is fully aware of this programme because I've spoken to him personally a short time ago. Mr. Jones and Mr. Butters are fully aware of the programme. His civil servants up and down the line are fully aware of the programme And the programme appears to have merit in the greater Victoria area.

I know he's going to say it's expensive, Mr. Chairman. He's going to act as Scrooge and say it costs too much money. It may cost money, but the bases on which he's calculated the cost, I think, are erroneous. He's based the cost, Mr. Chairman, if I can refer to a conversation that I've had with him, entirely on the mothers instead of on the mothers and the children. He's forgotten about the children, which is a mistake.

You have to realize that the children also get a break, and it is an important thing for them as well.

Just as you give an opportunity for the ladies in question to get out and get away, and just get some let-up from the pressures that some of them have been feeling for many, many years — this constant pressure that's on them as a single parent to take care of their kids — you give the kids a break at the same time.

His arguments that he's put to me are simply not particularly persuasive. He said it costs too much money. Well, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, the $2,000, as I understand, has been revised, and they've done their level best to cut down. They're offering the same programme essentially at $41,000. To have me sit down it's probably pretty cheap at the price.

So I trust the Minister will indicate that he's going to revise this and support the seven-beds programme, because it's a perfectly good programme. It's one that has proven its use. In all seriousness — I'd like to be serious after, perhaps, my late remarks — you really cannot calculate the damage done to a family where a mother has psychiatric problems which could have been avoided by the type of programme that we're suggesting. You cannot calculate in financial terms the damage done to the family or to her.

Now I'm not saying that everybody's going to wind up in the Eric Martin if they don't have this programme — obviously not. But it does make a difference. The ladies who have taken advantage of this programme — which, incidentally, was funded initially under the OFY programme; then for two months by the Minister's department; then for the last four months by an LIP grant — the ladies who've taken advantage of it that I've met have spoken most highly of it. I think that it's something that should be revised.

The cold, calculating, cash register approach of this Minister should be put aside, and he should start thinking in human terms. I'm sure he will, and he'll get up and say that he's all in favour and going to revise it, because it's a worthwhile programme in Victoria.

I would like to ask also, Mr. Chairman, at this time — I'm getting close to the end of my notes here — about what is provided for the handicapped; and I appreciate the fact that this government has taken steps in this regard. I'm referring to a letter which I received from Miss Donna Pistell which I referred to in another Minister's estimates, the Minister of Health's (Hon. Mr. Cocke's) estimates, a letter dated March 7, 1974, to the Minister — not so long ago.

She sent me a copy. She is a constituent of mine. She talks about the problems she's going to face when her parents, who are advancing in years, are no longer able to care for her, because she is on a full disability pension of $213.85 — in other words, a full Mincome disability pension. She says in the letter:

"In approximately two years my father

[ Page 2232 ]

hopes to retire and move to a remodeled summer cabin at Williston Point. As the time is growing closer when my father will no longer be able to carry me up and down stairs, which he does at the present time, I shall require an elevator.

"Due to the high taxes in our present home my parents cannot afford to live on the pension my father will receive, nor can we afford to purchase an elevator of our own.

"We recently heard of a new government policy to provide financial aid in order to keep the handicapped person in their own home instead of institutionalizing them. Therefore, could you please tell me if any elevator would fall into this category of aid, and to whom I apply?"

The suggestion there, I think, is a very good one. I appreciate that the Minister is doing things along this line. But I would like him at this stage simply to keep the handicapped person as mobile and as occupied as possible, within the surrounding which is not institutionalized.

The tremendous strides being made by handicapped people in staying within the society and becoming productive citizens, in every sense of the word, is based on the concept of getting them out of institutions, keeping them among normal people. Here is a problem which I would like to raise to the Minister.

I raise it in terms of an individual citizen. Perhaps he could reply not only individually, but more generally on the strides his department is taking and the speed with which they are proceeding in assisting the handicapped to remain as far as possible right within society and fully active members of society. Miss Pistell's letter is the start of this, but perhaps the Minister would like to comment more fully,

HON. MR. LEVI: In respect to Donna Pistell's letter, I did send it on to Merle Smith, who is the consultant on the physically handicapped, and they are in touch with one another. In respect particularly to the equipment that is needed, I expect within about a week to have a report on all of this as to just what we can do or what the department of the aid to the handicapped in the Health department can do about this.

