CONTENTS

Committee of Supply: Department of Human Resources estimates.

On vote 109.

Mr. McClelland — 3705

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3706

Mr. McClelland — 3708

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3708

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3710

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3714

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3719

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3719

Mr. Wallace — 3721

The House met at 10 a.m.

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

ESTIMATES:
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 109: Minister's office, $116,576 — continued.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Yesterday at noon when we adjourned the committee, I had been speaking about the problem with juvenile delinquency and some of the thoughts that I have. I think I left on the note that it doesn't do us much good to have task forces or anything else if we don't pay any attention to them and if we just shove their reports under the table. They are just so much wasted effort in that case. I'm afraid that in too many instances that is exactly what we have been doing, particularly with regard to this problem of juvenile delinquency.

It is heartening to me to see that many people in the community now at the elected level, municipal people, school board officials and also those people who are in the community to serve as helpmates, such as the police and others, are now recognizing that there is a problem and that the problem won't be solved unless they do something about it as well. They are starting now, particularly in the lower mainland area, to get together, talk the problem over and make recommendations and suggestions. I hope that the Minister will listen to some of those suggestions when they come forward.

The last time we talked about this during the estimates, the Minister over-reacted a little, I thought, and accused the people who were talking about the juvenile delinquency policy of being strident and hysterical and spiteful and spouting venom. I hope that he has changed his mind now about these statements, because I don't think anybody really wants to be venomous or spiteful or anything else in regard to this question.

We just hope that somehow, by all of us working together, we might come up with some real solutions. I won't belabour this point much more, but I do want to bring to the attention of the House the remarks that were made in the fourth report of the Berger commission dealing with youth and the law. I can't think of anyone who has put the question more succinctly than has Mr. Justice Berger in the compilation of this report.

I'll read a few paragraphs from the report, Mr. Chairman, starting with page 67 where it says:

"We fully understand that a whole range of external factors may have contributed to a young person lashing out against his parents, his school, his community or society generally. Yet it must be borne in mind that if you say to anyone that he is not responsible for what he does, you are in a sense diminishing him; you are stripping him of his dignity as a human being. Children and young people must realize that freedom is meaningless without responsibility, and the assertion of rights is an exercise in pure selfishness without the acknowledgment of responsibility."

Speaking about arguments regarding the way to deal with juvenile problems the report goes on:

"The second argument that we have heard, which seems to us entirely spurious, relates to the question whether we should establish secure accommodation for children in violation of the law. There are, of course, people who say that children should not be locked up, but when they say that they can mean any one of a number of things. They may be saying that they do not want children sent to adult prisons. They may be saying they do not want institutions such as the juvenile detention home in Vancouver to survive. They may simply be expressing their own rejection of the notion that children should be put away in cells and forgotten.

"On the other hand, those who urge that children should be held in custody, where that is necessary to protect the public, do not appear to be urging that children should be sent to adult prisons, nor do they appear to be urging that we retain the institutions of the past for custody of juveniles."

I think that is important for everyone to remember, because those people who are saying it, and there are a growing number of them who are saying that in some instances there is a need for secure accommodation for children in trouble, don't want them sent to Oakalla or the B.C. Penitentiary. We don't want to see children locked behind bars. We just want a structured environment in which they can be kept as long as is necessary to solve certain problems.

The report goes on to say:

"Nevertheless, we have to acknowledge that these are a limited number of juveniles who must be confined, in some cases over the short term and in other cases over the long term, to protect themselves and the public. We know there are some juveniles whose alienation is so deep-seated, whose tendency to violence is so marked, that we cannot rely upon ordinary measures. It is these juveniles who have alarmed many communities."

[ Page 3706 ]

Finally, the report says:

"Secure accommodation for a limited number of juveniles must be established so as to enable them to be properly dealt with and so as not to undermine the policy of returning juveniles to their homes and their communities, a policy that we believe is sound for the vast majority of juveniles."

We believe that as well, that the policy of returning young people to their own communities is most sound. It is the only way that solutions can ever be found. But there is that small percentage that I must emphasize.

"It goes virtually without saying that we reject the notion that children should be sent to prison. We likewise reject the motion that we should seek in some fashion to resurrect the institutions of the past. At the same time it is clear that we must have some means of ensuring that juveniles can be held for a number of purposes — for instance, remand assessment to enable their parents to catch up with them, to simply enable them to cool out.

"We do not think it is useful to mince words about our conclusions in this regard. We mean that in some cases constraints will be imposed upon the freedom of young persons. We think this can be done in any number of ways that will not be as stark or as brutal as confinement to jail or prison."

Mr. Chairman, that section in the Berger report really outlines exactly what many people in the community have been saying over the past several months because of their alarm, particularly in communities like Surrey which is having probably the most serious problem in the province at the present time.

I have other things I wish to talk about during the Minister's estimates, but I'd like some comments about the juvenile problem — where we're going in relation to his department as it cooperates with the Attorney-General's Department. Secondly, last night on television, Mr. Edgar Epp, the Deputy Minister for corrections in the A-G's department, who has just been given a three-month leave of absence, hinted....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Given! He was ordered to go.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes. Well, he at least hinted at one of the problems may have been his insistence within the department that he begin to implement some of the recommendations made within the Berger report.

The Minister has obviously had consultation with the Attorney-General on this whole corrections and juvenile problem. I wonder if the Minister could inform the House whether that is correct, whether that is one of the reasons Mr. Epp was forced to take a three-month leave of absence, because he was very specific last night when he said that was one of his main objectives at this time and that he seemed to be being frustrated in that objective.

One other question, and I know it's not in the Minister's department, but perhaps he knows about it, it's rather serious. Since the Attorney-General is not here, does the Minister know what the future is of the Hunter Creek correctional camp which has been operated by the John Howard Society? I understand that the John Howard Society agreed to a one-month extension before closing that camp down, and I know that the department was trying to find someone else to operate the camp. The people, some 12 of them, I think, who are at that camp through the corrections department, are most concerned about their future. I've had several calls from parents of people who were in the camp. I realize it's not your department but, Mr. Chairman, through you, I wonder if the Minister would comment.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Chairman, one of the objectives we had when we set up the Berger commission to examine the family and children's laws was to look at all of the services as well. I think that the commission has done one of the most thorough-going jobs in terms of the support committees involved in that. They've looked into every aspect of services to children, particularly in the area of the needs of juveniles who get in trouble with the law.

We started to set up that commission in October of 1973. We were aware that there was a problem. The Members should bear in mind that the existing system we took over in 1972 was a system in which there was no locked situations for juveniles. Whatever locked situation there was at the Island Youth Centre had been abandoned long before we became the government. That was a worthwhile approach to dealing with the problem.

I've always said, and I continue to say, that the introduction of the laws that were brought in in 1969, the amendment to the Provincial Court Act enabling judges to make dispositions in respect to juveniles through the Superintendent of Child Welfare, was a worthwhile approach to a problem which previously had been dealt with in a way that had no success at all — children, and they were children, found their way into adult jails. What was missing was the whole business of services to these children. There existed nothing in terms of any kind of holding unit.

We examined the situation when we came in. The question of closing down the Willingdon girls school was something that has been debated in this House for some time. We did that and at the same time, said

[ Page 3707 ]

that we would be available to the communities with staff and with money to develop the alternative kinds of systems. We have done that, to a large extent, in terms of most communities approaching us about the kind of services they need. As a result of this we developed a special programme — special services to children. We have an alternate school programme in cooperation with the Department of Education, which is looking after some 1,100 children in this province, all of whom have had something to do with coming before the courts, or are classified as children likely to come before the courts — children at risk. So we've set up a range of community services.

The great debate on the issue of holding juveniles started some time last fall, as we started to get well into the whole business of the hearing of the Berger commission.

We do not deny, and I have never denied, that there are some children that have to be held. What was important to us was to continue to impress and urge the communities that the large majority of work with children simply had to be done in the communities, where possible.

I don't know whether we can say 90 per cent or 95 per cent as the numbers talked about as to how many children would need to be locked up. And that's what it is — you have to lock them up. But we have to bear in mind something else: we don't want to try things that other people have tried and which have not been successful. I draw your attention to the very great debate that is going on in the Province of Ontario today in respect to their holding units, their whole juvenile correction system where they have some 1,600 children locked up, and the very severe criticism that goes on about that.

In these discussions that have been taking place in the public as a result of the Berger commission and other discussions that have been initiated with municipal leaders, we are looking for the way to go that will be successful. We can look to the United States, probably the one country in many states where they have spent literally hundreds of millions of dollars trying to combat this problem in a way of holding units and that kind of thing, and which has not worked. So we have been very careful in looking at how we deal with it, but at the same time we have developed a range of other services. There is no question that we have to look at holding some young people; that is being looked into and that will be acted upon.

The debate has been a very healthy one, both in the community and also in the cabinet. We don't just go along with one idea; there has been some very specific debates about this. I have to use my own background; I bring some 17 years of experience in the corrections field to this, mostly in the adult area but bearing in mind that all the people I worked with had gone through a juvenile system. But we are looking to find a kind of appropriate system.

