CONTENTS

Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 108). Committee stage.

Amendment to section 6. Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3763

Amendment to add new section 9(a). Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3763

Report and third reading — 3764

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 101). Committee stage.

On section 2. Mr. L.A. Williams — 3764

On section 3. Mr. Morrison — 3767

Report and third reading — 3767

Municipalities Aid Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 106). Committee stage.

On section 1. Mr. Wallace — 3768

Report and third reading — 3769

Mining Tax Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 122). Committee, report and third reading — 3769

Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 140). Second reading. Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 3770

Committee of Supply: Department of Human Resources estimates.

On vote 109. Mr. Fraser — 3770

Appendix — 3784

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 108.

MOTOR-VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1975
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 108; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 6.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications) : Mr. Chairman, I had to agree with my educated friend from Edinburgh that the word "bicycle" and the definition thereof did repel me, I think as much as it repelled him. There was rather an Alice-in-Wonderland tone to the language, but as I rather suspected, it is not just as simple to add a couple of words and solve all the problems related to legislation. So as nearly as I can do it in the time that has been available, I would move the following amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have only section 6 before the committee. There is an amendment before the committee.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would ask that that amendment be disposed of, Mr. Chairman. I cannot accept that amendment because of the complications which I rather expected would be involved in accepting it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member is not here. Therefore, unless someone else proposes the amendment, the amendment is dropped.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: All right, the amendment is dropped.

I would move an amendment by deleting section 6 and substituting the following:

"Section 121 is amended: (a) by striking out the definition of bicycle and inserting the following definition after the definition of crosswalk: 'cycle' means a device having any number of wheels that is propelled by human power and on which a person may ride; and (b) in the definition of traffic, by striking out bicycles and substituting cycles."

I would move that amendment and then....

I don't know whether I have to put it all in one motion because there is another section I have to amend also. I'll read you the whole thing and you can give me advice, Mr. Chairman:

"...by adding the following after section 9" — which is actually a new section, 9(a) — which says section 173 and the heading preceding it are amended by: "striking out bicycle and bicycles wherever they appear and substituting cycle and cycles, respectively, in each case."

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Well done!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't know whether it is one motion, two motions — but it gets rid of the Alice-in-Wonderland quality.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There will be a brief pause while the Chairman seeks advice from his counsel.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, while we are waiting, I wonder if I could give the order of the bills to the opposition?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We're on 108. The next will be 101, 106, 122, and 140.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are now considering an amendment to section 6.

On the amendment.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I speak in favour of the amendment, if only to acknowledge that every now and again in this House sanity prevails.

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

On section 9(a).

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would move that section and say that, yes, I always believe in sanity. Sanity always prevails.

MR. WALLACE: Not here it doesn't.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, sure it does. Anyway, I think we have solved that very tough problem that you presented me with this afternoon.

Section 9(a) approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I move

[ Page 3764 ]

the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With consent, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 108, Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1975, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 101.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 101; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, this is the section which is the obvious companion to the bill introduced by the Hon. Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson), and which will remove the renter's grant this year from people who are under the age of 65. The explanatory notes which were given in that bill were that it would be compensated for by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. It is section 2 of this bill which provides the missing link.

The Hon. Premier, when he gave his budget address this year so many weeks ago — months ago — promised this to the people of British Columbia as being a new method by which the renter's grant would be available to the people of British Columbia. One needs to pay very careful attention to the words in section 2 to understand precisely what it is that the government now proposes. It takes some care to examine the situation. While the Hon. Premier in his budget address talked about gross income, in fact, it should be noticed that in this bill the renter's grant will be determined upon a person's taxable income as opposed to his gross income.

Assuming, as the Premier did, a taxpayer with a family of four, it is easy to determine what renter's grant the government will pay this year. It amounts to this: if you have no taxable income, then you are entitled to a renter's grant of $100. If you have a taxable income of $10,000, then you are entitled to no renter's grant whatsoever.

Within that range, the government is now offering to the renters of British Columbia some assistance. I think that what they are offering to the renters in British Columbia is not much assistance at all. Surely, it will provide some assistance, to a maximum of $100, to those people who are in the very lowest income bracket. That's about $8 a month. When I consider the extent to which the government is prepared to subsidize the taxes of people who have much higher incomes and much greater wealth — I speak, as I spoke in earlier debates, of practically everyone in this House who owns his own home. Everyone in this House who owns his own home is currently getting from the Government of British Columbia a much higher subsidy towards the cost of shelter than anyone who happens to be a renter in this province.

When, as I say, you consider a person with a zero taxable income — you're talking about a man and a wife with three children — you're talking about a man who earns only about $4,150 a year, and he gets $8 a month. I think that this is a very frugal, almost spiteful assistance on the part of the Government of British Columbia to the people who cannot afford, for a number of reasons, to own their own homes.

I think it's regretful that the government should have taken this move with all the fanfare that was given by the Premier in his budget address to this momentous assistance to people in British Columbia who have a serious problem with respect to providing themselves with accommodation. It's difficult enough to get a place to rent, but having got a place to rent, it's obvious that a very limited number of citizens in British Columbia are going to gain any benefit.

I think the time has perhaps long since passed when the government must totally review the extent to which it is prepared to contribute to individuals in this province with regard to the provision of their accommodation. There is a marked distinction between those people who have the down payment and the income to enable them to acquire a home with all of the obligations that go with that home today.

There's a marked distinction between them and those young people and those old people in our communities who cannot afford to own or maintain their own homes. The government in this particular legislation is, I think, re-emphasizing the distinction between these two categories of our citizens, and in re-emphasizing it I would have thought the government would have made a more generous gesture to the people who are in the renter class.

Young people today face an almost impossible task of acquiring their own homes. They are almost virtually destined to be renters for many, many years. When you consider the wage rates which are currently

[ Page 3765 ]

being paid in the Province of British Columbia, when I suggest to you that a taxable income of $10,000 — which at the very minimal standards is a gross income of $14,000 — produces a zero grant, then you recognize how many of our young citizens are being given no assistance by this government whatsoever.

It would be easy for me to vote against this bill just on this basis. I don't propose to because there is one other saving grace found in section 2, and that is that with respect to senior citizens, people over the age of 65 years, they will be afforded the minimum grant of $80 a year to assist them in meeting their rent obligation, regardless of what their income might be. But I think that we can't let this opportunity pass at this particular time again to draw the distinction that the government has allowed to exist between those who I believe are very fortunate in our community and those who are not. That covers a wide spectrum of people in age groups, a wide spectrum of people in income groups as well.

I must also draw the attention of the committee to one other consequence of this section as it is presently drafted. I recognize that it is a message bill and one which is therefore not within the competence of a private Member to amend. But really, Mr. Chairman, it discriminates against married people. If you look very closely at the section, you will note that of people who are married, the principal taxpayer, and the one that is therefore entitled to enjoy the renter's tax credit, is the one of the spouses who has the higher income.

So you have a husband and wife situation and if the husband's income is higher than that of the wife, then he qualifies as the principal taxpayer and it is on his taxable income that the decision is made as to whether a tax credit is allowed or not. But if you have people who live together who are not married, then obviously there's a choice available. The obvious choice is for the individual with the lower income to choose to claim the renter's tax credit.

We had this before under the previous government. I remember the Hon. Premier criticizing the previous government for encouraging the common-law relationship and discouraging the relationship of married people. Yet here we find enshrined in this legislation precisely the same principle. I would hope that the government would give serious consideration to a change in this to ensure that such disparity is not allowed to continue to persist in this province.

There's another and final problem, and it may only seem a minor one, but I detect in this section an obligation on the part of the person who seeks this renter's tax grant to file a tax return. This is only going to encourage the pushing of more paper, at the great cost that there is to government departments, in order to get this grant. If you don't file a tax return, there's no way you can gain benefit from section 2 of this Act.

Now the federal government has been at great pains over recent years to ensure that people who have no taxable income need not go through the difficulty of preparing and filing a tax return. It's no longer required. Yet we have in this bill implicit the requirement that in order to gain any benefits from the renter's tax credit, you must file an income tax return. It may be that you have no taxable income. It may be that you have no income at all, but in order to gain the benefit, you've got to file a return.

Lastly, I would ask the Minister who has charge of this bill at the moment to indicate to me what the consequence will be if, contrary to the provisions of subsection (9), an agreement is not reached with, the national government. Subsection (9) contemplates that if an agreement is reached with the national government, then the matter of refunds in the amount of the tax credit will flow back to the taxpayer, or offsetting tax credits will be made available to the taxpayer. That will be the way in which the matter is handled. And then the British Columbia government pays the Canadian government and the Canadian government pays the taxpayer.

I'd like to know what the government has in mind if it is unable to reach an agreement with the national government for this to take place. In what way can people who qualify for the renter's tax credit make their application and receive the benefit which the government is prepared to make? The benefit, as I say, is minimal enough as it is, and obviously it's a benefit this government is going to make as difficult as they possibly can for anyone to receive. We know the difficulty there was in the previous renter's grant. The government was at some pains to take paid advertisements in newspapers encouraging — begging, if you will, Mr. Chairman — people to make application for the renters' grants. What will they do in this case, when the receipt of such a benefit requires not merely a simple application, but instead the filing of a tax return?

What other, if any, opportunity will the government extend to taxpayers in British Columbia to take advantage of this legislation? And it should be well recognized that under the terms of this legislation "taxpayer" does not mean a person who pays tax. It in fact means any person in the Province of British Columbia, whether he has taxable income or not. The legislation makes that quite clear. So within this framework of rather difficult procedures I think the government should make clear the way in which they will move to ensure that the people who should be enjoying this minimal benefit will be able to gain such assistance as the government is able to offer.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member made several points and I think in a way agreed with the intent of the

[ Page 3766 ]

legislation, which is to help those on low incomes. He kept pointing out over and over that all it was really doing was helping those on lower incomes but not helping them enough. Now certainly anything that the government or any government does for those people who need it most is never enough. But this is a start on a programme of helping people who are paying rent. Previously this kind of assistance was available only to homeowners. Last year a move was made to have some assistance available to renters. This year it has been changed and the amount of assistance increased. But the emphasis is on those who need it most, admittedly, and that's the intent. That's what we wanted to do, help those who need it most.