We have been involved in setting up such equipment in a house in Vancouver for people so that they can come out of an institution. I appreciate what the Member is saying. We are now looking at what we can provide in terms of cost.

I'm also dealing with another case where there is a need for an elevator, a chair elevator — those things that slide up and down the staircases — and also some lifting equipment. I did see when I was travelling in Europe last year a large amount of various kinds of equipment that can be used in the homes.

The report is almost complete. I've asked our health division to do this and then we'll have to make a judgment on how much money we can spend in the forthcoming year. We have a budget in that division but we have not earmarked anything because we've been simply trying to find out what we can do that's realistic. Merle Smith, who was sitting behind me, has just informed me that she is in touch with her and will continue to be in touch with Miss Pistell.

Let me for a minute talk about day-care regulations. The board is made up of senior officials from three departments — the Minister of Health, my department and the Minister of Education. I've told the Ministers of my concern about the draft regulations. Without speaking for them, but speaking for myself, I can assure the Member and the House that those regulations that were sent out are draft regulations, and they're going to have to really sit on me to convince me that they are in keeping with what the community wants.

I agree that there need to be regulations. We have to look after children in terms of their health and their safety, but I don't think that as a government we have to be that far ahead of citizens or that we have to be making demands in terms of the ultimate, when in fact we exist.... In my own house there are five children and I don't think we had at any time 30 square feet of space. We have as a government an obligation to see that children are properly cared for. Those suggested regulations of 30 square feet to 45 represent a 22 per cent increase in any capital funding that we will want to do in terms of day-care centres.

I can assure the Member that I have talked to the Ministers about it, and of course they are draft regulations. I realize that out there there is some very serious anxiety about this. I'm sure that there will be some pretty severe discussion.

On the other question of the regulations which relate to what's desirable for school children and what is not desirable for children under five, we then get into some very deep philosophical arguments with the pre-school people versus the education people. I opened a month ago a day care centre on school grounds in Vancouver, the first one. It was a portable unit that the school board had turned over to a day-care group. That portable unit had between 35 and 40 children in it, but the regulations in the health department in Vancouver decree that there can only be 17 children in there.

Somehow we've got to work things in a much more rational way. I've said that if we want to be able to deliver day care as quickly as we've been doing, and we've quadrupled the amount in the last year…. First of all, it's been suggested that Dr. Larsen is somehow opposed to day care. He's not, because we've still, regardless of the regulations, developed four times as much day care as there was when we

[ Page 2233 ]

came in in October, 1972. But we are getting into the situation where the regulations are tending to lead us by the nose. We are really going to have to examine this.

Certainly we have to have closer discussions about the question of the use of schools. I wrote to the school board that I had heard from the information officer that there were classrooms available and I asked if we could use them for day care. But then we ran smack into the regulations. Apparently the light from the windows is not adequate enough for children who are under five — one might ask if they are adequate for children over five. So we're running into that kind of problem. I can assure you that I'm going to take a great deal of convincing that we have to make the regulations more stringent than they are, especially if it's going to impede service to children. I think that is the basic idea.

I'm not in any way discounting that we have an obligation as a government to be sure that children's health is safeguarded and their safety, but we can go overboard on some of this stuff and I appreciate the Member's remark.

In terms of the Jiminy Crickets, that's an old story. That was one that was there before I came. I think that initially there has been a running kind of battle with the operator of that one, because he would insist on overpopulating the place. That's what we inherited — some 150 children. Even under the existing regulations — not the new ones, but the existing ones — there should really have only been 115. We did not ask him to close down; he made that decision himself. I haven't seen him for some time, but he's been in touch with the staff.

The thing is that while we don't have to have stringent regulations, I don't think we can be put in the position of being bulldozed into accepting some situations which simply are not acceptable. I must say that I have to concur with the officials that 150 where there should only be 115 to me is…. I don't think the argument is all on the side of the operator in that one.

Now let me just cover the seven — I keep wanting to say seven wives for seven sinners, but what is it called? — "Seven days for seven mothers." The initial budget that was submitted to me indicated the cost of that would be $100 per family. That's including the day care, including the expenses to let the mother go to this place. I said to the Member when I was in the corridor that I'd be in a much happier position to turn to the mother and say: "Look, here's $100 for two days, go out and make your own arrangements in a range of possibilities — buying a dress, doing your hair, whatever you want to" — infinitely greater than what operates in that programme. That was the first thing that occurred to me. It was a heavy staff input for not a large number of people.

