[ Page 2381 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Public Officials and Employees Conflict of Interest Act (Bill 67) Mr. Gibson.

Introduction and first reading — 2381

Pollution Control (1967) Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 26) Hon. Mr. Nielsen.

Introduction and first reading — 2381

Water Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 27) Hon. Mr. Nielsen.

Introduction and first reading — 2381

Land Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 29) Hon. Mr. Nielsen.

Introduction and first reading — 2381

Petroleum and Natural Gas (1965) Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 25) Hon. Mr.

Waterland.

Introduction and first reading — 2381

Societies Act (Bill 47) Hon. Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading — 2381

Oral questions

Defacing of Saltspring petroglyph. Mr. Skelly — 2381

Purchase of B.C. ferries by Toronto financial house. Mr. Wallace — 2382

PREP pamphlet. Mr. Gibson — 2382

Seating of Vancouver East member in House. Mr. King — 2383

Proposed B.C.-Alberta pipeline. Mr. Lea — 2383

Tabling of lotteries report. Mr. Wallace — 2383

Health standards of ferry food dispensers. Ms. Sanford — 2383

Reduction in ferry usage. Mr. Lockstead — 2384

Premier's private railway coach. Mr. Lauk — 2384

Habitat liquor supply. Hon. Mr. Gardom answers — 2384

Committee of Supply: Department of Human Resources estimates.

On vote 113.

Mr. Wallace — 2385

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2385

Mr. Levi — 2387

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2391

Mr. Levi — 2392

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2393

Mr. Gibson — 2394

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2394

Mrs. Dailly — 2394

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2394

Mrs. Wallace — 2394

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2395

Mr. Gibson — 2396

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2397

Mr. Wallace — 2399

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2401

Mr. Levi — 2402

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2403

Ms. Sanford — 2403

Mr. Gibson — 2405

Mr. Barnes — 2406

Mr.Cocke — 2411

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2412

Mr. Levi — 2412

Statements

Premier's private railway coach. Hon. Mr. Phillips — 2417

Mid-Island public employees dispute. Hon. Mr. Williams — 2418

Mr. King — 2418

Mr. Gibson — 2418

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, one of the people visiting the Legislative Assembly today in the Speaker's gallery is my sister, Gail Petite, from Seattle, Washington, and I'd like the House to make her welcome.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome a delegation of students from the constituency of Richmond, from the Burnett Secondary School, accompanied by their teachers, Mrs. Cook and Mrs. Hutt.

Introduction of bills.

PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES
CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT

On a motion by Mr. Gibson, Bill 67, Public Officials and Employees Conflict of Interest Act, 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.

POLLUTION CONTROL (1967)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Nielsen, Bill 26, Pollution Control (1967) Amendment Act, 1976, 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.

WATER AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Nielsen, Bill 27, Water Amendment Act, 1976, 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.

LAND AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Nielsen, Bill 29, Land Amendment Act, 1976, 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.

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS (1965)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Waterland, Bill 25, Petroleum and Natural Gas (1965) Amendment Act, 1976, 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.

SOCIETIES ACT

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Gardom, Bill 47, Societies Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

DEFACING OF SALTSPRING PETROGLYPH

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Provincial Secretary. I've been informed by residents of Saltspring Island that a Mr. Cudmore has removed a petroglyph from Fulford Harbour to the site of his airport, and that in the process he has defaced the petroglyph. Does the minister plan to take action against Mr. Cudmore under the Archeological and Historic Sites Protection Act?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take that question as notice. I will be glad to get the information.

MR. SKELLY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

MR. SKELLY: She could perhaps take this as notice as well.

MR. SPEAKER: If you wish the hon. minister to take that as a further question, that's one thing, but to ask a supplemental question on something that has been taken as notice is really not in order. You can save the question until the time comes when the answer comes back to the floor of the House, or if there is other information.

MR. SKELLY: This is something that the minister could confirm at the same time as she's checking out the original question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Cudmore is apparently telling people on Saltspring that he has had permission...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SKELLY: ...from the Provincial Secretary's office...

[ Page 2382 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR.SKELLY: ...to remove the petroglyph.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. SKELLY: Can the Provincial Secretary confirm whether or not this is true?

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: That, Hon. Member, is not a question. The member knew it was not a question when he abused the privileges of the House to get to his feet to ask it. I would suggest you are making statements which are completely out of order. They are not questions.

I allowed the member to resume his feet on a further supplemental question which was not a question. It's an abuse of the privileges of the House and all of the members of this House, and it won't be tolerated.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. SKELLY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it was a question.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

MR. SKELLY: I asked if the Provincial Secretary would confirm something.

MR. SPEAKER: I'd ask you to read the rules that apply to question period, Hon. Member.

PURCHASE OF B.C. FERRIES
BY TORONTO FINANCIAL HOUSE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport and Communications a question with regard to the ferries Queen of Coquitlam and Queen of Cowichan and the minister's announcement that these ferries have been purchased by a Toronto financial house to permit the B.C. government to lease them back and use federal tax laws to the advantage of British Columbia.

Now that the deal has been completed, will the minister be tabling the documents with the House so that we can have financial details and so that we can learn what the government is proposing to do about the capital sums that were set aside over the past two or three years amounting to $40 million to $45 million which were destined for the purchase of the ferry?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to table all the relevant information. I should, however, add that as a result of the provisions of the new federal budget there is some question as to whether these leasing arrangements were completed on time. With that qualification, certainly we'll make all of the information available.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the whole proposal hinges very much on federal proposals presently before the House of Commons in the budget, could the minister tell the House what immediate plans he has to either meet with the federal Minister of Finance or at least discuss the issue with the federal officials?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Meetings are proceeding right now between officials, and I have written to the Minister of Finance in Ottawa in this connection.

MR. WALLACE: A quick supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I may. From the minister's answer, can we take it then that the decision to lease rather than purchase is not final but could be contingent upon subsequent negotiations with the federal government?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, from our point of view leasing is preferable because it, in effect, gives us much cheaper money. However, while it's quite likely that the first two vessels — the Queen of Cowichan and the Queen of Coquitlam — will qualify, we won't know with absolute certainty until we have a final ruling from the federal Department of National Revenue.

PREP PAMPHLET

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources. Did the minister authorize the publication of a pamphlet entitled "PREP, A Provincial Rehabilitation and Employment Programme"?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, yes.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary. I have here a copy obtained from the information office of the minister's department. It nowhere mentions on the pamphlet that the Queen's Printer had anything to do with it. I would ask him to tell us whether this was published by the Queen's Printer or whether it was paid for, perhaps, by the Social Credit Party.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would assume that that particular publication was printed right in our own print shop in the

[ Page 2383 ]

department.

MR. GIBSON: On a further supplementary, then, Mr. Speaker. I have here a second copy which is identical in paper and weight and layout and staple placement and so on which was distributed to a home in the riding of Vancouver East by a Social Credit canvasser. I would ask the minister if this document was, in fact, paid for by taxpayers of this province and used for electoral purposes.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I haven't seen the particular document that the hon. member refers to.

SEATING OF VANCOUVER
EAST MEMBER IN HOUSE

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Provincial Secretary. The Provincial Secretary was quoted over the weekend as saying that the new member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) would not be entitled to take his seat until, I believe, June 19. It is my understanding that he would be eligible on June 14, on the expiration of 11 days. I understand that is the legal requirement under the elections Act. I would ask the Provincial Secretary if she could clarify that situation for me.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Revelstoke for posing the question. The statement attributed to myself was one that was made on the evening of the by-election and without the benefit of the statutes. I simply made a statement, which I thought I had heard earlier, which was attributed to the date being June 19. As the hon. member has pointed out it is 10 days after the by-election, which would make it June 14. I am pleased to confirm that at this time.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): A supplementary to the Provincial Secretary. Will she be asking for a recount? (Laughter.)

Interjections.

PROPOSED B.C.-ALBERTA PIPELINE

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): A question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport and Communications. Has the provincial government communicated with the National Energy Board and informed that board what the province's position is in regard to the proposal by Trans Mountain for a pipeline from the northwest coast to Tete Jaune Cache to Alberta?

HON. MR. DAVIS: There has been no official communication to the National Energy Board — none whatsoever that I am aware of.

MR. LEA: What is the position of the provincial government in regard to that proposed pipeline venture?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of policy. It is an interesting project but it is under review, under study.

MR. LEA: When does the minister feel that a position will have been finalized and made public?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, when all of the information is in. It will take some time to gather it. Certainly when the studies are completed.

TABLING OF LOTTERIES REPORT

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Provincial Secretary a question with regard to the lottery fund established under the Lotteries Act and the requirement that a report of the administration and operation of the fund must be tabled in the House annually. In view of the fact that no report has been tabled since the bill was assented to on May 30, 1974, will the minister be tabling an annual report during the present session of the Legislature, as required under section 8 of the Lotteries Act?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, as soon as the department makes it available to me I shall be tabling it in the House,

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister made a statement recently that she was concerned that the lottery would continue to receive a great deal of revenue because of the federal action in setting up Loto-Canada which, in effect, extends the Olympic lottery by another three years and reduces the money available for provincial lotteries. Can the minister tell the House if any money at any time has been transferred from the consolidated revenue fund to the lottery fund as provided for in the Act? If this has happened, have these sums been repaid to the consolidated revenue fund?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.

