CONTENTS

Routine Business

Savings and Trust Corporation of British Columbia Act (Bill 86).

Third reading — 3785

Workers' Compensation Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 105).

Third reading — 3785

Public Schools Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 83). Committee stage.

Amendment to section 4.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3785

On section 4 as amended.

Mr. Curtis — 3785

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3785

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3785

Amendment to section 5.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3785

Amendment to section 6.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3785

On section 7.

Mr. Wallace — 3785

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3785

Amendment to section 9.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3786

Amendment to section 11.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3786

On section 14.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3786

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3786

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3786

Mr. Curtis — 3786

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3786

Amendment to section 15.

Mr. Wallace— 3787

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3787

Amendment to section 16.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3787

Amendment to section 18.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3787

Amendment to section 20.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3787

Amendment to section 24.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3788

On the title.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3788

Report and third reading — 3788

Committee of Supply: Department of Human Resources estimates.

On vote 109.

Mr. McClelland — 3788

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3788

Mr. McClelland — 3788

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3790

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3792

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3793

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3794

Mr. McGeer — 3795

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3796

Mr. Smith — 3797

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3798

Mr. Wallace — 3798

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3800

Mr. Wallace — 3803

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3803

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3803

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3804

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3804

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3805

On vote 112.

Mr. McClelland — 3806

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3807

Mr. Wallace — 3807

On vote 115.

Mr. Wallace — 3807

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3808

Mr. McClelland — 3808

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3809

On vote 116.

Mr. McClelland — 3809

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3810

On vote 117.

Mr. Wallace — 3810

Mr. Lewis — 3810

On vote 118.

Mr. Wallace — 3811

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3811

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3811

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3812

Mr. McClelland — 3812

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3812

On vote 119.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3812

Hon. Mr. Levi — 3812

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 142). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 3813

Presenting petitions

Recognition of Chief Maquinna. Hon. Mr. Hall — 3813

Appendix — 3813

FRIDAY, JUNE 20, 1975

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the day.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed with public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Report on Bill 86, Mr. Speaker.

SAVINGS AND TRUST CORPORATION OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

Bill 86 read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Report on Bill 105, Mr. Speaker.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT
ACT, 1975

Bill 105 read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 83, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 83; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I move the amendment appearing in my name on the order paper (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 4 as amended.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): This must be seen as a commendable amendment on the part of the Minister and the government. As originally drawn in Bill 83, the powers and duties of secretary-treasurers would have been subject to regulation, and we spoke about that, I think, in second reading. I simply rise to commend the Minister for making this change.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, likewise I would like to thank the Minister for listening to the School Trustees' Association and in particular, the secretary-treasurers. The original amendment would have been a retrogressive step. She did listen to their submissions and she's changed it again, and very rightly so. We thank her for that. On behalf of the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) who's not with us at the present time and who requested this at second reading, I'd like to thank the Minister.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, could I just clear something? Does that last amendment also cover the (a) and (b) sections? I want to be sure about that. The amendments appearing on (a) and (b): I just want to be sure that's included.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All of the amendments appearing under that item.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Fine.

Section 4 as amended approved.

On section 5.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I want to move the amendment again appearing in my name on the order paper which deletes sections 5, 6 and 9. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 5 as amended approved.

On section 6.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I wish again to move the amendment appearing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

On section 7.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I would just like clarification of the English used. It states that: "A board shall, in accordance with the regulations, and may, in its discretion, grant leave of absence to a teacher." Does this not appear contradictory — the two words "shall" and "may" in the same sentence? Could the Minister perhaps elaborate on that?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No, it just simply means that they must abide by the regulations, and then

[ Page 3786 ]

they may in their discretion grant leave following that. But there are regulations applicable to that which they must first abide by.

MR. G.S. WALLACE: Oh, I see.

Section 7 approved.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the amendment again appearing in my name on the order paper on this section. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended approved.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I wish to move the amendment appearing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

On section 14.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, sections 14 and 15, 1 think, require a bit of clarification from the Minister in terms of her attitude and the department's policy. I wonder if the Minister could give us a clear statement as to whether it is the intention of this amendment that boards should lose the right to charge fees for students from outside the district.

There are some districts which have a lot of border crossers. It just so happens that there's a school nearby. The boundaries don't make a great deal of sense in a certain area and you get a lot of people crossing. The Minister has said that no board would suffer financial hardship, and everybody appreciates that, but we don't quite know what it means. Could she define exactly what hardship means? I know there's an amendment coming up from the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) on this, but I don't think that it really takes care of this.

There are, as I mentioned, some districts where you have a whole pile of kids coming across the border for one or two years just because the school's construction happens to suit that type of border crossing. What does she mean by "avoiding financial hardship" for school boards?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I would point out that we have to remember that if they do take a student from an outside district.... First of all, I could perhaps just say that in reviewing this we've discovered that it's really caused a lot of problems that aren't really necessary. The amounts of money involved have not been that substantial to begin with.

Secondly, if a board — and here again we say they "may" accept a child...it doesn't say they have to, but if they desire to, of course, they cannot charge fees. But remember that that board will get through the present finance formula a certain amount of money for that student based on the instructional unit value cost. So if they do take a student they will receive the normal grants for that student. I don't know if that clarifies it for you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, wouldn't it be simpler, Madam Minister, if boards were allowed to charge fees where they consider it necessary?

It seems to me that the amendment seems to allow charging in section 15, but in section 14 it seems to disappear. It strikes me that the two are somewhat inconsistent. While I appreciate the Member for Oak Bay's amendment, I don't think it would solve the problem because it deals with fees, and there is no such thing really as fees within a public school system.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): On the same point raised by the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson), Mr. Chairman, there is the instance regarding School District 64 and School District 63, and perhaps the Minister could comment on this as a case in point — as an example.

These students, as I understand it, in School District 64 hitherto have been required to go to Ganges, Saltspring Island, from the other Gulf Islands, and some boarding has been involved, at additional cost to the parents. Now it's found that in many instances it will be more convenient for those students to move out of their school district on a daily basis to Sidney because of the more direct ferry service and therefore attend schools on the northern part of the Saanich Peninsula. Now this will be at once a convenience to the students and their parents. The students will be home each evening.

I assume and believe that School District 63 is prepared to accept them, and School District 64, of course, putting it in rather a tough way, will not have to worry about them. But precisely what will be the case with district 63 doing a logical favour to a neighbouring school district? This isn't sort of casual transferring from one district to another, but with very good reason.

[ Page 3787 ]

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, to answer that question, Hon. Member, under section 160(1) of the Act boards can still.... We haven't taken away the right of boards to enter into agreements in the very matter that you are talking about.

What we are saying specifically is that they cannot charge the parent. So in the case you are bringing up, an agreement can still be brought about between the two districts involved.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, thank you, through you to the Minister. The Minister thought that there would be an agreement in this particular case, then? You indicated this was sort of permissive. They may enter into an agreement.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, I would say there should be in that case.

MR. CURTIS: You would encourage the proposal?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, I would.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

MR. WALLACE: Someone mentioned that this amendment probably doesn't solve the problem it set out to solve, and I just want briefly to say what that problem was.

It relates not just to the border crossing phrase used by the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson), which does occur. I'm talking about cases I've been told of where a child's parents pay, let us say, taxes in Campbell River and the child, for whatever reason, during the school year moves to Victoria. This child in Victoria is then charged fees or whatever you call it for the education in Victoria. In that example, the school district in Campbell River does not make any transfer of funds which they have already received at the beginning of the year in the form of grants and payments by government to the local school district. The money is not transferred to the Victoria school district.

All I am trying to establish in this amendment is that where it can be shown that for justifiable reasons the child really has to be in Victoria, perhaps for family reasons or for some kind of course that is not available in Campbell River, or a variety of other justifiable reasons, I'm just trying to make sure that it should not be an administrative obstacle to the child or the parents, that because the child moves from A to B during the school year the funds not be transferred.

When the question is asked about the word "fees" in the amendment, I'm really referring to the average cost per pupil for education in the school district concerned. If Campbell River spends $800 per year per pupil, let us say, surely that money could be transferred to Victoria. The snag there might be that it might cost $1,200 to educate a pupil in Victoria, so I realize that this cannot be a precise kind of situation, but that is what the amendment is intended to do — bring some measure of justice to the situation where a child moves from one school district to another for justifiable reasons.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I appreciate the intent of the amendment, but after a lot of deliberation we feel that the route we are taking will be the most satisfactory to the boards involved, because it is obvious that if some students are coming down from another board, the recipient board has the final decision on whether they will accept them or not, and to accept them it is obvious they are going to insist on working out an agreement. So we think it better to do it that way than the mandatory intent in your Act.

Amendment negatived.

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment appearing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 16 as amended approved.

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I again move the amendment appearing in my name on the order paper. ~See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 18 as amended approved.

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Again I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper on section 20. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 20 as amended approved.

[ Page 3788 ]

Sections 21 to 23 inclusive approved.

On section 24.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I move the amendment appearing in my name on this section. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 24 as amended approved.

On the title.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The title may be an appropriate place to thank the Minister for bringing detailed legislation of this nature forward. It is perhaps a little difficult for her to do. It is the toughest way for her to do it, rather than just writing regulations, but we do appreciate the fact that she does make an effort to bring this detailed material forward by way of legislation as opposed to regulations, and I don't think we should pass the bill without thanking her for making this effort.

I trust she will prevail upon her caucus colleagues, in particular the author of Bill 127.

Title approved.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I move the bill be reported complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 83, Public Schools Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete with amendments.

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

HON. MRS. DAILLY: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 83, Public Schools Amendment Act, 1975, read a third time and passed.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could you give us a list of bills coming up?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I'm just checking. I think we've just about reached the point this morning where we will move back into estimates. Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I would ask to move into committee on estimates.

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. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, there are a few other concerns that I'd like to talk about this morning, starting with the story that came out on television last night and in the paper this morning regarding the juvenile detention home in Vancouver. Some of the people who are there complained quite vociferously about unsanitary conditions, and have suggested that it's very urgent that the government make some improvements in that home immediately. Staff are apparently leaving because they can't stand the smell of the place; general cleanliness is questionable. The people from the family court committee who inspected the building complained of holes in the wall, missing window panes. One person, the vice-chairman of the committee, said that he was nauseous after an hour and a half in the building.

Also, there were complaints of slow payment by the provincial government. The vice-chairman of the court committee said yesterday that it seems that there's an interdepartmental hassle within the provincial government which is causing the problems in the juvenile detention home. So I'd like the Minister to give us his comments on the state of repair of that home, when some improvements can be expected and, as well, what the reason is for the financial difficulty that there seems to be. Does the Minister want to answer that first, and then I'll go on?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): First of all, the detention home is not within the department. It's clearly part of the takeover of the court system in Vancouver, and is operated by the Attorney-General. I am not aware of any interdepartmental squabble. We are not involved in the operation of it, because it's part of the court system. Of course, whatever would go on in the Vancouver area is under the Vancouver resource board. It's never been brought to my attention that there's a problem. It's simply part of the administration of the Attorney-General's department.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Minister, though, would obviously be concerned if that kind of a situation is going on in relation to juvenile offenders. I would hope that he would.... Since the Attorney-General

[ Page 3789 ]

is in Europe and won't be back for a while...these are pretty serious charges that are being made. I hope the Minister would check into them.

HON. MR. LEVI: Certainly.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the next item I'd like to cover has to do with welfare rates. In the latest newsletter from the Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of B.C., the front page of the newsletter refers to the past few years of NDP government, when British Columbia, according to the newsletter, has consistently led the nation in the area of social assistance rates per person. It goes on to say that this is no longer the case.

"In a survey compiled by the federal income support division, B.C. was tied with New Brunswick in fourth place — Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Quebec topped the list. A single resident in Nova Scotia on social assistance received a monthly rate of $213, compared to the $160 rate in B.C. The figures used were those in effect on October 1, 1974."

In a random check on my own of some of the other provinces, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that maybe the situation is even worse than that outlined in the newspaper. In British Columbia, taking two people on the basic payments for food and shelter, they would receive, I believe, $270. Alberta is $172 plus rent and utilities, which would very likely bring that amount over the $270 — Saskatchewan, $290; Quebec, $274; and Nova Scotia, $313. For single people. In B.C. the basic rate is $160; Alberta, $92 plus rent and utilities; Saskatchewan, $190; Quebec $195; and Nova Scotia, $218.

Mr. Chairman, considering that British Columbia has the highest cost of living in Canada, those rates seem to be in need of some adjustment pretty quickly.