While I'm not prepared to commit to the Member that I'm prepared to approve the lesser budget, I'm prepared to look at it. I understand that they have submitted another budget, which is on my desk. It's not a question of being tight in terms of money because we have to also look at other programmes that are operating for far less money than that on a proportional basis, delivering a similar kind of service. That is one of the considerations that we have to look at. But I'll look at the budget again, as it's been cut down.

On the Mincome, I guess this is the fourth session that the Member and I have been at this thing on the dollar-for-dollar principle. First of all, we have discussed with the federal people this question and they're absolutely adamant about it. We do look toward sharing on this programme and we have sharing arrangements. For instance, on the Mincome programme, 65 and over, we have an agreement with the federal government that they will share up to $200. We have an agreement on that. There are some 2,000 people who have not been in the country 10 years and therefore do not qualify for old-age assistance and hospital GIS — people who have been here six, seven, eight or nine years — and they will share up to $200 there because they've agreed on what's called the geriatric allowance. They won't go beyond — we are picking up the other $17.

On the 60 to 64, they will not share beyond the $140. We have not been able to convince them of our position in terms of that younger group. They do not recognize any senior citizen below 65.

On what you're asking for, first of all — and I've said this before — we looked at a large number of people who had absolutely no assets at all. I think it's all right for the Member to say that those people — I think he called them grasshoppers — didn't look after their future. Consider that even today in this province only 40 per cent of people employed have access to private pensions. Sure, we've got the Canada Pension which by 1976 I think will be about $120. We're dealing with a large number of people who were not in a position to make those kinds of arrangements for their future security. We have had to set some level, that's how we deal with the federal people. We set a level.

I think what the Member is really asking is for a guaranteed income. We haven't got that far with the federal people yet. We haven't got quite that far with them. We have some agreement with them that they'll look at what was referred to at the Edmonton conference, in the paper I tabled, as the Omnibus Programme. It isn't possible at the present time for us to include people who have income that is beyond the $218. We cannot work it that way. What we had to do was to bring people up to some level.

I know that the Member keeps going into some detail about this, but we have not been able to convince the federal people on this at all. Not at all.

[ Page 2234 ]

We've had discussions with them. Al Johnson, the Deputy Minister, was in my office. We went to the blackboard, we've done all of this thing, but there's no way we can convince them of it. Now, the question is whether we go it alone, which can be extremely expensive, bearing in mind that the principle thing we are trying to do is to guarantee a minimum income for people in the province. That's what we're trying to do. We're bringing a large number of people that have no assets up to a level.

I don't think I can explain it any better than that, Mr. Member. I know it may not be satisfactory to you, but we are not getting even halfway to first base with the federal people on this one.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I did volunteer to keep quiet if the explanations were satisfactory. Some of them have been fairly reasonable and I appreciate the Minister's efforts to try to deal with the points raised.

Essentially, I continue to insist that he change his socialist Mincome scheme to a liberal one. The fact of the matter is that the federal government already has a GIS (Guaranteed Income Supplement) scheme where the two-for-one figure is used. It seems just a little difficult to take that it's all their fault that they won't put in a similar scheme for the provincial Mincome. After all, they had it for Guaranteed Income Supplement. Perhaps they are very impossible to deal with on this point, but all I'm asking you is that you persuade them to allow you to implement federal policy with respect to GIS.

HON. MR. LEVI: They won't agree and they won't share.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister says they won't agree and they won't share, but how expensive would it be in that case? We are not dealing with a large number, Mr. Minister; you admitted that yourself. We are dealing with a relatively small number of people.

The reference to grasshopper which you made, which is quoting me incorrectly, I think.... I would just like to make it perfectly clear that the person who is in that unhappy position of having constantly contributed throughout 46 years of working life to a pension fund — a railway pension fund in the case that I gave you — then winds up getting his railway pension, winds up in virtually the same position as the person who has not made any provision for the future.

He is the type of person who believes that the others may be grasshoppers. He is the type of person who, had he control over the nest-egg that gives him that monthly pension cheque, would be thoroughly tempted to take the advice of other grasshoppers — that is to blow it; spend it; get rid of it. Have a joyous six months living it up in Acapulco, Paris, wherever, then come back and get onto Mincome because his position after he has gone out and spent all his nest-egg would be identical to his position at the present time. Virtually identical — I think there is a few dollars different. Virtually identical.