The Hon. Member is concerned that those who own their own homes actually get more assistance. Then he went on to say that they have more obligations. Of course they do. That was in your remarks; you may have to wait until you read it in the Blues. But they do have more obligations, and certainly owning a home carries with it more expenses. There are repairs, redecorating and that sort of thing that add to the cost of actually owning your own home; whereas a person renting usually is faced with the rent itself and that's....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Cut the grant? The homeowner grant? That would be one way of evening them, to cut the homeowner grant. However, we have no intention of reducing the homeowner grant; we have every intention of increasing this sort of assistance from time to time.

The homeowner grant was established originally to encourage people to own their own home, to give them some financial encouragement to owning their own home, It's a principle that we think is worth supporting. But we do feel that there should be some recognition of the fact that for some people, for one reason or another — whether they can't afford it or choose not to or it's not convenient, whatever — there should be some assistance, particularly for those on the lower income. This section does provide for that.

Yes, there is the necessity to file an income tax return. There has to be some way of establishing the taxable income. The income tax return is a convenient way of establishing just exactly what that taxable income is. If, indeed, the taxable income is zero, well the income tax form.... I said convenient. Perhaps some people find it not so convenient as others find it. That's possible.

Nevertheless, it's a relatively convenient way of establishing just what is the taxable income, and one doesn't have to file a tax return if one doesn't want to bother, even if you have to get professional assistance at the rate of perhaps a minimum return of $40 to claim $100. If he doesn't want to bother spending $10 to claim $100, he needn't file his tax return. Then he, of course, will not qualify under this legislation. That's the way it is written today. Another day it may be changed, but under the legislation as it is now written, admittedly it does require the filing of a tax return to qualify for the credit.

As far as reaching agreement with the federal government, agreement has been reached. While it has not been formalized, similar agreements have been reached and have been formalized with the Provinces of Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario. We've been given every assurance by Ottawa that they will formalize similar agreements with B.C., so we have absolutely no concern on that score.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I thank the Minister for his response. I think that what the Minister says is a clear indication of the way this government is going, but I also think that it has got to be put clearly into perspective, The fact of the matter is that any Member of this House receives from the Government of British Columbia $200 per year to subsidize his costs for accommodation — $200 per year. Now certainly if you own your own home or your own condominium, you have to pay your taxes, you have to pay your upkeep, your maintenance and all the other things that go with it. But if any one Member of this assembly wishes to change his lifestyle, sell his home and rent an apartment, the fact of the matter is that he will get nothing from the government to subsidize his accommodation — nothing. And once he is a renter he will, through his rent, still contribute to the tax burden on the apartment building or home or whatever it is he rents. He will still contribute to the cost of upkeep and maintenance of that dwelling. He will meet all of the expenses, one way or the other, that we meet as homeowners.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): That can't happen.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Of course it can happen.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: The opposition says there is no rental accommodation, so how can you sell your house and rent?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, now, Mr. Chairman, if the Hon. Member for Kamloops wishes to raise that other problem created by this government, and discuss the fact that there isn't any accommodation at all in the Province of British Columbia, I'd be happy to discuss that with him in debate. But I was very carefully leaving that aside from my remarks at the moment.

[ Page 3767 ]

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: There's a 20 per cent vacancy in Kamloops.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The fact of the matter is if anyone wants to go and live in Kamloops, then of course they've got it made, but I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, if you want to go and live in Kamloops and you are a renter, the very best you can get from this government is $100. But if you go to Kamloops and you want to become a homeowner and can afford to do it, this government will give you $200. Now I ask you, Mr. Member for Kamloops, if you think that is fair to the people who may wish to go and live in your constituency.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Do you want to withdraw the homeowner grant?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It is that disparity, MT. Chairman, that I raised with the committee in discussion. I don't want to get into an inflamed debate about this, but I am quite happy to if the case arises. I'm only pointing out that as between two classes of our citizens — home owners and home renters — the government is making an unfortunate distinction, and it is a distinction which is not based upon their contribution to the community.

They all pay their share of taxes. They all pay their share of maintenance and upkeep of the facilities in which they reside, and let the government not be confused about this. The distinction is clearly one, Mr. Chairman, of those who can afford in these days to own their own homes and those who cannot afford to own their own homes, aside from all the other problems. I'm not going to vote against this bill. I welcome the opportunity of making sure that someone who has an income of $4,000 a year or less gets $100 assistance from this government. How can anyone do otherwise? I only point out that in taking away the renter's grant — as was done in another bill — and substituting this, makes it quite clear that the government is highlighting this distinction between these two classes of our citizens.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, it's really the homeowner and the tenant themselves who make the distinction rather than the government. It's the individual involved who decides whether he is going to be a homeowner or whether he is going to be a tenant. It's not always financial. Some people choose to rent. They rent houses, they rent apartments because they choose that lifestyle or because it's convenient because of their work or something else. So it's not simply that we're making a distinction. We are distinguishing in the treatment.

I think it's worth noting also that the community does subsidize renters in a sense in that when you own your own home you pay out of your own earned income, or what's left of it after you pay income tax and everything else, all the costs of maintaining that home. When you rent an apartment, many of the costs of maintaining that apartment and the building of which that apartment is a part are charged against the taxable income of the person — whether that person be an individual or a corporation — and reduce the amount of income tax that is collected.

In a sense the community is already subsidizing people who rent rather than people who own their own homes. I did say earlier that the emphasis on this legislation is to help those in the lower income. It is giving more help to those on lower income than was available under this system last year, and last year was the first year that any assistance was available at all other than the indirect form of assistance that I remarked about.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): On section 3, I wonder if the Minister could give us an indication of how much additional money is expected to be raised by this alteration.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Section 3 is one that has been introduced completely at the request of the federal government to bring it in line with its taxing. It is not intended as a revenue item really; it is just meant to be more equitable treatment of this foreign tax situation. We have to depend on federal calculations and we don't have any federal estimates as to how much this is going to affect either their income or ours.

Section 3 approved.

Sections 4 to 9 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 101, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 106, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 3768 ]

MUNICIPALITIES AID AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

On section 1.

MR. WALLACE: This bill, which only has one section, is really the first step towards correcting some of the inadequacies of the per capita grant — the very system by which the municipalities receive a great deal of their financing. In fact, apart from the property tax which municipalities level against property owners, the per capita grant has to be a major source of funding.

While it is clear that the government is, in some way, trying to rectify the shortfall, as it were, that the municipalities have suffered between 1966 and 1971, I think two points should be made: this really is a very inadequate and partial approach to the problem and the per capita grant, per se, has been discussed time and time again in this House and shown to be an unfair and inadequate way of providing financing to the municipalities. We needn't go through all of the different arguments. Basically, I think it is important to point out that the per capita grant was, in the first place, settled on a very arbitrary figure. I can only gather that as increases have been allowed over the years, the increases have been very arbitrary and have not really taken cognizance of some of the increasing costs of the municipalities in relation to a variety of factors such as inflation and living costs.

Worse than that, of course, as the per capita grant has been increased from year to year it has really not in any way proportionally reflected the increase in revenue of the provincial government. The per capita grant allocations seem to have been very much at the whim of the government of the day. It has gone up from $30 in 1971 to $34 in 1974. This really is a very insubstantial increase. In other words, it is an increase of 13 per cent. As you look at some of the related factors — and I am quoting from the brief which the UBCM recently presented to the government, so these are very recent figures — the total provincial revenues per capita between 1971 and 1976 rose by 138 per cent. The provincial revenues per capita from the personal, corporation, capital, succession and gift taxes rose by 179 per cent. The provincial revenue per capita from sales and fuel taxes rose by 124 per cent. Yet we have this example that the provincial per capita grant rose by 13 per cent.

So this bill, while it will help.... I want to touch on the bill in more detail in just a moment. While the principle of section 1 and the details will help in trying to take cognizance of population changes, it really is doing nothing other than that, being a partial, stop-gap measure. The per capita system itself is really not fair; it is not adequate as between certain municipalities with a large industrial and commercial tax base and other municipalities who are not that fortunate. It also is inadequate because of the arbitrary nature by which the provincial government can choose to increase the grant out of any relationship to provincial government revenues. I won't pursue that argument any further, because we get a little beyond the details of section 1.

To look more specifically at the specifics of section 1, on page 30 of the budget speech the Premier and Minister of Finance about halfway down the first column on page 30 states that by 1976 the loss that the municipalities incurred over the 1966-71 period by virtue of having been paid on the 1966 population count will be totally offset. These are the two particular words I would like to stress — "totally offset." This bill in fact does not do that, because the bill seems to be based on the premise that of those municipalities that did have an increase, the increase in population only increased during 1971. It's quite obvious that the population of the municipalities rose more or less steadily each year over a period of five years. There is a compounding effect, both in terms of the population growth and in recognition of the grant, which did change from year to year.

According to the UBCM — the Minister may choose to question this, but I'm quoting from statistics which they tell me are accurate — "the compounding factor of the year-by-year population increases and the figure increase for the grant...that the government will reimburse municipalities $6.8 million or approximately 60 per cent of the losses which were incurred in the period from 1966 to 1971." The proposal in the UBCM brief was that a formula which averaged out the population increases over the five years and added them cumulatively each year would provide for the other 40 per cent. So we certainly agree that this bill in section 1 is a step in the right direction, but there are two major points which must be made at this time.

First of all, the per capita grant approach to municipal financing has so many disadvantages and is so apparently arbitrary and so unrelated to changing revenues by whatever yardstick, whether we use the yardstick of personal, corporation, capital, succession and gift taxes, or whether we use taxes derived from fuel and sales tax. By either yardstick the situation is unsatisfactory as a measure per se, regardless of any other factor. The trouble is doubled, I might say, by the arbitrary way in which the per capita grant is handled.