HEALTH STANDARDS OF
FERRY FOOD DISPENSERS

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. The cafeteria aboard the Sechelt Queen, which runs between

[ Page 2384 ]

Comox and Powell River, has been closed. There are now food dispensers aboard. I am wondering if the Minister of Health has been consulted with respect to the health standards contained within those dispensers.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I haven't been directly consulted, but I will certainly take that as notice and see whether or not my department has been involved.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I wondered if he would also advise the House, then, what health regulations apply and how often these dispensers are checked by health authorities.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The Health Act would apply. I can't tell you directly — but I'll take it as notice — how often they'll be inspected if they're inspected at all. If they're containers they may not be.

REDUCTION IN FERRY USAGE

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Transport and Communications. Traffic counts from June 1 to June 4 of this year are down considerably from the same period last year: Tsawwassen, vehicles down 70 per cent, passengers down 20 per cent; Horseshoe Bay, vehicles down 60 per cent, passengers down 25 per cent; Departure Bay, vehicles down 50 per cent, passengers down 30 per cent, and so on. If this pattern of reduced usage continues what will be the overall effect on revenues?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the revenue would be up somewhat, but not up as much as the doubling of the fares might indicate if that pattern were to continue. However, a number of people were planning ahead, and since there were threatened strikes perhaps a very large part of the reason for the falling off in traffic was an anticipation of interrupted service.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if so large a reduction was expected.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Some modest reduction over a whole year might be expected as a result of the ferry increases, but nothing like the reduction which did occur around June 1, when an interruption in the service was expected by everyone.

PREMIER'S PRIVATE RAILWAY COACH

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Can the Premier confirm that Railwest is rejuvenating an old private coach that was used by W.A.C. Bennett for the Premier's personal use and other official use?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm or deny it. I have no knowledge of it. The hon. member may not know that for the first time the Premier is not a director or the president of the railway.

MR. LAUK: Would the Premier investigate and confirm for the House that a private coach is indeed being rejuvenated — with colour TV and bathroom facilities — at a great cost to Railwest and to the government indirectly? Could he confirm that for the House?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll direct the question through the Minister of Economic Development, who is a director of the BCR during its reorganization period. We'll certainly get the information for the House if such things are happening or if they are indeed rumours, as many of these things are.

MR. LAUK: A question to the Minister of Economic Development. Can the minister confirm that the Railwest facility is rejuvenating a private coach once used by W.A.C. Bennett, at great cost to that corporation?

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.

HABITAT LIQUOR SUPPLY

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): With leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to respond to a question that was put on Tuesday, I believe, by the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) dealing with low-priced liquor at Habitat. The substance of the answer is essentially as I gave the hon. member. The responsibility for granting special privileges to career consular officials rests solely with the federal government, Mr. Member, and it allows the admission of those articles for their own use free of duty and taxes. Included in the privileges is the right to in-bond purchases of wine and spirits on a regular basis from overseas and even without going through the provincial liquor outfits.

In the case of Habitat it is my understanding that the federal government granted the equivalent of consular privileges to about 180 heads of delegations who are attending the conference. The liquor administration branch has procedures established under the liquor regulations which permit these kinds of purchases, and in cooperation with the United Nations Habitat officials these liquors have been

[ Page 2385 ]

made available at these lower in-bond prices.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT
OF HUMAN RESOURCES
(continued)

On vote 113: minister's office, $124,264 — continued.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I have just one or two questions for the minister.

First of all, I had asked the minister in question period a week or two ago about the government's final decision on policy towards patients in extended-care hospitals who are now paying $4 a day and who would, if they were outside of the hospital, qualify for Mincome. The minister had stated in reply to a supplementary question that they would be assured of the old-age security allotment from the federal government together with the federal supplementary allowance, which is now $94.99 for a single person. The old-age security is $135.43 so together they add up to about $230. I just want to be crystal clear on this, Mr. Chairman, that the minister's intention is either to have Mincome recipients receive only that amount, or allow them also to have the additional provincial allowance which they would be entitled to were they entitled to Mincome outside of a hospital, such as an extended-care hospital situation.

The new policy of $4 a day came into effect on June 1, and I would like to know just precisely, if for no other reason than that I want to be able to answer mail accurately, what policy was implemented on June 1 in dealing with the extended-care hospital charges or payments to persons who otherwise qualify for Mincome.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Chairman, I attempted to have this particular policy finalized with my colleague, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), but I think I can answer generally without having anything formal — because it certainly must be formalized between the two departments — that where a person is 65 years of age and over there appears to be no problem in that they get their OAS and GIS, and that would be coming to them in any case, either in or out of the extended-care facility.

For those between the ages of 60 to 65, we will continue to grant the comfort moneys, but there would not be the Mincome in the full amount as otherwise.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister cannot be more specific because this hasn't been finalized, but it's very important, I think, that the House and the people in this province get some clear indication of just exactly to what degree these payments, the amounts, are to be decided on some kind of ad hoc basis, because we've already seen from the letters that have been sent to patients — and I'm not suggesting for a moment that this minister was responsible for them — that undoubtedly there was not a uniform and fair and even-handed approach taken to all recipients of Mincome. Now that the charge has gone to $4 a day, I think the least we should try and ensure is that whatever the policy decision is, it is applied uniformly to all persons.

I take it from what the minister has said regarding patients over 65 that they will not be receiving any provincial supplement, and the figure I've quoted of approximately $230 a month from purely federal sources will be the total. Since they're paying about $120 for their per diem charge, they're left with approximately $110 for the so-called "comfort money." Now I'm just wondering about the person between the age of 60 and 65 who is in an extended-care hospital, who has virtually no income: what amount of comfort money is likely to be made available and on what kind of formula?

I notice that the minister's deputy is in the House now, and I think I would just like to quickly repeat the facts. We've decided that people over 65 in extended-care hospitals, by means of OAS and GIS, will finish up with about $110 comfort money from federal sources. What I'm very concerned about, and I want to expand on this in this debate, is the person between 60 and 65. The minister has stated that there will be a certain amount of comfort money made available to those persons, but the amount has not been determined since it will probably involve combined discussion between the Minister of Human Resources and the Minister of Health.

Mr. Chairman, that raises another whole area that I might interject. I wonder if in this discussion of the minister's estimates we could have some indication from the Minister as to what degree he and the Minister of Health have looked at the real common sense involved in bringing some of these responsibilities under one minister. I'm particularly thinking of the mish-mash and the difficulties that are encountered in the area of intermediate care where the Minister of Human Resources is responsible for licensing intermediate-care facilities, yet the Minister of Health becomes involved in trying to ensure, where a certain level of nursing and health care is involved, that the facilities are adequate and that the staff is available. While this is very much a health responsibility, apparently the Minister of Human Resources is the person who has to try and determine what would be a fair amount to pay for looking after

[ Page 2386 ]

each individual patient in these facilities.

In other words, there is an overlap and an intermingling of responsibilities which, in my view, would be much more readily solved by having one minister responsible for that total spectrum of senior citizens and intermediate-care facilities, and we can get back to that later. But I wonder if the minister might think about that, since I would like to raise the issue and discuss it in some more detail later on.

But as far as the 60-to-65-year-old person is concerned, I think this is one area that I'd like to have answered.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't anticipate any change in the comfort allowance, which has been $25 plus clothing plus medical coverage — that's the package, and I don't anticipate any change in this. The only reason we have to discuss this interdepartmentally is that there is the matter of federal cost-sharing. If there is a debt incurred by the Department of Health, it may be cost-shareable through the federal government, whereas perhaps a Mincome payment might not be. So this is the type of information we are attempting to pull together before we finalize it. But basically I believe it will be very much along the lines that I've presently outlined.

With respect to the overlapping that takes place between Health and Human Resources, yes, this is recognized and certainly there has to be a very close liaison between the two departments. Many provinces, of course, have this as one department. We attempted to bring it together through the social services committee, and rather successfully — the example cited by you is one case.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, if I may just quite briefly plead for the persons in our society between the age of 60 and 65 — now I've no wish to intrude on legislation before the House, and I know the minister has some thoughts on this — I just want to quote quickly from the kind of letters I received from citizens. This lady writes:

"During the forthcoming debate in the Legislature, could you possibly bring up the plight of widows between the ages of 60 and 64? I am one of those unfortunates. Since my husband's death more than two years ago my income has been drastically reduced. Every time there is an increase in Hydro, telephone, insurance, house taxes or water rates, I have to dig into my savings in order to meet my current monthly expenses since my pension income is less than $200 per month. Fortunately 1, own my own home, but each year it becomes more and more difficult to maintain it because of inflation and the high cost of living. What little savings my husband and I were able to put away for our retirement is gradually being eaten away.