There is a bit of a contradiction in the Minister's speech on welfare that I would like to refer to. Perhaps the Minister could explain who is right, or maybe nobody is right — I don't know. A story in The Democrat of April, 1975, headlined "Less People on Welfare," said:

"The percentage of people on welfare in British Columbia has been reduced by about one-quarter under the New Democratic Party government. Human Resources Minister Norm Levi said in a speech in the Legislature that 4.9 per cent of the province's population was on welfare in 1974. That compares to 6.4 per cent under the former government in 1971."

The Minister goes on to deny that all of his money is going for welfare and that kind of thing. The thrust of the story is that the welfare has been reduced. Yet when the Minister was asked to explain the $100-and-some-odd-million overrun in his department, he referred to a number of things: Mincome, medical services, child day care, community grants, child maintenance, adult care, and others, and then social allowance for almost $45 million. At that time, the Minister said there was a 16 per cent increase in the number of people receiving social allowance. There was a rate increase in 1974 of $20 per month, but there seems to be a contradiction. The Premier as well has said that there has been a reduction of the number of people on welfare. The Minister said there was a reduction and then turns around later and says that there has been a 16 per cent increase. Somebody is fooling the troops somewhere around here, because obviously one of those statements is incorrect.

He commented briefly on this yesterday, but I would like to question the Minister again regarding the charges that were made some time ago in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Commission.

The Minister said that the province has had to place some potential Unemployment Insurance Commission recipients on temporary welfare rolls, blaming the problem on the tremendous discrepancy in the waiting period of the federally-operated Unemployment Insurance Commission. A member of the job finders staff in Vancouver, Walter Muller, also accused the UIC of robbing the provincial treasury by arbitrarily withholding unemployment benefits and forcing the temporary jobless onto welfare rolls. He said that $24 million in B.C. welfare payments went to people whose unemployment insurance benefits had been delayed or callously cut off.

At that time, the Minister said he didn't know how much money was involved. He now says that there is some cooperation going on and it is only taking up to three weeks to get a cheque. I wonder if the Minister has done an investigation to find out exactly how much money might be involved in this over the period of a year. Is it $24 million? If it is $24 million, that is an awful kick in the head for B.C. taxpayers. But surely the Minister must have some idea of how much it would be if it isn't $24 million.

I wonder if the Minister could also comment generally on the job finder programme. Is it being continued? Is it being cut back? There have been complaints in Vancouver that it is being cut back. How was it working? Does the department continue to be in that kind of business? It seems to me it is a very productive area for the Human Resources department to be involved in.

Perhaps I could talk briefly too about what seem to be cutbacks in various areas. In February, the Minister said there were evaluations going on of existing programmes within the Human Resources department to see whether or not some of those existing programmes should be cut back, and that there would be no new programmes instituted until

[ Page 3790 ]

this evaluation had gone on. I think the Minister's comment at that time was that we may have to trim the fat in some areas. Have those evaluations been done? Where is the fat going to be trimmed if there is fat to be trimmed? What programmes will be affected? Which serious programmes will be affected by any cutbacks? Will there be any new programmes initiated in the next fiscal year? Just briefly, how did that whole evaluation turn out?

I have some specific programmes which seem to have been suffering from cutbacks in the Minister's department. One is the Central City Mission operation in both Delta and Maple Ridge. The executive director of Central City Mission says the Human Resources department is responsible, because of poor funding, for the closure of those programmes for troubled children. There is another programme for the severely retarded being carried on. I have a copy of a letter to the Minister from a Mrs. June Frith of Burnaby, whose child attends the Donald Patterson School for the Retarded in Burnaby, a programme to prepare the more severely mentally handicapped children so they will be able to take part in regular school programmes. She seems concerned, as well, that that programme is in danger of being eliminated.

Then there is the problem of the handicapped. A brief was submitted to the Minister, and they have been waiting patiently for some 18 months for some kind of action from the Minister. They expressed pretty severe disappointment with the Minister at their recent appearance before the Minister in Victoria when the Minister really offered no hope, in this immediate year anyway, for the handicapped people of British Columbia for some of the submissions that they made in their brief to the Minister 18 months ago. About all they got was a wine-and-cheese party for their efforts, and that was a little less than they'd hoped for.

So with those few items, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to hear the Minister's comments.

HON. MR. LEVI: On the issue of the welfare rates, which was the first thing you covered, you may recall that in 1973, when we did the first increase in the welfare rates, the amount of money for a single person was $102 prior to the increase in June, and that went to $140. The same with a couple: $173 went up to $250 and now is $270. And the other rates were increased.

The first significant increase of the rates cost approximately $25 million in terms of an outlay. Then last year what we did was to project the rates based on the cost of living given the base figure that we'd established in 1973 and projected them — including the increase in the family allowance which had taken place last year — and came to the levels that we have now. This year's rates are not under consideration.

I raised this issue, as a matter of fact, to compare what was going on in the rest of the provinces. I sit next to the Minister for New Brunswick and when he told me that their rates were $213, I asked him how he'd arrived at this. Apparently what New Brunswick does is to tie the rates to a percentage of the minimum wage. That's the way they've arrived at doing that. Newfoundland has a high rate as well.

Something that we have under consideration is the business of how far we go in terms of elevating the rates, or whether we go into a two-tier system with rates. Let's deal with single people for now: whether we should be paying the same rates to people who are employable versus those who cannot be employed. We're looking at this kind of situation. The rates are normally increased every year. We will be looking at the rates. In the family area, of course, added to the rates that we have are the 75 per cent rent overage. There's also the special needs budget, which is not available in a general way in any other provinces, where people have very special needs in which a person who works on the line can make grants up to $500. These are not grants that are eligible every year; these are based on what kind of circumstances there are. So we're looking at the rates. The fact that we're fourth and were first, and at one time were ninth...these kinds of things do fluctuate.

Our efforts, of course, are going also in another way. We've made a choice in terms of the welfare situation — we allotted a significant amount of money to day care in order to get single women off welfare into the workforce. That's why we have the subsidy system. I did cover that last night in reply to a question from the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace).

You've mentioned 16 per cent increase in welfare.

When I made the statement in September of last year, that related to the previous year's increase, not to an overall increase. In 1971 — and it is in the book — the total caseload was 133,000. The caseload that we projected for the end of this year was 128,000, based on the change in the situation of the economy. We have yet to reach 133,000 — almost five years later with a very significant increase in population since then. That's how those figures were arrived at.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: There were about 4,500 people transferred from Mincome to social assistance during that period. But the thing is we have still not reached the peak in terms of the rates that were there before. I would also add to that that unemployment insurance does play its part, too, in keeping people off the rolls. Seventy per cent of the people who get the subsidy in the Vancouver area are single women who have children who are working. So that is, if you

[ Page 3791 ]

like, a reallocation of some money. If those women were on welfare, if they were on the full subsidy, it would be costing us actually three times more to keep them on welfare than it does to pay out if they get full subsidy of $120 on day care.

So the 16 per cent really relates to the difference between the years '73 and '74.

On the statement by Muller relating to the unemployment insurance, we were concerned and did meet with the unemployment insurance people about the delay in payments. I said, yesterday, that I understand it's now three to four weeks. I'm not completely satisfied. I've recently had a case brought to my attention in which somebody who applied for sick benefits has been waiting eight weeks. We're in touch with the unemployment insurance on this.

Now there are a couple of things I'd like to just mention in relation to unemployment insurance. We have an interesting conflict between the way the unemployment insurance works and the way we work; and this relates not to the staff but to the way their Act is drawn. If you terminate employment on your own initiative, you have a three-week penalty and it takes that three weeks for you to get the cheque. If you're in need, you come to us. If you are in need, we're required to meet this.

Now to me this seems to in some way be undercutting the situation. I raised this at the last Ministers' meeting and said that somehow we're going to have to find a mechanism of warning people that if they decide on their own initiative to terminate employment, they should not be looking forward to coming along and getting welfare. The question is that there has to be some statement, some agreement between the Ministers and the federal Minister about this whole question of meeting needs. The Canada Assistance Plan Act says that if they are in need it must be met. But in that particular area where people can quit and then have some assurance they will come on welfare.... So we're looking at some mechanism we can get agreement with from the federal government that we may apply as a warning the same kind of disqualification period. This is going to take some agreement, but we have been discussing it.

The job-finders' programme is still operating. I did relate that in April, in the Vancouver area particularly, which was the one that we monitored very closely, we had some 9,500 people go through the offices in the downtown area, which is a very large area where we deal with single men particularly. Of the 9,500 people who were viewed as being employable who were referred to the second floor for the counselling and the job-interviewing with the Canada Manpower and the job-finders, just about 5,000 made it upstairs. The rest disappeared, did not get any assistance and moved on. And of that I think 5,400 — it is in the answers — 1,900 were found employment.

That was successful there. It's been very successful in Victoria. Probably the best job-finder programme we have is within the Capital Regional District, which is now undergoing more discussions with a number of employers in the north, again, looking for families. They're not looking for single people but for families who are prepared to go to assured jobs and assured accommodation. Those interviews are taking place again. We have not in any way cut back anything with relation to job-finders. We have about 30 people in the field with respect to the job-finders.

On the Central City Mission, we have resolved the problem. First of all, they got a 25 per cent increase in their budget. The difference of opinion that we were having — and I think the public should know about this — is that their administration costs were amounting to 31 per cent, and that's something we were not prepared to accept in reviewing the budget. The other thing is that we cannot have agencies, non-profit agencies, making planning about setting up other kinds of homes in other areas without telling us about it simply because we are required to pick up the operating cost. There was a problem anyway in the Delta area, and then the whole thing was withdrawn.

Now to the specific question of the Special Services for Children programme, which is what the Member is referring to, particularly in Maple Ridge. When we started the programme, we said to the field that the only guideline you have is that you have to watch the way the money is being spent, but the programme itself has to flow. There has to be some innovation about how you're going to deal with children. These are on a one-to-one or two-to-one or a group situation.

We told them last July that we were moving to set up guidelines and then had a series of meetings with well over 100 field staff, including the private agency people, about the development of the guidelines, which have now been instituted. The guidelines do reduce the amount of time that a worker can be working with a child, but there is also a proviso in there that that two-month contract can be renewed, and the decision for that will be made by the regional director.

The budgets themselves have been decentralized into the regions. The decisions are not made up here. We made the decisions about how much global budget they will get; they make decisions about how they will spend it. So some of the expanded programmes have been reduced, it's true, but in terms of the one-to-one situation, it they think it needs to be renewed, if it's in the interest of the child, that decision is made by the director. But we've said all along that we want to pull the programme into line. It's probably the best kind of programme we have.

Now in terms of the general approach to dealing with children on a one-to-one, or in residential treatment centres: in terms of expansion, I don't

[ Page 3792 ]

think we're going to see money available for further great expansion. We've done a catch-up. But what we are going to see is a moving around of the money, with decisions being made about increasing the focus on special services for children, therapeutic foster homes, alternate schools, but perhaps a de-emphasis in terms of the residential treatment centre process. What we're hearing from the field and the regional directors is that in some cases they would like to have access to some of the money that is being used in the residential treatment centre thing. So there are programmes that are happening in some residential treatment centres in which there is a reduction in the resident part but an expansion in the day-attendance part.

So we're turning them into situations where the children can come in on a day basis, rather than getting into what is a rather expensive operation of the boarding home thing. The children sleep at home, but they come there in the daytime. There are those that have to be in there, and of course they're moved in. So the movement in terms of expansion of the programme will relate to those programmes which appear to have been successful over the past two years.

Now on the handicapped, there was a conference in October of 1973, and what came out of that conference was a desire to have an advisory committee. The advisory committee started to meet in January of 1974. In June, July and part of August they asked me if they could go to tour the province. The only thing that I asked them to do was to tour those centres which are not normally visited. They went, they toured five of the secondary centres in the province, and held public meetings.

They actually submitted their brief. Their brief was submitted in late fall of last year. They did meet with the cabinet committee. There were some commitments made about architectural barriers by the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley). We have now made further commitments for two more of the group homes that they want to set up in the Vancouver area for the handicapped to expand extended care into a situation where they can go to work. We've made that commitment. But the basic thrust in terms of the general handicapped has been initially in the provision of the pension, which is a costly factor.

We are now moving towards the other kinds of support systems. Now you know that, for instance, the CNIB were responsible for a large number of people who worked in the kiosks in the liquor store. The Attorney-General has announced that those people who work in the kiosks — about 50 of them — would now become full employees of the Liquor Control Board. That is part of the thing that the Association for Concerned Handicapped have been pushing, and part of the handicapped advisory committee recommendations. The same thing has happened in two of our offices in Vancouver, where we have set up kiosks — people are employed at the same rates of pay as other people. So there has been some movement that way, but the main thrust, generally, has been in the pension aspect, the provision of the group-home situation where four or five can live with a personal attendant and can go to work.