Secondly, the commitment made in the budget speech that this bill would provide total offsetting of the losses which have occurred between 1966 and 1971 does not seem to be valid in the terms of section 1. So while I am not speaking against the section, I am just saying that there are two rather

[ Page 3769 ]

basic deficiencies, one of a more general nature in relation to per capita grants per se, and a second which relates more specifically to an apparent inadequacy in the formula outlined in section 1.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker, the Hon. Member for Oak Bay, has certainly outlined the inadequacies of the per capita grant for municipalities. I don't think there is any Member on this side of the House who would disagree with the points he made tonight and which have been made on so many occasions in the past.

A couple of questions for the Minister who is piloting the bill, the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich). Would this catch-up per capita payment be added to the monthly payments which are sent out by the province to the various municipalities, or is it seen that this would be handled in a one- or two-step lump-sum payment through the course of the year in question?

Secondly, perhaps the Minister would care to comment on reports I have received very recently which suggest that the government is just a little delinquent in its payments — not seriously delinquent, but I think the May per capita payments to municipalities were perhaps 10 days or two weeks late. That may be a minor mechanical problem; if so, I would be reassured by that. The June payments have not yet been received in most cases.

While there are inadequacies, as I mentioned a moment ago, these monthly payments are particularly important, particularly so during the first part of the calendar year when municipalities are operating on borrowed money, by and large — that is, they are waiting for their tax revenues which come in in the summer months. If the Minister could comment on those two points, I would appreciate it.

HON. MR. STUPICH: If I might respond to the remarks from the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) first. Admittedly, there is no compounding in that. Of course, in reading the passage from the budget speech, it is a matter of how you read it. We interpret it that this legislation is doing what we said it would do. In fairness — and when I am talking about the Hon. Member for Oak Bay, I feel can say "in fairness" because I think he is trying to be fair and does invariably try to be fair — we have to be careful we don't take this thing in isolation. There are other features, other programmes that we have undertaken to assist municipalities. While the increase in the per capita grants in the last three years might be only 13 per cent, this particular provision, which will amount to about $6.8 million, added to the absolutely new provision of $20 million that is provided this year will actually give us a 42 per cent increase over what would have been paid to the municipalities if there had been no changes in this one year. In those two areas there is quite a substantial increase, apart from other programmes that are going on to assist municipalities. So there is a substantial increase. There is no compounding; that is the way the legislation reads.

As far as the payments — whether it is going to be paid monthly or how — it will be paid over the remaining months of the year, that is, the months remaining after this legislation becomes law. There is delay from time to time. I really don't like to blame delays or anything else on computers; it is people who work computers. Sometimes there is delay because of things like that. In this particular instance, there was some deliberate holdup in anticipation that.... You know, some people seemed to have some crazy idea that the House was going to adjourn. It just didn't happen. It was felt by the administration in the Finance department that we would have adjourned by now and that the payments for April and May could have included a portion of this $6.8 million. That didn't happen, so the payments were finally authorized on the old basis. Hopefully, if we adjourn before the time for the next bi-monthly payment, it will include it. If not, well, then, perhaps the next time around.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Give it to them for Christmas.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 106, Municipalities Aid Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 122.

MINING TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 122 1; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the

[ Page 3770 ]

committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 122, Mining Tax Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 140.

STRATA TITLES AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, last year there was a complete rewriting of the Strata Titles Act. I think it is a tribute to the legislative council, the input from the real property division of the bar association, and others, that such a tremendous overhaul of the Strata Titles Act, and embodying some new sections and concepts, such as space strata title plans and other innovations, were able to come in without too much criticism or comment.

There have been a few minor changes in interpretation. The major change in this bill would be the not restricting of the definition of "municipality" — that is, no longer to exclude village municipalities as an approving authority under the Act.

Most of the other changes are towards a clarification of the original intent which may have been there legally, but has been put into clearer legal definition. I think the bulk of the Act would be best discussed in committee stage, So I would move second reading.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, we agree with the Minister of Housing — this is a fairly lengthy bill and is more appropriately dealt with in committee stage.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 140, Strata Titles Amendment Act, 197 5, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave of the House to move to Committee of Supply, permitting debate.

Leave granted.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT
OF HUMAN RESOURCES
(continued)

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

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I won't occupy too much of the committee's time here tonight, but I have a few questions to ask the Minister.

I believe the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) brought up Indian land claims, and I heard his answer that they're finally going to have a meeting with the Government of Canada and, I assume, the B.C. Indian chiefs here next week.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): On the cut-offs.

MR. FRASER: On the cut-off lands — that's fine. But I would like to ask what Mr. Howard is doing. He was engaged by your department as an adviser on Indian affairs, and I'd like to know what he's doing. How much is he getting paid and how much has he got around to the communities of British Columbia? In my riding of Cariboo, we have lots of native Indians — about 5,000 of them. They're all good citizens, but there's lots of games going on. We have an area west of Nazko, and that's been held up for over a year. Logging camps proceed in a large area there west of this community for 70 miles. At Alexis Creek, which is in the Chilcotin, there's some logging stopped there. Most recently, from Redstone, in the central part of the Chilcotin, notification has been given by that band to all the cattlemen with legal grazing permits — not like Lloyd Bennett, who didn't have a legal grazing permit, that I brought up in the House.... Their turnout date there for the cattle was, I believe, the latter part of May, and those permits are valid until sometime in the latter part of September, but the Redstone band has given notification to every cattleman under permit to get his animals off the Crown range by June 20. I think that's tomorrow. They don't say what they're going to do about it, but I want to advise the Minister that these cattle people are really concerned. I think it involves 3,000 or 4,000 head of beef animals under permit from the grazing division of the Forest Service, and it's quite legal. They're told to get their cattle off the range by June 20, which as I say is tomorrow.

In this general area of Redstone, there is a good lake called Puntzi Lake. It's excellent for fishing. There are a lot of fishing resorts on there, and the same Indian band has told them to desist and stop fishing the lake. The resort owners are concerned

[ Page 3771 ]

because the natives say that they own the fish in the lake and no one is to continue fishing there again after June 20.

What I'm trying to point out to the Minister before he has the discussions next week is that we already have a very aggravated problem here. I really think that what the natives want is some discussions with government, but it is getting serious. That's all I have to say on the Indian land claim problem that this Minister's responsible for.

I have two or three questions to ask regarding Human Resources. I would like to refer to day-care centres. I would like to know the policy of the department on recovery of day-care centre costs from the parent or parents. What is the policy of collection? Is there any attempt made to collect? I am referring to parents who can afford to pay. What kind of an attempt is made for recovery?

That leads me to another subject in his department that I have only recently come across. That is the subject of Mincome. I would like to hear from the Minister how big an effort this department is making to recover Mincome from people who have already been paid it. I refer to cases where a person on Mincome leaves British Columbia in November or December to go to Alberta to visit with his son or daughter for Christmas and stays on probably until March or April and then comes back to British Columbia. The permanent home has not changed at all; it is still here, although in the cases I have heard they are single people. Now they are being harassed by the Department of Human Resources for recovery of the Mincome that was paid them because they have been out of the province for a period of probably not more than four months. I would like to know the policy on that. The parties I have talked to can get nothing in writing. All they get is insulting phone calls from the Department of Human Resources demanding return of this money. So much for that.

I congratulated the Minister, I believe it was last year, when he reduced the welfare costs to municipalities from 15 per cent to 10 per cent. But I have some documentation to show me that even with this reduction in percentage of net cost, the cost to municipalities is up in dollars. There are not too many cases, but I think the worst I have in front of me that I could point out was in the year 1973. I wish the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) were here to bring this up.

I understand these are net costs that I'm talking about. In 1973 it was $594,261. Even after the reduction from 15 to 10 per cent, in 1974 their costs had spiraled to $749,284.

Surrey shows a slight increase from $1,707,000 to $1,844,000. Burnaby shows a slight increase from $1,947,000 to $2,008,000, and so on down the line.

Certainly the worst one that is on this sheet I have shows a 50 per cent increase in costs to the City of Kamloops. I realize there was a boundary change that probably had something to do with that. I would like to hear from the Minister on these few items I have raised.

In conclusion, does he feel that the costs of welfare to municipalities and the reduction from 15 to 10 per cent is because of inflated costs and is it due for a review so it will stop their costs from going higher than it even was before?

HON. MR. LEVI: The Member initially asked about the situation with the Nazko. The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) is on his way up there tonight to meet with 15 bands tomorrow. That meeting was arranged over the past several weeks.

MR. FRASER: Where are they meeting, do you know?

HON. MR. LEVI: In Williams Lake. It is being held tomorrow, and he left tonight to attend. You were aware of that. Discussions will take place tomorrow.

You asked about the work that Frank Howard does, Along with Mr. Filipchin from the Attorney-General's department he has been doing the research that was needed to put together, particularly with respect to the cut-off lands. He was also meeting on a regular basis with a number of the representatives from the two Indian organizations — that is, BCANSI and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. He has also visited a number of bands at their request.

We have not in any way sent Mr. Howard on an investigation trip. We had an agreement with the Indians that they would request from us the kinds of services they required, and a number of them did. He has been involved in the Port Simpson development situation. When he was back in Ottawa he had discussions with the Department of Fisheries when we were attempting to get more licences for the cannery. He has been involved in discussions on the Burns Lake Native Development Corp. He has a continuing role in a number of these things. His salary was, I think, announced publicly, and I think it is $30,000 a year.

You asked about day-care centres and recovery from parents. You will know that in the annual report, on page 30, there is a series of statements about day care.

We have an income-tested and needs-tested programme which is based on the income of the family where we have a sliding scale and the scale is in the report. So we are not paying, in some cases, all of the day-care costs; we are only paying a subsidy, part of the costs. There is a level at which people pay no costs at all and that's usually on the very low-income

[ Page 3772 ]

level, particularly people on social assistance. There are people, of course, paying full costs in day care — people who utilize the private day care. But there is an income-tested and needs-tested programme within that. It's the only one that exists in Canada at the moment. Other provinces are attempting to get to get into it.