I think there is now a tremendous awareness among the public about the problem, where previously there was not. It was something that the public did not really want to deal with. The furor has died down to some really rational discussion as to what is going on. I think this is a climate in which we can move forward and make some real strides in terms of dealing with the broad question of the needs of children, as well as answering the needs of the community in respect to some of the people — not just juveniles, but also adults. They have to be dealt with in some way that the community has some security.

I am aware of some of the situations, particularly in the Surrey area. I would point out to the members that the Surrey, Delta and Richmond area was where we initiated the unified family court and gave them a great number of support staff, not only in terms of the staff that we seconded from the then Department of Mental Health, the Probation Service and from the Department of Human Resources, but also in terms of the support programmes. There are the residential treatment centres that exist out there, the group homes, and what the Brown camps are doing and what Central City commission is doing. So there was an enormous amount of effort, and it is still going into that area.

I don't pretend to understand why it is that it is so difficult there more so than anywhere else, except that we have an enormous amount of movement into that area. Part of the movement, I suppose, can be explained by the fact that people, particularly with low incomes, are moving out of the Vancouver area, searching for areas where they can rent at a reasonable rate and that is where this can happen.

We have a number of situations in respect to high-rise apartments where there are large grouping of families, and where there were never any services built in. Those services are now built in, and there is still more to be done in respect to that.

We have been able to examine the thing, both through the commission and through the public, and moves will be made to meet the demands in terms of the very small number of children that have to be looked after, but bearing in mind that that is not the main point of concentration. The main point of concentration still has to be those large number of children who are at risk, and whom we are attempting to deal with.

I am afraid, Mr. Member, that I cannot comment on the question of Mr. Epp. It is something that I think the Attorney-General will have to comment on.

I think, in terms of trying to decide which way to go, there have been discussions on such problems — those are problems, which exist in all departments, as to who should do what to whom, and with what. That has been an issue around children, but we do

[ Page 3708 ]

have a human services committee of cabinet that meets very regularly, and is made up of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly), the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) and the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley), because all of these things have to be put together to help us make some solutions.

I think, as I said it earlier, that the climate is now a lot better for us to discuss and plan in a very rational way. I think the work which has been done by the Berger commission is the groundwork for this. I might add that in the terms of the effective work of that commission in what they have done, not only in respect to the juvenile question as we see it, those youngsters in trouble with the law, but also the kinds of things they have looked into in other areas with children, in terms of the exceptional children, in terms of the needs of families and in terms of the whole court process....

I do want to say this as well. This is something I think people should remember when we are dealing with juveniles: we do have to ask ourselves whether we are going to deal with juveniles, young people, differently than we deal with adults. There are the issues of whether the children have access to the kinds of rights in courts that adults have. That is a big question. Today in our society the whole question is certainly being debated, for instance, about the bail laws in terms of adult people. But we do have to bear in mind all the time that what we must have at the heart of any decision we make are the best interests of the children.

Frankly, it is a new and good phenomenon; it is in the best interest of the community. It has always been one area that they have generally not been able to deal with at the local level. I accept fully that it is a monetary question. We have said that the services to people, including children, will have to come from general revenue rather than tax the local taxpayer. We have now had the great debate; it is still going on but I think we now have a rational debate. We will be moving toward meeting the kinds of needs of all children as we have been doing, particularly in terms of the small group that the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) was talking about.

I want to say one other thing that is something we should not focus on too much. I am personally not a great advocator of assessment. I know that children have been assessed up, down and sideways. The thrust has to be what you are going to do with them when you have assessed them. It is the prescription for some kind of action that you have to look for. Assessments have been done on hundreds and hundreds of children in my experience. When I was dealing with adults and collecting information, the files were three or four inches thick on the whole process of evaluation and assessment. The main thrust has to be in terms of those resources that have to be developed, that are developed, and are still going to have to be developed in terms of how we deal with children. That's where we are going and that's what we've been doing.

The question that you raise, Mr. Member, is the important one and the one that is on everyone's mind about the young people in small groups that are going to have to be dealt with. We intend to be making moves in that direction. That is something that we have committed ourselves to do.

MR. McCLELLAND: Very briefly, comment on the Hunter Creek thing, if you have any information on it.

I would just like to comment on one statement regarding dealing with juveniles as adults. The Minister has been in his post for some time and I would think that he must have come to some conclusion in his own mind about that particular problem and whether or not we shouldn't be treating juveniles in the same manner as adults through the courts. I happen to believe that we should. Maybe we would know how the department is going to go if we knew how the Minister felt about that. There is some serious concern in the community that the ultimate justice is being denied because of the specific way we treat juveniles in the court. There have been some statements made recently about that. Perhaps the Minister could tell us how he feels.

HON. MR. LEVI: I think, Mr. Member, that this was the great discussion that went on in 1970 or 1971 when the Juvenile Offenders Act came up in the House of Commons. You may recall that that Act was not proceeded with. The impact of the discussion was as to whether or not the previous Solicitor-General said that all children must shoulder the same kind of social responsibilities as adults. There was a great discussion about that and I think that led to some extent to the thing not proceeding. There were two very specific sides. It was my opinion then, and I haven't changed it, that we are dealing with children who are at risk, who are from families where it has not been possible to build the kinds of social responsibilities that the large majority of children have. If you say that we should treat them exactly the same as adults I think you have to look at who we are talking about.

If we are talking about children from split homes or the kind of situation that Mr. Sawatsky, the man from Surrey, talked about yesterday on TV when he sees the drinking situation. He is in the field and he knows; he has been in the field three years longer than I have. He talked about how children model themselves after their parents and their peer groups. That is very true. I think that one of the things that has been missing from our debate over the whole

[ Page 3709 ]

question of dealing with children is where the responsibility of the parents of these children is. I think this is a very fundamental question that we have to tackle in this.

I think that as long as we continue the kind of debate where we don't have two sides — one saying that children must shoulder that kind of responsibility....

MR. McCLELLAND: It doesn't have to be that black and white.

HON. MR. LEVI: No, it can't be black and white, particularly in dealing with children at risk. In September or October — we haven't set the date yet — we are going to have a discussion on the family. This is something that we have been discussing with church leaders and other people in terms of a broad discussion in this province about the family and, particularly from my point of view, on the survival of the family unit as the basic unit in our society regardless of whatever is going on. Out of this I hope will come a discussion of a lot of the questions that Mr. Sawatsky raised last night about the whole drinking question, the whole peer group thing and the responsibility not only of the children but of the parents — very much of the parents.

I have said many times that we do not want to be responsible for other people's children. As a government we do not want to get involved in that. We have some 9,000 children in care. Fortunately we are moving in the area with the programmes so that we have a significant reduction in the number of children who are coming into our care. That to me augurs well for the future. The significant number of children under the age of 8 coming into care is quite startling. It indicates to us some success with the kind of programmes we are building. We know that a lot of the children we get, we get a little too late, but we have started the intervention on this.

So the debate on the responsibility of children is going to go on. The bill will be coming before the House of Commons and I think that that issue will come up again.

I think there is a difference between the kinds of responsibility we can expect from our children who are in a home situation where the standards of society and the mores are interpreted to them through their everyday living, and those children who do not have that opportunity because they do not have the kind of parents who can instil that. The only kinds of things to go on with those kinds of children are the negative kind of things — the negative kind of things which lead to the drinking, to the business of no responsibility.

What really concerns me, as I'm sure it concerns everybody else, is the kind of vandalism that goes on. Now vandalism is not an isolated kind of problem in this province. It's going on all over this continent. I don't know whether it's as broad in Europe, but it's certainly going on all over this continent. I constantly ask myself where the parents are in all this. After all, the parents are the taxpayers; they're paying the bills for the windows and this kind of thing.

Recently I was in Comox. I went there at the invitation of the mayor, and met with the mayor, some of his colleagues, the police and a group of children. Most of them I think were 15 or 16, and some were younger. The issue came up in the town of Comox, where they've had vandalism. We examined what there is in Comox in that particular situation for those children who need that kind of special kind of attention. There wasn't anything, in terms of what the children were talking about. It was an interesting situation to sit at that meeting where the mayor was talking about the cost of vandalism, and sitting at the same meeting were some of the children who admitted that they were part of that vandalism. There was a coming together of: "What can we do about it?" Those people are coming down next week to see me. The children have a proposal; the town council has a proposal. I think we can put those two together. That was one of the really healthy signs.

I want to say some other things. I don't really want to get into a great debate about the City of Duncan, but two years ago we went into the City of Duncan at the request of the people. We put in a great number of programmes, but they were not readily accepted. In fact there was a situation where I had to attend a council meeting in which I'd been asked to withdraw some of the programmes. I had to say to them: "You make the decision; I'm not going to make the decision. You invited us in; you invite us out. But don't ask me independently or unilaterally to make the decision to pull out programmes which were dealing with children." We had a drop-in centre, we had the in-home programme for juveniles who couldn't make it in their own homes but were going into other people's homes in the community. There was a great debate up there about it. They asked us and we went in and we produced some of the programmes, and then I was asked to take them out. I said: "No, that's a decision you must make." The decision was not made, so the programmes did continue.