I'm just not convinced at all and I will have to keep pressing the Minister, I can see that, to get him to change this system that he has into something which does make some recognition. A two-for-one is the figure I would like to have — for every $2 he has in pension, he only has to count $1 toward Mincome, or for every $2 of other income.

I gave you the example last year of the fellow who went out and did a little census enumeration. He came into my office and he was three feet off the floor with rage. Why? Because he found for every single dollar he earned trudging back and forth up the pathways to the house, knocking on the door, writing down the details for the census ….

HON. MR. LEVI: That's not an issue with us. We've wiped that out.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I know it's not in that particular case, and that was one of the little steps toward a liberal Mincome which you took, which I appreciate, after I brought it to your attention.

The fact of the matter was I still have to remind you of this man because he was just beside himself. For every dollar he earned, he got it taken away on Mincome.

The same may not be true for …. I don't think there are any censuses going on at the moment, not to the best of my knowledge. But for anybody else who mows the lawn for somebody else or does a little job and brings in a few bucks a week — a watchman or something of that nature, takes care of an apartment building or anything like that — the same problem exists: for every dollar they earn, they get their Mincome chopped by a dollar. It just doesn't seem very smart because these people should be — just like the others that I mentioned to you — kept as long as possible in the effective population. To have programmes which insist that they take them out of the effective population is not very bright.

On the Vancouver School Board problem on day care — I just would like to commend the Minister on taking a sensible approach. It looks like this problem will be solved soon. I trust that he will have the success with his colleagues that will make this possible because the present situation has to be ludicrous, where regulations are made quite independently of the regulations made for the kids over five years old, and where these regulations prevent, literally prevent, any progress in terms of day care and pre-kindergarten. I appreciate your efforts there, Mr. Minister.

[ Page 2235 ]

On the seven-beds programme: I just can't accept it. You haven't realized that this programme, Mr. Minister, just doesn't help the mother alone, it helps the children as well. The reason why you need a decently set up programme and the reason it is expensive is that it is a good programme. You have qualified people taking care of children; you are not trying to have the cheapest way of handling it. You're having perhaps a little more expensive way of handling it, but a way which gives complete confidence to the mother that her children are properly being taken care of.

The penny-pinching approach of you and your department would leave the mothers to worry, and that's the thing the very programme is designed to prevent.

I certainly hope that you will when you look at that programme again — which is not $41,000, as I said; it's $40,608 for a year's programme — I trust you will bear this in mind. I am going to have to remind you again and again about this because you sometimes take a little convincing. It's cheap at the price to have me congratulate you rather than criticize you — $40,608 isn't very much.

You did not mention anything about the ethics code that was sent out by you, I understand, for the community resource board elections. There has been a lot of confusion on that. If you wish, Mr. Minister, we can leave it until the bill comes up and we'll have a flexible discussion at that time.

It seems curious to me that you should hand out a fair amount of information to people saying that people should not try to manufacture or create issues causing concern, and at the same time your local NDP organization at Little Mountain goes ahead and creates a political election in what was previously a non-partisan situation where every other party backed off endorsing candidates. It was a curious, curious thing where the Minister of the Crown, I believe at the public expense, informed a large number of people that they could elect people for a board whose purposes were unknown, but they were not to do it in a political sense, and then out of the blue….

HON. MR. LEVI: Let's do it under the bill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, it was a curious thing because…. It was dirty pool I thought. The whole thing didn't make any sense. Perhaps we will discuss it further at some other time.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief. The first question is: could the Minister tell us if his department is involved in any way with the detoxification centre which is being built now on McTavish Road on Mount Newton? Secondly, I would like to ask him if he could give us some background information on the Community Options Society which I gather was formed in Duncan over a year ago. I understand it was a pilot programme. I would like to ask him if he could tell us what the size of the grant was — that is the original grant — and the present one, if there is one. Would you like me to repeat that?

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, just the last part.

MR. MORRISON: I understand that this Community Options Society was a pilot programme. Could you please tell us the size of the original grant and the present one — that is if there is a present one — the number of people that were employed and who they were? What was the actual intent of the programme? Could you please tell us how well it has worked? Give us a little background on it: the people who have worked in it, are they satisfied with it? Are the people in the community satisfied with it? Would he also tell us what the future of that particular programme in Duncan might be, and from the results of that programme, what the future of other similar programmes might be?