What we've been able to do is to move the number of people that can use the programme beyond what previously existed, which was only at the welfare level. So we've made that kind of expansion. It's on an income-tested programme, basically, so it's based on the needs in terms of their net income. There are a number of things that are taken into account. There is no recovery as such, but neither are there full payments where people can pay some of it. So it's on that basis.

On the question of the Mincome people who leave the province, there is a policy that if someone leaves the province they receive a cheque in the month that they leave, then cheques are stopped, and they receive a cheque again when they return. I mentioned earlier this afternoon that we are making somewhere around 8,000 corrections and adjustments to our Mincome programme — that's the total Mincome and handicapped programme — every month. Some of this involves people who are leaving, who've notified us. Some people do not notify us. Some people work out some arrangement. That's very difficult to track down. I am concerned about the Member's statement that people were getting insulting remarks. If that is the case I'd certainly like to know about it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, I'd certainly like to know about the cases because we've spent quite a bit of time in the department improving the PR. As a result we get a large number of letters from people either laying complaints or making compliments, and we try to follow them all up, so I would be happy to hear from the Member on that.

On the municipal costs, the Member did answer the question himself about Kamloops. There was the incorporation which led to the increased costs because two other municipalities were incorporated.

The general situation is this. You'll recall that last July we did increase the welfare rates by $20 to each group. That does reflect an increase for the municipalities on their 10 per cent. The caseloads, as I reported last year, were climbing somewhat; therefore the caseloads do reflect an increase. We will be able to have the final figures for this year, and I think they're very much in terms of what we predicted and not, as far as we can see, anything over last year. They were perhaps within it, but I don't think they're over. We haven't got the final figures and won't have probably for another few weeks, but then we will release them. I think before the UBCM meets we'll make that available.

We're not aware that it's exceeded the amount of money paid last year, but certainly inflation has caused some problems with the economic situation for the number of people that are coming on and going off welfare. Particularly, the increase there is in the family units where inflation hits the hardest. The single person situation has held fairly firm.

The Surrey situation, again, is a particular problem. I talked about it this morning. There people have access to lower rental housing and people are moving out there, and that is a problem. I was talking the other day to the Vancouver opportunities people — the incentive programme in Vancouver — and they have an average of 250 to 300 people who go off the programme and move out to places like Burnaby, Surrey and the Delta area. Certainly Surrey has a particular problem in this area. I think they have a very high incidence of people who are on welfare.

I think, if I'm not mistaken, I've covered all the questions. I would like just before I sit down to make some comment. The Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) made some reference this afternoon to the question of Mincome and the regulations. I just want to assure the House that nothing has changed in respect to eligibility. He was reading from the regulations and he quoted 5(l)(f), which says:

"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 an excess of an additional $300 for each additional dependent."

I have as much trouble as anybody else understanding what that says. When we first introduced Mincome we made no reference to the length of stay in the country. Then we made the decision but instituted a kind of a close monitoring system so that the Mincome programme was not being used to attract people from other countries. Subsequently, when we noted the trend we put on the freeze, and a provision was made that an individual had to reside in Canada five years in order to be eligible for Mincome. We made that change, because in reality we were interfering a little bit with the Department of Immigration provision of sponsored and nominated immigration.

It was necessary to provide and this is the section that the Member raised through social assistance for persons 60 years of age or over who, for one reason or another — mainly because of the length of their stay in Canada — did not qualify for Mincome. Those people over the age of 60 would then have access to social assistance. It is that regulation that he was referring to.

[ Page 3773 ]

In April, 1974, we issued a memo in respect to this to the field, subsequently followed up, on May 28, by another one. Then what we have done is to incorporate it in the regulations. So there is no change other than what I announced in the regulations. When I was talking to some of the press, I said that we were incorporating some policies which had been adopted, and which had not previously been incorporated into the regulations. There is no change at all in the eligibility of the Mincome programme. I am sorry that the Member isn't here, but I will make available to him a copy of the memo.

MR. WALLACE: I don't want to be repetitious. Maybe the Minister has notes of some of the questions I asked just prior to noon hour, but there were one or two points I wanted to develop. I am referring particularly to social assistance initially.

It is interesting that in the Minister's annual report, on page 62, he mentions that higher social assistance rates have had some effect in extending eligibility to borderline income recipients not previously eligible. Often these recipients are men and women who work full-time, but at less than adequate wages. I presume the Minister is referring to people on minimum income.

HON. MR. LEVI: Low-income families.

MR. WALLACE: We know that 40 per cent of the work force are the sector that receives minimum wage, or little more than minimum wage. We have talked many times about incentives and disincentives. This is part of the area about which I wanted to question the Minister.

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

In the first place, I particularly want to discuss the question of the $50 earnings for a single person and $100 for a family on welfare. In our party we believe that there is a tremendous challenge waiting to be taken up to try and get some of these marginal people once and for all out of the in-and-out welfare system. Again, to be fair, the steps that have been taken of $50 and $100 are steps in the right direction.

But, as the Minister himself has said, that 15 per cent of employables are not all the same group. Some of them are on for a month or two and then they are off; they are in and out. When I spoke this morning, I wanted to ask the Minister his reaction to the feasibility of, let us say, a five-year transitional period when we try to eliminate welfare for that 15 per cent who are employable and who, with the right programmes of training, employment and incentives need never be on welfare.

This basically will certainly be this party's approach to welfare in the next provincial election.

We are convinced that this is a much more productive plan in the long run. It makes sense. I am very interested to know if there are any basic reasons that the government has found in implementing its plans as to why this proposal cannot work. I am talking, essentially, about the 15 per cent who are employable and who are on and off welfare frequently.

I want to make it very plain that we are not referring to the 85 per cent who, if anything, should be receiving benefits tied to the cost of living or consumer price index or some schedule. The 85 per cent who are handicapped or disabled in some way or other, and will always require the community support, should have their benefits tied to some indicator, possibly the consumer price index.

For the other 15 per cent we have to ask the question: why is there always this 15 per cent when we know that they are employable? I would like to make the point that we wonder how much of the problem is due to lack of co-ordination and planning in relation to population shifts between provinces and between this province and other countries in the form of immigration. Could we not start out by looking at the 15 per cent of the people of this province who are now here and attempt to undertake intensive programmes of education and retraining? Then at the same time give some kind of financial subsidy and incentives and, if possible, allow them part-time jobs if these can be found. In other words, I am talking about a sort of combination of school, work and welfare, and if necessary, all three at the same time, but with individual approach.

The training may be full-time. But when the training is completed, maybe a period of financial subsidy is needed until they really get on their feet — until they can perhaps save a few dollars or acquire some furniture and assets. So often it seems they just get retraining or they get a job and for some limited period of time they manage to stay away from welfare, but then something happens and they're back into the same basic problem. In other words, the point I'm trying to express is the apparent failure of societies to deal with that section of people who, with a longer range plan combining perhaps training, work and social assistance over a longer period of time than has ever been attempted, could perhaps give them a better chance of being permanently self-reliant, employed persons.

The kind of thing I'm saying in more specific terms: first of all, should the $50 for the single person and the $100 for the family not be increased? Should there not be newer programmes to assist in accessory ways, not just by the $50 and the $100, but by other forms of incentive which could be translated into dollar terms and which would exceed the present $1,500 limits? I think that that is one essential approach that we might take.

The second is this whole question of population

[ Page 3774 ]

shift. If this five-year transitional period is looked at seriously, one has also to consider what happens at the end of the five-year period, This also relates to the whole question of who qualifies for the intensive programming during the five-year period. I'm not as satisfied as the Minister is about the help we get from the federal government. I went home and read the paper tonight, and here's a delightful headline which I think just proves my point exactly. In the Victoria Times tonight, June 19 — Manpower Minister Robert Andras — a big headline: "Jobless Not Pressured To Take Unwanted Jobs."

I'm all in favour of helping people to get out of the rut they're in — if they're in a rut — to retrain them, give them help, get them on their feet and try and give them help for as long as they need it to really be on their feet, but this kind of approach by the federal government really is not much help to this province. If we have any number of people coming into this province without training, without jobs and with really no economic future, and we have the federal government saying, "Never mind, we'll make various funds available, whether it's unemployment insurance or whatever," then it seems to me the province is trying to take a responsible position but it's not really getting much help federally.

That leads me to the next point. Would we not be better to pull out of the Canada Assistance Plan, despite the financial disadvantages in the short haul, and try to tailor our own programmes on a long-term basis along some of the directions that I have just mentioned?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Isolationist!

MR. WALLACE: No, I am not an isolationist. I believe very strongly in one Canada and in the spirit of Confederation, but I am wondering if in the light of some of the facts and figures and some of the statements, such as this statement by Mr. Andras, if this province would not be better in this particular area of its problems at least to opt out of Canada Assistance and try to develop its own programmes and divide more clearly provincial and federal responsibilities. To go back to the concept of an intensive five-year programme of training people and subsidizing them, at the end of that five years there would just be no social assistance for people who choose to come here from other parts of Canada without some job training or without some capacity to support themselves.

If the federal government wants to take a less responsible attitude, then these people would have to depend entirely on the federal funding programme.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Impossible! They can't be less responsible.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister of Housing says they can't be less responsible. But I often think the federal government feels that just as long as they say to the provincial Ministers that there are X millions of dollars, they seem to think it's like throwing a dog a bone. The dog will go away for a little while and it won't be another six months till you come back for another bone. I don't like that approach.

I'm not sure that, in total, all the dollars that are going into the pot federally are really being put to the best use as far as we're concerned here in British Columbia. I know it's more complicated than I just made it sound, but we neither have the time nor the forum to go into all the specific details. It seems to me that it's probably time we did take a fresh look at the possibilities I've outlined.