But I think that there has been now a great awareness. This whole debate over the past year has been really worth it because the public is alive not only just to the small groups but to the total needs of children. And that's, I think, been extremely worthwhile.

MR. McCLELLAND: Hunter Creek?

HON. MR. LEVI: Oh, yes, I'm sorry. Hunter Creek, as I understand it, is something that is under

[ Page 3710 ]

consideration now by the Attorney-General's department. We were involved in some original funding up to 1974. Some of the people who were there initially were people who were being released from prisons and were on the Solicitor-General's payment I think at the time of $12 a day. There was, as I understand it, some further funding. But as I am aware of it today, that matter is under consideration by the Attorney-General's department because it is clearly a post-correctional kind of operation. I will undertake to get myself more up to date and report back.

MR. McCLELLAND: Time's running out now.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, I understand that.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Attorney-General's away.

HON. MR. LEVI: I'll talk about it this afternoon.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to get the Minister off his enthusiastic discussion of great issues down to the nitty-gritty of dollars, but that's what we're meant to be doing here. I think it's perhaps the Minister's great enthusiasm for issues rather than dollars which led to things like $102 million in oversight, over the estimates last year. I think that if he could just today perhaps concentrate on dollars we would be a little better off in terms of getting the debate dealt with.

Last year the Minister, in his explanation given to the Victoria Daily Colonist on Tuesday, September 24, 1974, explained that "the preparation of departmental estimates still involves manual information processing, but he said a new computer system that should provide more accuracy in budgetary predictions will be ready, possibly by next April." Well, is this magic computer that's going to save him from $100 million of overrun working? We now are finding with other programmes that computers are being blamed for the errors. The Minister claimed last year that the computer would prevent errors. I'd like to know whether or not that computer system that he talked about to prevent $102 million of overrun is in fact operational.

A second point which is very closely related to that is in the Ubyssey of February 25, the headline being "NDP Says Talk, Don't Spend Dollars." The first paragraph says:

"The New Democratic Party government will cut down on its social service spending next year to promote better public relations, Human Resources Minister Norm Levi said recently. In a speech here Friday Levi tacitly admitted past hastiness in his department which led to mistakes and public alienation from departmental policies. 'So,' Levi said, 'the government will not be expanding our social service programmes next year but instead we'll be moving slower.'"

The article goes on to say this move is part of a "province-wide relations campaign to explain government policies to the people."

Perhaps the Minister could give us some cost figures on that programme of explaining government policy to the people and indicate where the cutbacks that he talked about occurred.

While he's on the question of estimates and costs, I wonder whether he would also look into and give me a reply to a question I have already asked him about a letter sent out April, 1975 — I received this on May 5, 1975 — to all people who might receive Pharmacare. The letter goes out with a picture of the Hon. Norman Levi, Minister of Human Resources, looking very serious, and a picture of the Hon. David Barrett, Premier of the province, looking very cheerful. It is addressed to: "Dear Friends." The text goes: "In recent months, many of you have expressed your concern to us over the future of Pharmacare. These concerns are related to press reports of increasing expenditures for the Department of Human Resources."

Well, there have been press reports about the increasing expenditures of the Department of Human Resources, but I'd like to know how much this letter cost — this great letter telling them that Uncle Dave and Uncle Norman are there with their best interests at heart, they haven't forgotten the senior citizen, they haven't forgotten Pharmacare. It appears to me straight flackery which you're being conned into sending out, Mr. Minister. I would like to know how much that sort of nonsense costs. When you put money into programmes of that nature, sending your picture to every senior citizen of the province and the Premier's picture to every senior citizen in the province, you're taking money away from your other programmes. I don't think that it's the way you should be operating. Perhaps that's part of that publicity campaign you talked about at UBC. You might want to say a word or two about that and the cost, because I have asked you about that before.

I don't think the people in this Legislature in the opposition or government object to passing money for legitimate needs of senior citizens or other people requiring aid under the Department of Human Resources. But I feel that we should take a very critical attitude to the straight puffery and flackery from your department designed to promote the NDP.

While I'm on that subject — promoting the NDP with public money — perhaps you would like to indicate, Mr. Minister, whether a speech sent out by you.... It's headed up: "Department of Human Resources Report on Services to Children: A Statement by the Hon. Norman Levi, Minister of

[ Page 3711 ]

Human Resources, April, 1975" — which no doubt the Minister remembers. It's a very political document, talking about the succession of NDP Members, listing them all, arguing the case for children and families. It goes on to say: "There has to be a commitment from the government. During the 20 years of the Social Credit government there was no commitment to such a philosophy and no commitment to the needs of people in distress." It ends up again on another political note, if I can find it here at the end of the speech somewhere. The last line: "The NDP is committing itself to changing this, and we have done so."

How much of this was paid for by party funds and how much by government funds?

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I am referring to the "Department of Human Resources Report on Services to Children: A Statement by the Hon. Norman Levi, Minister, April, 1975." This speech contains some information about children, no doubt. I'll refer to it again in the future.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, it does. But I wonder whether you managed to share the cost, part of the political flackery and puffery being paid for from something other than departmental funds. You might comment on that. I don't think you should be sending out information of this nature like that picture letter, which really does take money from programmes advertising the party. It's shameful.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Fifty-fifty with the feds.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Fifty-fifty? You mean they pay for your sending this out? Listen to that!

While we're on that subject...that's an interesting one. The Minister boasts that the feds are paying 50 per cent of the cost of NDP propaganda — the federal government — which is interesting. I'd like to know something about the annual report of the Department of Human Resources — "Services for People" — which similarly gives curious impressions about expenditures of the department.

For example, on page 9, "Highlights for '74," it says that Mincome benefits for the elderly and handicapped persons increased quarterly in 1974 from $213.85 a month at the beginning of year to $234.13 at the end. Are those all Mincome benefits? How much of that total happens to be the old age pension. How much happens to be guaranteed income supplement? It's a very misleading figure to put that down as though it all comes from our generous Minister of Human Resources.

Again, similarly, on page R-12, the Minister's department talks about Mincome and says: "The federal government shares only up to $200 per person, per month on Mincome." Not on your sweet life! You know full well, Mr. Minister, that that is a totally false statement because it really refers to the chunk that's OAP and the chunk that's GIS. The idea that they only share in that $200 for Mincome just isn't right.

I'd also like to know — and you're bragging about increasing Mincome, which you do throughout this document, now that you've raised the question of the fed's expenditure — whether or not you're simply increasing the upper level of Mincome to take care of the fact that the federal GIS and OAP contributions are going up, or whether you are actually increasing the Mincome benefits, and by how much, because that again isn't indicated in this particular area.

One quick further question. I wish you hadn't raised this, as it's going to take a little longer than I otherwise would have spent on your estimate. On page R-62 you talk about "federal-provincial relations" and you say: "Our major difficulty with the federal government has been a slow response to meeting people's needs through unemployment insurance benefits." Well, surely UIC is an insurance scheme. I think that to suggest it's the same as a welfare scheme is wrong.

A final point I'd like to ask you about on this particular report, just at the moment, is page R-102, where you state: "Persons aged 65 and over in receipt of the old-age security and the guaranteed income supplement will receive Mincome automatically, if eligible." Now that gives an impression that Mincome comes out automatically, if they don't have other sources of income. But, Mr. Minister, I have here a letter that's come out — another of these "Dear friend" letters that you signed — this time without your picture. Your "Dear friend" letter came out and it says:

"It is our understanding you are now in an extended-care facility. As you know, the cost of providing this care is borne by the provincial government, with a charge of only $1 per day to you. In the interest of being fair to all senior citizens in British Columbia I must inform you that the government cannot continue your Mincome benefits since the government is already paying your care through direct payment of your hospital costs.

"The Mincome programme was introduced to ensure that all senior citizens would be provided with an adequate income to meet their daily living needs. Since the government pays for your basic needs in the extended-care programme, it is felt that your need for Mincome benefits is not as critical as for those

[ Page 3712 ]

senior citizens who must meet monthly costs of food and rent."

Well, that's fine, Mr. Minister, if you assume that all people who go into these units never come out again. Do you assume that as soon as they go into one of these extended-care hospitals, that's it? They give up their apartment, they give up their house, but many of the people like to think that they'll be going back to their home. They want to keep up the rental payments or the mortgage payments, and your denying them Mincome, despite the flat, bald statements in your annual report, is causing a great deal of concern to individuals.

HON. MR. LEVI: What is the last paragraph of the letter I wrote?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The last paragraph?

"If you have any questions about the policy please write to Mincome. Box 2500, Victoria, British Columbia, V8W 3A1.

"Yours sincerely, Norman Levi, Minister."

HON. MR. LEVI: Okay.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Okay? Second last paragraph — do you want that?

"The enclosed cheque for May, 1975, is therefore the final Mincome payment you will receive as long as you are in an extended-care programme.

"Be assured, should you no longer require extended care your Mincome benefits will be reinstituted."

HON. MR. LEVI: That's right.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON; Well, Mr. Minister, that's contradictory to what you're doing up above. If they're on Mincome they're short on money. Okay? You and I agree there. Now if they're on Mincome and they're trying to keep up their apartment and meet the rental payment, they're obviously going to be in difficulty if you cut it off — quite apart from the fact it's contradictory to your bland annual report statement regarding Mincome.