"When a government budget is brought forth no mention is ever made of the plight of widows in the 60-to-64 age group. All the extra benefits such as Pharmacare, special car insurance exemptions, the $100 special homeowner grant, medicare, et cetera, are all geared to the 65-and-older age group. There must be many widows like myself who are feeling the pinch."

I think that's a very well-written and clear articulation of the problems of many widows in that age group. Perhaps one is being a little naive to suggest that there doesn't have to be some age at which certain provisions are introduced, or age groups within which there has to be some restriction to a general application of allowances — and again, I don't say this in any attempt to denigrate the efforts of the present ministers. But the answer to my earlier question shows that in an extended-care hospital, if you are 64 years old, you've got $25 a month comfort money, and the day you become 65 you have $110. All I'm trying to make plain, Mr. Chairman, is that in our structure and our strategies to try and provide some measure of help to people who are really in need, we have to be very flexible, and perhaps we have to try a little harder not to be blinded by a certain birth date, whether it's the 65th, the 64th or whatever.

I just feel that the letter I've quoted shows the really unfair degree to which particularly widows between 60 and 64 are struggling, almost without any help at all, to keep up with inflation and all the added costs that have occurred in recent months in the budget. Perhaps the minister might find it difficult because of the legislation that is in the House, but I wonder if the minister could at least give us some general outline of philosophy that the government might have in trying to help the kind of person that I've just described.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I certainly think the hon. member has hit upon something that has bothered us for some time. As a matter of fact, in our review we're giving very careful consideration to these very inequities. The particular example he used, that of the widow.... I believe she may be entitled to Mincome if, in fact, she could pass the necessary asset test. She may be entitled to Mincome. However, the example of the inequity which appears to exist between someone over 65, or 65 and one day, in an extended-care facility, as opposed to less a day, is even more obvious when you take a person aged, say, 50 and someone aged 60, or if you take two people over 60 on Mincome and receiving $530 jointly, or a mother with two children and only getting $370 — a basic allowance, that is. So there are many inequities.

[ Page 2387 ]

Certainly past experience would indicate that we tended to pay more attention, with respect to adjustments, to those upper categories, very often at the expense of the lower categories — particularly since most of the dollars that have been spent in the 60-to-65-year age group were nonshareable dollars. If they had been used for groups in need below that age, they would have been shareable — where $1 would have bought $2 of services. It's recognized; it's something we are giving careful consideration to. Certainly when the question is raised as to why, for example, Mincome wasn't adjusted following the federal adjustment for those 65 years of age and over, that was one of the considerations we had to keep in mind — that an additional $2 or $3 there would buy $5, $6, or $7 worth of service in some other area of need.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, I'm afraid I couldn't follow the minister's response on the last question, unless it really relates to saying — as I said on Friday — that what you are going to do is introduce the asset test, because the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) was asking for flexibility, and the minister, in his explanation, is talking about the introduction of an asset test, which, of course, doesn't give you any flexibility. What it's going to do — and it's already in — is exclude a number of people who are the borderline cases in the 60-and-over age group. It's going to create the same problems — more so — for the old people in this province. And the excuse for that, of course, is that somehow he wants to be more equitable to the young people. Well, you can't have it both ways.

If you are committed to the principle of cost-sharing, then you are not going to have very many people that you can look after because cost-sharing, certainly with the asset test, eliminates a lot of people who are in need and who simply will have to penurize themselves in order to get down to the level where they qualify. Now that was the very thing that the previous government had to avoid in terms of dealing with senior citizens, and we're back to that kind of situation, as we are back to it with the handicapped.

What I want to deal with this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, is that some weeks ago the minister indicated that he wanted to set up a collection agency for getting the maintenance-fund payments that husbands do not pay. He came out and said that what they want to do is to set up an office and go chase these people who don't pay. Well, this is something that many governments, including the previous government, looked at and went after in terms of what they could do. Part of the....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: No, I'm not ready to sit down yet, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order; I want to give all of the members all the time they would like to take to discuss the budget, but if the hon. member wishes to discuss legislation that's before the House, I don't think that's in order, and I couldn't answer the questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken.

MR. LEVI: What legislation is that? The GAIN legislation? Are we talking about the GAIN legislation?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): You're not supposed to talk about bills.

MR. LEVI: Well, here we go — the dumb one from Columbia River just raised his voice.

What I want to cover in this is specifically....

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw!

MR. LEVI: He doesn't want me to withdraw. Don't get so upset there, Madam Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the hon. member please address the Chair, and perhaps be a little more careful in his selection of vocabulary when he's talking about other members in the House?

MR. LEVI: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'll do that.

I'd like to discuss some of the problems related to the whole question of maintenance payments, and where some of the problems really lie — and this doesn't relate to the legislation at all, Mr. Chairman.

What I'd like to do is remind the minister that many of these problems were examined very closely when the Family and Children's Law Commission was set up some two and a half years ago. Report No. 7 of the Family and Children's Law Commission deals very specifically with the whole question of family maintenance payments. There is one specific section of that report, section 8, which states as follows: The two principal functions of the law relating to maintenance of spouses should be (1) to assure the support of the economically dependent spouse, and (2) to ensure the least possible social and financial disruption as a result of the breakdown of the marriage.

I want to deal with the first one specifically because I think, after all the investigations by this commission, that what they were looking for was a degree of understanding on everybody's part, particularly the courts.

One of the outcomes of the Family and Children's

[ Page 2388 ]

Law Commission was the unified family court, which has had a very interesting pilot-project period which is now set in place and operates partly in the minister's riding of Surrey, and Delta and Richmond, and they're moving to set up other unified family courts in the province.

However, there are still some very significant problems in this area. Again, I want to state that I have a very distinct feeling that while there is a very serious and earnest attempt on the part of the government to pursue the whole question of maintenance payments, there has to be some very specific discussion with the Attorney-General in this matter because at the moment it lies with the Attorney-General's department, under the Family Relations Act, to do the kinds of things the minister wants to do. Also if it's going to work at all, it can only work if it's happening in every province across the country; there has to be a reciprocal agreement. Again, one of the recommendations of report No. 7 is that immediately there be discussions with the Attorneys-General of the various provinces about reciprocal agreements on maintenance payments.

But specifically to our own province, we have situations that I think the minister is aware of, that we are all aware of, where the taxpayer is involved in subsidizing the spouses and children of families who are divorced, because either they're not getting any maintenance at all or they're getting maintenance but it is not adequate enough and therefore is being provided by the taxpayer.

Now many of you may have noticed that outside of the building all last week and today there has been a woman who has had a number of different placards with which she's been trying to bring to the attention of the legislators — and I might also say to the press who have not been particularly interested — her own particular predicament. I refer to Mrs. Gabriella Scafardi. Now this matter is known to the public because it's been before the courts and the judgment or report was rendered recently by the Supreme Court of British Columbia under the aegis of the registrar, Mr. Abel.

What I want to do is to quote from this report to give the members an idea of the kind of problem that exists between, on the one hand, the kind of work the people in the Department of Human Resources want to do in terms of getting the maintenance arranged, what the Attorney-General's department wants to do in terms of working out some kind of diversionary thing from the courts but at the same time coming to grips with the problem of maintenance of spouses. This registrar's report, which is dated April 26, 1976, follows from a divorce which actually took place some time ago when the.... But the question of maintenance was not discussed by the divorce judge.

There is at the moment a maintenance order in Mrs. Scafardi's favour, and which was brought in by the family court, but in the particular report by Mr. Abel he talks about the two people — the former husband and Mrs. Scafardi. What I'm very particularly concerned about in this report is this: there is an order that was made by the family court, for $350 a month, and after some difficulty that money has been paid to Mrs. Scafardi. But the other problem, which certainly is of interest to the Minister of Human Resources, is that the Welfare department is also paying Mrs. Scafardi $265, and that's because she needs it. What concerns me is that Mrs. Scafardi's husband, in 1975, earned some $32,000. In 1974 he earned some $33,000 and in 1973 he earned some $36,000.

Now I want to get it clear that I'm not in any way levelling any kind of attack against the Department of Human Resources; I think they are meeting needs. But what I want to do is bring out the fact that here is an individual who is making better than $30,000 a year, and because he can afford to take a lawyer into court on this issue, and he is able to point out....

What I'd like to do is to quote from this report. I have stated to you the income this man has. The report goes on to say that in each of those years the net result of the wig-making business — this man has two businesses; he is a hair stylist and he's a wig maker — has been a net loss, but the statements are unaudited and no documents were produced to support the items. There are also benefits through the petitioner included, and some items are included solely for tax purposes. The man lists his expenses, in his affidavit filed March 29, 1976, as $483 a month. They include a $600-a-month bank loan, and $686 on a balance owing on a purchase of shares in the company. There's also included a $385 bank loan to the Bank of British Columbia. There's also a car expense for $140 a month and then there's, apart from the capital cost allowance, $1,800 for the car allowance which is charged to the business.