I have said to the handicapped themselves that I appreciate they feel we are not moving fast enough, and I accept that. But, as I said to them the last day I was there, we have to balance their demands in terms of what's available. One of the biggest demands we are having, in terms of the handicapped, is in trying to do more to continue the policy that exists in relation to the Woodlands-Tranquille situation of moving people into the community.

That is really where we've gone in terms of the handicapped situation.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to again raise with the Minister the question of regulations, but I read through Hansard on his remarks last night, and he admits there: "I have as much trouble as anyone else understanding what that says." He's referring to the regulations.

HON. MR. LEVI: That was the language; not what it said, the way it's put.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the trouble is, it appears, from the way I read it, he didn't understand that an order-in-council was passed on May 8 of this year which states that the regulations governing Mincome will be the same as the regulations governing social assistance. In his speech yesterday he talked about no change at all in the eligibility of the Mincome programme.

HON. MR. LEVI: That's right.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But in actual fact, on the first of this month, by order-in-council, by a decision of the cabinet and the Executive Council of British Columbia, you did change the regulations.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, that's what you say.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would like, then, if that's the case.... I'll read you the order-in-council.

HON. MR. LEVI: No, I'll read you what the.... Because you weren't in the House when I explained it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, no, I'm just looking over the words, but the Minister would like to get up

[ Page 3793 ]

and explain it again.

I always thought orders-in-council had some sort of validity, but clearly they don't — at least not with this Minister's department. The order-in-council states:

"Upon the recommendation of the undersigned, the Lieutenant-Governor by and with the advice and consent of the Executive Council, ordering that British Columbia Regulation 259-75, approved March 5, 1975, being the Social Assistance Regulations, be the regulations for the Guaranteed Minimum Income Assistance Act, effective June 1, 1975."

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): That's fairly clear so far.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, so far clear. The Minister of Health understands, but the Minister of Human Resources doesn't.

HON. MR. LEVI: Where have we changed it?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Now that's the point.

HON. MR. LEVI: What have we done that we didn't before?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Now that we've established the fact with the Minister that in actual fact it is the social assistance regulations which are governing Mincome....

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, we never said that it didn't.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, you said that there was no change at all in the eligibility of the Mincome programme. In actual fact, they are not identical.

HON. MR. LEVI: Where is the change?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Then we'll have to go back. I don't have to go back over everything I said yesterday, but, for example, I gave you the....

HON. MR. LEVI: 5IF.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: 5IF, 52B — let's see, 9, 1 and 2, 6, 3 — there's a whole pile of them that I would sort of question, and I just give you those figures. I don't want to delay your estimates, but you're going to have to go back and look at the regulations governing social assistance.

I think Mincome is something separate; I don't think the regulations are and can be the same. The Minister has made this point to me so often in debate that go right back — I have them here — debates going right back to 1972, October 17 to 27, when he and I first started discussing Mincome.

I just wonder if the Minister would like to indicate that natural factor has been a change in regulations. Perhaps he'll take this back now that he understands that social assistance regulations do govern Mincome. Now that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) has made it perfectly clear that he understands it — a cabinet colleague agrees with me, at least — perhaps he'll take it back, check out the regulations, scrap those that are inapplicable and bring in regulations governing Mincome. He said: "Where does it say that social assistance regulations govern Mincome?" I read him the order-in-council which apparently escaped his notice. At the beginning of this month it came into force. So I trust he'll rectify that particular problem.

HON. MR. LEVI: Let me just respond to that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, please respond.

HON. MR. LEVI: You have, Mr. Member, the most convoluted reasoning. That's why I have to call on the assistance of my colleague, the Minister of Health. You keep insisting that there is a change in the regulations. What's going to happen out there is that some people on Mincome are going to think that somehow eligibility is different than what it's been for the past two and a half years. There is nothing in those regulations to change eligibility. Yesterday I explained in relation to the two serial letters that we sent out — the serial letter on April 3, 1974. That was at the time when we instituted the five-year residence situation.

Having done that, what we had to do was to write in to continue to make provision for that group of people over the age of 60 who did not qualify for Mincome primarily because of lack of eligibility in terms of residence. That is what is referred to in 5(1)(f). Those people are not in receipt of Mincome; they're of a Mincome age, but they are not in receipt of Mincome. What we've done is to say that they are, in fact, eligible to apply for social assistance and that the asset levels are as they are in the usual social assistance regulations.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The assets test applies to Mincome.

HON. MR. LEVI: The assets test does not apply; it's not an asset-tested programme in that sense. We are looking at people's incomes. In this respect what you keep referring to really relates to that group that is of the age of Mincome recipients but is not eligible for Mincome. For instance, when we put the five-year residence thing on, there were obviously some people who thought they were eligible for Mincome and

[ Page 3794 ]

were not, had not been in the country long enough to get OAS-GIS. Therefore their only recourse for getting income was on welfare; that's what's written into the Act.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm so glad he raised that issue. I didn't want to refer to his previous remarks in an antagonistic fashion. But in Hansard, Mr. Chairman, it says — this is a quote from the Minister; this is the draft Hansard: "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 and another, mainly because of the length of their stay in Canada, did not qualify for Mincome."

Now that you've made the regulations governing the application of Mincome and social assistance the same, surely there should be no need for such provisions.

When you switch.... I'm just having more and more trouble here. When you switch and make the regulations governing social assistance the same as the regulations governing Mincome, it seems very curious that you would therefore go into this hypothetical situation where social assistance is granted because Mincome can't be granted. Surely Mincome can be granted on exactly the same basis because exactly the same eligibility regulations apply and exactly the same criteria are being used. How can you work out this great fine distinction which you mention on page 748-1 of draft Hansard? I just don't see.

HON. MR. LEVI; Okay, we'll take another run at it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If you've got the regulations that are identical for both programmes, as they are at the present time by reason of Order-in-council of May 8, 1975, if they're identical in both cases, why are you making these fine distinctions to put some people who otherwise would be on Mincome back on social assistance?

HON. MR. LEVI: Where would they otherwise be on Mincome?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Because of that residency requirement that you talked about.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, they can't be on it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, then how can they be on social assistance when the same regulations apply in both programmes? Gotcha! Figure that one out! I just don't know.

It seems to me that if you're going to apply the same regulations for two distinct and separate programmes, you can't make these great distinctions

[ Page 3795 ]

of putting one group of people who don't apply for one on the other programme. Because the same regulations apply.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The regulations, to my mind, should all be governed by this latest order-in-council. Perhaps you should withdraw the order-in-council — change it.

HON. MR. LEVI: No, no.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Lieutenant-Governor may have made a mistake. Certainly he's probably been badly advised. When you have the same regulations governing.... I don't see how you make these fine distinctions between some programmes which are Mincome programmes and some programmes which are social assistance programmes. In any event, it seems pretty funny to have this deliberate effort to get that group of people who may have come to Canada as landed immigrants — their family happens to be here — get them here, go through a great song and dance of regulations saying: "No, no, you can't have Mincome." As soon as you've gone through that exercise you turn around and give them social assistance with the other hand. Surely if you've got regulations which govern in both cases — that's the example you've given me, cases where Mincome will not apply; therefore you have to give them social assistance because they don't have enough money to live on. Why on earth do you make these weird distinctions? The system is complicated enough.

I don't wish to remind the Minister of any of these little things. I don't understand all the things about Mincome, but I would refer him to — I'm sort of proud of this — October 26, 1972, where I indicated to him that Mincome would cost $95 million....

HON. MR. LEVI: Which it didn't.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister thought it was going to be $25 million. What is the cost now? About $110 million?

HON. MR. LEVI: We're dealing with the current year.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Okay, what was the current figure in that first year of Mincome? I've got them here too, by the way.

HON. MR. LEVI: Does that say $25 million? I think I said more than that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I just feel that having once been fobbed off by the Minister on the cost factor.... Had he accepted my figures, he wouldn't have made that $102 million error. It would have been substantially less. He would have made much less of an error and he would have been much better off, less criticized, less attacked for all his efforts to help people, and I just can't understand why, in the circumstances, he won't pay a little more attention at this stage.

Mincome, you see, that year cost $62,411,259. I calculated it out at the maximum of $95,396,887, and the Minister started off at $25 million. I was 33 per cent out and he was about 130 per cent out.

HON. MR. LEVI: No, our projection was....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: From $25 million up to $63 million? Come on.

HON. MR. LEVI: Our projection was $58 million.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, it started around $25 million, you went to $40 million in the debate, the Premier said $60 million, and then burnped it down again because of federal contributions.

As I said, I didn't argue with you on one of these things, and it clearly turned out that you would have been so much better off if you had listened to me in the first place. The mistakes would have been fewer, and I think in this instance you should do the same thing.

You have clearly got the same regulations governing both programmes. Why are we going into these weird distinctions for the person who has come here from other countries, who has not been five years resident in Canada, and who goes on to social assistance because of some footling regulations which I don't understand about Mincome? Surely it is money in, money out, out of the same public treasury, one way or another. In particular when you claim, according to your order-in-council, that the same regulations apply, this distinction seems totally fictitious.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): A few quick points to the Minister, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask him about the rest-home rip-off. Unfortunately when I raised this before I asked the question of the wrong Minister. I should have known better, and apologize for my stupidity on it.

Rest homes are now no longer paying interest on deposits which they demand. They are doing this because they no longer come under the Landlord and Tenant Act, so they are taking advantage of the situation by requiring a deposit and not paying any interest on it. It is within the Minister's power, as I understand the Act, it having been pointed out to me by a more astute member of the press gallery, that you can demand by regulation that they pay interest on any deposit they hold. They are doing enough by demanding a full month's pay even if a person is there for only two or three days before they pass the vale.

HON. MR. LEVI: To which Act are you referring?

MR. McGEER: Your accommodations Act. I'll point it out to you. I can't even remember the title at the present time — it's that obscure in my mind. But I can show you the letters that were written. I'd be happy to do that.

The second thing I'd like to ask about is this. Last summer there was a period where farm produce was rotting in the Fraser Valley because it was impossible to find workers to harvest the crops, in particular the strawberry crop. At that particular time there were a group of people who were camping in Haney, giving Maple Ridge Park as their address, and going down and collecting welfare.

I'm wondering whether we have got any mechanism for offering work instead of welfare to young transients. It's got to be quite a game in Canada where you start with $2 in your pocket and hitch-hike across the country and the first stop in each city is the welfare office, and you move along quickly to the next. People have had trips back and forth across the country. They've made college fees and room and board for the winter and come back with a couple of thousand dollars in their pocket. Quite clearly this is an abuse of a regulation that is intended for people who are genuinely in need. I hope we can make some moves this summer to discourage young people from ripping off the welfare system.

The next has to do with methadone clinics. I must indicate my dismay, I guess, that we're starting to open up so many methadone clinics around the province because the way I interpret the experience with these, wherever they are, you are substituting a state-approved addiction for a free-market addiction. I don't know of any place where a methadone clinic has actually cured a drug problem.

What it has done is to bring a host of other social problems into an area, as well as to entrench drug usage. Unfortunately, it doesn't end with methadone in a methadone clinic. Plenty of drug trading goes on in the lane outside the building.

I would like to know: if we are going to open these clinics, are there plans for closing them? What is the long-range outlook, so that if you get one going for a period of time, you set a limit on it and close the thing down and try and encourage the residual drug users who are in a community to move to another so that you can begin to centralize the drug usage in one area and begin to clean up towns.

There was a time when Prince George, Trail, and Nanaimo, and even Victoria, were completely free of

[ Page 3796 ]

drugs. I am talking about hard drugs, but hopefully soft drugs, since the armamentariurn has been enlarged, and that we could get back to the state once more where most of the communities in British Columbia were clean of drugs. It may be hopeless to talk about ever cleaning up the city of Vancouver, but at least you should be able to get back to the state where it is confined to one geographical area. Then it gets to be an easier management problem from a social point of view, as well as an easier problem from the law enforcement point of view.

I just wonder if the Minister can give us some hopeful long-term outlook.

Finally, Mr. Minister, I would like to discuss the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: Minister of Health.

MR. McGEER: Well, he was the one who said it was under another Minister.

HON. MR. LEVI: If that is the Act to which you are referring.

MR. McGEER: That's his?

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes.

MR. McGEER: OK, my fault. Can one of you do something about it?

Finally, Mr. Minister, I don't want to ask any questions that are going to be embarrassing. I'm only asking ones that are embarrassing to me this morning. How are you doing this year? Are there going to be any overruns that you know of, any clerical errors? Are you going to stay within that $560 million budget this year? Can you make it all right? Will there be any press conferences to announce multi-million-dollar slipups, or can we rest easy this year?