Mr. Andras said, for example...he told a senate committee examining federal Manpower policies that: "'The government will not force workers to accept jobs they do not want.' Andras said: 'It is the duty of employers and industry to ensure that jobs are attractive in terms of pay and working conditions.'"

I agree; that's a very noble motive. I think we're all trying to reach that goal. But in the meantime, the Minister said this morning that every effort is made to find a person a job. If certain jobs are available and they're at least minimum wage and the conditions of work are adequate, then they are expected to work and they don't get welfare. I agree with that entirely.

But after hearing that this morning and then you open the newspaper tonight and find that the federal attitude is almost 180 degrees in the other direction, one has to wonder just what our provincial-federal relationships really are in relation to this whole business of cost-sharing in the matter of social assistance and Manpower programmes.

I mentioned to the Minister this morning that I certainly know of cases where we have thoroughly well-trained, employable people, such as the individual that I quoted the other day in this House, a mining millwright in his early 50s who just can't find a job anywhere. He's just been all over the place. He's very conscientious in trying to find a job. He doesn't want welfare. Yet this kind of man, because of a health problem, can no longer work in the mines and he just can't find any reasonable alternative job.

So I think that the Minister perhaps could comment on that very big area, and just where we would be if we opted out of the Canada Assistance Plan, and what the potential would be to go our own way and develop some more attractive alternative, specifically the training, plus job, plus welfare for graded periods of time. I don't know how long that period of time would last — three months, six months, or what — after the person completed training and got a job. It could be even on the job if it's a minimum-wage or low-paying job, some subsidy perhaps on a diminishing basis over a period of six

[ Page 3775 ]

months, nine months or a year to really get them on their feet. This business of stop-gap minimum props for a very limited period of time, I think, is the main reason that so many people have to return to the welfare treadmill.

The question of Mincome has been raised. I just want to ask one or two questions. Again it's in principle and relates to my attitude to social assistance. The Minister received a letter from a gentleman in Chilliwack back in May. This gentleman pointed out very clearly the injustice towards the person just above the Mincome level who works and tries hard and saves a few bucks and is just above that level. This man in the specific example we have — he's a retired man — went to work for three months at $2.50 an hour as a janitor, saved $700 so that they could buy a new range and a new water heater. But this income and some interest from earnings just put him over the level, and they finished up being billed $30 for income tax by the federal government.

Again, I think we must try and find programmes where it isn't black or white, all or none. You either get Mincome and do pretty well.... He goes on to point out that even in terms of the premiums for Medicare, 80 per cent of that is provided to the person on Mincome. Yet he and his wife pay their own premium.

So there's this unhappy situation where if you just qualify for Mincome, you get many benefits, don't pay income tax, and yet someone just above the level who shows a willingness to do a little bit of extra work, earns a very limited number of dollars, finishes up being taxed on it. It seems to me that there again it's like social assistance. You should not just be on it or off it. There has to be an intermediate zone between dependence on the social assistance and self-reliance, and that has to be related to money as well as time.

On the other side of the coin, the Minister back in January announced that some persons were putting their savings in non-revenue-producing accounts in order to qualify for Mincome, but to leave their assets intact. I wonder if the Minister could tell us what the outcome of that inquiry has been.

One of the other points that comes out in the annual report in relation to the senior citizen is the B.C. Hydro bus pass. I notice that we're talking in terms of something like $135,000. The number of passes issued in November 1974 was almost 27,000 at $5 a time. When you think what the bus pass really means to the senior citizen, not just the money but the mobility and the contact with the outside world as it were, it just seems to me that $135,000 is pretty small potatoes in a budget of $516 million, although admittedly the money is rebated to the B.C. Hydro. But there again, when we think about the fantastic sums of money that are involved in B.C. Hydro's operation and capital expenditures, it just seems to me that $135,000 is really peanuts. I wonder whether we shouldn't look at the possibility of just giving the senior citizen free bus transit and never mind the $5 pass. I wonder if the Minister has given any thought to that.

Part of the Minister's report also deals with what he calls mobility grants. This deals with repatriation of people from British Columbia, sometimes back to the country of their origin. On page 64, I notice that the sum mentioned is only $21,000 to assist recipients in returning to other provinces and other countries, when indicated, because of social reasons. I wonder if the Minister could outline more specifically some of the criteria that are used in deciding when recipients should be repatriated. This is an area of the Minister's responsibility that I don't remember seeing recorded in previous annual reports. This may have been done in previous years, but again in congratulating the Minister on the depth of this annual report, here is a paragraph that I don't recall seeing in previous years.

Could the Minister tell us if that number is on the increase, and whether or not in fact we are making any presentation, as a provincial government, to hearings on immigration, for example? I gather from the statement on repatriation that already we are paying for the return of certain recipients of social assistance to the country where they originated, and according to this section it states that this is done because of social reasons.

I notice that this also relates to the returning of citizens to other provinces in Canada. Could the Minister give us some kind of breakdown?

I also would like some specific facts about the payment of Mincome to patients in extended-care hospitals. I was nothing short of amazed to hear the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) suggest this morning that when a patient is in an extended-care hospital the government should provide adequate financing to pay Mincome to the patient in the hospital, and also enough financing that the patient's home or apartment could be maintained.

Now once again, if money grew on trees and we could have an endless amount of money to provide all these services, then that might be feasible. But I have to say for the 999th time that when we have people in this province in need of certain levels of care and attention in the so-called....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would remind the Hon. Members that there is a Member speaking. Order, please.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I realize that only the Minister is listening, but that, at least, is better than nobody listening, I guess.

But when we have segments of our society in need and not receiving any help for whatever reason —

[ Page 3776 ]

financial help I mean — then I think it would be ridiculous for the government to try and take on the responsibility of paying Mincome in extended-care hospitals, and providing enough financing to maintain an empty home or an empty apartment. It shows a complete lack of awareness by the Liberal leader as to what this whole business of extended care and intermediate care is all about. If we are going to start pleading for that kind of situation, then I just throw up my hands in futility that we are ever going to cope with the problem of intermediate care.

I think again using the Minister's own words, the money has to be moved around and some of the money that is being put forward in Mincome payments for extended-care patients should be made available to finance the cost of nursing-home care, at least in part.

I wasn't clear as to how much a person in an extended-care hospital, otherwise eligible for Mincome, is now receiving. I understand that for a person receiving social assistance in a nursing home, the payment monthly, is $25 for so-called comforts or extras. I just would like to know what the situation is now regarding a person eligible for Mincome who is accommodated in an extended-care hospital.

The Minister pointed out that they no longer receive the $238 a month. What I would like to know is: what do they receive in terms of cash per month when they are in an extended-care hospital? To be very explicit, I am referring to the person who otherwise, if they could live in their apartment, would be getting $238. They move into an extended-care hospital, what do they now get per month?

I just want to ask quickly about the handicapped. The Minister set up an advisory committee, and we were all privileged to meet with some of the handicapped people in the Victoria Inn reception the other day. I got the impression in speaking to them that they are not satisfied with the rate at which progress is being made, and that many of their requests do not, in their view, involve capital expenditures or involve changing attitudes by the community at large.

I wonder if the Minister could give us a brief report on how he believes progress is being made on behalf of the handicapped.

On day care, I did ask this question and I don't think the Minister fully appreciated what I was trying to pin down. That was the question of subsidy being based on net income and the way in which net income is calculated. There are certain payroll deductions in certain forms of employment which involve money to be put aside for Canada Savings Bonds or various pension plans or other forms of investment by the employee. I have been told, rightly or wrongly, that these payments can be taken into account before the net income is calculated. If this is the case I would have to disagree very strongly, because while there is every reason to encourage efficient and appropriate day-care centres I think we have to be careful that we don't spend money foolishly by unnecessary subsidy. If both parents are working and earning a reasonable income and having their children subsidized in a day-care centre I think again we are going overboard in one direction. If somebody is able to put aside savings and have the net income calculated after the savings have been deducted from their gross pay, then I think we have to take a long look at that. I wonder if the Minister is quite confident that this is not happening. Could he, perhaps, in answering my question define the specific deductions that can be used in calculating net income?

The last point I wanted to ask the Minister is his most up-to-date information on progress to combat child abuse. There are interesting figures published in this annual report. Of course, we have the up-coming meeting on the best ways in which we can provide an overall programme for children, but I wonder if he has any up-to-date information on the progress. Is there any apparent reduction in the incidence of child abuse? To what degree did the legislation which protected physicians and other people from reporting suspected cases lead to an increase in the reporting of cases?

HON. MR. LEVI: I would like to answer the Member because he asked a lot of questions.

On the child abuse, one of the effects of the legislation has been that more doctors are now making use of the reporting process. I think that is a positive thing. I don't think one can say that there is a decline in child abuse. One of the things we have not had in the province but are now developing is a mechanism for people to report this in an adequate way. That is now being developed.

We are also working in cooperation with Dr. Israels and Dr. Siegel in that unit in the Vancouver General Hospital which has been set aside for abused babies and some children. In Vancouver we now have a provincial co-coordinator of the whole business of child abuse. We are now looking and will be making some moves towards the Zenith line operation. We have looked very closely at the Alberta situation. Since introducing the Zenith line they have had some 180 calls a month. Those are cases to be investigated.

There is no doubt that when we are able to move to a Zenith line affecting the whole province we will get a large number of calls. Whether or not this will reflect an increase many of the calls do not necessarily check out I am much more confident than I was a year ago about the kinds of moves we are making in respect to the business of child abuse. We have the thing much better co-ordinate. We have

[ Page 3777 ]

people in the field and we are gradually moving towards having a system. I would aim to have a system that is certainly as good as what is in Alberta and get into the kind of system they have in California.

With respect to day care, I would draw the Member's attention to page 32 of the annual report which does lay out the day-care formula system, the contribution system. At the bottom you will notice there are a couple of examples. One of them is two parents and three children in a family with a net income of $640 per month. The day-care centre charges would be $120 for the child; if there were two children in day care the family pays $5 a month for one child and nothing for the second child. It is based on net income but we do not consider investment in bonds or savings plans in the company. We consider that income. That is not exempted.