HON. MR. LEVI: On the detox centre in Saanich, in which Mr. Strachan is involved ….

AN HON. MEMBER.: The Minister?

HON. MR. LEVI: No, the other Strachan.

We have no involvement in the capital. We have had some discussions with them because there are some possibilities for some training input there, but we have no commitment to any finances at all in the programme. I'm aware of it; I have met Mr. Strachan, and we talked.

On the Community Options: in January of 1973, I think it was, I went to a public meeting in Duncan, a meeting at which Mr. Strachan, the MLA and my colleague from Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) were present. It was a phenomenal meeting. There were more than 300 people turned out on a Saturday morning to discuss drugs, alcohol and what-have-you.

At that time there was a very hard request for some assistance in relation to a small number of addicts. In consultation with the BCHIS they subsequently put in a small methadone programme in there.

I spoke to a number of people at that time and they said that they have a range of problems, not only in Duncan, but throughout the rest of the area, and they would be interested in some programme. Then we were contacted by some people who live there.

This society was always operated with a board — a citizen board. I think from that time until we gave them financing, as I recall in June, I was up there on

[ Page 2236 ]

three separate occasions, usually on the weekend, meeting with members of the community about it. For the balance of 1973 they operated a drop-in centre in which some 100 or 110 young people were involved. They operated a live-in programme for, I think, eight or nine young people who were not getting on at home, who were living in other homes. And I met two of the parents who were doing this. Then there was a farm programme.

Sometime in November of last year I met the then mayor of Duncan who came down to see me and said that there was some feeling in the community that this should not go on. I said that I would be happy to appear before the council and discuss their concern about it and where we should go. I went up, I think it was on December 10, and appeared before council. At that time we had a fairly lengthy and detailed report on the operation, and I readily admit there was not complete acceptance by the community on it.

But what was more significant than what I said to council was the 110 young people participating in the programme. If some people wanted us to shut it down, I was concerned about what was going to happen to these people. One of the reasons I was appearing before council was to get them to agree to let the drop-in centre operate until December 31.

I said to council that if you as a council feel we should not fund such a programme, then tell me and we will adhere to your wishes. They did not tell us this and subsequently the drop-in centre was closed at the end of December 3 l. We met with the committee and we met with the people who were connected with it and discussed a future budget. They came up with a very large budget; we settled on, I think, $52,000. Not all of that money is available until projects come on line, so it doesn't mean we're going to spend all that much money.

I understand there is some very serious feeling at this time about the drop-in centre they're going to operate in part of Duncan. There are other projects which we're going to operate outside of the City of Duncan. My liaison person with this is Mr. Vic Belknap, the superintendent of child welfare, who spends quite a bit of time going from here to Duncan and making sure the community understands what is going on. I do emphasize that there are people in the community who are on that board and who are very committed to it. I know there are people in the community who are not committed to it. But at the same time we have been delivering service for young people and dealing with some very difficult situations. We were careful about the budget because the previous expenditures were $65,000 on the three programmes.

We phased out the farm programme. We will not fund that for a number of reasons, some of them relating to the general situation out there and to the health factor, so we will not continue to fund it.

What we're looking at is funding drop-in centres and youth activities in the area. We still have the support of some of the community because they're still active on the board. They have a new director. Last year I think one could fault part of the programme on the staffing and I said so in front of the council. I said this was a factor.

If there's any programme we're watching very carefully right now, in deference not only to the people in Duncan but also to the Member for that area, it is this programme. And Mr. Belknap, superintendent of child welfare, to my knowledge has been up there twice or three times this month. He's sitting up in the gallery. So we're very much on top of it.

What we have to be concerned about as a department, as to people concerned about children, is that the community is prepared to provide the facilities. After all, I was invited into the community; I didn't go in on my own. I went up there and there was a tremendous amount of interest. I accept that there have been some hard feelings. I know this because I met some of them.

But at the same time we do have an obligation; we're dealing with it as a very delicate situation. I think we have in Mr. Belknap an extremely experienced worker. Not only that, but his position as superintendent of child welfare indicates the concern with which we feel that the thing be successful and that the public come with us on it. It's not something we're doing in a slipshod manner.

MR. MORRISON: I thank the Minister for his answer. Could he tell us the results of this one? Has it affected any other programmes you're considering? Are they delayed until this one is settled?