HON. MR. LEVI: We'll start with the last question first. I think I explained yesterday in some detail that we have a tracking system which is a much more accurate one, that I have confidence in. Yesterday, I received the statements for May. This time last year, I would have been lucky if I had gotten that kind of information by about September, so we are operating on a four- to six-week delay in terms of getting information.

It is not actually even four to six weeks. The information on May went into my office yesterday, so we are talking about having information 19 days after the month of May. We are on target, so I am hoping we will have a good summer. With statutory programmes, there is little room to manoeuvre, but I am much more confident about that kind of tracking system than the one we had previously.

On the methadone clinics, the one attempt at a methadone clinic is in the Vancouver area. You may know that there it was centralized, particularly around the West Broadway area. You may recall that there was a large outcry from the local businessmen about it. What will happen in the Vancouver area is that there will be a decentralization of the system into four or five areas. They will still retain the central one to do most of the analysis on the urine testing and that kind of thing.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, the Member made references to the kinds of drug problems that grew up in other areas: Prince George, Campbell River, Victoria. Ten years ago, there was a policy directly connected with the operation of the Matsqui institution when one of the first programmes in relation to parole was called the SNAP programme — Special Narcotic Addiction Programme.

That started out where they would release a number of people who were addicts. On the initial programme on that, they said: nobody can move outside of town. Then when they went to the second, third, fourth, and fifth, they started to move people out of town. They allowed them to go where the work was. Then, there were a number of doctors in the interior, the Okanagan, who were maintaining these people on a methadone programme in connection with the then Alcohol Foundation. The decentralization from a parole point of view seemed very practical — you go where the work is.

All right. At the onset of the soft drug thing, we started to have drug centres beyond the Vancouver area. Whether we can aim to do what the Member has said, to bring it all back into the centralized area, I think, is highly doubtful because the problem is significant in areas like Prince George. It is significant in Nanaimo — significant, but not as significant, of course, as in Vancouver.

On the methadone programme itself, there are 167 doctors that are available to the programme. The commission recently issued a series of letters to both the doctors and also to the people involved in the clinics about the dangers of methadone, spelling out the kinds of criteria for people getting on methadone. These things are being checked very much with the medical association.

That at the moment is one of the thrusts. Now I'm informed by Dr. Connolly, who is the doctor in charge of this, that since November the extent of the control and the kind of criteria that is being used to put people on methadone has led to a reduction in the number of people who actually go on methadone. They've been able to do a number of tests where they've made the judgment that some people just are not suitable for that kind of thing. Some people don't

[ Page 3797 ]

even need to do it.

We did over the years some pretty difficult situations at one time — four or five years ago — in the Oakalla situation where people would go in there on remand and would get their injections of methadone with not a great deal of trouble being taken to see whether in fact they really had a heroin habit, and people were picking up the methadone habit. But I think the general control situation is much better, certainly is much better since last November when they finally were able to bring it into a kind of coordinated programme.

You talked about transients and the farmers. In November, 1974, I met with a representative from the B.C. Agricultural Federation, and the Minister of Agriculture, and we asked about what the needs were going to be for the future. Also present was a representative of the Department of Labour.

The arrangement that we have worked out and which is available to all agriculturists is that if they have demands for labour they are to be in touch with the Department of Labour, who will then tell our local offices how many people are needed. Now that's the kind of thing that we've worked out.

In relation to the transients, the transient programme, of course, does not give automatically welfare to transients. They do not have automatic welfare. They may get a voucher. They may get put into a hostel, but they're not automatically on welfare.

What the Member says is quite correct, that people are travelling this country via the welfare offices. That is happening, but in B.C. certainly between June and September, transients are dealt with in a quite different way because of the large number that comes through and people are dealt with usually in the rest of the year. They are not placed on welfare. There are very rigid criteria for anyone who comes in as a transient to eventually get on full welfare.

Now the most successful part of the transient programme which operates by the Youth Hostel Association is that where there are hostels — and I'm thinking particularly of the one in Revelstoke, where the stays are short; where the referrals to employment are okay.... We have tried to get hostels, particularly in the Okanagan area and have some trouble doing this. If we had those kind of hostels, given the experience we had in Kamloops and Revelstoke, we could make available on a very steady basis, people to the farmers in a more organized way than it's done now. But we have not been able, for instance, to sell the people of Penticton on the desirability of a hostel, and that's somewhat unfortunate. The experience in other hostels is that it's useful in terms of referrals.

I'll look into the question of the Community Care Licensing Act in relation to the deposits. I've just asked the Deputy here but we'll find out and I'll take an opportunity to answer you on this.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, just a couple of short questions to the Minister, and this concerns the matter of intermediate care homes.

The Minister, I am sure, has a letter on his desk — as a matter of fact he's not only got a letter, he's got dozens of them from different organizations in the Fort St. John area, each of them outlining their support for an intermediate care home in Fort St. John. It's one of those facilities that we do not have immediately available, and the only thing that is close to us is in Dawson Creek and it's completely filled.

Now the Lutheran League, or at least the people associated with the Lutheran Church, are in the process of setting up a society which they are prepared to do, and they have a number of local people — businessmen, accountants, a housewife, a retired person and a farmer and so on — who have indicated that they will form the executive for this society.

Their biggest problem, though, is to try to get everything in chronological order, that as soon as they get approval from one place they get turned around in another direction and they're told either, "Well, you'll  have to wait awhile. Funds are not available," or, "you're going to go on a deferred list and eventually we'll get the priorities set up for you." It's provided them with nothing but frustration so far, Mr. Minister. But they have at least got to the point where CMHC have now provided $5,000 of start-up funds for them, that that's committed. So that will give them the money to go ahead with the advanced planning and so on.

Their other problem, of course, is that the Department of Housing has run out of funds with respect to any more one-third capital grants for the issuing period at least. All I'd like to ask the Minister on behalf of all of the people up there who are vitally concerned about this is, would he at least reply to them to the extent of what they could expect from his department in the way of operating subsidies, once they get all these loose ends tied together.

Believe me, it's causing them nothing but headaches right at the moment, trying to put it all together. But there is a real need for that particular type of institution. Unfortunately, right now too many of our older people who need that type of attention end up in acute-care hospital beds, and put the staff of the hospital to a great deal of concern over the fact that they shouldn't really be there in that expensive a situation, an institution. Yet there's nowhere else to send those people where they can be handled within their home area. And of course, this is important to people of that age.

So would the Minister, first of all, reply to the

[ Page 3798 ]

society which has written concerning the matter and give them an indication of how he'll tie the expertise of his department in with Central and Mortgage and Housing, the Department of Housing here and the Health Department so they can put this package all together?

HON. MR. LEVI: As the Member knows, one of the things that we were concerned about in Dawson Creek is that the existing facility be operated at full capacity and that, as you say, is now happening. In relation to telling people about approval for operating costs, of course, we have to know what the amount of the loan is going to be. We have to know what the staffing is going to be before we can set that. I would hope that we can make some decision about that in the very near future. But those are the things that we really need to know.

MR. SMITH: I think what they really need right now, more than anything else, Mr. Minister, is guidance on the steps they have to take to get everything together.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes. I'll have Mrs. Bisto get in touch with them. She's in charge of the adult-care area, and some of those facts are necessary for us. Yes, I have received all the letters. We've got a number of letters from them, and these will be answered.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, there are just one or two areas that haven't been adequately canvassed. I did touch on adoption yesterday, and I don't think the Minister chose to ignore my questions, but I would like to say a little more. The whole question of adoption has really been highlighted recently in two or three respects — first of all, by the emotional upsurge in this country at the end of the Vietnam war when many people expressed their wish to adopt Vietnamese children.

I thought that the Minister put it very well at that time, back in April, when he reminded the people of British Columbia that, while their response to the plight of the Indo-Chinese war victims had been overwhelming, there are still 150 British Columbia children, many of whom have severe handicaps, who are available for adoption by parents who feel they can cope with the extremely arduous task of raising these children.

I wondered if the Minister could bring us up to date on one or two statistics. Are there still 150 children available for adoption, or how many others might there be where no applications have been made to adopt them?

Secondly, I'd like to know, of the Vietnamese children who were brought to British Columbia, were they all pre-arranged adoptions before the emotional upsurge that I mentioned?

Thirdly, I'd like to follow up on the problem of the child from Korea who was reputed to have been kidnapped, and that goes back to the end of last year. But it all points up some of the real hazards in adoption, particularly when we go outside the country to adopt children. In fact, there was a statement by the Red Cross at the time that some countries, by good intention perhaps, but despite that, were breaking international agreements and the Geneva Convention. So I'm just wondering whether the Minister can give us some brief information as to the aftermath of the end of the Vietnamese war.

More specifically, right here at home the Berger commission has continued in its extremely interesting and exciting fashion to bring forward the final report dealing with adoption. I know that we can't expect the Minister to anticipate legislation at this point, but there was one very hot issue in that whole matter which referred to the proposal to have a reunion registry whereby an adopted child, or a former parent who gave up that child for adoption, could become reunited through the vehicle of a registry.

I notice that the Berger commission said that it could not recommend establishment of a registry, and suggested that only the supreme court had the power to bring together adopted children and their natural parents. As the Minister well knows, and in fact as everybody in the province probably knows, there was a tremendous resistance to that proposal by those people most affected, namely parents who had adopted children in good faith with the assurance that this reunion would not be encouraged and that they were regarded in law as the natural parents. One of the local parents who took a strong position in this regard said that he had at least 500 telephone calls when the proposal became known, and of course we had a big meeting in Victoria, attended by several hundred people, where the overwhelming majority were opposed to this concept of a reunion registry.

Now I would just like to ask the Minister: in the light of all that outcry — not an outcry, but a legitimate protest at the proposal — and in light of Mr. Berger's commission, can we take it and could we put to rest the fear in the minds and the apprehension in the minds of many of these parents who have adopted children years ago? Can we take it that the government, in the face of the Berger recommendations and the feeling of the adopting parents, can we assume that the government will drop that issue completely and just let the matter die? Because it's certainly caused a great deal of unrest in these families concerned, both on the part of the adopted person and the adopting parents. I think the Minister would be doing a great service to all of these people in the province if he could tell us that, on consideration and in the light of the opposing evidence, the government will just let the

[ Page 3799 ]

whole matter drop.

I did ask a few questions yesterday about the handicapped, and again I think the Minister merely overlooked giving me some specific answers. But as we know, the government set up a committee of handicapped persons, under the chairmanship of Dr. William Buckler, to study the needs for the handicapped. They met with the Minister just recently and, prior to that, they had stated that they had some specific recommendations which, in their view, would give recognition to the needs of the handicapped and would not necessarily cost the government a lot of money to correct.

In fact, specifically, they said that there were 17 detailed recommendations which they had compiled and sent to the Minister in January, and these in fact appeared to have resulted in no action by the Minister. In a communal society that recognizes the need for people with genuine problems, I think that with our affluence and with the kind of money that we have in this budget, $516 million, I believe that we could be doing more for the handicapped. I wonder if the Minister could tell us where it is as a result of the meeting about two weeks ago.

The other subject I touched on yesterday which I would like just to follow up a little more is this very contentious matter of social assistance. I'll preface my remarks by agreeing that one swallow doesn't make a summer, but there is a degree of concern which was brought to public attention by the individual in North Vancouver who received something on the order of $10,000 in social assistance payments, got a settlement from an insurance company and went to Mexico for a six weeks vacation. Certainly this focused attention on the very point that I raised yesterday, namely that I don't think society grudges for one moment providing social assistance to people in genuine need, but there is the other side of the coin and the very reverse emotion generated by the community at large when they read of this apparent situation where a person can spend a capital and return to a penniless state and then go back on welfare.

I don't mean to castigate, or even mention names or specify the individual factors in this man's case, but nevertheless there was a tremendous hassle over a period of weeks and the Minister was asked to talk with the mayor, and the mayor froze the decision of council and suspended a decision for 30 days under a section of the Municipal Act. The bureaucratic mix-up, if nothing else, gives the general public at large the impression that all is not well in the field of social assistance. Those of us who are busy paying taxes in every direction you can imagine become, unfortunately, a little hostile to the system, perhaps quite unfairly. But this one kind of case, and the cases which previously occurred with transients, certainly make the taxpaying citizen of British Columbia and Canada wonder if we're well organized to prevent this kind of abuse.

I've looked through all the clippings that went on over a period of many weeks in the case of the North Vancouver family, and I wonder if the Minister could tell us: what was the final outcome of that case? I can't seem to pin it down other than the point at which the Minister said it was still really the municipality's responsibility.

The last report I can find is dated March 4. The headline in the newspaper says: "Mayor Lifts Welfare Block." It sounds like some kind of barricade that's been going on and that both the Minister and the municipal people got ground down to the point where they just gave in and said: "Okay, I guess we'll just have to go back to paying welfare." That's the last report I can find, dated March 5. I wonder if the Minister first of all would tell us what happened to this specific case and to what degree this kind of situation could be done repetitively, where a person utilizes capital in the manner that was done in this case.