I trust you'll answer that and indicate to me that a major oversight has been made and these "Dear friend" letters will be terminated and that people who will be in extended care, if they have rental payments to meet, will be permitted to continue to get Mincome to cover that type of thing, because they may well have expenditures which do not go down if they go into extended care. The Minister should understand that. The only area where their expenditure will go down will be food. Other things may remain the same. Some, indeed, may increase. Some question of maintenance such as, for example, mowing the lawn, things of that nature — who knows — may increase. Therefore I trust you will be telling me that this contradictory policy is being terminated.

Mr. Minister, the next point I'd like to make refers to the Guaranteed Minimum Income Assistance Act. It's an order-in-council approved May 8, 1975, and it states:

"Upon the recommendation of the undersigned the Lieutenant-Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the executive council, ordering that British Columbia Regulation 259-75 approved March 25, 1975, being the social assistance regulations, be the regulations for the Guaranteed Minimum Income Assistance Act effective June 1" — beginning of this month — "1975."

Naturally, once I received that, I checked the regulations. The regulations give a means test, and I wonder whether this means test which exists for social assistance is being applied to Mincome recipients.

Let me read "Eligibility assets" from page 354 of The British Columbia Gazette, Part 2, April 15, 1975, 5(l)(f):

"A person, 60 years of age or older without dependents has assets exceeding $1,500 in value, or a person 60 years of age or older with dependents, has assets valued in excess of $2,500 where there is one dependent, and in excess an additional $300 for each additional dependent."

There is no eligibility for social assistance under those situations, according to 5(1). Now is this being applied to Mincome? I'd like to know if these regulations are, in fact, being applied and people with assets more than $2,500 could be struck off.

I would refer you to 5(2)(b), which appears to be contradictory, and I would just ask you whether this applies to Mincome people, because on page 356 of The British Columbia Gazette, Part 2, April 15, 1975, you find the following sentence:

"Continuing eligibility. Social assistance benefits shall not be paid for a person admitted to an acute-care hospital, to a hospital for the mentally ill, to a prison and, unless authorized by the director, for a person admitted to an extended-care hospital or similar institution."

Now is that the regulation that now cuts into Mincome? Indeed, will all Mincome be cut off as a result of this regulation 6(3) on page 356? There is a responsibility for employable recipients to gain employment, and I wonder whether that could be applied to Mincome? I presume not.

On that point, could I ask the Minister what is the result or what has been the result of his efforts to get employable unemployed working? How successful has he been in getting the people who are on social assistance, who could work, into the work force? He's

[ Page 3713 ]

issued instructions to municipalities — three of them is the last count I have and I am sure there are more of them now — indicating that the unemployed employable should be cut off if he refuses to go out and get work. I would like to know whether the Minister is promoting this programme, whether it is being successful, whether there have been large numbers of people cut off. That's regulation 9(l) and (2), and I trust that the Minister will indicate what there is on there.

Mr. Chairman, just to add a few other questions which I've had over the last months for the Minister and not received answers to, I wonder whether he would inform me about the situation of the disability rights association. The Minister told me in the House that indeed they were considering funding it, and they were continuing to fund it until such time as they made up their minds, but the people who run the disability rights association have received a letter from a member of the Minister's department indicating that there is a terminal date at which point there will be no further funds coming.

Naturally they are in a quandary, because when I phoned them with the good news that old uncle Norman was friendly and was helpful and was going to look at this thing again, they came back rather gloomily and said: "Well, that's fine, but what about the people within his department who don't seem to know what his attitude is and are writing us letters saying, tough lines, after such-and-such a date not a dollar more?" I believe the date was July 25, after which they don't get any more, but that's a guess on my part. I don't have the exact figure in front of me.

I'd like to know from the Minister another question with reference to the overrun. The mayor of a number of communities — Coquitlam, Burnaby, and Victoria — stated that they were somewhat unhappy about the assessment of the extra money due to the overrun, and I wonder whether there has been any difficulty in collecting the municipal portion of the Minister's overrun, because a number of mayors said flatly they weren't going to pay — not Mayor Pollen.

"'It seems inconceivable that municipalities should have to pay the province's maladministration,' Victoria Mayor Peter Pollen said in a telephone interview from Vernon. Pollen said: 'If Victoria is forced to pay its share, which could amount to half a million dollars, it will put the local taxpayers in an untenable position.'"

I wonder whether the Minister had any difficulty with municipalities, or whether he did work out some repayment schedule which was acceptable to the mayors.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask another question of the Minister which I have asked before regarding handicapped transit. The groups which run the handicapped transit in the Province of British Columbia — in particular, of course, the Easter Seals Association — do an absolutely first-class job with, I believe, only 14 to 17 per cent, somewhere in there, provincial money. They get contributions from the public — and let's congratulate the public for its generosity in helping and I think they should continue to do so — but the bulk of the cost is borne by the user of the services.

I've argued with the Minister on this point before, and I know the Minister is sympathetic, but bureaucracy seems to defeat this Minister and he hasn't got it through the bureaucracy to help out a little more in this area of the transport of the handicapped. If we are ever to set up a decent system of transportation in British Columbia, which the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and I were discussing yesterday, why don't we start with the handicapped? If they can have a dial-a-bus system, if they can have radio-dispatched vehicles which can pick them up, if they can get a reasonable transportation system worked out, I bet you we could apply a lot of lessons learned there to the transport of people who are more able to get around themselves.

So I trust the Minister can, at this stage, give us a favourable reply to my request of weeks ago concerning the need of the Easter Seal organization for more provincial money. They are trying to pay their bus drivers reasonable rates. They have so many people involved who have to be picked up that they have to have full-time professionals driving buses. I think they should, too. Why should they not get the same quality of service as the rest of us? This, of course, costs money. You can't expect bus drivers or any other full-time working person in this area to consistently, year after year, accept substantially lower income as a result of the fact that they service people who are in the position of being handicapped. Surely at this stage the Minister can give us good news about what is going to happen there.

The question of Indian lands is on my list of notes. British Columbia is meeting with the Indian groups on the 24th of this month. That is not far off and all I can say is, thank God it is happening. For three years now with this government we have waited for negotiations on Indian land claims and on the separate question of the cut-off lands, and lands taken from the reserves, by the McKenna-McBride commission away back in the early years prior to the First World War. There are 36,000 acres involved there and it is time that a settlement was reached on that specific area as a pledge of good faith.

I know that the overall land-claim issue is going to take many years of negotiations, commissions, exhaustive economic studies and that sort of thing, but the cut-off land question is simply by comparison. It is well within the province's jurisdiction to get that thing going.

Perhaps some money might come from the federal

[ Page 3714 ]

government later on — fine. The original commission was set up by both governments. But the original commission was set up with a former Premier of the province involved, and the primary responsibility, as the Minister knows, is provincial because that land went to the provincial authorities. Part of the land taken, of course, is the land over there near Victoria on the harbour from the Songhees, who were moved out past Esquimalt.

The Minister knows this goes back many years — 50 years — but that is really not very long. He knows there is an area of injustice here and he knows there is an area of very acute concern. I can think of few things that would better demonstrate this Minister's desire to be a progressive, forward-looking, energetic Minister dealing with some real problems than to get him and his cabinet colleagues going on the issue of the cut-off lands. There is an injustice that is constantly allowed to remain and fester until some extremists take over the issue and make it a major issue. It is an injustice that I think the provincial government is handling very badly.

Three years have gone by and nothing has happened. It is time that that matter was settled or at least put into a negotiating system and process which will lead to settlement. That is quite possible. I trust the Minister will get up, assure me that he has been negligent and slack in the past, as he has been, and then get going and make sure that this is properly taken care of.

Another question, of course, is the Ed Epp three-month period of enforced idleness. It is funny with this government — they used to give people enormous settlements when they were fired. But now they simply keep them on staff and have them do nothing. He indicated in this morning's paper that one of the major areas of concern to him, although he couldn't understand how it could possibly be a reason for him having three months off, is the forest camp and the alternate programmes to straight prison that he is trying to work up and improve but which take money.

The Minister can pass the buck to the absent Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). Where is the Attorney-General? In Sweden? Britain?

AN HON. MEMBER: London.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He is in London. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) is in Sweden. The Premier is in New York. Heavens, what a government! They have so many Ministers that they find things probably work better if they send them all out of the country. Anyway, he is not here to answer any questions. It is fine for the Minister to try and sidestep, but the fact is that his department is involved. If we don't have facilities and if, indeed, there are constraints in Treasury Board, we would like to know about them here during estimates. That is affecting the handling of children, which this Minister spoke so glowingly about in such grandiose terms only a short time ago. Let me not fault him for speaking in that way.

Let me say that I appreciate the fact that this Minister does have human concerns very much at heart. I believe him to be a humane Minister who is trying to work out a humane system. But in terms of ideas and eloquence and in terms of what happens at the receiving end, which in the case of correctional institutes means the alternatives to the foster homes, group homes, reception centres, receiving homes, therapeutic foster homes, and the alternate school programmes or the residential treatment centres, there still is an area of gap which the Minister admits and which Mr. Epp talked about this morning -namely, a lack of money to make sure we fill that gap with some sort of detention institution needed for juveniles. I trust the Minister will not sidestep this question once again.