HON. MR. LEVI: No, I think the one thing we learned from the programme was that the alternate lifestyle in terms of the farm is not practical. We will not be involved in that kind of thing. Part of it relates to people who want to operate these things, who feel very good about it. But just because you feel good about it doesn't mean it's going to work. I don't think that in terms of the children or young people we're responsible for we can put them into that kind of situation. So that part is out.

The drop-in centre thing: there's no question that it's valuable. We've learned a lot of lessons about how these drop-in centres must be operated — especially about the kind of staffing.

There are the outreach programmes which are part of the budget they've submitted to us, which deal with children or young people in other communities. That, of course, we've operated in other areas. We've learned something about dealing with people in small communities — the divisions that exist in terms of people who feel they would rather we didn't come in.

[ Page 2237 ]

But I must emphasize, Mr. Member, that we were asked in; we didn't come in. I went up there on an invitation. As a result of the discussions, we were then approached. But we have learned some lessons from it; I'm quite prepared to admit that. We've learned some lessons from it.

MR. MORRISON: Could I ask the Minister if he has settled the final problem on the repair or maintenance to the building they were using which I gather they used until the end of December? There is still some dispute on that.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, I frankly was a little annoyed when I heard of this because I think one of the last things I said to the group was, "When you move out of the place, clean it up and have a formal handing over of the key." This apparently did not take place. I was up there two weeks before and there was nothing wrong with the building at all except some painting that needed to be done. But as the Member knows, there was some $4,000 or $5,000 worth of damage done. As I understand it, discussions are going on with the society. This is not an issue with me as a Minister or the department but with the society. I'm sure some amicable arrangement will be reached.

The interesting thing is that the reason we moved out of the building was because the building was condemned. I find it a little difficult to accept that they want us to repair something that is imminently going to be destroyed. I'm quite convinced they left the building in good shape. What they failed to do was to hand it over in a formal way. That's where they made the mistake.

MR. MORRISON: I would take it there will be other programmes of this nature in other communities and that the somewhat unhappy results of this one aren't going to colour your thinking in the future.

HON. MR. LEVI: I'm sorry, I didn't get that.

MR. MORRISON: I would take it there would be other programmes like this in other communities, and this somewhat unhappy experience isn't going to colour your thinking.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, there will be.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): During my remarks yesterday, I directed a number of questions to the Minister. At the conclusion of those remarks the Minister thought he had answered most of them in replying to the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom). I have taken the opportunity of checking the Hansard blues, and, in fact, most of the questions I posed weren't answered. I'd just like to mention them again very quickly — not to repeat the arguments but simply to state the questions and hope for an answer at this point.

The first question was whether the Minister had or whether he would make representations to the federal government for a sort of a Mincome Manitoba experiment here in British Columbia. I believe there are two such experiments under way in Canada; it might be a good thing to have one in the unique circumstances of our province.

Secondly, did he have in mind, speaking of guaranteed annual income, an ideal so-called reduction rate, be it 35 per cent, 50 per cent, 75 per cent, or whatever?

Thirdly, at the time when the responsibility for Indian affairs lay with the Hon. Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder), the Premier promised that a report on Indian affairs would be brought in by that Minister. I ask the new Minister with responsibility whether such a report has been completed and whether it will be presented to this House.

Next, I asked him if he would undertake to make it possible, which would require an amendment to the Municipal Act for Indian bands to have the exclusive power of levying taxes on their reserves, with the interest of non-Indians as well as Indians concerned.

I asked him about the cut-off land problem. He replied that the government had in fact recommended to the Indian bands that a court case be brought. I've since had the opportunity to check back with some of the Indian representatives and I am told that word will very shortly be going forward officially to the Minister that this will not be an acceptable solution, I suspect, without knowing the details, for the reasons I outlined yesterday, namely that the legal position seems quite clear and what needs to be resolved is the moral position. I would ask the Minister again, assuming he receives such a reaction, if he will undertake to enter into early substantive negotiations without this talk of a court case which seems to me to be largely a smoke-screen.

Next, I asked him if in the very specific case of the Capilano reserve, in which case the provincial government still maintains title to all of the cut-off land, if cases of this simple kind could not be solved immediately by turning the land back.

Finally, I asked him for an undertaking that the provincial government would join in future negotiations on the B.C. land question at an equal level with federal representatives.

That's a very short recap of the questions I posed, Mr. Chairman, and I hope the Minister might respond to some of them now.