We do look at the debt structure to some extent, bearing in mind that the most significant number of people using day care on the subsidy programme are single women with children, many of whom formerly were on welfare. In the Vancouver area approximately 70 per cent of all the subsidy programme is paid to women who were formerly on welfare and who are now working but are working at a sufficiently low level of income that they need the subsidy. In my estimation that is an extremely good investment in dollars.

If you wanted to take all of the people on welfare — and the programme runs to $13.6 million for the day-care programme — and all of those people did not have access to day-care and couldn't work, then your welfare bill could be double or triple that amount, because that is usually what the situation is.

We are continuing to examine the subsidy system. We have made some changes to the programme in relation to in-home day care. We have now restricted it to people who are working. Again, we are doing this to move the money around to look at the effective programmes. We do have some problems in terms of group day care. We now have to look at the kinds of facilities which sort of have to be built from the ground up because there is no space available any more in church basements, and the standards regulate the kind of structures that children get into. While we have in the province at the moment approximately 290 group day-care centres — that is an increase of 170 over the past two years — I think that we would like to see a much more specific move to in-home day care, family day care, after-school day care, because we get into very high capital costs in terms of the centres that have to be constructed.

I opened one the other day, along with the mayor of Vancouver in Vancouver, which was a joint operation. They put up 60 per cent of the money; we put up 40. It is an ideal building for some 32 children, 12 under-threes and 20 over-threes. But it is not something we could replicate all over unless we had that kind of sharing with the local government.

We have made some changes in the day-care system. We have not in any way cut back the money. What we have done is to move the money around into what we feel are perhaps more effective alternatives, particularly in relation to those people who are attempting to work. At the same time, we are not ignoring the fact that some children whose parents are not working sometimes have a very special need for day care. That is made available.

At all times the day-care programme is based on the needs of children. It is not based on the needs of the parents. Certainly I think it has been successful in getting many, many people off welfare, particularly women who were stuck in the welfare situation.

On the Mincome thing, we now have 75 summer students in the field who are doing the interviews for the imputed assets. That is, we are going to people whom we feel, on the basis of their earlier applications, have assets on which there needs to be an imputed income, possible because they have got them in non-interest-bearing accounts. This process is going on. Hopefully in September we will be able to have a report on what success we have had in explaining the regulations to some people — we don't know how many. I would probably think that there are less than 1,000 that we will see when we finally get through. We will say that they have $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000 in a non-interest-bearing account. We will say that that will yield 5, 6 or 7 per cent, whatever the appropriate amount is. That will be pro-rated over 12 months and that will have to come off the Mincome.

It is the same situation with the extended care. While on Mincome, extended-care people received a total of $239. The only costs they actually have are $30, the $1-per-day fee in extended care. The rest is put into their trust account. What we have done is to not pay Mincome to the extended-care patients.

I agree with the Member about the Liberal leader's comments. That really reflects a kind of class distinction, where he is talking about somebody who is getting service from the government and wants to maintain an apartment. We have done that. There is of course the comforts allowance for people.... But that relates to people who are on the welfare situation and not the extended care.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: We don't pay them Mincome at all now when they are in extended care. That has stopped. The last cheque was issued in May. They, of course, still get OAS-GIS and that goes into a trust account for them. They are universal programmes and whether one wants to see that kind of situation go on is something that is perhaps so political that nobody

[ Page 3778 ]

wants to discuss it. But when you are spending a large amount of money on extended care with government funds, you begin to wonder whether it is a desirable kind of thing to spend that large amount of money to build up people's trust accounts, which really wind up going to the children. It is a very interesting situation which should be discussed. But it is very sensitive politically.

I read with some interest the suggestion by the Conservative Party about looking at a five-year approach to phasing out welfare. In 1969 I made a speech in this House about the whole business of whether we could go to a five-year budgetary programme on welfare. At that time I talked about projecting costs of welfare over five years, which would have come to, over five years ago back in 1969, about $200 million. I suggested that we would take the last two-fifths, which would be something on the order of almost $80 million, and use that for a whole series of developments, both in developing small businesses and employment, in training, in day-care, and that kind of thing.

The other day I was speaking to some people in the faculty of the social work school at the university and said that I would like to see some policy development around alternate ways of spending almost $200 million of welfare money which we are into in this kind of situation now. Bear in mind that, as the Member pointed out, over 85 per cent of these people have no other options; they are not employable, and this kind of thing. But to spend large amounts of money in that way.... Future costs look like they are going to increase; they are not going to decline. We are still going to have to deal with a lot of problems.

We really do have to look at some more significant ways of dealing with large amounts of money, but you can't do it over a year. You have to somehow be able to do it over three or four years. The thing is that I would not relate that kind of programme just to single people. There are many, many people on welfare, particularly family heads — again, particularly women — who want to get off welfare. Unfortunately, the federal government's approach to guaranteed income is a categorization where they say: "We'll take the old age pensioners, we'll take the single parents and we'll take the handicapped and put them over there and give them a guaranteed income," which kind of locks them into that kind of situation. That's not really the way to go; we shouldn't lock anybody in. We are getting now a lot of response from seniors that they don't just want to be on the shelf — they want to take a much more active part in things. But given the unemployment situation, we have to make choices between whether we can make employment available with some pay for seniors and what we do about that 40 per cent under the age of 25 who have no employment.

In terms of the hard-to-place recipient, there is now the community employment programme, a Department of Labour-Department of Human Resources-federal Manpower programme pilot project, operating in Nanaimo and Kamloops. That is directed particularly at the hard-to-place employee, particularly around the welfare recipient. We are working closely with that; we will look to see what kind of results we will get from that.

The Member might be interested that in terms of people on unemployment, there is a figure in the book which relates to the number of people...at the bottom of page 63, table 26: "The number of social assistance cases closed during 1974 as a result of persons obtaining gainful employment." You'll notice the total figure is some 27,000 cases.

I think that it is important to re-emphasize that contrary to what the popular believe out there is — I don't deny for a moment that we have some trouble with a few people — those kinds of figures do indicate that there is a great deal of movement through the system. The difficulty in terms of the employment and the planning is that we have had to pick up some of the slack because Manpower has not been doing it. All right, that's changing, but their programmes have been constantly changing. We've probably got, I think, at least 30 people in the field who do nothing else but job finding, That's a rather inappropriate task for the kind of thing we're doing, but we find that it pays off to do it and we do do it.

We have a very successful operation, particularly in the greater Victoria area, on employment placement and the kind of thing I talked about this morning where we are now interviewing families about whether they would want to move to secure jobs, secure housing and that kind of thing. We would like to do more of that. There is no compulsion about it; we are interviewing people on the basis of their suitability.

You talked earlier, when you were talking about a new approach to welfare, about opting out of the Canada Assistance Plan. Well, if we opted out of the Canada Assistance Plan on social assistance, we'd have to come up with another $80 million of provincial money because we get a 50 per cent sharing. If you look at the total budget for this year relating it to the Canada Assistance Plan, that figure goes up to about $170 million. I don't see that we should ever consider opting out of the Canada Assistance Plan because, after all, this province pays as much, or more in many cases, income tax to the federal Treasury and we should have access to those dollars.

What I'm not particularly happy with is the kind of thing that's going on with the provincial-federal discussions about income security review where there appears to be a tendency — this was really identified by Quebec at the last provincial meeting at the end of April, and I've raised it a number of times — of the

[ Page 3779 ]

intrusion of the federal people into the provincial area, particularly around these programmes. You may know that they have an idea that what they'd like to do is do the income supplementation for the low income working poor, but have it as a federally-administered programme. I am on record as saying that I was never very impressed with some of the programmes that they administer. But that is an intrusion.

I think, as I've argued down there, that we are in a much better position to administer programmes, to do the planning. We're here on the ground floor and we have staff. The federal government has no staff that is delivering welfare services. They only have staff that does grants and does all sorts of reviews. They're not into the line-service operation.

No, I would not like to see us get out of the Canada Assistance Plan process. We have rejected the idea of tax points in lieu of that because that really is very harmful to the have-not provinces. But we do need to have a much better understanding by the federal government, really, about the kinds of problems we have provincially.

MR. WALLACE: Because they cost-share, they want to call decisions.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, yes. Mind you, one thing we can say is that they've become very twitchy about B.C. because we have developed a number of new programmes. We have increased the amount of revenue in terms of cost-sharing revenue in the province and they are looking at us now. We moved into the day-care area, which is a substantial programme; we have moved into the retarded area — it has been transferred into the department. That whole programme is cost-shared. We have developed more in terms of cost-sharing around halfway houses for mental patients, for the retarded — also in some of the intermediate-care areas where we're into that kind of cost-sharing. So they're looking and seeing that we are making as much use as we can of the Canada Assistance Plan. Certainly, by opting out, as a province you could not afford it.

There were a couple of other questions. I think this morning you asked about the 15 child-care workers that were attached to a programme in Victoria. I am, as a matter of fact, seeing those people tomorrow, but this relates to the Special Services for Children Programme.

We have instituted guidelines. The programme will not be as rich as it was for some people who had a very rich programme. We are simply saying to them that we just cannot continue to operate that way. We're not faulting them in a sense, but we did tell them well over a year ago that guidelines would be brought in, and that there would be some closing-in of the programme. I'm not at all unhappy with the way that the programme has gone; the kind of facts that are here in the report that we quoted from have shown that the programme is a good one. But we obviously can't operate it in the kind of expansive way that some people want. As a matter of fact, I will be meeting with this group tomorrow morning to discuss it.

The Island Youth Centre, formerly Brannan Lake, has undergone some changes. Contrary to some reports, it's never been closed down. It's been regionalized. It's responsible for taking children on the island, and we have an arrangement to take up to 20 or 25 children, depending on what the pressure is, from the Vancouver-Burnaby area. What we have there at the moment are 40 children in the resident situation. We have another 40 children who are coming in on a day basis. In terms of staff, there are some staff vacancies.