I am also very interested in — I don't think I really got an answer to this either — the degree to which provincially we are happy with cooperation and arrangements regarding immigration with the federal government. As I quoted yesterday from the Minister's report on page 64, he talks about assisting social assistance recipients in returning to other provinces and occasionally other countries when indicated because of social reasons.

I think there was never a more timely occasion than now when the federal government's Green Paper on Immigration is being studied all across the country. As I made plain yesterday and as I want to make plain again, it's got nothing to do with the colour of a person's skin; it has to do with the rational economic factors. If we bring in untrained, uneducated people at a time when unemployment in this country is already 8 or 9 per cent, then I think the federal government is not facing its responsibility wisely. I want to know to what degree the provinces' point of view is listened to. This statement in the annual report suggests that already we have arranged to return persons on social assistance to their country of origin. I wonder how many have been involved and whether the Minister foresees this as an increasing mechanism or if it is decreasing. Where are we at in this particular respect?

I also notice that on the same page the Minister talked about "exploratory and mobility grants." This is providing money to individuals who might be able to find a job somewhere else other than where they're presently living. I wonder if the Minister could comment on the way that good intention was scuttled by Alberta in particular. As the Minister knows, back in February he announced these mobility grants to assist recipients. According to the

[ Page 3800 ]

annual report, 95 single persons and 40 families were helped to move to full-time jobs outside the Victoria area. The Minister emphasized the cooperation with Canada Manpower.

The next thing we read is that Canada Manpower in Alberta got very upset. There had been 3,500 jobs listed with the Edmonton office alone, compared with 100 listings in Victoria. But then when Alberta heard that we were paying $160 per person to help them to move to Alberta to get work, they lowered the boom in Edmonton and said: "Thank you very much, but no thanks." It says in the report that the Manpower people in Alberta were very upset; I'm quoting Mr. Levi in the newspaper report. "They felt we were moving too many people around when we were only responding to what appeared to be a demand." That seems to me like a good idea. I thought this was all one country and, if somebody couldn't find a job in British Columbia, why not give them an incentive to move to where there is a job?

[Mr. Skelly in the chair.]

We all pay lip service to this Confederation bit. Sometimes it just sickens me, the way when you put it to the test you get less than fair and reasonable response. I was really quite angry when I read that this is the attitude. I suppose, to be fair, we might get upset if somebody did it to us. But if we do, then we should all stop....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, people are coming into the province without skills and without training, and we have to go to the expense of....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I'm not suggesting for a moment — so that I'm not misunderstood — building a Scottish Hadrian's Wall at the Alberta border. All I'm saying is that if there's a positive or a plus flow of people to British Columbia looking for jobs and we find the kind of situation that existed in February where there were far more vacancies in Alberta and we put up $160 — I think it was $160 per person — to try and relocate these people where there were jobs, it really bothers me. I'm not picking on Alberta. I'd feel the same way whether it was Saskatchewan, Manitoba or any other province.

I wonder if the Minister has given up on this kind of programme. If he hasn't, how do we get around this business of Canada Manpower? It was supposed to be serving all of Canada. Once again, it is a federal agency. I didn't think there were any preferential or picky attitudes that they would take one policy for one province and not for another. I just feel that this is a very important issue that the Minister should bring us up to date on and tell us what the plans are for the future. Furthermore, how far away would we be willing to subsidize or provide financial help? Is there any kind of mileage the Minister has in mind?

Obviously, the further the person has to travel, the more it costs. But if there were jobs in Saskatchewan or Manitoba or Ontario.... What discussions have gone on at federal-provincial conferences on this particular topic?

The last issue I wanted to raise is that we have talked many times about the family unit and that the order in society breaks down with family breakdown and marriage breakdown. Again, I just want to say that I think the Berger commission has done a fantastic job on this series of reports in a relatively short time and in very well-written, clear, understandable English. Out of all that, I would anticipate quite a flood of legislation, particularly in relation to children. The last report makes it very clear, I think, that children appear to have no rights in our society, or very few, and that legislation in this regard would be forthcoming.

The Minister had announced, back in March, that the government would sponsor a family life conference of some kind. I am not quite sure that at that time the Minister had the format for the conference spelled out. I think I received a notice the other day that we are to have a meeting on Monday of next week to discuss this.

Since it is very obvious when we talk about juvenile delinquency and social problems of one kind or another, and drug problems, that we realize a lot of it is related to family breakdown, could the Minister give us some idea just what this family life conference format will be, when it is going to get underway, who is to be involved and to what degree? I don't suppose Justice Berger can be involved — he is busy on another project. But I would hope that the family life conference would involve the people who are responsible for the work of the Berger commission to the greatest extent.

HON. MR. LEVI: In respect to the conference, after the meeting on Monday we will probably have a much better idea about the date. I personally would like to see the conference take place toward the end of September or October, hopefully at a time when the Legislature is sitting, because I think it is important that as many Members of the House as possible participate in the conference.

We would look to be bringing together 200 to 300 people from all walks of life across the province — young people, old people. I have spoken to a group of people who have been looking at alternate lifestyles in a very positive, responsible way, and I urged them to be in touch and be prepared to make a presentation. I think that is worthwhile. I spoke this

[ Page 3801 ]

week to the Catholic community services and urged them. They will be getting invitations. A week before I spoke to a group of seniors.

I would like to see us get an as broad as possible dialogue going. I don't think it is necessary for us to have too many professional people there in the sense that they will be leading the thing. We hope to get into workshops; then I would hope that we would move from the general conference in the fall to regional conferences from then on, because we want to involve as many people as possible.

It is very exciting to have the kind of co-operation we have had from the church leaders and, hopefully, from all of the party leaders, their caucuses and from the community. We are already getting a great number of inquiries. Miss Connie Hally is now organizing it. She is on it full-time, and she will be putting the thing together. We will be discussing some of the keynote speakers, and that is obviously something we need to have for the conference.

In relation to that, I was asked a question yesterday which I didn't get a chance to reply to: how many of the children coming into care come into care as a result of family breakdown? During the fiscal years 1974-75, we had a total of some 4,600 children from all over the province, including the Vancouver area, admitted to the department. Of course, there was an almost equal number going out at the other end. Of that number, they have at the top: parental failure — 1,469, which is about a third. But when you also add some of the others...for instance, you have: physical abuse — 81; desertions and abandonment — 375; one parent deceased or sole parent deceased, parent illness (mental), parent illness (physical), and so on — the number comes pretty close to 2,700, which is more than 50 per cent as a direct result of family breakdown for a variety of reasons.

You made reference to immigration and to the general problem. One of the interesting facts that we picked up recently was that just about 50 per cent of the people who are drawing unemployment insurance in the Vancouver area have SIN numbers, social insurance numbers, that come from outside of the province. To some extent it would give you some indication of the large number of people who move to the province and who work here. There is a movement the other way.

I think it is probably more appropriate for my colleague the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) to comment on this, but one of the things that is happening is that at the meetings of the Ministers of Labour, they are getting more and more down to the nuts and bolts of talking about training, attempting to train or retrain people to fill those jobs that are not being filled. So that kind of cooperation has started with Canada Manpower.

I must say that not a great deal of discussion goes on with the provincial government about just how many immigrants we are likely to get. Last year we got about 27 per cent of the total immigration to Canada — I think the total was around 260,000.

It's time that we had a fairly broad conference about immigration in terms of how it affects the provinces. The issue of how many is something the federal government can decide. What we would like to know is: when are they coming, who are they, and what kind of pressure are they going to put on the number of services we have? Of course, when we bring people in there's tremendous pressure, for instance, on health services. If we have a series of older people coming it puts pressure on our intermediate-care and adult-care services. So we do need to have a much better kind of relationship with the federal government on the planning aspects of this.

I have no comments to make about the general debate on the Green Paper because that thing is being discussed by the public, but I think the Member is right: we do need to have a much better kind of planning about this. It doesn't exist. I've raised the issue with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I've also raised it with the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It's time we started to have some discussions about this.

The other thing is that I've often characterized our province in relation to the kind of social services we have to give. For many people it's the province of last resort, They are in great desperation because they can't find employment or that kind of thing in other provinces. They move out here and at great cost to the municipalities. That's one of the reasons we moved with Vancouver to take over the administration costs. They were picking up about 25 percent of the total load of the province because of the large number of transients, and that was on the backs of the taxpayers, because that was the largest piece of the system.

In summing that up, we do need very much to have this kind of discussion.

In relation to moving people, we do move people and we are continuing to move people. Obviously we are moving them in a kind of low-profile way so that we don't have some kind of roar-back. The movement is paid for primarily by Canada Manpower payments. It's not something that the government has to shoulder. They have the grants.

You made reference to the case in North Vancouver. In the resolution of that case, I think the Member probably appreciates that what was going on between myself and the mayor is that he wanted me to be the heavy and he wanted to be the nice guy, so I was the one that had to make a decision when it was clearly a decision that he had to make. What was decided was the way they dealt with it previously. The individual in the case was getting a Canada Pension Plan disability pension, and whatever else

[ Page 3802 ]

they needed above that was paid for in vouchers. The rent was paid directly to the landlord. The resolution of the case generally, unfortunately, resulted in the one spouse winding up in jail, not in relation to the events that the Member described but a whole different set of events. The whole thing was very tragic. The notoriety given to the case, fortunately, is in no way indicative of the kind of problem we have to deal with. I can't recall of that kind of problem every coming up before. There have been a number of things that people have suggested about the case, but I think that we've dealt with it in the very best way possible. While I appreciate that taxpayers get very exercised about this — I was certainly exercised when I heard about it — we are catering for a very large system where the vast majority of people who need the system are people who get it. I don't think that we should have this kind of case cloud the good work that's done by the system.

In terms of preventing this kind of thing, it's always been my opinion that if somebody sets out in a very premeditated, somewhat diabolical way to beat the system, then they're going to beat it, because they're going to go to great lengths to create a number of subterfuges in order to do it. That becomes very difficult to monitor, but in the larger system, again in the Vancouver area, we've had this going now for over four months, where there is direct issue of cheques where the recipients are seen every month — those that were on the mail-out had to come and pick up their cheques and their ID was checked. There are much better checks going on. We instituted that first to get the ID thing and then the post office cooperated by not being efficient enough....

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: Right. So we've continued it, and it's been very beneficial.

I want to just say something about the adoption — the Member did ask yesterday what has happened to the Indian adoption case. That's been before the supreme court, as the Member says, for quite some months.

MR. WALLACE: October last.

HON. MR. LEVI: I spoke to a lawyer recently. We have no indication of when it's coming down. There's been some speculation as to why it's taking so much time. I don't know. If I had to speculate — and I'm not a lawyer — maybe there's a constitutional question or something, but we have actually no indication of when it's coming down, and I guess if it doesn't come down by the end of this month it's not likely to come down again until October because I don't think they sit again until then.

In the meanwhile, legally all of those children — over 100 of them — are in some kind of legal limbo. It's something that we can do nothing about. It is completely in the hands of the supreme court.

In relation to the Vietnamese children, we in B.C. got seven. I have an almost daily report on one child because one of my children baby-sits for the child. In all cases of children brought to Canada, and I think there were about 120 altogether, they were all pre-arranged. There were a total of 280 children being arranged for in Canada prior to the overthrow or capture of Saigon. All of the children who have come — just over 100 of them — were all arranged for. The parents knew about them.

I did have an opportunity last week to speak with some of the American people from the Child Welfare League of America. In that whole horrendous, almost hysterical process that took place, one thing was that they had landed themselves with a significant number of children who don't know who they are. They kind of scooped them up and brought them over. As the Member mentioned, we've had the Korean child case, which is a very unfortunate situation. That case, at the moment, is going along the question of certifying identity, and that will take some time because there's going to be some genetic testing done.

But we've tried and with some success now, but not earlier, with the federal government. Well over a year and a half ago we tabled a paper at a conference where we had to set up a desk. We have that now; that desk is operating out of Ottawa to help the welfare department. But I would doubt, frankly, that we are going to get any children out of South Vietnam. I think that's closed off.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: I don't know where else. Certainly not large numbers of children are going to be available. For our own part in Canada — and we've said this at meetings — we should look very closely at how many children we're sending out of the country because we were sending children out and bringing children in, and it didn't make a great deal of sense. The Ministers have agreed; they've exchanged information, and hopefully we will have a few more children available. I think last year, 1973 were actually the figures, 120 children went out of the country — mostly to the United States.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: We didn't send any out, but a large number were going out of Saskatchewan. About a third of them were Indian children. That whole process is now stopped.