HON. MR. LEVI: In terms of the Mincome experiment, I was in Winnipeg about two weeks ago

[ Page 2238 ]

and met with the people connected with the experiment. I think the impact of that experiment is really to examine the administrative problems in that kind of an operation, if you're giving a guaranteed annual income. Also the range of people involved, for instance single people, is different from what took place in the New Jersey experiment. We have no plans here to get into that kind of thing.

In terms of the reduction rates we are now discussing, for instance, in the general principle of reduction rates on earnings, with a working party. Federal officials are meeting with my officials on this and we're trying to arrive at some reasonable accommodation in this area.

The document I tabled in Edmonton really related to a social insurance programme which is based on a floor income. We don't have any studies in Canada on floor incomes. We've never yet looked at what a family or a single person really needs to live on. Then there would be an insurance rate which would be the guarantee off of what your earnings would be and then an extra insurance payment to guarantee the full rate. I'll make a copy available to you for you to look at.

On the Indian taxation question in municipalities: I'm at the "Hs" — J, K, L, M — you'll soon have the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer); I think it's the kind of thing you should put to him. I know we've had representations about this, but I think it's very squarely in his area. I'm sure he'll be happy to answer you.

I'm not prepared to comment on the cut-off lands because I do not have the letter. I appreciate your carrying the good things, but I think I will wait until we get some response from the letter that the Attorney-General sent out.

In terms of the general discussion on the land question and the recent meeting, I did say at the Nishga meeting — and this was a general subject we discussed — that we would take it back to cabinet. I was there with the Attorney-General and some staff — I said that we would then deal with it at cabinet level and that we would deal with it with a sufficient amount of time so we could look at the total question.

As I pointed out last night, given the pressure of work, we're not prepared to squeeze it in anywhere, and we must have a discussion on this. That is as far as I'm prepared to go on this issue, and in terms of telling you, that's where we are on this issue.

We did have somebody present at the meeting. We subsequently met with the Minister at dinner. There is some communication, but the basic question is something that will be a discussion of the whole cabinet, and that's it. We must find adequate time for it.

MR. GIBSON: I thank the Minister for his response, Mr. Chairman. There was just one point that he missed, perhaps through inadvertence, and that was the question of the report on Indian affairs which the Premier had promised at the time that the former Minister had jurisdiction.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes. A report was given to me about three weeks ago, then subsequently, about eight days ago, I received an addendum to the report, so I'm not prepared at this time to state whether I'm going to table it or not as I haven't really had a chance to look at it. But I did get an addendum from Mr. Kelly on it.

MR. WALLACE: A quick question, Mr. Chairman, again, in terms of rehabilitation of the drug addict. I wonder if the Minister could tell me, or tell the House, why the Life-Line organization in Victoria has been refused any kind of assistance. This is a small home on Blanshard Street which, I think, fulfils a very realistic and practical assistance to many drug addicts trying to get back on the straight and narrow.

I understand they've had a flat "no" from the commission as to any assistance. I think this kind of body which is based on something more than just methadone programmes, or poor alternatives…it is based on a degree of spiritual conviction as to how they're going to overcome their drug addiction. I just hope that the refusal to support this programme or give them some financial assistance has nothing to do with the fact that they, quite frankly, are a religious body who try to help people give up drug addiction.

It's based on a spiritual sense of belief, much the same way that Alcoholics Anonymous teach their membership that there's something more to life than just the physical and the mental, and that the spiritual aspect can be the salvation of many of these unfortunate people.

The particular lady who looks after this residence, it's a residential setting in Victoria, has herself been through the whole experience of drugs and whatnot. I think this kind of person seems to have more influence over other people trying to break the habit. I've visited that place and I was most impressed by the sincerity of the people who are trying to provide this service. They are unquestionably short of funds and I understand they approached the commission and were refused any help. I'd like to know why.

HON. MR. LEVI: First of all, the door isn't shut, Mr. Member. They were notified by letter recently that they can come back to the commission at this time, as a matter of fact. The earlier decision was made two months ago. It relates to the proposal that they had which was an extremely ambitious one.

I'm not discounting the usefulness of the religious input that can go into the general treatment of people who are on drug dependency. But they were

[ Page 2239 ]

asking for six houses … a rather broad programme. I think in fairness to the commission, they had to evaluate first of all whether the staff can, in fact, carry out that kind of a programme. It was their considered opinion that they were not at that time capable of carrying out a programme of that dimension, or in fact on examining the programme that closely that they had really accomplished what they had set out to do. But they did not shut the door on them. They said to come back in two months. They have recently received a letter which invites them to come back.