What we've attempted to do there, is stop the previous revolving-door policy. You know, in 1972, there were 477 escapes or walkaways — walkaways I think would be more appropriate — from that place because there were large numbers of people there, something over 120. It was very difficult to do the containment. It's not the kind of place where you can have all sorts of staff, because it's not that large. What we did do was to regionalize it.

The other thing, and I think that the People of Nanaimo are aware of it — that the whole facility has been thrown open to the community of Nanaimo and district. Some 3,000 children in the area went through that facility in terms of learning to swim, operate canoes and make use of the gymnasium. We made it virtually a community resource as well. But it is not, and I readily say that it is not what it used to be three years ago, which was a revolving 60- to 90-day process where kids would come and go in a very high-powered way, only to be temporarily taken out of the community and put back, but there was no follow up. So we've regionalized it, and have been making much better use of that programme over the last year and a half. We have a reception diagnostic centre. It's a co-ed thing with boys and girls there now.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: The bus passes. Well, on the bus passes, it's a question of equity. There are many senior citizens in this province who don't have access to buses at all. We're looking at the whole process of whether it's possible to move towards a completely free system, but again, it's a question of equity. You know, we haven't really moved the bus system much out of the lower mainland area. We get a great number of demands from people, seniors particularly, in areas where there's no transportation. We've developed some transportation systems through the

[ Page 3780 ]

department to carry seniors. So we've been looking at it. It's certainly a question that, at the moment.... We're constantly reminded by seniors that they much prefer to pay something; it's not an issue of money. I've never known any senior to complain about paying the $5. Many of them insist that they want to be able to make that kind of contribution.

I think I've covered most of what you said, I hope.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): I realize that at the end of a long session must people are feeling very tired, but I would like to express some kind words to the Minister of Human Resources who is one of the hardest-working Ministers and seems to be tireless. I'm continually amazed by the personal attention that the Minister is prepared to give to individuals and small groups whenever I have had an opportunity of meeting with them in his company. He is incredible. Not only does he run that massive department, but he is able to take enough time to express the kind of personal individual attention that means so much to people in need.

I would like to mention just a few instances of what I'm referring to. Earlier today the Minister made mention of the fact that he'd met with the mayor of Comox and other individuals from that community, as well as some students. Now not only did he take time to meet with those students after the meeting was over, he has also taken time to phone them, to write to them and to follow up on the concerns of the students in Comox. They appreciate it. I've heard from various sources how appreciative they are of the fact that the Minister of Human Resources would take time to take an interest in their personal, individual problems.

I was with him when we toured the Campbell River Community Resources Society's building in Campbell River, and again was amazed at the time that he took to speak to each person who was there that day, and again, take the same kind of interest and concern for the problems of the people in Campbell River.

But I think one of the most exciting results of the encouragement and the interest that this Minister has taken, at least in my riding, is the formation of an upper island low-income group.

A few people who are low-income people got together to meet, they decided that they would approach the Minister of Human Resources to see if he could assist them in obtaining a very old, small building in which they could meet on a regular basis in order to discuss mutual problems and to give each other help. He responded favourably.

One of the first things they did was to decide to put out a monthly newsletter to all of the low-income people in the Courtenay area. "Yes," said the Minister, "I will help you with that." As a result, the Department of Human Resources equipment is available for them to run off their monthly newsletter which they mail out to the low-income people in the area.

They then found a larger building, because at this stage they are collecting donations from anybody in the area and reselling them, like a thrift shop, at a low price. "Yes, " said the Minister, and they now have a much larger building and have in effect quite a large store. They are so proud of their accomplishments and so pleased with their results.

They've obtained an OFY grant now. They are getting together an OFY grant so that they can put on a summer camp for students this summer. They are buying vegetables in the area in bulk for distribution among their members. They are helping each other find jobs and have been successful in two occasions that I am aware of.

One of the biggest surprises that they had, though, again showing the personal interest of this Minister, was to have a letter sent to them as a result of a copy of one of their newsletters that they had mailed down here to the department that the Minister had taken time to read personally and had taken the time to respond to personally. If you have any idea what this kind of interest means to those people, then I think you have an idea of how valuable this Minister of Human Resources is to the people in need in this province.

One other point. These people hope to continue their efforts to help each other and hope to have the continued support of the Minister. Now I don't have any questions for the Minister and the Minister certainly doesn't have to respond to this, but I did want to pay him those compliments on behalf of the people in my riding.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I couldn't let the vote go through without making a few comments about the Alcohol and Drug Commission this evening, and some of the comments that the Minister himself made earlier today.

It was unfortunate that the Minister was away from the House at the time that the Alcohol and Drug Commission education handbook was being discussed, but he made a significant statement today when he said that there was nothing new in that handbook. And to a large degree that was the problem. There wasn't anything new in the handbook. It was so out of date that it was almost criminal. You know the people went and gathered information from Alberta, from I think 1966....

AN HON. MEMBER: 1971.

MR. McCLELLAND: Okay. And they put it together in a book. There was only one section put together by our own commission. Everything else was just taken straight from the Alberta Alcohol and Drug

[ Page 3781 ]

Commission, even to the point, Mr. Chairman, where it made one comment about no research being available in connection with marijuana as it relates to driving. Your own department had partially financed a study right here at UBC.

So the book was out of date. I'd just like the Minister's assurance that that kind of thing can't be done without a lot of research by our own department, and that every Minister who is connected with education, health and the Attorney-General's department should be fully aware of what is happening before such a book gets to the stage that it did. It was ready to go into the schools. It was completed and I hesitate to think what it might have cost the taxpayers of British Columbia, but it's all down the drain now — money completely wasted, Mr. Chairman.

I agree with the Minister that there are strides being made in relation to alcohol treatment in this province, and good ones, in the expansion of the detoxification centres and other moves that are being made with relation to alcohol abuse. I also agree with the Minister that there are no magical solutions to any of these problems. That's common sense. Everybody knows that. But I and thousands of other British Columbians, Mr. Chairman, are disturbed about the non-approach to the hard-drug abuse problem in this province. The Minister mentioned today that the City of New York spent some $8 billion....

HON. MR. LEVI: I said $1 billion.

MR. McCLELLAND: You said $8 billion this afternoon. So it is $1 billion in attempting things that failed — and things that failed before. I agree — that's a problem. It's been a problem in education, it's been a problem in corrections, it's been a problem in alcohol and drug research and in attempting to find solutions. We seem to have a propensity for picking up on failing projects, and I'm glad to see that the Minister says that we are not going to do that in this area. That's good, and that's going to save the people of British Columbia some money. But I wonder why we never want to try things that prove to have worked. We don't do that either. I think it is time that we did, particularly in relation to this problem of drug abuse in British Columbia.

Before I continue that part of the discussion I just want to express concern, too, Mr. Chairman, about the methods we seem to be going with in relation to our methadone clinics, in expanding them into the community. I asked the Minister before, but I don't think he answered me, if it is true that we are planning five new methadone clinics in the greater Vancouver area, and whether or not we are planning to expand those methadone treatment units into other parts of British Columbia. If we are, Mr. Chairman, I think it is the greatest mistake we will ever have made in relation to the drug-abuse problem in this province. What we will be doing is simply spreading a disease around this province that should be contained in one area rather than making it available into the communities of this province.

We can rest assured that every one of those community clinics which will be dispensing methadone will find drug trading in the alley behind it, and we will introduce the use of drugs into those communities as quickly as those clinics go into them. That's a sin that we can't afford in this province because our drug problem is bad enough as it is.

What we should be doing is really cracking down in those smaller areas, driving the drugs out of those areas, and leaving the clinics in the areas where the drug-abuse problem has been traditionally bad. Then I would suggest that we could get at it. But to spread it into the community, Mr. Chairman, is a move that fills a lot of people in this province with fear.

The Minister, when we talked during his estimates the last time around, said that this side of the House never offered any solutions, only criticizes in relation to this problem. I don't think that is quite fair because we have talked about solutions in the past, Mr. Chairman, and the commission and the government have been unwilling to accept any suggestions that have been made. That includes one of the suggestions made from a department of this government itself, and that is the Department of the Attorney-General. I refer to the task force on correctional services and facilities which has come to be known as the Matheson report.

The Matheson report made some positive recommendations regarding the drug-abuse problem in this province and ways in which we might attempt at least to solve them. Once again, you can't say that the Matheson report was any magical solution, but it was a start, and we've never tried that kind of approach in this province. We've had solutions offered to us for 40 years. We've never tried any of them. Instead of that we have turned our head and stuck our head in the sand and said, no, those programmes won't work so let's not bother trying them. Here is another one, coming much more recently, that offered a reasoned, sane approach to the drug abuse problem, and we've turned our head again.

The Matheson report, Mr. Chairman, refers to a drug problem in Japan in which it was reported that less than 15 years ago the addict population in Japan was some 40,000 people, mostly in their 20s and 30s. Along with that problem there was an abuse of sleeping pills among teenagers and, according to the Japanese authorities, at least, that problem now no longer exists. Dr. Nobuo Motohashi,, the head of the narcotic division, Ministry of Health and Welfare in Tokyo, says there no longer is a drug-abuse problem

[ Page 3782 ]

in Japan — that from 40,000 addicts less than 15 years ago.

The Matheson report goes on to say that the Japanese solved their problem by the use of some five specific approaches. Mr. Chairman, the first was comprehensive and co-ordinate measures in which the government established a firm and consistent policy that there would be no drug-maintenance programme allowed in that country, and that the country itself was determined to rid itself of heroin and drug abuse.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that that's the first step that we have to take in this province, and in Canada. If the Canadian government doesn't take this step along with us, we might as well be pushing against a brick wall as well, but we have to first of all decide that we want to get rid of this problem and take some measures to get rid of it, or we never will.

Secondly in Japan was the reinforcement of the police. That's an important step here as well, and probably the most important approach — the third approach — was the encouragement and support by the general public in Japan, and without that you can't succeed either.