His assets are a condominium that he bought three years ago for $28,000, and he has a 1974 Camaro automobile. I've explained his liabilities. He gives, Mr. Chairman, his former wife $350 a month. Again, the registrar goes on to say that the assets.... That's the house that was bought with savings after the separation. Now we are referring to Mrs., Scafardi. She bought a house. She'd apparently accumulated enough money to put down a down payment. This is when she was working. She's only been on welfare since February of last year. She has liabilities, and presumably the money that is paid by the Department of Human Resources allows her to live. The income from her husband allows her to maintain the house that she has and also to maintain the equity. She has some skills and when she's well enough, obviously she'll be able to get off.

But the point I'm making is this. There's a

[ Page 2389 ]

recommendation from the registrar here and he says the following:

"Until the Bank of Montreal and the vendor of shares and the company are paid, which should be within a year, the petitioner has very heavy monthly payments, namely $1,600 a month, plus interest on the loans which is charged to the business. When this hearing first came on in February, 1975, the respondent at that time said she was going to retrain, which, if she did, should qualify her for secretarial work at that time." Then he says: "She's a typist. She should be able to get office work of some kind which is not strenuous. It's recommended that the $350 a month for the respondent be continued and that the matter.be brought on again in one year, which may be done simply by appointment or without order."

That was signed by the registrar.

Now the question here, I think, in terms of the taxpayer, Mr. Chairman, is that first of all we have an individual who goes into court with a great deal of unsupported information. It's stated right here in the report, and yet the taxpayer is subsidizing that individual to the tune of $265. The issue, of course, is that Mrs. Scafardi maintains that if she was to get $650 a month from her husband, she would not be on welfare at all. She would be able to maintain herself, and once she is well enough — she has a number of physical complaints which do not enable her to work — she would be able to go to work and be self-supporting.

We have a situation here where the courts appear to put the obligations that an individual has to a bank and other obligations he has in terms of payments before the maintenance of his own family. He has a responsibility to his children, and, in terms of law, that is the responsibility that should be met first. I find, frankly, that this document which indicates that if he pays everything off he's going to be okay.... But you know, as I said earlier, it's based purely on information that is not substantiated.

There are three or four victims in this situation. First of all, the No. 1 victim is Mrs. Scafardi herself, who is not getting an adequate amount of money to live on, Mr. Chairman. There are the two children who are being denied a number of things while they have a father who lives on an extremely high standard of living, and we have the taxpayer who every month is paying $265.

Now if the minister is interested in the collection process, there are some very serious situations that have to be discussed not only with the Attorney-General but with the courts. The courts have simply got to have a much better understanding of what is involved in the whole question of maintenance. I find that this kind of judgment by one of the people in the courts — the rules are there — to be quite an anathema to the kind of thing that we were attempting to do in terms of the Family and Children's Law Commission, where we were looking at the whole question of family responsibility and what happens in terms of family responsibility after that family breaks up.

But interjected into this is a suggestion that the banks have to come first, that the obligation that the individual has on the assets to the purchase of the condominium has to come before the family, has to come before the children and has to come before Mrs. Scafardi herself. This is a very serious matter. It's serious because if, on the one hand, we have a legitimate attempt by the Department of Human Resources and on the part of the Attorney-General's office to do something about this situation...and yet the kinds of judgments that are being handed down in court.... And this is by no means an isolated case. These cases which are caught up in that whole mill in the courts in some cases have been going on for years. Somehow there's going to have to be a coming together.

The previous government, for its part, did initiate the whole situation in terms of the review, bringing together the Family and Children's Law Commission to look at all aspects of law as it affects families and as it affects children. This one affects both children and the family and the recommendations are very specific. Obviously there have to be discussions on a national level because the minister has indicated that he is concerned, as all ministers have been concerned before, that if a husband skips out and he doesn't want to pay, then the taxpayer is paying,

But let me suggest that in the final analysis, the hunt-and-chase game that has gone on in this province and every province in Canada for years does not pay.

It does not pay because if you have an individual who makes up his mind that there is no way he is going to pay — and we have had examples of people who have been prepared to sit in jail — that becomes a double taxation on the taxpayer, because not only do you have to pick up the costs of the family in terms of welfare, but you've got to pay for this character sitting in jail. I have known of people who have been ready to sit in jail rather than pay.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Now the important thing is that there has to be another way of doing this; there has to be another way of attacking this problem. Some time ago — well over a year ago — I had discussions in Ottawa with the federal minister, Mr. Chairman, and we talked about the income tax system as the mechanism for getting at these errant spouses who are not prepared to pay their obligation. In terms of the taxation system — and, again, this is something that has to be discussed — if you make a first call in terms

[ Page 2390 ]

of the taxation laws on that individual of his responsibility to his family, then you have a chance of getting it. The inevitability is that in cases where husbands or wives, if the maintenance order is against the wife or the husband, do not want to pay, it becomes an extremely difficult exercise to convince them that it has to be that way.

Now the future looks a lot brighter in terms of that kind of problem, because previously we always had the confrontation situation. We had a separation, usually there was a tremendous amount of acrimony around it, and then it was very difficult to get anybody to agree on anything. I think one of the values of the unified family court is, and I hope will continue to be, that they can bring people together. There are, after all, the family counsellors — the people who can help these couples make the amicable arrangements, particularly in the interests of the children, so that responsibility is understood by both sides and carried through.

Nevertheless, in most of these cases we deal with where individuals will not pay, they are the kinds of individuals who will not pay under any circumstances. They will not cooperate in some kind of counselling; they will not cooperate with the courts. We have endless lists of people who are constantly being brought back to court on a show-cause: "Why don't you pay? Why shouldn't you be found in contempt?"

In going back, Mr. Speaker, to the case of Mrs. Scafardi, there is something implicitly wrong in the report that came down from the supreme court. There is something implicitly wrong with that if we, in our society, in terms of the business sector, do not have the kind of understanding that we are prepared to say, even as a matter of law — and I hope that one day it will be law; it has to be necessary to be law — that the first obligation that an individual has is not to his creditors; his first obligation is to his family.

The other thing is — one can question this, and that's a matter of procedure — that we have an inequitable situation here. The reason it is inequitable is because we have one spouse who can go into court; he can afford the kind of expensive legal counsel that is required to make the kind of submission that he wants. On the other hand, we have the other spouse who does not have that kind of opportunity. Of course, the opportunity that might have been there before in terms of the legal-aid system is now gone because the legal-aid system, particularly in relation to family problems, has been severely reduced. So we have created a very inequitable situation.

These kinds of things, which have been discussed in the Family and Children's Law Commission, have been dealt with by a large number of people who have tremendous knowledge in the field. There was a large number of committees attached to the Family and Children's Law Commission. I think that the over two years wherein the discussions took place was the way you do it. You don't suddenly rush in and make changes overnight. There was a great deal of public education went on in respect to a lot of matters relating to the Family and Children's Law Commission for families and the children.

What I am concerned about is what is going to happen to the reports from the Family and Children's Law Commission. After all, in terms of children the legislation was ready. All right, the government is going to need some time, but I would like to have some indication from the government, Mr. Chairman, perhaps from the minister, that there is going to be a serious pursuit by the government that they will introduce the kind of legislation that is recommended by the Family and Children's Law Commission. We have an opportunity, as we did when we first started the whole programme; when we first got the unified family court going, it was a model for the whole of Canada.

We already have recognition on the specific issue that I have been discussing — the question of maintenance. I just want to quote a statement made; it was a press report of April 23. It's out of Ottawa. It says:

" 'All marriage maintenance orders made in Canada should have full and immediate effect in every province and territory, ' says a study paper released Thursday by the federal Law Reform Commission. 'Failure is the universal characteristic of the traditional system for enforcing maintenance orders in Canada,' said the paper prepared by the Toronto lawyer, Edward F. Ryan.

"It said: 'Interprovincial and federal-provincial cooperation on an unprecedented scale is essential for the improvement of maintenance-order enforcement. Ryan recommends enforcement techniques be uniform and compatible in all parts of the country. This would allow a family court in one province to order certain enforcement techniques against a person in another province."

Now that's something that the minister's interested in doing. We've all been interested in doing this. The question is: can we get the provincial reciprocal agreement?

One problem that exists is that when a husband deserts his family and moves to another province he becomes difficult to find and delays in getting him to pay are inevitable. Provincial laws also vary. The commission already had proposed a system of unified family courts throughout the country. That was a direct result of their observations here 18 months ago of the unified family court project in Surrey, Richmond and Delta.

Effective co-ordinated tracing services should be

[ Page 2391 ]

established in all family courts in Canada. If it's Canada-wide, if it can be worked that way, it's worthwhile, with provisions for exchange of information among courts and for court-supervised access to public records dealing with location of individuals and their employment status.

Also recommended is legislation to provide for attachment of wages for an indefinite period in place of periodical garnishee of wages.

On those last two items, I'm afraid I cannot agree. I can't agree that we should be setting up the co-ordinated tracing services. These become very expensive, they're highly bureaucratic, and you have the whole business of garnisheeing the wages but using some other technique which amounts to the same thing.