The one point I want to make is that in relation to the Indian adoption situation we did set up a project

[ Page 3803 ]

between the two groups, BCANSI and the B.C. Union. They hired staff, we trained them and put them in the field. That worked for about eight months. Unfortunately, as a result of the April 22 resolution that project has now come to an end.

I think that answers pretty well all the questions.

MR. WALLACE: Reunion registry.

HON. MR. LEVI: Oh, reunion registry. I should say this: as long as I'm Minister it will not be instituted. I think we've had a good debate about it. We've got the clear wishes of the people out there, and we must follow them. It will not become a question of legislation.

MR. WALLACE: Could I just follow up on one point? I wasn't quite clear on the Minister's answer on this mobility grant situation. I got the impression, perhaps wrongly, that the federal government, through Canada Manpower, said no way, in relation to the Alberta situation.

Now where are we at? I just don't accept that. Canada Manpower's responsibility is a federal responsibility with equal treatment to all provinces. If Canada Manpower, in this kind of situation in Alberta, is saying that they are looking after Alberta, even though people in British Columbia could go and work there, they don't accept that. Well, that seems to me to be a contradiction of the whole basic idea that Canada Manpower is a federal agency finding jobs for people regardless of provincial boundaries.

Could the Minister say if there are to be further discussions of this? Have we corresponded with Canada Manpower and asked them for a delineation of policy? Do they have a policy? Is it a seat-of-the-pants policy?

HON. MR. LEVI: It's got a little bit to do with politics. I did raise it with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration when I was in Ottawa. They had checked into it prior to my getting there in April, because I had raised it in February. They said that they'd straightened it out. I'm informed that we are moving people again, not necessarily to Alberta. The grants referred to in our report really relate to the relocation of families from here to other provinces. Canada Manpower does get itself involved in a lot of relocation grants. For instance, they cooperate with us in terms of the families we are doing. But I think that it's happening. We're doing it in a less obvious way because it was upsetting them. But it is now continuing; it's happening.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't have very much to add. I'm interested that two people, neither of whom were born in Canada, are arguing the question about whether there should be more immigrants to British Columbia. I think that's one of those curious ironies, and a very good one too, particularly if we're also arguing about the mobility of people within Canada from a very different point of view.

MR. WALLACE: I am now a loyal Canadian, just in case you've got any doubts about it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Very good. Whether or not he's a Scots nationalist, I'm not sure. He's at least here, a loyal Canadian.

I would like to question the Minister on the alternative education programmes. The point was raised with me by the group-home day-care programme, which is an outfit which was actually handling kids who otherwise would apparently have to go into some sort of institution. They don't fit in the public schools; they don't fit in the regular alternate programmes. The regular alternate programmes, as I understand it, are for the kids who have dropped out of school and are not fitting into the regular school system. The kids in this particular programme appear to be those who need more in the way of supervision and more in the way of almost institutional assistance.

This brief that came to me, which is very similar, I believe, to a brief presented both to the Minister and to the Premier, talks about government programmes being cut back, and the group-home day programme being cut back very substantially. I've got the June 11, 1975 serial letter of the Department of Human Resources concerning alternative education and rehabilitation programmes, but I think that we do want to make sure that programmes which were apparently operating successfully — and the Minister can correct me on that — are being discontinued for financial reasons, which again is my supposition on the basis of the information that's been given to me, while we have at the same time the Minister talking about further trends into forest camps, or things of that nature, which would appear to me to have to handle the kids that the home day programme will have to release.

It seems that on the one hand, you're cutting back on a programme that's doing something useful, and on the other, you're causing yourself extra expenditure in another area. Maybe there's good reason for this, maybe there isn't; but I am concerned that the people who wrote me this letter, the staff representatives of the group-home day programme, have the opportunity at least of continuing this programme if it is indeed successful.

That perhaps is a starting point. If the Minister could indicate how valuable this programme is, perhaps then he could also indicate whether it's worth the money he's been putting out, and perhaps he could finally indicate whether or not they're going

[ Page 3804 ]

to get more money, because from the look of it, from what I've heard, this programme is to be terminated because of lack of funds.

It looks as though this programme is to be terminated. Perhaps the Minister could simply indicate to me what the situation is.

HON. MR. LEVI: We met this morning with the group, myself and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly), and heard from them in respect to their brief.

One of the things that's happened with the programme is that it's operating out of what's called the special services for children, and it more appropriately should operate on a budget out of the alternate school programme; it's being funded as a special services for children programme. We pointed that out to them. We had the co-coordinator for alternate schools there. We're going to work with them about rearranging the programme.

The other thing is that they're doing extremely good work. Their work is very similar to the work being done in the Vancouver area by the step up to the day programme — they're getting the same kinds of children. These people are doing it with a less intensive staff ratio, and discussions are going on with them now about how the programme can still operate effectively — as effectively as other programmes in Vancouver dealing with the same kind of children — but with less staff. I raised this issue seven months ago when I met with the Victoria School Board and some of the staff to discuss alternate schools. I then found that in this programme, although it's an alternate school model, it's not funded that way. We usually do that on a budget basis — we look at staffing and other things. So the main thing is that because we have put guidelines on the special services for children programme, that certainly will result in the reduction of the number of staff they've got available because it is, frankly, a very rich programme. There are something like 15 workers and 18 children.

The other thing that we discussed this morning, which is of equal significance, is we want to know what is happening to those young people after they go through the programme — not all of them go back to school. We expect to get some information, because it's one thing for us to put a heavy emphasis on this — in this case, I think too heavy an emphasis in terms of the richness of the programme — and not have full information about what happens to the children on a follow-up basis. That's coming to us. So there are discussions going on with them. There will be some arrangement made for the continuation of the programme. I don't think the programme is going out of business. They understand this morning in our discussions that we could not continue to fund such a staff-rich programme. It's just too rich in that sense compared to other ones.

The other thing is that because it was special services that they were getting the funds from, and that is a budget that is administrated by the regional director, it was cutting fairly heavily into the rest of his budget. So it's being discussed with them today as a matter of fact, and probably on Monday, about getting into the alternate school model in terms of funding.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I thank the Minister and, as this matter is under discussion and clearly is being taken care of, I'll certainly leave it there, but I would like the information he might be able to provide me with later.

Mr. Chairman, the question of immigration was raised. I checked the British North America Act and I see in section 95: "In each province, the legislature may make laws in relation to agriculture in the province and to immigration into the province, and it is hereby declared that the Parliament of Canada may, from time to time, make laws in relation to agriculture in any or all of the provinces, and to immigration into, any and all of the provinces," et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Immigration is very definitely a split jurisdiction. It, along with agriculture, is one of the two listed there specifically.

We have a Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) and there's a federal Minister of Agriculture and nobody thinks anything of this. They fight back and forward occasionally about $1 for a programme here or $100 million for a programme there. But never has any province in recent memory, with the exception of Manitoba under the Conservative government, to my knowledge, got at all involved in the question of immigration. As the subject has been raised under this Minister's estimates, and as there is a Green Paper currently put forward by the other jurisdiction responsible for immigration, namely the federal jurisdiction, I wonder whether the Minister could be a little more informative about the provincial government attitude. It's not a question of us not having jurisdiction or having to lobby some other body; we have power to make law relating to immigration into the Province of British Columbia.

I raise this at this time, Mr. Chairman, because I have raised this under a number of other things — namely, for example, B.C. Hydro borrowing and the absurd way that growth takes place in this province, based entirely upon projections of B.C. Hydro. That seems to be the only planning agency for growth — and it's more, more, more. I've raised it under the Minister of Finance — the Premier; I've raised it under just about every heading I can. I think it's about time British Columbia decided where it wants to go in the years ahead. We have 2.5 million people, more or less, at the present time and a possibility of 20 million people within the lifetime of some of the people in

[ Page 3805 ]

the gallery. None of us here, perhaps, will see that, but some of the people in this room will — some of the younger people.

Is that the way we want to go? It's time, I believe, for a look at what sort of society we want in British Columbia in the future. This is not just a question of who's going to own the companies, because that's irrelevant almost in comparison with the type of social pressures that are going to be created by tremendous growth. Ownership of companies — whether it's privately owned or publicly owned — is an important issue, no question. But in terms of whether this province has 2.5 million people or 25 million people, there you are really getting into some questions of a different lifestyle.

We've done nothing so far. I've been unable to interest any Minister so far in letting me know whether they're doing any thinking, whether they've got any people involved in trying to decide where British Columbia is going and whether it's going in the right direction in terms of growth. The jurisdiction is joint. I would assume this Minister is as responsible as any other that I can think of for this particular area.

Perhaps he could give us some information on his views or on the government's views or what sort of submission will be put to the Green Paper on Immigration, whether or not we ourselves are making any steps, for example, in terms of decentralization. We hear great things out of the Minister for Northern Development — or the Minister Without Portfolio responsible for northern development (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler). We hear things about the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea). The Highways Minister is one of the few planners in terms of decentralists in the province. He has opportunities for decentralizing population. The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) is another one probably responsible for growth and for industrial development. Of course, we have yet another Minister there. But there's no co-coordinating Minister, except for perhaps this one.

I would like the Minister to take a couple of minutes just to tell us what's happening. The people of British Columbia have no idea what the attitude of the provincial government is towards the future in terms of the size of the province, the development of the province, in terms of what the provincial government thinks our growth potential may be.

I happen to be one who feels that growth is not a desirable thing in itself and that we do not need enormous industries now located in Ontario or elsewhere to make us a wealthy people — we are wealthy now on a per-capita basis — when we do get heavily into secondary industry, unless we're very careful as to what ones we attempt to choose to locate here. I believe that we happen to be a primary-resource-industry province — a development province — because that's what gives us more bucks. That's what pays us more; that's why we do it. That's not bad. If we can have a very high standard of living, with many groups in British Columbia the highest paid in the world.... I don't think it's a bad thing for certain groups of tradesmen in British Columbia to be the highest-paid in the world. I think that's great if we can keep it up but at the same time maintain our other social services and maintain employment for other people as well.

I know full well that these wage levels undoubtedly will decline in the future if we....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Mr. Member, I think you're digressing just a little bit on the specific responsibilities of this Minister.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, you're perfectly right, Mr. Chairman. I am digressing. But it's so nice and refreshing to get a Minister who replies to questions and considers concepts, when you're met so often by the negative stonewall tactics of some of his colleagues. This is a very major subject; this is a subject which in some ways transcends all the other subjects we talk about. It's a joint federal-provincial jurisdiction. This government has as yet given no indication of its attitude. We had a much better idea of the previous government's attitude. We don't have an indication of this government's attitude.

That's one question. I'm off the subject, I agree, but he's going to spend two minutes only, well within his estimates, telling me about it.

The other question is this: is there now an assets test for Mincome? If there is, is it the same as the social assistance assets test? I still don't understand how we can have regulations governing both programmes, and then you telling us that the programmes are on a different basis.

There is no way in my mind that you can have orders-in-council signed by the Lieutenant-Governor, and then you go around ignoring them, which apparently you seem to be doing. Is there an assets test for Mincome now? Is it the same as the social assistance assets test?

HON. MR. LEVI: In respect to your last question, we are now going to take a very close look at what you have been saying, because you are persistent in following that process, and I would hope to have an opportunity to talk to you about it. I can't comment now because I really want to go through it again.

You know, when we put together the regulations we go through a fairly rigid process not only with our legal people, but those regulations have to be accepted by the Canada Assistance Plan people because of the sharing.

I can't comment now. My understanding of it, and I will examine the regulations again, is that it is still,

[ Page 3806 ]

as far as we see, an income-tested programme. I say that now; if I have to back off on that the next time we meet, then I am quite prepared to do so. But my impression is that we develop the regulations in terms of income-tested base programme in terms of Mincome.

I'll certainly examine what the Member has said and come back to you at the next sitting.

Now, in relation to the broad question of immigration and planning and no-growth, the Premier and other Members have expressed that in terms of no-growth, that's not a decision that a provincial government makes. After all, we are part of the whole of Canada....

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: I appreciate that. We also have a principle in Canada which allows people to flow back and forth in terms of the decisions they make.

All right, the government has made decisions about where it is going in terms of the development of secondary industry, in terms of the kinds of programmes we develop in the province in relation to seniors, which do attract people from other provinces. So there is an openness about it.

We can, as the Member suggests, become just a resource-based industry without the development of secondary industry, and then we probably still would have a growth problem because people would still come in. There would still be the kind of demand.

There is a need for discussion on the broad question of where Canada is going in terms of population. That's presumably coming out of some of the debates that are going on as a result of the Green Paper.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Are we going to make a submission to it?