There is another possibility: if there is some programme that is acceptable, they can approach through my department in terms of the per diem basis for the people who might be staying in the house. We've done that before on what we call a boarding-house rate.

While there was a close examination of the programme there was...and I don't think it was a peremptory rejection of the proposal. But it was a large proposal, a costly one, and it relates to the ability of the staff that was there to carry it out. I think that there was nothing wrong with us saying to them, "No, you'll have to rework it. Come back and we'll take a look at it." That process is now taking place.

MR. WALLACE: Just a quick follow-up, Mr. Chairman. Was it made clear to them in which respects they did not seem to meet the criteria of the commission? When I visited them they had the impression that it was pretty much a flat "no". Now, I don't know about this recent letter, Mr. Chairman, but I'm quite convinced that, again, for perhaps even a minority of the people who get over the detoxification phase, a place like the Life-Line residential setting is very appropriate and apt and ideal for a small minority of these people.

I think the people who are running the centre were somewhat depressed by the reception they got. But I respect the right of the commission to make its judgments, I'm not criticizing that, but I don't think they know what modifications might, in fact, lead to some financial assistance from the commission. If I can be assured that they're certainly informed about the commission point of view and what changes should be made in their planning, then of course, I'll accept that.

HON. MR. LEVI: I just got the assurance from the chairman of the commission that they will undertake to contact them and talk to them again.

There was some concern — and I've had experience myself in this, with this kind of group which has the input in terms of a religious base — that they tend to say that somebody is "cured", that's a word they often use, in terms of four or five weeks. I think at that particular time that's quite true, but, you know, many people don't stay on it.

The other thing was that you have to evaluate programmes in terms of the ability and experience of people. You can't just rest alone on the religious-based thing, there has to be something else as well. But they will be contacted and there will be some discussions about what they might need to do.

Vote 113 approved.

On vote 114: general administration, $641,364.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the comment I'd have to make here probably applies to several of the succeeding votes; there is what seems to me a little bit of a contradiction. The Minister is clearly on record on many occasions as saying that he's a little concerned about what I think he called "the middle management bureaucracy" where many of the agencies which have previously been functioning under private management or otherwise, or under the direction of the communities, had a considerable number of bureaucrats or people who were, perhaps, not as productive as they might be. Yet, in this vote we've got a very substantial increase in money — from $275,000 to $641,000. We've got an increase of staff from 23 to 48. For example, there's quite a number of senior staff, also directors and various sections of the general administration, and this may be necessary. But I would just like the Minister to comment on, particularly, the increase of money, the increase of staff and how these are to be utilized so that we can be reassured that, in fact, the department isn't building its own bureaucracy.

HON. MR. LEVI: The actual increase in relation to staff is 17. There is a director of income resources, and, of course, we did not have that involvement when we got into the Mincome. We had to build that when we started going out.

Then there is the position of the child-care resources director, which again is part of the thrust of the department. We transferred eight positions from other divisions, Field Services and Division of the Ageing so these are in fact, internal transfers. They really mean moving money from one division into this general administration, so it is not quite as high because they're not all new positions — 17 are new positions.

Now the additional increased costs are due to some job reclassifications and, of course, we've had that, and we've had the increases as well.

There are increases in office expenses. We have allowed a more reasonable travelling expense, because we spend a great deal more time in getting out in the field. So that in itself is very important.

Really, Mr. Member, the direct new increase in

[ Page 2240 ]

positions is actually only 17. The rest involve internal transfers. That is the explanation for that.

MR. WALLACE: What is the main cause for the increase in money?

HON. MR. LEVI: The main cause? All right, there are 17 new positions; that is part of the increase. Now there are also the increases in reclassification of some positions.

I don't know whether you recall that when I made my first speech on this in October, I said that given the kind of staffing we had in the department, where they have had a 3 per cent increase in staff in three years prior to us taking office, the public had better be prepared for looking at a doubling of that staff in order to deliver anything like the kind of programmes that we need to do. I think that we have accomplished that. We have transferred people in from other agencies; we did absorb the Family and Children's Service.

So the increase is not as large as it appears, because eight of those positions are transfers from other divisions.

Vote 114 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

REGIONAL HOSPITAL DISTRICTS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mrs. Dailly, on behalf of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Regional Hospital Districts Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 104 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.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.