As an interim measure, that may be worthwhile trying, but as an ultimate goal in terms of how we do it, I would like to see that we give some very serious consideration to continuing the discussions with the federal people and to having discussions of a public nature in terms of what appropriate amendments could be made to the Canadian taxation system, so that, as I said previously, the first goal in terms of an individual who has to pay maintenance payments and for some reason is not, is that that can be taken at source'in terms of the income-tax system. That would avoid an enormous amount of bureaucracy, which is inevitable because you have to have staff in order to do the tracing and you have to have staff that are dealing with other people.

The minister shakes his head. He's only been a minister for five months but I can tell you that the bureaucracy has a tendency to build because that's the nature of the operation.

The important thing is that what you are dealing with is a problem that has been looked at for many years. The Family and Children's Law Commission report has got it all in there. Look at report No. 7. It's in there — the recommendation and what you can do about it.

There's no point, just because you want to satisfy the rednecks out there, in saying you're going to chase the errant husband, because that's not going to....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: I said "rednecks out there," Mr. Chairman. We don't have any rednecks in here. How can you have a redneck in a place where there's no sun?

The important thing is that if what he's saying — and I think that that's what he's saying, Mr. Chairman — is that we not only have people who rip off the system and they're all 20 years old and we not only have handicapped people who got pensions because the first time they had a bellyache or they had to go to the bathroom they got a pension, which is a disgusting attack on the kind of handicap, but that's just what that minister has said...and then thrown into that pot, he said: "We've got to chase the husband." Well, that may sound very nice out there, but that's very simplistic.

What we're interested in doing in the very first instance is not chasing the husband but seeing that the wives — in most cases it's wives — and children have the kind of income that they require. That's what we're looking at.

That second part is something that can only be done on a national basis. It cannot be done simply because the province of British Columbia want to do it — that's not realistic.

So, Mr. Minister, I would urge you very strongly to look at No. 7 of the Family and Children's Law Commission report.

I would also like you to indicate to the House what the plans are of the government....

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, two minutes.

MR. LEVI: Yes, I'm aware of that. I just took a look at it. You've knocked me off my stride. I was really going.

I would like the minister to indicate to us what discussions the human services committee had in terms of the future implementation of the Family and Children's Law Commission recommendations, particularly the legislation in relation to children, which is ready, which was prepared and is available to look at, and also the kinds of discussions that are necessary, in terms of the courts and in terms of the people who run the courts to try and avoid the kind of situation which really makes victims out of the children — in this case Mrs. Scafardi and her two children — and allows the husband to get away with it simply because there is a feeling in the courts that the kind of obligations that a man must have in the beginning are to the banks and to his creditors first and to his family second. Certainly, in the interests of all humanity in this province, we must seek a complete reversal of that kind of philosophy, Mr. Chairman. That is implicit in this document.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe there was a question asked, but I would like to make a brief reply to one particular point which the hon. member made time and time again.

I certainly agree with the worth of the family court. I agree with the example he used and the apparent injustice. But I don't agree with his continual mention of the cost of seeking out the errant husband and making the errant husband pay what apparently is his obligation. If all of your

[ Page 2392 ]

expenses, as you referred to, Hon. Member, are in terms of dollars, then perhaps you are right. If your values are strictly dollars, and dollars only, and you repeatedly refer to dollars, I can then perhaps appreciate your argument, but I think there is another value which is far greater than the dollars involved. We know of examples where the law has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to track down a bank robber because he held up a bank for $5,000. I think if there is justice to be done, then really the expense, though important, is really secondary, and unless we see that justice is done, we'll never really have an honourable system. I'm sure if we see justice done, then the pay will be enormous in the long run. So it's just a matter that we appear to disagree on value. You have apparently measured your values in dollars; my values in this are certainly not that.

MR. LEVI: You know, I don't know what we do with that one, Mr. Chairman. I don't know whether he was so enamoured with the speech I was making that he didn't hear my three questions. Well, I just want to go to the points he made, Mr. Chairman.

What I'd like to do is respond to the minister in respect to values. I don't happen to be one of those people, Mr. Minister, who agrees with what you say. You know, justice and fairness — what justice and fairness? That's the kind of example I was talking about; that's the kind of justice the poor people get in this province. If that is what you are supporting, I'm not. I don't support that. There's an old saying in this country — that you get as much justice as you can afford. Well, that's what Mrs. Scafardi got. She couldn't afford any, and that's the kind of justice she got.

The argument that the minister uses — that somehow you can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to go catch a bank robber — we are, first of all, dealing with something that is not as significant as the minister would have us believe, Mr. Chairman. We don't have thousands of people who are not paying their way. We do have hundreds, but we don't have thousands. Generally speaking, collections — which operated in the department at one time, and now operate under the Attorney-General — was a very successful process. But there is no way. I am not prepared to accept, as the minister says, that we must justify the expenditures on the principles of justice.

We have the Attorney-General just come back in. Unfortunately I think he missed part of the debate in which I was making reference to an order, the registrar's order, that came out in terms of the maintenance order.

The thing is that if you feel — and I think that's perhaps where it's wrong — that somehow we spend whatever money is required to see that justice is done, then probably what we have to do is to examine what we are talking about in terms of justice. What are we talking about? — because the taxpayer has an involvement in this, too. The fact that the minister articulates the principle...that's a very costly principle to the taxpayer, and it will be an extremely costly principle.

The minister enunciated some weeks ago that he wanted to go after looking at who was cheating on welfare. So the first thing he does is get 75 positions from the Treasury Board, and probably by the time they're all in place — and it will take some time — the federal programme will cost about $1 million, maybe more, in terms of the hunt and chase. Now one has to argue: is that an appropriate expenditure of money in terms of scarce resources available? Well, it's the same kind of question in terms of the scarce resources available if you want to make expenditures for chasing errant husbands. What you have to look at is, first of all, acceptance of the findings of the Law Reform Commission of Canada, and also the findings of the Family and Children's Law Commission here, that that kind of process which the minister wants to continue with has never worked; it's too costly.

I would refer you to a report that you could obtain from a former commissioner of the Family and Children's Law Commission, Judge Roscova, who about five years ago decided to do an accounting of what it would cost to collect the maintenance payments in his area. He found that the amount of money it cost to collect equalled what came in — it was almost equal because they were trying to collect $38,000 and it cost a little under $38,000 to collect it. This was five years ago, Mr. Attorney-General, and still the taxpayer was picking up the burden of this support in terms of the children.

What I said, Mr. Attorney-General, while you were out, through you, Mr. Chairman, was that we have to not deal with just the provincial system in terms of maintenance orders; we have to move toward the idea of a reciprocal provincial system, and it's important that we do it on a nationwide basis. Then if we can do that, if we can have that kind of an agreement, we can avoid getting trapped into the idea that somehow we as a government in this province can set up a system that is going to work better than any other system ever worked, when it has never worked.

There's no point in us as a government rushing headlong into something simply because it's attractive to some people out there in the community who feel that that's what they want to hear, that they are finally going after those guys. Well, you only are going to go after those who are in the province. Once they skip over the border you've had it. You're going to run into the situation where guys are going to be prepared to sit in the jails.

Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is responsible for the $12 to $15 a day that the taxpayer is paying for. Is it more than that now?

[ Page 2393 ]

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: All right, the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) tells me that the iron bar hotel is better than $25 a day.

Okay, those are all very realistic expenses. Now the important thing is that the minister has said that his principle is in terms of justice. Well, I just wonder how much justice the public is going to feel they're getting when some errant husband is sitting in the iron bar hotel at $25 a day for as long as he wants to sit there, simply because he doesn't want to meet his obligations. That is not going to accomplish the kind of thing the minister has in mind.

As I said to the minister — and now that the Attorney-General's in his seat — it is important that they get together and that the kinds of discussions that go on at the federal-provincial level with the Ministers of Welfare and with the Attorney-General have to be along these lines.

Mr. Chairman, again, because the Attorney-General just came in, I would refer him, as I have referred the Minister of Human Resources, to report No. 7 of the Family and Children's Law Commission, because they laid it out. One of their first requirements is that there be discussions on a national level.

I cannot accept the Minister of Human Resources' approach on this. He talks about some principle of justice. Well, children and wives, or spouses, also want some justice, but they want it immediately. They won't have to grind through the courts like this where a husband can pay off his debts to his creditors before he can look after his family. That is not acceptable.

It's too bad, Mr. Speaker, that the Attorney-General wasn't in his place when I raised this, but I will send him a copy of it, just for his interest.

What we have here, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Attorney-General, is an order from the court registrar in Vancouver to suggest that Mrs. Scafardi can have $350 but she can't have any more until the husband has paid off his obligations to the bank and to his creditors. I say that that's wrong. That's wrong in terms of justice and it's wrong in terms of what the load is on the taxpayer. That's the kind of discussion that needs to take place. You don't have to turn the world over overnight, Mr. Minister. You've got yourself three and a half to four years. Take your time. Don't rush into it. Don't try and please all those people out there. You've got lots of time to do it, but the kind of system you have in mind.... If you're telling us that the money is well spent, if there is some point of justice involved, that's very nice, except that if the families and the spouses don't get the justice, it's money wasted.