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, I think we will wait to make a submission when the thing gets back to Ottawa. I don't think that it would be appropriate, when the community is being involved in the submissions here, for the government to make a submission at that time, but rather when it gets back to Ottawa we will then have something to say about it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Who is the co-coordinating Minister?

HON. MR. LEVI: We have been discussing this with other Ministers. It is something that has yet to be discussed in the human services committee in a formal way, but I'm interested and have been saying, as have other Ministers, that we simply have to get into that whole area of decision-making in terms of immigration, and you've pointed out a piece of legislation, but in practice that kind of role of the provinces in respect to immigration never actually operated, except in the instance of Manitoba.

So I would see us making representations in respect to that when the travelling system finishes and winds up in Ottawa, because I think when government tends to make statements about things, it does have a tendency to overshadow the public input. I think that kind of thing should wait until towards the end when we move towards that kind of thing.

That is basically what you were asking.

Vote 109 approved.

Vote 110: departmental administration and support services, $3,914,703 — approved.

Vote 111: community services, $14,366,333 — approved.

On vote 112: services for families and children, $59,193,296.

MR. McCLELLAND: A very brief question to the Minister. I was out of the House when I think you partially answered this question yesterday. It has to do with day-care rates.

As an example, if a single parent — a mother, in this instance — was receiving full subsidized day care, was paying no money for her day-care services, and had a husband, estranged, who was making perfectly good money, did I understand correctly the Minister to say that the department makes no effort to recover any money for day-care services from that husband? If so, it seems to me....

AN HON. MEMBER: From the spouse.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, from a spouse, whether it be husband or wife. I know of instances where husbands are pulling down $1,500 a month, and the estranged wife, perhaps in a different community, is getting completely subsidized day care. It seems to me that husband should bear some responsibility for that charge.

I would like to ask the Minister whether any of the money in this vote will go towards any new facilities for juvenile offenders, or whether that is completely outside the jurisdiction of the Minister's department.

With regard to native Indian children, is there an ongoing, active programme to get native adoptive children placed in homes? Are the restrictions at this time too tight with regard to native foster homes?

Could the Minister tell us how many native Indian social workers there are in British Columbia, and if there's an ongoing programme to get more native people streamed into social work?

[ Page 3807 ]

HON. MR. LEVI: To go to the topic of day care, where is the separation of a couple and the spouse goes on welfare, there is a requirement that there be an application for a maintenance order. In some cases the kind of antagonism that exists has really made the thing very difficult to do. We will act as a third party, but the application for an order of maintenance is made, whether we do it or whether the wife does it. There are some situations where there's an option. If there's a possibility of reconciliation then it's better if we do it and we don't antagonize the couple. But it is done. As a matter of fact that's the condition of receiving welfare — you make an application to seek support from the husband.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm talking about the case of a person who isn't on welfare. The mother isn't on welfare. The mother works and is getting full subsidy, but the father....

HON. MR. LEVI: But what is she living on?

MR. McCLELLAND: On her wages.

HON. MR. LEVI: Oh, if she's working. But the thing is she might not necessarily get a full subsidy.

MR. McCLELLAND: But suppose she did. Now I'm talking about a case where she does. The father makes good money, and nobody has made any application to get recovery from that father.

HON. MR. LEVI: That's an interesting point. There is no provision in that way, short of getting a maintenance order. Presumably if they're separated, even if they're not on welfare, one presumes — and I don't doubt that in some cases that maintenance orders are not made — in that case that woman is treated as a separate entity. We are only able to proceed in our legislation through the regulations we have. You've raised a very interesting point, and I'll certainly discuss that with the staff. That's something that we've not considered — not that I'm aware of.

The Deputy says that we do, in taking an application, make an attempt to take a joint income application, even if they're separated, to try and find out what the other person is getting. If, of course, it's beyond the subsidy level, it's rejected. But I think the other point you've raised is an interesting one.

In this budget there are provisions for juvenile services but not for the containment thing that you've been asking about. They're not in there.

In respect to the Indian adoption which I covered just before, we did set up, in cooperation with the B.C. Union of Indian Chiefs and BCANSI, a project as a result of the report that was done that year. Four people were hired — Indian people who were trained — and put into the field in two areas. That programme was developing extremely well, but as a result of the April 22 decision the programme has now come to a halt and the people are no longer working. That's the decision that they made.

One of the things that we did find out in that project was an attitude by the Indian people when we were seeking people for foster-home placements and people who might adopt. One of the most consistent responses we were getting was "We would like to get our own children back first" — a very reasonable kind of statement. Unfortunately, the programme's come to an end.

In respect to the number of staff who are Indian in the department, I think it's eight. We found outside workers of the department in bands — we paid the salary to the band who hired them — and my understanding is in the province, both from the federal end and our end, there are probably something like 60 people who are Indians who were,working in the social services area. We have only eight.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, just a brief question. We talked a lot about Pharmacare, which has been a great success, but I'm really puzzled to know why the Pharmacare administration costs are up by 180 per cent. On vote 110 it's gone up from $81,000 to $226,000 for administration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We're on vote 112.

MR. WALLACE: I'm sorry. Are you certain of that?

HON. MR. LEVI: It was a bit earlier, Scotty.

MR. WALLACE: You went from 109 to 112 in a hell of a hurry.

Vote 112 approved.

Vote 113: services for senior citizens and handicapped persons, $166,283,172 — approved.

Vote 114: health care services, $28,548,700 — approved.

On vote 115: community programmes, $28,398,169.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We've got to be very quick in this House.

I just wanted to ask basically some information about the community resource boards, and some kind of up-to-date report by the Minister as to how many areas in the province now have resource boards and what areas don't have resource boards?

They were set up under legislation, and there has been a great deal of publicity about the inadequacies of elections and the inadequate knowledge of people

[ Page 3808 ]

generally as to what resource boards are supposed to accomplish — and a whole variety of other issues in relation to resource boards. That is one point.

On a specific point, I have had complaints from people living in Port Coquitlam that the resource board office, while it operates a telephone from 8:30 to 5, is actually only open between 11 and 12 and 1 to 2:30.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Members to restrain themselves a little bit.

MR. WALLACE: There seems to be joy unbounded because we finally got the Minister's vote and we are on very rapid progress toward 1 o'clock.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: We always know that when the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) gets up highjinks over there, anything can happen.

That is just a specific question. Is there uniformity in the hours in the different areas, and what is the access of people to the resource board's services? It appears that this specific has been brought to my attention in Port Coquitlam. Does it vary from place to place? What uniformity is the Minister establishing in regard to the functioning of resource boards?

HON. MR. LEVI: In respect to the office you refer to, there isn't, to my knowledge, a resource board there. There is the Share organization. But if you are making reference to the offices of the department, the only thing that we require is that people start at 8:30. That is the important thing — that the office starts at 8:30. The variations in the hours are something that can be worked out with the staff in conformity with their contract.

In relation to the resource boards, in the Vancouver area we now have 8 elected boards. We have a number of boards that are moving to elections in the fall. Minus ones in Vancouver, that is a total of 16 more, which will give us in the province by the end of the year all of the boards in Vancouver, which is 14, 16 outside, plus the Health and Human Resources boards that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) and I are cooperating with — James Bay, Grand Forks, Queen Charlotte Islands, Houston and Granisle. I think there will be 35 community resource board operations going.

Boards in Kamloops, Prince George, Terrace, Smithers, Prince Rupert and Nelson are going to elections. Abbotsford made their decision the other night. That covers pretty well all of them.

We have moved in that way because, first of all, most of the boards on the interim basis were extremely valuable to us in that whole grants programme that we operate in the office. That gave them the opportunity to get into the business of local grants. Some very interesting decisions were made in terms of terminating some, in relation to developing new programmes and in relation to increasing programmes.

In travelling around the province, my impression is that — except for North Shore area, where there appears to be, from the point of view of the municipalities, no interest in this — it is a bit of a departure from what normally happens in the development of a resource board. It is usually the community that makes the decision. It appears over there that the municipalities have decided to make the decision. The task force, as I understand, will probably proceed to get some kind of opinion out of the people there.

The Vancouver resource board area has been an extremely interesting experience. In my view and in the view of other, people I have spoken to over there, the service level, in terms of availability to the public, has increased enormously because we have been able to decentralize the process. We specifically reduced that kind of thing.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEVI: The support that I am getting over here is such that I had better sit down.

MR. McCLELLAND: I will try to be briefer than the Minister if I can, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of comments.

The North Vancouver thing interests me. I don't know whether the Minister was quoted correctly, but in one report, the Minister is quoted as saying that it is up to people, not councils to make these decisions. Well, the council reflects the wishes of the people, we would hope. There hasn't been any great public outcry to have these community resource boards established. I would think the Minister would have been a little concerned about the consistently very low voter turnout in the elections for community resource boards. It could be understood in the first couple of elections because it was very new; nobody knew what they were doing and there was no publicity and really no active involvement by the community in the area.

In the last view, there has been a real thrust by the people in the communities concerned to get people out to vote, to get people out to run for office and to make sure that the community was well represented all the way around. And still there was a very low, low voter turnout, embarrassingly low, I am sure. I would think that the Minister should perhaps reassess his position slightly and decide whether or not the people really has made a decision and couldn't care

[ Page 3809 ]

less whether they have community resource boards in their area. Maybe they would sooner have that umbrella provided by, perhaps, a volunteer service organization, as has happened in many communities and still is happening in most communities which haven't yet had elections, and with the overall responsibility left under the control of the municipal council.

It seems to me that to some degree we're cutting out the municipal decision here. When we do that, then we are cutting out the decision of the people, because the municipal council more closely reflects the people than any other elected body of government. We also, in many instances, as the resource board concept grows, will put, I think, undue pressure on some municipal jurisdictions to keep up with the Joneses. If one resource board manages to get some extra support services in the community, I can see the other resource board in the neighbouring community demanding to have the same kind of support services, even though those support services may not be applicable for that community. I would think that that would be something that would have to be watched in the future.

The concept of community resource boards; I like the volunteer method much better than the new method which is being established in British Columbia. I've said that on many occasions; I don't need to repeat it any more. The concept was to bring in one umbrella organization to co-ordinate, consolidate and make sure that duplication of services is largely ended. I don't know what it's like in other parts of the province, but in my constituency that hasn't happened. We still have to separate and distinct organizations operating under two separate budgets: the original family life programme, which started the volunteer community resource idea, and now the new community resource council, which is not an elected council yet. So instead we have two fundings here when it should have been ensured that both of those came together in the beginning. I'd just like to ask the Minister what's happening in that area and whether or not.... I know there are local jealousies involved and it's a very difficult situation. Nevertheless, if we agree that the concept that we stop that duplication of services is correct, then those two organizations should be melded as quickly as possible.

HON. MR. LEVI: Just in relation to the Langley situation, I think the Member has put his finger on it. First of all, the thing has not gone to formal election. Once that happens, the decisions to merge can be made; that's the authority of the board.

In relation to the turnout in elections, I am reminded by my colleague from North Vancouver that the turnout in the municipal election in the District of North Vancouver was 9 per cent — 9 per cent.

MR. McCLELLAND: I think you'd better check that.

HON. MR. LEVI: He's a fairly thorough-going researcher.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. LEVI: I know of elections....

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEVI: Don't get so sensitive. If it's right, it's 9 per cent.

You talk about the influence of the municipality. The thing is that we do have visibility in terms of education; we have school boards. We have visibility in terms of health matters; those are health boards. But we have never had any visibility in terms of the whole social service programmes. We spend one heck of a lot of money. I don't disagree with the role of the voluntary sector in terms of the volunteer thing, but the comments I've made about boards, of agencies being very private ....

We had a turnout in the Vancouver South election of some 3,900 people. I am informed that when the Minister of Health and myself met with the staff at the Grand Forks community health and human resource election, 32 per cent of the population turned out to vote — 32 per cent. That's a small area, but it's got a tremendous amount of interest.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEVI: Frightened them into coming out? Oh, well.... (Laughter.) Alec, if we'd taken you around, we'd have really been in trouble.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEVI: So the thing is that I'm not actually.... The number of people, which does run into the hundreds, is more impressive than the fact of a few people turning out to the private board there.

Vote 115 approved.

On vote 116: income assistance programmes, $167,198,944.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to remind the Minister of Human Resources of a copy of a letter which was sent to him and a copy of a resolution from the Municipality of Surrey in which it is pointed out that the municipal jurisdictions throughout the province are levied the per-capita

[ Page 3810 ]

charge to cover welfare administration costs, but in New Westminster, District of Coquitlam, Richmond, West Vancouver, Burnaby, District of North Vancouver and Surrey, those people are still responsible for those charges. The actual per-capita cost application in Surrey for welfare administration amounts to $4.73 per capita. This is net of any recoveries that they might make from the provincial government.