The Minister talked of these institutions for children I just listed in that speech that I referred to. He mentioned that the number of children are fewer in those institutions. I congratulate him for this. But he did not indicate the problem areas. I would like to know precisely whether he is in charge of the problem areas or whether the Attorney-General is in charge. The public impression has been that this Minister wishes to continue without remanding correctional centres and to continue with the system of foster homes and whatever, while the Attorney-General would like to see some sort of specialized institution to take care of children he feels need to be locked up.

It's a philosophical difference between the two Ministers, but it appears up to now that the Attorney-General is getting the better of the argument — probably rightly, as the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) applauds when I say that the Attorney-General is getting the better of the argument. The trouble with the Attorney-General is that it takes a long time for anything to happen in his department; this Minister happens to be a little quicker off the mark. I'd like to know whether, indeed, it's back in his court at this stage and whether we're going to get anything done. That surely is the test of the fine words and the great speeches, whether anything results in terms of concrete action.

Mr. Chairman, those are one or two questions I have on my list. There are one or two more which I may have later in the debate, but perhaps the Minister could answer those.

HON. MR. LEVI: I guess I'd better answer some of the questions. The first thing you...I'm trying to find out where to start. I think it was Pharmacare.

[ Page 3715 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The first thing was PR and the computer services.

HON. MR. LEVI: On the Pharmacare thing, the total cost of the Pharmacare letter was $15,000.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh!

HON. MR. LEVI: Oh! In a programme of $20 million to spend $15,000 doing that.... I have been answering about 50 letters a week — I think last week I certainly signed more than 50 letters — to people who have been writing in about the Pharmacare programme. Even before we sent the letter out we were getting letters from people saying: "Are the Mincome and Pharmacare going to be reduced?" You'll recall that a former Member of your group stood up in this House and said that what we should do with the budget of Human Resources is cut off $93 million, but he didn't tell us what $93 million he was going to cut off.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: I agree. I'm not loading you with the responsibility of that remark.

But the thing is that people were legitimately anxious about it because of the overrun situation. We get a large amount of correspondence. It was my intention to bring down a couple of the files to give you an indication of what kind of letters we are getting from people. I think that in terms of a programme like that where we did the initial PR well over a year ago when we introduced the programme, and we have done no other PR, and when we get.... I got a lot of letters and the Premier got even more letters about the anxiety of this. We spent $15,000, put it in with the cheques and informed people about it, I think that's a perfectly legitimate way of keeping some 231,000 people informed of what's going on with the programme.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): What is common in the misunderstandings?

HON. MR. LEVI: The misunderstandings emanated from the discussions around the overrun and around the increasing costs around the Pharmacare programme. Was it, in fact, going to continue? We had the same reaction from people in terms of the Mincome programme. Senior citizens do write. We get almost 3,000 letters a month in my office, a significant number from senior citizens about the different programmes they're involved with. We get a large number of letters from people always after April 1 because of the adjustments in the GIS. That adjusts their Mincome cheque and a great deal of explanations have to be made. We are making approximately 8,000 changes a month to the Mincome situation because of people's circumstances changing: they are moving.... There is a great amount of work going on in the total Mincome programme at the moment.

So we felt, and I stand on it, that it was a perfectly legitimate expenditure of money to keep people informed. In a programme of $20 million, to have that kind of an expenditure is certainly not out of line.

The question of the accounting in the department as of April 1, we are on a financial programme which gives me in a matter of between 30 and 35 days the previous month's expenditures and action that is going on. On September 1 we will have for the first time a quick response to what we are doing in terms of social assistance. We will have gone from the manual to having something within 30 days.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: How soon would you have picked up the $100 million overrun if you had had that system a year ago?

HON. MR. LEVI: First of all, we would not have been into that kind of situation had we had the information, as I explained last year. We were dealing with information that was almost four months old. That has always been one of the problems. We have out there 102 offices that we are delivering services from and we have been using forms where you have 102 different people filling them out, and we have never been able to get that degree of accuracy.

By September 1 we will have an opportunity to see exactly what is happening in the SA system. But on the other financial systems I am satisfied. It was delivered to my office the other day and brought me up to date on what the situation is in terms of April and May. That was not possible last year.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Are you on target?

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, we're on the target. I hope to be able to give a more specific figure on the overrun. The overrun amounts at the moment — and there are indications that it could be less — to about $95 million, not $103 million. We had to go to that system because we also have — and I think I said that in the previous estimates — our own departmental comptroller situation, which was needed. It is a large department which is making a great number of payments, so that was important as well.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: When was he hired?

HON. MR. LEVI: May 28, he started.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, he's hardly been there any time at all.

[ Page 3716 ]

HON. MR. LEVI: Oh, no. He was there before. He's been part of the department. The thing had to go to competition, but we brought him in way back to do this year's estimates. He was in the department and we assigned him to just devote himself to the estimates for where we are now. He started in September and he was completely responsible for the putting together of the estimates for this fiscal year, and then the thing was put to competition.

So I personally feel a lot more comfortable in terms of where we are in terms of expenditures. It simply was not possible before.

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

You should also know, and certainly the Members who were in the House before this parliament do, that there have always been overruns in the department. I have never accepted that they should always be there, other than if you have statutory programmes, certainly given the economic conditions, you can have a difference in your estimates. But it is possible, based on the kind of history that we have in terms of the department, to make reasonable assessments. We've taken the trouble to do this. We can understand the behaviour in terms of the economic situation, the unemployment situation, the movement of people, and we should be able to make much better predictions. I think that, as I said last time I spoke, we will probably be closer that we've ever been in this kind of situation. I would expect the overrun from last year will come in at about 32 to 33 per cent, which is still below that monumental overrun that the previous government had back in 1971.

We've had to do a great deal in terms of the whole financial accountability business and the business of budgetary control. We've had to do that, and we've done it: we've put it into operation.

On the municipalities, we notified the municipalities at the time of the overrun that it would be $1.10. You'll recall the furor that took place at the convention over whether they were going to have to come up with $12 million. That is not the case. They have not had to come up with $12 million. It's around $5 million. We'll be in a better position, once we have completed the accounting for this year, to know the exact figures. But it was certainly significantly below what they had. They have been advised that for this fiscal year they should budget for $1.30. A reference point for us, for the interest of the Member, is 1970/71, which is a similar kind of unemployment situation and economic situation. You can see there what kind of welfare figures they had then, and they are in the book.

We are still collecting the money from the municipalities. We probably will be talking to two or three of them about slow payments, but I have full confidence that all of it will be paid. The thing has settled down. I know that back in August it looked like nobody was going to pay anything but that's not been the case. Except for two or three municipalities that we'll be discussing the matter with, I think we can expect that everything will be concluded within next few weeks.

You talked about the Mincome programme in respect to the extended-care people. I should point out that when we brought in the Mincome programme one of the things that we did not want to do was in any way make it appear to senior citizens that somehow we were going through a means-test programme or that we were looking to exclude people from the programme where there would be a great fear about the means-test situation. So what we did was to proceed, and there was a lot of PR done about it, simply so that people should see this as a supplement to the old-age pension and GIS, and we successfully sold that programme. In the beginning it was difficult. We successfully sold it.

Then we've been looking at the whole question of Mincome in respect to people in extended care. Now in extended care people receive the OAS, the GIS and if eligible, the Mincome. Their only cost in that situation is $1 a day.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, no. They've got their ordinary costs.

HON. MR. LEVI: What "ordinary costs" do people have in extended care when everything is taken care of?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Rental of apartments, their own homes that they may want to keep up.

HON. MR. LEVI: This kind of situation, Mr. Member, is very, very rare. I've only had one example of this. As a matter of fact, when we debated this thing last year, you may recall that many members of the public were saying that we should not be doing this.

For instance, I recall some people responsible for trust funds to people saying that it seems a little ludicrous to keep banking some $213 a month for people, minus the $30 for the dollar a day of tax money. I have discussed it with seniors, and seniors have discussed it with me, and we have now moved to take this route. It's not a question of that; it is a question of applying those resources to some other area — that is all. I think it is a question of that. I know of only one case where I have had one letter where people might fit into the situation that you're talking about, but otherwise people are banking that money. We look upon the Mincome as a supplement situation for people who need to have more in terms of the day-to-day living. This is simply not

[ Page 3717 ]

appropriate for people in extended care, simply because all of their needs are taken care of there. I think that that is a fair judgment on what goes on and we can apply these resources in some other area.

You talked about the Mincome programme in terms of the federal government. Senior citizens fully understand that they get OAS, they get GIS and then they get Mincome on top, and the Mincome payment 65-and-over comes directly now from the provincial government. The $30-odd is not in any way shared by the federal government; they won't share past $205. In terms of the other programme, the 60-to-64, they are sharing up to $160, and the rest is being borne by the province.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What are the figures now?

HON. MR. LEVI: The figures now are OAS at $122; GIS comes to $205 and ours is $239.80. On July 1 we will pass on again so that we will go up to about $242.