I want to deal with the three questions before I sit down. I asked you three questions. One was: what is your approach in terms of the recommendations of the Family and Children's Law Commission? What is the department going to do in terms of the legislation? It's been drafted and it's available in terms of children's law. Will the people who are in the human resources committee be discussing the family and children's law recommendations? Because they are there.

Perhaps the minister can comment on one other thing. In terms of what he wants to do — and I just want to stay away from the legislation, Mr. Chairman — could the minister comment on why he is so quick to want to pre-empt the role of the Attorney General? I think as the former Attorney-General referred to it the other day, he was rustling on your property.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Usurping!

MR. LEVI: I think he used another word. He wants to get into the collection business and it's the Attorney-General's department under the Family Relations Act that has that prerogative.

So we're going to have that system and we're going to have his system. Now I want to ask the minister: has he had discussions with the Attorney-General, and is the Attorney-General prepared to give up that function and give it over to the Minister of Human Resources? That's a very important cost factor. I would probably suggest that because it's in place under the Attorney-General's department, that's where it should stay. You have far more important things to do in your department than that. You have the interest of children and families. Let him do the collection business. Let him be the heavy and you be the sweetheart. You do some things with children and with the families.

Three questions, Mr. Chairman; have you got them? Three questions.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I don't want to be the heavy all the time.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I think I can answer the three questions all at once. The whole matter of the Family and Children's Law Commission report is definitely being considered by the social services committee and the various departments that are involved in the commission reports. There will undoubtedly be recommendations coming from it and these will be acted upon.

With respect to the other question of legislation, I certainly don't want to get into the question of legislation now. The Attorney-General and I certainly get along well and all of these matters are being discussed between the two departments.

[ Page 2394 ]

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to clarify something. I was out of the House now for a couple of minutes and I hope I haven't missed this. But I was puzzled to hear the former Minister of Human Resources (Mr. Levi) tell us that maintenance orders outside of the province were unenforceable, which is what he said, and to see the Attorney-General shake his head. To think back to the Attorney-General's estimates, I recall that he said that this question was under control the enforcement of interprovincial orders. As I may have missed something in the last couple of minutes, but if I haven't....

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: No, this was earlier on.

Could the minister — if I haven't missed something — just tell me what the existing status is? Are these orders enforceable interprovincially at the moment or not?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, I can best answer this way, perhaps. Most of this certainly will be discussed when the GAIN legislation comes before the House and I really, perhaps, shouldn't go into too much detail now, because that's exactly where it should be discussed. There, too, we can advise the House of what the procedures will be with respect to that very question. But the current situation is that it is very difficult — if not impossible — to collect in other provinces unless you have a reciprocal agreement.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I would like to change the subject just briefly to the area of financing the Human Resources by the municipalities of the province.

Now I know the Minister of Human Resources is well aware that Burnaby is one of the eight large municipalities which still administers its own social services — which is costing it in the neighbourhood of $5 per capita — whereas, for the other areas which have their administration covered through the department, I believe it's around 60 cents per capita. Now I understand that the minister has sent a letter to the Burnaby council informing them, and making a commitment, I believe, that when the estimates are through — I gather when the House is recessed or prorogued — there will be definite changes made. It seems to point to the fact that the minister has made a commitment that the Human Resources department will be taking over the administration of social services in the larger municipalities also. Of course, this will be very helpful to areas such as Burnaby which at the present time, financially, find themselves with inflation far exceeding the government grants which they have received to date.

I really have a very simple question for the minister: has he made this commitment? Secondly, if you have — if the answer is yes, you have made the commitment — can you give some idea, to me as the MLA and also hopefully to the council, when you would be prepared to move in this direction? I think this is the question which the Burnaby council is most interested in.

Looking over the estimates, I also question where the money is, because at the moment I realize it's over $6.5 million, if I'm correct — I'm not sure of that — over the whole province. So basically my question, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, is simply: have you made that commitment to Burnaby municipality? Does that commitment follow through for the other seven large municipalities? Thirdly, when will you be able to come through with the commitment and provide the actual takeover and the moneys?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, yes, it is my express wish to see us take over administration from the eight remaining municipalities who are now burdened with an annual cost of $5 per capita, as opposed to the others which are paying 60 cents. Following the estimates and the proroguing of the Legislature, we hope to do this immediately and accomplish this, if at all possible, by late summer or early fall.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): My questions are more or less related to specific items that have some effect within the Cowichan-Malahat constituency, and I would like to raise them at this time with the Minister of Human Resources.

The first one I have raised on a couple of occasions here previously, and I'm glad the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is in the chamber as well, and it has to do with the alternative school at Duncan.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll give you an answer to that. Oops! Wrong piece of paper, but I've got an answer for you. Ask it tomorrow.

MRS. WALLACE: Fine. If the Attorney-General is deciding that he is going to reverse his decision and...

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: ...provide some funding from his department, I'm delighted to hear it, but I would like to hear from the Minister of Human Resources.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're speculating.

MRS. WALLACE: As he is probably aware, that particular school was funded three ways previously.

[ Page 2395 ]

The Attorney-General has now seen fit to withdraw from the scene — as I understand it — and the extra funding, some $17,000 or $18,000 which was forthcoming from the Attorney-General's department previously, is now in question. I have had assurance from several of the minister's officials that it will be added, but the problem is, Mr. Chairman, that the school board had to let the teachers know as of two days ago whether or not they are going to be continuing in employment next year. Would the minister just like to take that question at this point before I continue with the others, or would he rather wait until I get all my questions?

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Very well, then I'll go on to the second question. This again relates to something the Attorney-General's department is no longer doing. It is a grant from the Alcohol and Drug Commission that was being paid into the Cowichan area. It was the only grant, incidentally, from that commission into an area which has the somewhat dubious record of being the highest per capita purchaser of alcohol of any place in British Columbia. This grant has been discontinued.

It covered, in fact, the services of one woman who gave her time to deal with alcoholics and families of alcoholics. She has not been getting paid for some two or three months now, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, but I would like the minister to know that this woman is continuing to do this job because she just can't say no to these people when they phone her and have these kinds of problems and need the kind of counselling that she is able to give. She is still having cases referred to her by the probation officer and by representatives of your own department, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister. Manpower is saying to her: "Look, you must spend more time looking for work. We can't continue to give you unemployment insurance unless you go out and spend more time looking for work." I am really concerned that this woman's health is going to break or she is going to give up. Then we are going to have a real loss in the community and a real gap there. I would ask another question to the minister on that, so that's two questions.

The third question deals with the intermediate-care situation in Duncan. I would like the minister to comment whether or not this thing is going to progress this year. There has been a lot of delay in the situation because of conflicting interests between the two departments, particularly in relation to the land, which is the logical site for the intermediate-care unit, being held by the hospital board under the Department of Health. However, I think the minister should be aware that the present extended-care facility was so designed and so built to accommodate an adjoining intermediate-care. In fact, the kitchen facilities were built sufficiently adequate to service both institutions. I would certainly like the minister to comment on that point.

The fourth point is a little more far-ranging. It was drawn to my attention this morning by one of my constituents in Lake Cowichan. He has suggested that I may use his name; his name is Mr. Bergstrom and his unemployment insurance number is 700-762-982. He is a recipient of Mincome, Mr. Chairman. He has been receiving it for some time. According to Mr. Bergstron, his only financial savings is something like $900 in the bank. There has been no change in his financial position. He has been receiving approximately $29 a month. With his last cheque he received a note signed by the minister.

"My Dear Friend:

"We are pleased to announce GAIN, the Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act, an Act which includes all the benefits of the old Mincome programme but extends them to more people who need help" and so on. Mr. Minister, I am sure you are very familiar with that.

"The same policies and benefits for those now in receipt of Mincome will continue. No one will lose their present Mincome benefits. More people will enjoy them," and so on.

Mr. Chairman, this man, Mr. Bergstrom, received a cheque, No. 404958, attached to that note — he had normally been receiving $29 — for $2.47. Mr. Minister, really, that is just not good enough. For a government that prides itself on good administration and efficiency and that says, over the minister's signature, that they are going to maintain Mincome, that there is no change — Mr. Minister, that is not good enough.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, to the hon. member, I will deal with the last question first. The department is certainly familiar with Mr. Bergstrom's case. He has been writing and has been in touch with the department. Mr. Bergstrom's problem is that he reported an income last year to the federal government which changed his eligibility for Mincome from $29 to $2.47. So when he filled in the tax return forwarded to Ottawa, it showed an income which changed the amount of Mincome that he was entitled to. The amount of money that he receives is based on last year's income-tax return. So that is the answer to that particular question.

With respect to the intermediate-care facility for Duncan, that is under the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act, which is administered by the Department of Health.