The Matheson report goes on to say:

"Along with the development of this public support for the action taken against narcotic trafficking a great deal of attention was given to the education of the public in order to make them knowledgeable about drugs and the dangers inherent."

The fourth, again, was the strengthening of penal provisions. The courts handed out more severe sentences than before to criminal addicts and drug traffickers.

The fifth was the compulsory hospitalization of drug addicts.

Mr. Chairman, that is not really a hard-line approach. Nobody was executed; nobody's head was cut off in the public square. Addicts were given the opportunity to come into the system voluntarily. If they didn't, then they were forced into the programme.

Dr. Matheson, at least, suggests that some of that approach could be adaptable in British Columbia. In suggesting an approach to the problem in British Columbia, Matheson says:

"A very major and sustained effort in prevention and education must come first of all. It is recommended that a much more elaborate and intensive programme be developed for the education of the public and a very substantial and major increase be made of law enforcement personnel assigned to this area."

That is being done. It has been done, as a matter of fact — the law enforcement part of it. We have CLEU operating now in what appears to be a very efficient manner and doing a very good job in British Columbia.

But what is the good of that if it isn't backed up with a follow-up approach to make sure that CLEU's work doesn't go for naught? CLEU can do all the good work in the world in cutting off the supply of narcotics and getting at some of the major kingpins in the illicit narcotic trade. But if we ignore the follow-up approaches, the educational approaches, the strengthening of the court system and the education of the public at large to finally, once and for all, say we are not going to stand for Vancouver being known as the drug capital of Canada any longer, if we don't back it up with that kind of action, then we might just as well fire CLEU — get rid of it. The job won't be worth a twig.

Dr. Matheson indicates that much of the approach that is being made in Japan and in another clinic in Baltimore could be adaptable here. I just say that we have been afraid to try. For 40 years we have been talking about the drug problem in British Columbia. Forty years of talk and no action. I include the national level as well; probably Ottawa is much more to blame than British Columbia is in this whole problem. But as long as Ottawa still thinks the problem is stuck out there on the other side of the Rocky Mountains and they can't see it so it doesn't matter to them in Ottawa, then we won't get any action from Ottawa and we had better start doing something ourselves.

In proposing further solutions, or at least attempted solutions, to the problem we face in this province, I think it is important that any programme that gets developed must understand that there are two kinds of users: the user who has been habituated to the narcotic for a long time and is the hard-core user, whose chances of recovery are very slim, and the new, young, beginner user. I don't think we should ever allow any kind of a system in which these two groups are ever allowed to intermingle in any way whatsoever.

It is the young, new user with whom we have a chance of success at the moment. I think we should set up the kind of programme that would isolate these new users in a pilot project, probably, that would include vocational training as part of a total immersion unit. We would deal not only with the drug-abuse problem, but also with personality problems of the user, the educational standards — trades training, if that becomes necessary — and no chemicals would be used in the treatment of this new user, none whatsoever.

I think we would have to make sure that the screening was of such a nature that we wouldn't allow any habitual user, regardless of their age, into this kind of a programme. I think then that if the people refuse to cooperate or abuse the programme, they would have to go onto some other kind of

[ Page 3783 ]

programme which would include, at that time, the habitual user.

I think, too, and Dr. Matheson pointed this out, that the habitual user has to be given the opportunity to voluntarily come into a programme as well. But if, upon registration, that habitual user continually abuses the programme or refuses to voluntarily come into it, then I believe we must make sure that that user comes into a programme. So that means that he comes in involuntarily. It could include imprisonment for an involuntary term with periodic reviews.

AN HON. MEMBER: For an involuntary term?

MR. McCLELLAND: No, no. For an indeterminate term, I am sorry. An indeterminate term with periodic reviews to check on the progress of that particular user.

I must say again that what seem to be the present plans to set up maintenance clinics all over this province will prove disastrous. It will do nothing more than increase the user population and expose the adolescent non-users, again, to the exploitation of the user and user-trafficker. I think those clinics have to be restricted, preferably, probably to one centre, but if necessary, perhaps to four major centres where a serious problem has already been identified.

We must have much more severe sentences in our courts for traffickers, whether or not they are user-traffickers, because they are the people who introduce drugs to the vulnerable young people who are in the subculture. I think those user-traffickers must be given the option to come into the programme, the same as the non-trafficker-users, but we have to have a programme.

I say again, Mr. Chairman, that Dr. Matheson and many others have clearly indicated there is a course we can follow. I don't think it is hard-line, but if it is hard-line to want to eradicate this problem once and for all in British Columbia, then I say let's get hard-line. We've never tried it. Why don't we try it and see if it works? My God, we can't be any worse off than we are now in relation to drug abuse problems in this province.

If the Drug and Alcohol Commission is not prepared under any circumstances to take these steps, then I think we would be saving the people of British Columbia a lot of grief and a lot of money if we just scrapped the Drug and Alcohol Commission and put the problem back to the Attorney-General, your own department and the Health department and got going on this kind of a programme.

As long as we just shake our heads, stick them in the sand and refuse to accept that some solutions might work in this country, we will always be known as the drug capital of Canada, and it will never change, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, the Member makes constant reference to the hard line. That is the programme we have in the province. In reference to the court system, if you observe the kind of sentences that traffickers are getting — and the majority of the recent crop are non-users, as I observe...

MR. McCLELLAND: Recent?

HON. MR. LEVI: ...anywhere from 14 or 15 to 20 years, big sentences. There are some smaller sentences; I notice some getting six or seven years.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes.

HON. MR. LEVI: This has been the constant pattern here. This is not a new thing. I have been associated with the field for pretty close to 20 years now, and I can recall people getting 10, 15, 20 years....

MR. McCLELLAND: When they get there.

HON. MR. LEVI: They got that kind of thing. But the thing is that we went through a whole process in the Matsqui treatment until some years ago where they were looking to do a segregated programme, a screening programme. Four years it operated and they had a great deal of trouble. It was finally abandoned. There were programmes operating in Oakalla years ago in the panabodes where there were attempts to do these kinds of things. What we have had is the continuing hard line. I am not disagreeing that we shouldn't continue that way. After all, we have tried it, and we don't have any other solutions.

You constantly make reference to the Japanese experience. Okay, if I'm up on estimates tomorrow, I will bring you some facts which don't paint it as such a rosy picture. But then we have a whole situation about: is it the kind of thing that in this country you can even get across? It has never been tried, for instance, in the United States, and they have been trying all sorts of things. It isn't that simple to just transfer that kind of programme.

MR. McCLELLAND: No, I didn't say it was.

HON. MR. LEVI: I accept that you are not implying that it is simple.

MR. McCLELLAND: I didn't say it should be transferred either.

HON. MR. LEVI: It is the same with the constant debate about the British system. Obviously, the British system is not applicable to Canada. That is quite true. If you tried to do the British system here, it would take you years. You would have to get the

[ Page 3784 ]

doctors to agree, and they obviously don't. If you can't get that kind of agreement, then, of course, it is not going to happen.

I just want to make a point about the methadone centres. The only proposal for the five methadone centres is really the decentralization of the large Vancouver methadone centre into some of the areas. You may recall that some months ago there was a great deal of unhappiness in the business community in that area. As a result, there is a slow move towards decentralizing.

In looking at where these people are, you made mention of that business of avoiding the great congregation, although that is the kind of lifestyle they have. We found some 66 people who are on a methadone programme who lived in the south part of the city, and they set up a small unit there. There can be a much more intensive process dealt, rather than just having this great big central thing that did exist.

The centres that do exist are in Victoria and Vancouver, and they are breaking down into five there — Coquitlam, Prince George, Trail, Kelowna, Nanaimo, Campbell River and Duncan. I think it should be understood that they are there because...well, in the area of Prince George they do have a significant problem. They do have a significant problem in the Nanaimo and Campbell River areas.

I went into Duncan with the leader of the Conservative Party some two years ago when we were at a very large meeting, well over 150 people there, with parents saying that they have children who are addicts and who had a methadone programme that was stopped and the kids went to Vancouver. We were able to reinstitute that programme. Again, that was at the request of the community. It seemed very legitimate and it went ahead.

We have a constant application of the hard line. That is exactly what is happening. I agree with the Member that we have got to hit Ottawa over the head with a 2-by-4 to make them pay far more attention to this problem than they are prepared to pay to it. As you say, we are on this side of the Rockies and they don't seem to be prepared to sit down with us. There are recommendations, for instance, from the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Bar Association about an attempt at looking at a pilot project on heroin maintenance — something that four or five years ago was unacceptable. They are two significant opinion groups — those two groups have recommended this. It is something that we talked about a couple of years ago but we are a long way from getting that kind of agreement. That has got to be agreed to by those people in Ottawa.

There is the question of trying alternatives. If you are going into hospitalization then it is a question of priorities. You can either decide: are you going to spend $50 or $60 a day dealing with an addict, or are you going to spend $30 a day dealing with people in extended care? It is a question of resources: what are you going to move around to do this? Even if we attempted to deal with 10 per cent of the population — 1,000 people — putting them through a process that could take a minimum of three months and a maximum of six, it is a very expensive programme. Then you come to the great debate about what resources you are prepared to move away from this area and go into another area. So there is the question of looking at the total situation. But I must reiterate that we do have the continuing hard line and that is what the situation is.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. SPEAKER: I'm not asking when the committee wants to sit again. Unless leave is asked tomorrow by the House to sit and debate, on the morning on Friday.... That could be done tomorrow morning.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: For the information of the House, we will be cleaning up bills on the order paper first and then, perhaps, proceed back to the Minister of Human Resources.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

The House adjourned at 11 p.m.

APPENDIX

108 The Hon. R. M. Strachan to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill

(No. 108) intituled Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1975, to amend as follows:

By adding the following section after section 5:

"S. 86D.

5A. section 86D is amended by inserting 'or adjudged to be a juvenile delinquent under the Juvenile Delinquents Act (Canada) by reason of,' after 'discharge in respect of,'."