You made reference to the question about the employables. I will try and deal with the regulations; I wasn't clear on some of the regulations that you pointed out. On Mincome, first of all, Mincome people are not classed as employable people, so there is no question that they have to look for work. That is not an issue there.

On the employability of people in the social assistance system we restated the programme in respect to people having to seek work. All of the offices are aware that if someone refuses to work they will be taken off welfare, and that has happened. In April when I spoke on the estimates, I pointed out to you our experience in the Vancouver area, where we instituted the job finding in cooperation with Canada Manpower. At that time I used figures where we had seen between October 1 and March 31, some 9,500 people that came into the offices who were classified as employable. They were all referred to the rehab and the job counsellors. I remarked at that time that about 5,500 actually reported for those interviews. The other just over 4,000 did not show up, were not on welfare, did not receive any benefits but just left. Of the 5,500, 1,000 were placed in employment.

We worked with Manpower. Manpower have two of those people now in the main office down in the downtown area. They do interview them, they do the referrals and the follow-ups, and we have the job statements, the print-outs, they share with us, but it must be borne in mind that these are jobs that are not necessarily of any long duration at all. People must take these jobs. If they are acceptable to the employer, if they pay $2.50 an hour and if working conditions are satisfactory, they must accept it; if they refuse they are cut off. This is being applied very much in Victoria.

We again are now interviewing families — not singles, but families — at the request of some companies who are looking to place people in the north for permanent employment. We did that before. As you recall, I mentioned that we were moving people from one province to the other and we had some trouble with that. We worked some of the differences out and that did not continue at the level it did because the demands in the other provinces fell off.

So we have created, I think, an understanding out there. Certainly in talking to Ministers when I'm back east I find the word is out back there that you can't just come out here and expect that you are going to get on welfare.

The other thing to point out is that in 1974 the average payment paid to a single person on welfare, where they are entitled up to $160, was $124 (that is the average monthly payment) which certainly indicates to us that there were a number of people who were coming on and going off after a month or a maximum of two because it has been consistent over the years that that caseload turns over in any case — single caseload particularly — at 50 per cent a month. That is one of the problems with the system in administrative terms. There is a tremendous amount of interviewing going on. People come in and they have to be assessed; they are on one month or two and they go off.

In Vancouver they have been doing a total caseload review. They've been calling in 160 people a week to look at their circumstances. Because of the mail situation they've been doing direct issue where people are picking up their cheques every month at one of the churches on 12th and Hemlock. They have to produce I.D., they have to say where they live, what their circumstances are and what efforts are being made.

In reference to unemployment insurance, which the Member raised, we were having problems. We have discussed it with the UIC, and these things are being worked out. But UIC payments were taking up to six or seven weeks, and because people are in need they were coming to the office. That situation has worked out a little bit but it's still, I think, taking three to four weeks to get a UIC cheque, which means that if people are out of money then they come along to the....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: UIC gets refunds — at least, UIC refunds welfare.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, the thing is on the refund situation, it's so complex and so costly that we have not been using that process because we went through it three years ago. The previous government tried it and it was too expensive.

But one of the things we have done, and which I

[ Page 3718 ]

think I should mention, is that we have worked out with the unemployment insurance a joint programme where we match our tapes, and we have been doing this since last November. We take all of the employable people who are on welfare and we match them with the people who are on UIC. If the people have applied for benefits under UIC but haven't received them and are receiving welfare, we then have an arrangement which works very well; they give us the tapes three days before our cheques go out, and on those tapes we know whether those people have been put into pay, so we don't have double payments. We kick out about 200 to 300 cheques a week.

Now once we can get the system operating, again, in terms of the computer, in the rest of the province then it'll work out very well. We've had good cooperation from UIC; it's worked out very, very well. We've had good cooperation from Canada Manpower. We are working, as you know, very closely with them on the two community employment projects in Nanaimo and Kamloops. That's a programme that myself, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) and the federal Minister are involved in.

The disability rights situation. I've just got a message that the July payment will be made. I see that the grant terminates on July 31st. I will look into that. It was my understanding when I met with them.... I told them that we would not take any action until we heard from the Department of Labour on their recommendations, because I gave them a great deal of material, so I will undertake to look into it. My understanding, in my discussion with them some weeks ago, was that we will continue to keep you in pay until I get the recommendations from the Department of Labour.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: So that line then is kaput.

HON. MR.LEVI: Yes. I have had somebody check it just now, but we will be discussing with them. I did point out to them that it was not just a question that I wanted to make, but I also wanted to involve my colleague because it did involve the Workers' Compensation Board.

On the question of transportation, we were approached last year by the B.C. Lion's Crippled Children's Association, which is doing the transportation, in respect to picking up a deficit on one part of the programme only which was the I.D. programme — the individual programme. And we did pick up the deficit of some $30,000. As a matter of fact, it worked out about 50 per cent of the deficit on that programme. We now have under consideration a much larger request which they have made, and on which we will be making a decision within the next few days.

As I said in the House once before, we also want to talk....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Is that just for that specific programme, or is it now a little wider?

HON. MR. LEVI: It covers more than that. Yes, it's a broader one.

What I would like to do — and I've discussed this with people who are operating transportation projects in the province — is refund through the department a little over $600,000 to 18 groups that are operating transportation systems which are for the seniors and for the handicapped.

Within that funding are some moneys which relate to mostly the rental of vehicles and equipment. We have broached the B.C. Lion's people on this and we'll be meeting with them. I think that they operate an excellent system. They have a collection system, a ticket system — and I'm hoping that we can work out some arrangement where they might be in a position to take over the bulk of the operating of this kind of operation.

They, of course, raise money — capital funds primarily to purchase vehicles — so we will be having discussions with them about whether we can work out a much more rational system. If we can, then this will auger well for the user because we can see that there will be a reduction in the fare.

On the general question of the handicapped transportation, in terms of my colleague, we have discussed it and it relates to the acquisition of the vehicles and the special kinds of equipment that go with these vehicles. I've had an opportunity to see what they do in Seattle.

Our problem, I think, partly relates to.... In the Vancouver area there is some service. It's more difficult in areas like Delta and Surrey. The dial-a-bus system, while a very good idea, I'm given to understand that it's a very expensive system. They have not found the most appropriate vehicle. One of the things that I once raised was the smaller kind of vehicle — the airporter-type bus, the small one. They apparently have a very short life, those kinds of operations. We are hopefully working out some better arrangements with the B.C. Lion's people — better from our point of view.

Again, you've asked me to comment on the question of Mr. Epp, and I am going to side-step it. It's not something that I'm involved with and I think you will have to wait until the Attorney-General gets back. I cannot comment on that.

There's a reference that the Member made in respect to fewer children coming into care. I'd like to point out that there are not fewer children coming into the residential treatment and group home centres. They are always full. We are getting less children into care in the foster home situation who

[ Page 3719 ]

are under the age of eight. It is not a reduction in the number of children in the residential treatment centres. It is really a reduction in the number of children who are in the foster home situation.

I think I have answered all of the questions outside of the land claims one. Is there something I have left out?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would like the Minister to also comment on the inapplicability of having social assistance regulations for Mincome. Mincome is not a social assistance scheme. It is not a welfare scheme. We keep telling them it is a matter of right, it is a matter of right, and they apply and are out of luck if they are in an extended-care unit.

For example, this question I mentioned of the assets, 5(l)(f), eligibility of assets, British Columbia Gazette regulations governing now Mincome: there is no eligibility for social assistance, which now means Mincome, when a person 60 years of age or older without dependents has assets exceeding $1,500. The Minister and I know well that there is a problem here. Somebody can be wealthy and still be on Mincome — that is, wealthy in terms of assets, not income. The government has constantly repeated that Mincome is not a means test matter.

I would like the Minister to comment on that, certainly comment on the Indian lands claims, and certainly say a word or two, not about Mr. Epp, heavens no, but just the issue raised by Mr. Epp as it affects this Minister's department — namely, incarcerating or locking up kids. All of the various things that he described didn't get down to those hard-core delinquent kids who need some sort of incarceration for their own good.

I do appreciate the explanation about the $15,000 and that letter. It appears that we had to spend even more money to tell people about the deficit which was so enormous.

Perhaps the Minister could then comment on the incarceration of children, on when we are going to get regulations government Mincome, and whether he would also indicate the success or otherwise of his B.C. Alcohol and Drug Commission.

HON. MR. LEVI: We are at a loss over here to actually pick up on what it is you are saying on the Mincome situation. The Mincome situation is that someone over the age of 60 who does not have an income over $239.80 can make an application. We did institute looking at the imputing of assets. We look at people's asset situation but there is no asset level in terms of that. We are looking at that. The staff have made a note of it and I will certainly reply to you this afternoon if I am on. I am not aware that we have in any way changed that situation.

With respect to it being in the social assistance regulations, we are making the payments out of the social assistance vote. I think we went into that well over two and a half years ago. I am not aware that we have made any change, but I certainly....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister changed this on June 1 by order-in-council. That is probably why he is not aware of it. The fact is that now, according to the regulations governing Mincome, if you are without dependents and you have assets exceeding $1,500, you don't get it. That is what the regulation says. You haven't realized the tremendously different system of regulations between the social assistance regulations and those that should govern Mincome.