However, to the best of my knowledge, all applications are being honoured, depending.on need

[ Page 2396 ]

for the area, and Central Mortgage and Housing will certainly take care of the financing providing that we can show that there's a need in that particular area. So I don't know what the particular problem is. We'll get the answer and I'll give you that either here or out of the House, whichever you wish.

On the alternate education programme, my deputy will get the administration to get the answer for that particular question so it's accurate. But as far as we know, it's being proceeded with in the Cowichan Valley area. There's two — one in Duncan and one in the Cowichan Valley.

MRS. WALLACE: Cowichan Lake.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Cowichan Lake. That one is apparently being proceeded with. I'm not sure about the other one.

MRS. WALLACE: It's the Duncan one I'm concerned about.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We'll get the answer on the Duncan one.

The alcohol and drug grants are recommended and paid out of the Health department. Since April 1, 1976, all responsibility for any item related to alcohol and drugs was transferred to health.

MRS. WALLACE: I wonder if I might just follow up then. Did I understand you to say that the intermediate care is under the Department of Health?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's under the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act, but the development of it also comes through that particular committee or commission that deals with it, and it's under health.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Hon. Members, perhaps it's not the most appropriate time, but I'd very much like to welcome to the gallery two old friends and good friends of mine, Margaret and George Campbell. I wish them a happy afternoon here in Victoria.

MR. GIBSON: I'd like to take this occasion to explore with the minister a bit the state of his negotiations with Ottawa on income support, but particularly on income supplementation, and obtain from him any details that he can give the House as to the stand of the province of British Columbia in this regard.

The concept of income supplementation, I hope, is one that the minister will say that he supports. One of the most difficult aspects of our society has been the observation that people working at low levels of income have made to the extent that if they ceased working, they could sometimes do better on social assistance programmes, depending of course on the size of their families and other things. This is the very inequity that income supplementation is designed — or will be designed — to overcome.

So the first thing I would like to have from the minister is a statement that the government of British Columbia does support the concept of income supplementation. Then I would be grateful if he could tell us where, in the ongoing negotiations with the federal government, the province stands on such questions as who should be eligible for income supplementation. What should be the tax-back rate, which the minister knows is one of the critical factors with respect to work incentives under these programmes? If the programme is so designed that if you make an extra dollar and the whole extra dollar is taken away with no incentive, if it is so designed that none is taken away, then you have an extremely costly programme and you have to arrive at some benefit in the middle. I'd ask the minister if he could tell the House whether British Columbia is prepared to adopt the generally discussed rate of 35 per cent as a tax-back rate on the supplementation side of the programme, or whether we have some other figure in mind.

I would be glad, too, if he could share with the House some assessment of cost. The federal government has issued statements without backup date — released publicly to the best of my knowledge — of something like $350 million on a national basis. On the other hand, studies done by the province of Ontario have shown that depending on the assumptions you make, it could be somewhere in the billions. I would be glad if the minister could tell the House what studies he and his officials have done on this subject and what they come out to in dollar terms.

Perhaps before exploring that one further — I would wait to hear the minister's reply — let me make to him one other representation and ask for a response on it. It is also in the income-security field, and that is the question of Canada Pension Plan benefits for working spouses. The income-security conference of welfare ministers in February discussed this subject, and there were three specific possibilities suggested. Naturally there are far more possibilities than these, Mr. Chairman, but I'll just talk about these three modest steps to start with.

The first step is that pension credits earned by spouses during marriage should be divided equally between the spouses at the time of marriage dissolution, should such come to pass. This is a concept that I would support. I would be glad to know if the minister supports it.

Next is the proposal — and this one was submitted by the government of Quebec — for survivor's benefits, widows or widower's benefits to a surviving former spouse who had been awarded alimony, and

[ Page 2397 ]

finally the suggestion that for the contribution of lifetime average earnings contributors who drop out of the labour force to raise children should be allowed to eliminate those years for the purposes of calculation of average lifetime earnings. These were three specific proposals for the improvement of the Canada Pension Plan, as it relates to homemakers, and I would be glad to know, first of all, whether the minister supports these and, if he does, what kind of progress is being made in implementing them.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Chairman, these items were discussed at a recent conference in Ottawa, and certainly British Columbia supported the changes to the Canada Pension Act to allow the splitting of benefits and also to allow the seven-year period whereby a person could take that leave and continue on with the payments following that. This was supported by British Columbia. We also supported very strongly the income supplementation principle, dependent, of course, upon the outcome of the First Ministers Conference which is to be held next week, where the whole matter of cost-sharing of financing between the federal government and the province will be discussed. But the principle we did support certainly would encourage one to accept employment as opposed to welfare, because, as you mentioned, very often now a person is, in fact, better off in receipt of welfare than they would be working for a low wage because of the health benefits and all else that come with welfare and don't come with the low wages that are earned by the working poor.

So we supported that particular concept, came out very strongly in favour, and hopefully, if nothing else, it might be tried even on an experimental basis in British Columbia or some part of British Columbia where you have a lot of working poor. We are presently attempting to determine just exactly what the cost might be for the province. It's very difficult because you're dealing with some unknowns, but it would appear on the surface as if British Columbia would stand to gain most in this type of a programme because of the other programmes for the over-55s and 60 and over that we're already involved with. So it would appear as if we would stand to gain more than the other provinces financially and that possibly the cost wouldn't be all that great for British Columbia.

MR. GIBSON: Just to follow that up for a moment, Mr. Chairman, the minister noted that his department was involved in calculating costs at the moment. I wonder if he could assist the House in understanding this by telling us, in those calculations, some of the numerical parameters he's working with. Specifically I'm thinking about the tax-back rate and the guaranteed benefit rate and the maximum supplement figures. For example, there's been a figure of $80 a month for a family of four that's been mentioned in some of the federal literature. Is British Columbia working with this figure? Are they working with the 35 per cent, and what is the guarantee? Is it the $4,500 a year that again has been used in some of the federal literature or is it another number?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, the formula of which you speak, which is rather complicated.... Did you wish the details of the formula? I'm sure you have this information. The $36 for the family head, the $24 for the second parent, the $10 per child, the 35 per cent — this is the formula we're working on, exactly as proposed by the federal government, and hopefully these figures will be available fairly soon.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate the minister's answers on those particular questions. I'd now like to move on to a couple of other areas.

First of all, a simple question of fact, and the figures may be available somewhere publicly but I don't know where to look for them. It relates to the field of adoption. I wonder if the minister could tell me the size of the waiting list of parents who wish adopted children at the moment, the annual number of requests that are added to that list and the annual number of adoptions that actually take place. Just a simple question of facts — if his officials can't provide them now, I'd be very glad if he could send me a letter in due course.

Moving from there on to another very brief question — this is the question of the administrative takeover by the province of the delivery of social assistance services in some eight municipalities around the province, two of which include my constituency, the district and city of North Vancouver.

I'm trying in my own mind to work out the cost of savings to the municipalities here. Am I correct in assuming that the cost will be $1.55 per capita once the takeover is complete and that the approximate cost now is $5, which would indicate we could look forward to a saving in municipal budgets of about $3.50 per capita? I'm just interested to know if these are correct order of magnitude approaches to the problem.

Moving on from that subject, I would ask the minister to justify to the House the reason for the withdrawing of funding from information centres, which is a matter of some distress to me. Again, I will make reference to my own community of North Vancouver where there were two excellent information centres — one of them known as "The Hub, " the other the Lower Lonsdale Information Centre, which worked out of Queen Mary School. Both of them, in my view, were doing very excellent community service in terms of referring people with problems of one kind or another — be they housing, be they problems with, let's say, Mincome, be they

[ Page 2398 ]

problems with social assistance, or whatever it might be — referring these people to the appropriate agencies.

The grants were not inordinately high, Mr. Chairman. They were a matter of a few thousand dollars per year to each centre, which basically was the funding for the co-ordinator in each case. I believe that these centres were doing good work, and I make that representation to the minister in hopes that he might reinstate this kind of programme. Further, I'd ask him if he could explain to the House why the grants were withdrawn in the first place.

Finally, I would make a submission to him on the subject of day care. There is this year, I think, some $15 million provided in the estimates, up from $13 million last year, but I believe that this programme should be much larger, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to have from the minister his commitment that day care is a subject which is close to his heart, if I could put it that way.

I don't know if he's familiar with a pamphlet written by Philip Hepworth, who's the research director for the Canadian Council on Social Development, put out last year which speaks of.... The title of the pamphlet is "600,000 Children," and this is the day-care need across Canada nationally. We would expect something like 60,000 in British Columbia as a rough estimation, and yet the current number of day-care places in our province is closer to 8,000, if I understand the figures correctly. This obviously leaves great room for expansion.

While I appreciate the fact that the minister recently was able to raise the provincial grant per child in need in day-care centres from $120 to $140, I'm hoping that we can get some kind of long-range commitment to going much further in the day-care field. I think that this would commend itself to the minister and to the government on the very basic ground of economic common sense. This allows more people to get out and work and contribute to our society, and contribute to their own lives if they are so minded by making available a facility for certain hours of the day for care of their children. It's not in any way an abdication of parental responsibility but rather a possibility of freeing the parents for certain hours of the day to do other things. Not only does this make economic common sense, of course, Mr. Chairman, but also it makes human common sense.