The rate, of course, reflects that Surrey has a large welfare roll, and as such the administration is considerably higher. It doesn't seem fair that the people in Surrey should pay this $400,000 more than people in other parts of the province. The council correctly has asked the Ministers in charge to take steps to correct this situation as quickly as possible. I'd like to ask the Minister when that situation might be rectified.

HON. MR. LEVI: We've been examining this business of taking over the administration. There are two issues involved. One is the cost factor, which is not as significant as some people might think. But the other one is the whole implementation process of taking over. That is a significant factor.

We found in taking over some municipalities that we incur a cost, we incur staffing problems, so as I have said in my letters to some of the municipalities, we are planning for it. But we've learned a great deal from the kind of process we went through in the Kamloops area and the Chilliwack area, and certainly in the Vancouver area. In terms of time, it will not happen in this fiscal year.

Vote 116 approved.

On vote 117: special programmes for the retarded, $29,532,626.

MR. WALLACE: Just a measure of appreciation to the Minister for the fact that this vote is up by 40 per cent. I think this should not go past without notice.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): I just have a few words of praise for the Minister in regard to the fine job that his staff and the Minister are doing in regard to the retarded and handicapped people. I have had a personal interest in this because there are two workshops for retarded people in my riding, and the Minister has certainly shown a great deal of feeling and sympathy in regard to seeing that the retarded people have a chance to do some of the things that other people do in our society.

When the Minister was in my riding, a matter of about a month ago, we visited these two workshops, and I was most impressed with the quality of the work and the attitude of the people there, both the instructors and the patients. I think the attitude that was displayed between the two of them was excellent. Just to demonstrate the type of work that some of these people are capable of, I would just like to show you a doily that the mentally handicapped produce in the Armstrong area. This is just one of the many things that they do. They even are making chests of drawers and furniture.

I'd just like to read a short letter that they sent down when they sent these doilies to my daughter when she was in hospital in Victoria, just to show you the type of communication that there is with the mentally handicapped. Many of us have thought in the past that they didn't have a chance to do anything in our society, that they couldn't be productive and that they couldn't enjoy life the same as the rest of us. It goes:

"Dear Brenda:

"We hope that you are feeling better. We are busy working at the workshop making hot pads, place mats, doilies, glass pitchers, geometric designs, dog Kleenex box covers. The boys are making picnic tables, house signs, chests of drawers, children's blocks and cupboards. Baseball at lunchtime now that the weather is nice. Last night we went bowling with our parents and our foster parents. We went skating and bowling during the winter and early spring.

"Next month we are going to be moving to another workshop in the Armstrong area. If you come this way with your parents, we hope you will stop in and see us."

This is written by one of the patients in the workshop.

I would just like to say that while we were there, it was demonstrated that the patients were really receptive to any sort of attention that they receive from anybody. This is one thing that they lack and they've lacked it in the past. I would just like to say that the Minister and his staff are doing an excellent job in this area. I know that funds are limited, and I would just hope that when the Members of the opposition start screaming about overruns, they will stop and take a look at some of these facilities that the Minister has provided, provided by the people of the province, and I think that they'll be proud and won't be nearly so critical about overruns in that department.

I'd just like to give you one instance of when the Minister and I were touring there. We stopped and visited a family that had a mentally handicapped child, and the Minister said to that child: "How do you like the workshop?" She said: "You couldn't keep me away from there if you tried. I'm going every day." You could just see the love for the fact that she had the chance to go to that workshop

[ Page 3811 ]

streaming out of that child.

So I'd just like to give a vote of confidence to the Minister on this programme and say thanks very much for the fine job he has done.

Vote 117 approved.

On vote 118: Alcohol and Drug Commission, $5,005,870.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'm just very interested to see that under the heading of rehabilitation programmes we've got $2.7 million. I know that the initial direction of the programme was to set up detoxification centres, which really is very much of an emergency first step in a much longer programme to deal with these patients. I wonder if the Minister could report on what success we're having with the rehabilitation programmes listed as costing $2.7 million in the year ahead.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, I think we commented earlier on what we are doing in terms of the methadone thing. The detox thing is proceeding. The next one that will be proceeded with is in the China Creek area of Vancouver. I did make reference yesterday, I think, to the new and somewhat innovative one that we're doing in the Oak Bay Manor with respect to people who are working.

More and more, as I said yesterday, we have to move simply in the area of the 95 per cent of the people who have problems, and not constantly focus on the five per cent of people who have problems. I'm not suggesting for a minute that we ignore them, but the other group has often been ignored in this area, and I think that the chances, the rehabilitation chances, are infinitely greater within a work context and in a family context, than they are if you are dealing with single, isolated people.

We have moved very specifically into that area. There are a number of programmes operating in the community through the non-profit organizations in terms of rehabilitation. The report covers a number. For instance, we have a very successful one operating in the Kelowna area. We have got one operating in Nanaimo. There are all together about 20 of these locations. Chilliwack has an operation.

As I said yesterday, I think the thing is that we have been able to exact from people the standard of service that we require, having gone through the accreditation programme. Again, the work proceeds in a slow way but in a somewhat sure way.

The other thing is that we have now completed the integration of the Alcohol Foundation and the Narcotic Addiction Foundation into the commission and its operations. There is a greater awareness. I have nothing but good to say about the operations that previously existed. They were there doing a tough job with a very unsympathetic government. The main thing is that the integration process has been successful. Everybody has been assured of a job in terms of the staff, except the directors, with whom settlements have been made. I think that we have been able to get the financing in much better order than it ever was.

MR. WALLACE: What is community response like?

HON. MR. LEVI: The community response is much better because what you have got is that there is a greater visibility. That is the important thing — a greater visibility of the services and a standard of service. I think that is what has been the big difference the commission has brought to these kinds of projects that existed previously.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would like to ask the Minister about one drug which is particularly harmful. It is not the one that I normally talk about, which is alcohol, but the other one, which is probably the second most damaging to society, namely, tobacco and nicotine. We all talk about heroin and all these things, but really in actual fact, the number of people who are heroin addicts is substantially below, I understand, what it was many decades ago.

I don't want to hold up the vote if the government has some reason for knocking off a little early.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No, we just have a petition to present.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But I would just like some fairly detailed information on the programmes for the prevention of this nicotine addiction, which is one of our major addiction problems in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Out of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's not out of order, because it says right up at the top under descriptions, "Cigarette Education."

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Carry on.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I don't want to hold things up. I just would like the Minister to indicate whether he has figures on the substantial increase in costs of our health services — the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) can aid him here — due to the nicotine- and tobacco-related diseases: throat cancer, lung cancer, this type of thing. How many tens of millions of dollars are we putting out as taxpayers into our health services? Quite apart from the human agony and misery that is caused, how much money is

[ Page 3812 ]

going in simply as a result of nicotine- and tobacco-induced illnesses? That is one thing I would like to know because it does appear that $300,000 for prevention programmes down there at the third line from the bottom for all drugs, all alcohol, is absolutely infinitesimal in comparison with the problems with which we are faced. I understand well over 4,000 cigarettes a year are smoked in the United States per capita. I wonder whether we have any figure for British Columbia or for Canada.

I wonder whether the Minister does have people working specifically within this area. It is great to focus on the major problem areas of the heroin and the drug addict which make such great copy and such great television, but everybody who smokes is risking, to a certain level, disease or indeed cancer. The costs to society are probably just as high, maybe higher. I wonder whether the Minister could indicate in this area. If he can't do it briefly, I certainly would appreciate his adjourning the debate and telling me next time.

HON. MR. LEVI: Frankly, in terms of the commission, there is no focus in the tobacco area. If you look at the terms of reference, it is not included. Of course in the health education programme that they operate, and in conjunction with what the Minister of Health is doing, this kind of thing is discussed. The Minister has indicated to me that he will make available the facts in relation to the question you asked about the cost of health services in relation to illness resulting from smoking. But it is not something with which the commission itself has become involved. The terms of reference "relate to rehabilitation counselling, following up, caring and in providing for other services for alcoholics or drug users." That particular issue of the tobacco thing is not something that really came within the purview of their particular position.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: When the drug, alcohol and cigarette education and prevention rehabilitation fund of 1974-75 was disbanded, broken down and otherwise disappeared, Mr. Minister, you did not pick up any responsibility for nicotine and tobacco. It all went to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke). You had the lesser drugs — the harder drugs but lesser in terms of extensive care.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes.

MR. McCLELLAND: Just one question. Would the Minister tell us whether or not the education kit which was to have been made available to counsellors at schools has, in fact, been scrapped? Is it being redone, and how much did it cost? I know you wouldn't have those figures at your fingertips.

HON. MR. LEVI: It is being reworked, and when we make it available we will give you the cost as well.

Vote 118 approved.

On vote 119: salary contingencies, $13,441,656.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: With $13 million for salary contingencies, it's a lucky break for the Minister. Could he give an explanation?

HON. MR. LEVI: With the taking over of the retarded, the total staff in the department is some 2,900 people, as opposed to before.

The contingency is all related to the collective bargaining agreement in respect to the COLA clauses. It is an estimate of the salary increases for 1975-76 which had not been settled at the time of the estimate process. Also the estimate covers additional staff that are required to be provided as a result of conditions in the contract — the slightly shorter hours and the shift differentials.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What would be the staff increase?

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, 250 was the anticipated number of staff that we would need to meet the obligations of the contract.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: This would be in addition, Mr. Minister, to those listed within the estimate pages.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: So we are really looking at 250 brand-new positions, unlisted on the other votes we've passed.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, and as the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) points out, it also includes the guesstimate of the first six months of the next contract, which starts halfway through the fiscal year. So that's in there as well.

Vote 119 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

[ Page 3813 ]

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

Hon. Mr. Hall presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1975.

Bill 142 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may crave the indulgence of the House for two matters? I would like to tell the Members of the House that there are in the gallery and in the precincts of the building at this moment, some 75 to 100 students: over 50 of these students are from McPherson Park Junior Secondary School in Burnaby, accompanied by a great number of students from Markham District High School in north Toronto.

These students have got together on a project to try and heighten public awareness on Chief Maquinna of the Nootka nation.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: That's the difference between "quinine" and "quininne" — it is my fault, Mr. Speaker, my pronunciation.

I want to tell the House that these students have, as part of that awareness programme, produced pamphlets and posters regarding this Indian's life 200 years ago and who met Captain Cook.

We met with the students. They have collected 4,000 signatures, and by leave of the House I would like to present the petition. The petition is:

"To the Hon. Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, in Legislature assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly showeth that

"whereas the 200th anniversary of the meeting of Chief Maquinna of the Friendly Cove and Captain James Cook is approaching, and

"whereas Maquinna played a key role in the early years of B.C.'s history, and

"whereas there is no major plaque or monument in B.C. today paying tribute to Chief Maquinna, we, the undersigned, urge the provincial government to erect a statue of Chief Maquinna at Friendly Cove or in Victoria at the time of the 200th anniversary of this occasion."

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I would like to point out that actually the Hon. Provincial Secretary was right the first time. He did have the correct pronunciation, according to our historian behind me.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:53 p.m.

APPENDIX

83       The Hon. Eileen E. Dailly to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 83) intituled Public Schools Amendment Act, 1975, to amend as follows:

By deleting section 4.

By adding the following after section 4:

"S. 104.

"4A. section 104 (5) is amended by adding ', or former trustee, officer, or employee,' in both places after 'a trustee, an officer or employee'."

"S. 105.

"4B. section 105 is amended by adding

(a) 'or former member' after 'member', and

(b) 'or former employee' after 'employee'."

By deleting sections 5, 6, and 9.

Section 11, in line 2 of the proposed section 138 (1): By inserting "or where no agreement exists," after "in any year,".

In lines 2 and 3 of the proposed section 141 (1): By deleting "October" in both cases and substituting "November".

In line 2 of the proposed section 141 (2): By deleting "November" in both cases and substituting "December".

By adding the following after section 16:

"S. 217.

"16A. section 217 (1) (b) is amended by striking out 'bank loan' and substituting 'loan from a bank, trust company, credit union, or the British Columbia Savings and Trust Corporation'."

Section 18, in the proposed section 249D (5): By deleting "subsection (1)".

[ Page 3814 ]

and substituting "subsection (4)".

Section 20: By deleting line 2 and substituting "(2) The council may pay to each member an annual honorarium of up to".

By deleting section 24.

83       Mr. Wallace to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 83) intituled Public Schools Amendment Act, 1975, to amend as follows:

Section 163, after proposed subsection (6) to add paragraph (c) as follows:

"(c) Where the Board of a School District has received fees for educational services to any pupil, who, for justifiable reasons, is receiving educational services in another school district, the Board of the School District which has received the fees, shall transfer those fees to the Board of the School District where the educational services are being provided."