I am pointing out to you that this order-in-council, dated May 8, 1975, which becomes effective June 1, is inapplicable. It is time you changed it. You are now in a situation where Mincome is no longer a right. There is an assets or means test. Really, Mr. Minister, just change it. Clearly, you don't know what is going to happen this month if these regulations are enforced by nit-picking bureaucrats who follow the letter of the regulations as they are required to do by law.

HON. MR. LEVI: I can't accept the Member's interpretation of this. We went over these regulations with a fine-tooth comb. I think what you are doing right now....

Allow me to check into this and I will answer it this afternoon.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: 354....

HON. MR. LEVI: Okay, we've got the reference. There was no intent, in terms of developing the regulations, that we would in any way change the eligibility of people on Mincome. There is simply a section in there that deals with the imputing of assets. I will answer that this afternoon. That is your interpretation of the regulations; we will get our interpretation.

We will leave it at that until this afternoon.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: My interpretation? I'm just reading your own regulations.

HON. MR. LEVI: We will have an opportunity to look at it over lunch and then I will deal with it this afternoon.

You raised an issue of a speech that was being mailed out. The speech was made in the House. It was excerpted from a speech I made here on April 23 dealing with children's services. When we get mail and answer people, it is not sent out in a broad way. It was sent to the MLAs because we have agreed to send all material to MLAs. There is no mailing list for such a speech other than what I have been using it for, and that is for replying to people who ask me about

[ Page 3720 ]

questions in terms of the delinquency area and services to children. There is no broad mailing of that other than in response to letters that we get from the public. That's how I send it out.

It is not printed by the thousands. As a matter of fact, it is reproduced as we need it in terms of answering. I think there are two speeches that we send out to people who make inquiries. One is the March 11th speech which dealt with what we are going to do in terms of the money in the department for the future year, and the second one is the one we have just discussed.

I'll certainly look into the Mincome one.

You dealt with the Indian land claims, or the question of cut-off lands. We will be meeting on Tuesday. We hope to be able to create some movement in this area. I think it is more appropriate that we deal with this on Tuesday. We will have a statement to make at that time, but certainly we should deal with the Indian representatives on it, and then the public will be in a position to know just what we are saying in terms of this and, of course, there will be ample opportunity to respond to it.

You asked about the Alcohol and Drug Commission, in terms of its operation. I was not in the House when the great debate took place about the handbook, apparently. I'd like to make a comment about that. I was in Ottawa at the time when it came out.

I think one of the things that should be understood about that educational handbook is that there is reference continually in the handbook as to where the material came from. Again, we will do things which have been successful elsewhere. Most of that, in fact maybe all of that material, was abstracted from material that has been used in Alberta under the Alcohol and Drug Commission there with some success. That's why it was put together. There is nothing to my knowledge in there that is new in the sense of what we have developed. We have spent a great deal of time culling a large amount of educational material, and we have put it together in that way, and that's exactly what the intent was of that material that was made available.

All right, in terms of where they are going: I pointed out, I think, back in March — it is so long ago that I can't remember...April — that we have developed another detox centre. We have one here, we've got one in Vancouver and we have a third one coming on stream. We have now operating in the Victoria area a programme dealing with people who are employed and have problems. That's part of the renting of the wing of the Oak Bay Manor. I would like to point out that we constantly get, in terms of the alcohol problem, only that focus on the very visible 3 or 4 per cent of the so-called Skid Road alcoholic.

Well, we have to move away from that because the 95 or 96 per cent of the people who have drinking problems live in suburbia. One of the things we have been able to address ourselves to, which I think is the worthwhile way of doing it, is to see whether we can keep people in employment. Now the commission has had discussions with industry about this kind of programme, and we have a project going on now. That is that on their recommendation, staff who are employed or staff who were employed but have been put off since because they have a drinking problem and won't come to grips with it.... They have referred some of those people and said if they are prepared to take treatment we will take them back. Now that's one of the better ways in terms of intervention that we can think of and certainly deal with. We've had good cooperation from industry.

An interesting sidelight on this is that in dealing with the Burns Lake Native Development Corp., in the development of the mill and the training of the loggers up there.... When we were up there at the graduation, we met with the board and they discussed with us that they would like to have by September two people who could be available to work with the people in the mill who have drinking problems. Now they are doing something, planning for this right in the beginning, and that's a very good move in terms of where we want to go with this problem.

I don't think that we can constantly look at these rather dramatic and very tragic pictures of the Skid Road alcoholic. They are only 3 or 4 per cent of the problem. We've got to find a way of making some impact in suburbia and we feel that one of the priority areas is certainly getting into the whole question of those people that are disabled or are becoming disabled at work.

The other programme that I think the commission has done extremely well with is the impaired-driver course that they are operating in six areas of the province. That's a good attempt at both the remedial and preventive areas. That's another area they have gone into.

We have been able, as a result of the commission, to do a large number — we've got 126 projects in the field. These are projects that are well accepted by the communities. The commission is low-profile and it is low-profile simply because we cannot meet high expectations out there. It is a slow process in terms of dealing with the heroin problem. It is, as I said previously, the other attacks that are going on about the heroin problem through the CLEU people, and the kind of things that have now been rationalized in terms of the methadone programme. Also, all of the people who work in these projects have gone through the training system that they set up last fall. They have an accreditation. They have an understanding of the kind of expectation we have of the service we purchase or the kind of programmes they put on educationally for the community.

[ Page 3721 ]

So while it has been low-profile, there are no magical solutions to this thing. What we have stressed particularly are the two areas the maintenance area in terms of the heroin addict and care for the alcoholic — but particularly in the educational area, the preventive area. Those are two ways of going, and of course the police force is playing their part, through the whole CLEU organization and they are tackling it from the other end. I think that that's a good way of approaching it. But I don't think it should leave anybody with the thought that somehow there is a magical solution.

I have had an opportunity to observe very closely the kinds of approaches that have been taken, for instance, in the State of New York where in eight years they spent over $1 billion and got absolutely nowhere with that kind of situation, simply because they insisted on trying things that had been tried elsewhere and had failed. One of the things that we did say in the beginning when we set up the commission was that one of the things we would not do was to try things that had been tried before and were not successful.

There are other questions. We are working closely with the Department of Health, the nurses and the health educators. I am satisfied, given the way you can move with this problem, that out there in the public that is the way to do it. We're now moving into more specific areas, particularly in relation to the non-Skid Row employable person who has drinking problems. We are now examining the whole problem of the very young addict and the kind of facilities that need to be set up. There are a couple of operations going now that are operated by non-profit societies.

MR. GARDOM: Where?

HON. MR. LEVI: There's the Corinthian thing out of the valley and, of course, there's the house in Vancouver.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): First of all, I would like to say that I very much appreciate the annual report which the Minister made available yesterday prior to starting discussion of his estimates. I think that while we may disagree with some of the economic performances of the department in terms of the points raised earlier and the overrun, the annual report is excellent and very explicit. I think the Minister is to be congratulated for the much-improved annual report. It's better than any year that I can remember because of its clarity.

As I say, one can disagree and agree with a lot that's in the report, but at least it's easy to read and it's very explicit.

I wanted to say that I think that the people of British Columbia, by and large, recognize that this is a difficult portfolio and that it costs a lot of money — $516 million. But I basically believe that the people of British Columbia are in favour of many of these programmes, provided they get the impression at the same time that the dollars are being used in a judicious way and in a closely supervised manner.

Frankly, I am just amazed that the government was so inept or careless, or something, to create the impression that the $100 million overrun was a clerical error. We know that $10 million of it was a clerical error, I understand. But, just in passing, let me say that I was amazed that the government could either be so tactless or careless or whatever. Whether they talk from now till Doomsday, the people of this province think that the Minister made a $100 million clerical error. He can talk till he's blue in the face or till he's 99 years old and the people of this province will still think that. I just hope that the Minister learned a sorry lesson on that particular situation.

When you look at this annual report, there are many dollars being spent in very productive ways to prevent some of the social problems which if not prevented cost four, five or six times the amount of dollars to straighten out the mess. If one has to look at the most prominent example, it is in the area of juvenile problems. We have covered that pretty well this morning; I don't want to go over all of it again. But I noticed in the report that the Minister states on page 37 that where special services to children have been utilized extensively, there has been a corresponding decrease in the rate of juvenile delinquency and other problems associated with youth.

Over the page, he goes on to point out that at the time of referral to these special services, 27 per cent had committed juvenile delinquent acts or were in trouble with the law. At the completion of service, 14 per cent of those 294 children were no longer in that behavioral category. I think this is the kind of material in the report that is very encouraging.

But, of course, special services to children, again, is expensive in terms of dollars. I just think that the people of British Columbia have to recognize, as in so many other topics that come before this House, that you can't have it both ways. If you want to prevent illness or disease, or if you want to prevent lawlessness, or if you want to prevent juvenile delinquency, you have to start at the other end because it's not as manifest to the public as spending money at the other end to apprehend lawbreakers or to treat people in hospitals. That's very obvious when a patient enters a hospital or when a prisoner enters a jail. But all the mechanisms that might be put into play at the front end to try and prevent that ever happening are expensive but not nearly so obvious. I think that, as the Minister pointed out, the debate we've had about juvenile delinquency, and which is continuing in the province, is good because there are

[ Page 3722 ]

some eyes and ears being opened to the facts and the circumstances that truly surround the whole problem of young people.

As I say, I very much like this annual report, but there are some parts of it just a little bit puzzling. Talking about juveniles, I am amazed to read that we're still talking about the post-war baby boom.

On page 48 it says: "The need for more resources for teenagers is attributable to the adolescent problems as a result of the post-war baby boom." Well how post is post-war? My God, I was a teenager when the war ended.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which war?

MR. WALLACE: The Second World War. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on — not that one.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, that's right. I was 16 when the war ended. Now, how having a post-war baby boom with teenagers 30 years after the war ended, does puzzle me a little bit. That's one of the areas of your report, Mr. Minister, that rather left me puzzled.

On page 48 the report says: "It is estimated that numbers of children in the 10-14 age group will peak in 1975, the 15-19 age group peaking in 1980." I think that the arithmetic is a little out of line.

The main effort of the Minister to provide services to children in a preventive way is much to be supported, I think. But again, there seems to be some measure of contradiction because I've just received a letter from workers in a group-home programme right here in Victoria. They were working with some of those young individuals who have had troubles with the law. They are described as severely disturbed children and hard-core delinquents. That "hard-core" phrase really worries me, too, because I don't really think that encourages a remedial or an optimistic approach when you use the word "hard-core."

I understand that at this particular project, 612 David Street in Victoria, the 15 child-care workers will no longer be financed after June 26. When we read in the annual report of the preventive measures which the Minister wants to support in special services to children, then we discover literally the next day that one of these programmes in Victoria is going to have the 15 child-care workers' services discontinued, I wonder.

I notice the Minister has left the chamber — perhaps the Deputy Minister can make a particular note of that. I have been contacted by four or five of the workers who feel that they have produced productive results and that the service does, indeed, not only serve as a remedial measure to some of these young delinquents, but manages to get them trained for a job where they can settle down in society.

This morning I talked on the phone to one of the people who wrote this letter. They're not unaware of the fact that money doesn't grow on trees either, that there has to be a priority set on dollars. I understand there are four full-time workers and 15 of the temporary staff. To discontinue the 15 and expect the four permanent workers to deal with this very difficult delinquent problem seems to me really.... Is this an extreme reaction to the overrun problem? Is the Minister over-reacting by cutting back on services which will undo a lot of the good that's been done in the preventive field as far as child-care problems are concerned?

I also have a letter here that relates to the other side of the coin, you might say, to the Island Unit which I believe was formerly called "Brannan Lake," and which is still in existence. The person who has written to me in confidence has listed many of the young people living there, and opposite a large number of these names are notes such as: runaway, absent without leave; another one, has never appeared; another name, has quit school; another name here, on an indefinite visit; another one, has left school; another entry here, not attended since before Christmas; the next one, left school at the end of February. On and on it goes.

It seems from this information sent to me in the mail, in the case of this unit up island, although it's thought to be a unit where young people are apprehended and locked up, the information seems to show that a very large number of them come and go as they please and some of them have been missing for some considerable time. Could the Minister say how satisfied, or otherwise, he is with the supervision and control of the young people who are apprehended at the island unit?

We've heard a great deal of discussion on, and I think there's a great deal of merit in, the fact that a small percentage of the delinquents do require to be apprehended and locked up — I hate that phrase "locked up" — at least apprehended and kept restricted to a certain institution.

This letter seems to suggest that at the present time these inmates of that institution up island pretty well come and go as they please and that doesn't seem to be solving anything.

I just want quickly to ask the Minister about the adoption of Indian children. I'm amazed that the supreme court held a hearing in October on that very contentious issue as to whether Indian children being adopted by non-Indian parents lose their status. Could the Minister tell us: first of all, what is happening at the present time? Is it just simply that Indian children are in limbo as far as being adopted by non-Indian parents? I notice in his report the Minister states that there is a real attempt to have Indian children adopted by Indian parents. This, of course, makes a great deal of common sense, So what

[ Page 3723 ]

is happening? Is the whole thing in limbo?

Secondly, is there any indication of when the decision of the supreme court is likely to be handed down? As a layman, it puzzles me that an issue of this importance could be heard in October, 1974; we are now in June, 1975, and the welfare and future of many children and families appears to be in limbo.

I would also just ask in passing what the experience, success, and otherwise of the Vietnamese children who have found homes in British Columbia is. Is the Minister carrying on some follow-up review and monitoring? They were given a great deal of publicity at the time. I don't know to what degree some of the cases, as happened during the end of the war, turned out not to be orphans at all but, in fact, have one or other parent in Vietnam. I gather that the ones who came to British Columbia had been well screened long before the fall of the South Vietnamese government. I wonder if the Minister could at least give us some follow-up on that.

Another interesting part of the Minister's report is when he is talking about juveniles. I just want to return to the juvenile problem for a moment. He mentions on page 62 the importance of marriage breakdown in creating an increased number of problems with young people. I think it is really under the section dealing with social assistance, as it happens. In relation to juvenile problems I wonder if the Minister has some statistics on marriage breakdown which led him to include this in the particular part of the report. It suggests that the Minister is well aware of the influence of the home and family unit.

I couldn't agree more with the Minister that for those children who do get into difficulties there must be a clear placing of responsibility on the parent, particularly in respect to making some contribution to the cost of damages that were incurred by the juvenile. The reports that I have read from different areas of the lower mainland show that frequently when the police apprehend a juvenile they proceed to the juvenile's home and there is nobody there. This is sometimes very late at night or in the early hours of the morning. When we are committed to spending large sums of money providing services to children and dealing with the juvenile problem, it makes no sense at all if we leave the juvenile to handle the whole situation himself and let the parents go free of any responsibility for the financial damage or vandalism that has been caused by the juvenile.

I have heard this in principle a great deal, but I wonder if the Minister has any specific proposals as to what he is doing in this direction presumably in conjunction with the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). It is only in court that this to me seemingly reasonable proposal to involve the parents in responsibility can be implemented, The police can go back to the child's home and complain all they like that they can't find the parents, but if there isn't a day of reckoning for the parents in court or some reparation involved in terms of money for damage done, then we can talk all we like but I can't see there would be any improvement unless there is some action implemented. Maybe the Minister could tell us what specific ideas he has in placing responsibility on the parent.

Briefly, in talking about social assistance, we believe the time has come to try and eliminate as far as possible that 15 per cent of the community that the Minister mentions are employable. The other 85 per cent, for whatever reasons, have a continuing need for social assistance. We don't dispute that and we completely support the concept that they should share in the affluence of this province by being given reasonable support. What we are particularly interested in is the 15 per cent on welfare who could be employed. One thing I would like to ask the Minister is his opinion of British Columbia opting out of the Canada Assistance Plan. We know it would cost dollars initially but we in our party and the people who look at the social assistance project in the Conservative Party wonder if we are really getting the kind of assistance, cooperation and willingness on cost sharing to meet the specific goals and needs of the people in British Columbia — that 15 per cent in particular.

We believe it would be possible to set up a five-year programme that we would call a transitional programme, and with intensive educational and re-educational programmes spend time eliminating as far as is possible the group of people who could be employed but who, for one reason or another, can't find work and can't succeed in maintaining a job over a period of any great length of time.

Coincident with that, we feel that it should be made quite plain that at the end of, say, the five years, and we are not rigid as to whether it is four years, five years or six years .... But we feel that at that point in time and during the five-year transition facilities of education, retraining and re-education should only be made available to Canadian citizens or landed immigrants.

We have a policy paper being studied federally by the people of Canada at the present time, and we get the impression that there is not enough co-ordination and planning between provincial and federal levels of government at the front end. This has got nothing to do with race or colour or creeds. It is a question of people coming into the country with federal approval and moving through to this province or other provinces with a minimum potential to be able to work or to be able to be trained or to be able to play a productive role in society.

Again, the people of Canada can't have it both ways. You can't scream and dance and shout about the cost of social assistance and blame the

[ Page 3724 ]

government of the day if in fact many of the problems are created by an increase of population either in the country or in this province of people who just don't have the skills or the training or the education to fill a productive job in society.

I notice that we are running out of time just at a point when I really wanted to ask the Minister a whole series of questions in this general direction as to whether it would be feasible, over a period of a few years, to tackle the very difficult problem of that 15 per cent of employables by means of a very intensive education, re-education programme, mainly provincially organized and directed. With the greatest of respect, the Minister has said that we get a lot of help from Canada Manpower. I've come across quite a few people, one I quoted the other day — the mining millwright who has been all over the place in the last few weeks and just cannot get work because he's had a lung disease which no longer permits him to work in the mines.

We talk in general terms about how the province and the Manpower department of the federal government find jobs for these people. I'm just saying that they really don't do a very good job, in my view. There are too many people who are employable who want work, who would work and who cannot get work. I think that that has to be one of the main problems we should be concentrating upon.

It is obviously now time to adjourn.

The House resumed; Deputy Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.