It's my view that day-care centres should eventually enter the public school system and that kindergarten grades should go down from age five to age four and eventually to age three. The difficulty, I appreciate, is the impossibility of obtaining Canada Assistance Plan funding for anything that relates to the educational system in any way. This is another of the reasons why I have been asking the government, in field after field, to negotiate for tax points so that we can spend the money on our own priorities rather than having our priorities directed, and in some cases distorted, by the federal government's cost-sharing plans.

Basically on day care then, Mr. Chairman, it's a request for the minister to tell us that he regards this as a valuable programme and, hopefully, one that will be rapidly expanded in view of the fact that only, say, 15 to 20 per cent of the potential places in day care in British Columbia that are actually required are currently available.

I would be glad if the minister could comment on the four subjects I have raised.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Firstly, with respect to adoption, the waiting period is in excess of two years. One of the reasons, I suppose, is that the majority of applicants wish little babies. We have less of these being born every year, so it's becoming more difficult, in fact, to fill the demand.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We don't know just how many there are. I don't have the figures available to be accurate.

With regard to your question on — municipal per capita charges, your assumption was not quite correct in that municipalities pay 10 per cent of the social assistance portion and the child-care portion of the Human Resources budget. Ten per cent of those figures will vary depending upon what the total figures are, so 10 per cent amounted to $1.30 per month on a per capita basis last year, but this year, because the figures were larger, the amount went to $1.55.

The municipalities that have been paying 60 cents per annum for administration are now paying 5 cents per month per capita for administration, so they don't have this one additional charge at the end of the year. It's worked into their per capita monthly charges so that, in fact, instead of $1.55, they're now paying $1.60.

We'll be negotiating with North Vancouver and the other seven municipalities — eight in total — for the takeover of their administration. They then, too, will pay $1.55 plus a nickel, or $1.60 in total, per month. For administration they are currently averaging $5 per annum, as opposed to 60 cents per annum for the other areas. So there will be a considerable saving for those municipalities.

The reason, I suppose more than any, that we are not funding the information centres is twofold: we have an awful lot of applications this year for various functions, particularly with the discontinuation of LIP. However, information centres are not subject to federal cost-sharing. Most, if not all, of the programmes that we are presently involved with through the community grant section of the-budget

[ Page 2399 ]

are shared 50-50 federally-provincially. Information centres are charged completely to the province with no sharing from the federal government. Also, we found in assessing the information provided by the information centres, however worthwhile it was, that it was very much, too, of a local nature — to do with recreation programmes locally, or to do with facilities locally, or to do with municipal, matters. So it didn't become a high priority with us — particularly, of course, too, since a dollar spent there would provide $2 worth of services elsewhere.

Day care certainly is a priority with us. That is one of the reasons why we so quickly negotiated a new rate for the day-care programme so the programme wouldn't continue to suffer, since the rates had not been adjusted for almost two years. We have also provided about 19 per cent extra this year, much of which, of course, will be to provide the extra rate. But there is some money there for expansion if needed. However, your figure of 8,000 should be 12,000; there are 12,000 children in total involved in the day-care programme. But somehow, for some unknown reason, the number appears to be dropping little by little every month.

In fact, the programme is now under-utilized. We are getting complaints from some of the day-care centres in some of the areas — they are saying that there are too many day-care centres too close together and they can't make a go of it; so we are reviewing this. We certainly support day care. What you said is absolutely right — it provides the opportunity for people to not only go out and be gainfully employed, but it provides the opportunity to become involved with the community, meet new friends and, of course, all of the other good things that come with it. So we wholeheartedly endorse it and I very much support the day-care programme.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I just want to comment briefly on the question of day-care centres and child care in general. When we met with the women from the women's rally for action earlier on this session, one of the specific points that was raised was that at the present time licences for child-care centres seem to be contingent more or less only on meeting fire and safety regulations, and that there is very little importance attached to the criteria of the quality of care itself. The whole idea the women were putting forward was that there should be as much flexibility as possible, and there should be a variety of day-care centres which would give the parents some options.

Again, it's a little bit like the issue I raised earlier on — overlapping of responsibilities and different departments getting mixed with the minister's department in determining whether certain requirements are being met. But this was certainly a point that was stressed in my discussion with the ladies who came to my office — they really wanted to think that there would be some flexibility and variation, and that day-care centres should not just be approved because they met fire and safety regulations, but there should be some attempt to have the Minister of Human Resources responsible for the quality of care.

The whole area that I wanted to touch upon beyond that, Mr. Chairman, is again the question of intermediate care. The report from the minister's department I have already referred to earlier on in the session and I don't plan to go into the whole outline of the reduction of the number of intermediate-care beds that has occurred in the greater Victoria area. I am sure all MLAs have received various letters from different groups trying to point out that we are not spending the total number of dollars wisely. I make no apology for reciting for the Nth time the fact that the reason we are abusing or misusing expensive acute-care hospital beds is that there are many people in these beds only because they have nowhere else to go and that they require some kind of intermediate-care facility.

I would first of all just briefly quote the correspondence, which I'm sure many members have had, that is from the group which is entitled the Mental Patients Association. I know that the first member for Vancouver-Burrard has already referred to this in an earlier debate. It bears mentioning repeatedly for the simple reason that many of those patients often require readmission to acute facilities simply because the bridge of supervision and care between the acute hospital and the community isn't there.

The Mental Patients Association, as the minister well knows, provides some kind of bridge for approximately 48 patients who have previously received psychiatric care in an acute facility and also provides various other ancillary types of health, housing referrals and some advocacy services and activity programmes of one kind and another.

Most importantly, it is eager to provide, for lack of a better word, the halfway house approach whereby patients who leave the psychiatric hospital have some kind of support and advice and guidance at a time when they're still under a great deal of emotional stress and may not be able to return to the community or to their original place of residence.

The Mental Patients Association, I think, has contacted the Minister of Human Resources, who admittedly is being approached from just about every point of the compass, particularly in the light of LIP grants and LEAP grants which are coming to an end in the next few months.

In this case, Mr. Chairman, I think the figures speak for themselves. The Mental Patients Association is seeking $66,000 to take them from August I of this year to March 31 of 1977. The LEAP grant runs

[ Page 2400 ]

out at the end of July and this $66,000 represents two-thirds of their annual need for 10 salaries and a deficit in operating expenses on the residence programme. Even to stay where we are, this sum of money is required for the rest of this fiscal year, a sum of $66,000, and there are 48 people who presumably will have to be relocated if there is no money.

I know very well that the minister can't produce money out of a hat, and I know that he's been approached by myself and others on a whole variety of needs, and the reason that he can't solve the problem now is that there is no ongoing long-term programme that I can determine to provide these intermediate-care facilities.

I won't be nasty and recall the big one-page ad where this government made that kind of commitment. It's one of the most crucial money-saving commitments that they should be embarking upon, because we're spending millions of dollars looking after people in expensive facilities simply because the more appropriate kind of facility doesn't exist.

When I have to keep quoting the department's own statistics of how in the greater Victoria area we've actually lost something like 400 places in intermediate-care facilities in the last two years, surely this shows the absolutely foolish gap that exists whereby we have gone ahead creating very expensive, sophisticated facilities for the most acutely ill person, but no kind of bridge between the acute facility and the person's home. Those various people sometimes can never return to live in their own home for a variety of reasons, physical, mental, or otherwise.

I just hope that with the new minister.... I'm sure that from his position as a former mayor in Surrey, he probably doesn't really need to be told this. But I can certainly speak with feeling in the greater Victoria area. There is just an appalling lack of that type of intermediate-care facility and, as a result, we are seriously misusing many of the acute facilities that now exist.

I've quoted, Mr. Chairman, one of the specifics, namely the request by the Mental Patients Association for $66,000, and in this case it is simply to keep the situation as is and not get any worse. I would wonder where these 48 persons would be accommodated if, in fact, these two houses have to close down.

One thing we can be sure of: if that happens a certain number of the 48 patients will wind up back in the acute psychiatric facility at $125 a day. That's as predictable as night following day. In fact, some of the correspondence that I've had from the Mental Patients Association draws some of these very clear comparisons. The office co-ordinator, Mr. Gordon McMann, makes the point very plain. I'd just like very quickly to quote from a letter of April 21 this year:

"If our residences are not funded, the government will probably have 48 more patients to care for, be it boarding home or re-entry to acute hospital. We think it is time that all government departments concerned recognize our organization as an economical way of caring for a seriously disadvantaged part of the population.

"The present Vancouver hospital rates, as you know, are running up to $125 a day. Our houses operate at $6.40 per day per resident, over and above what the residents pay themselves. In other words, we are looking for a subsidy of $6.40 per day. Our actual per-diem cost is for a subsidy of $6.40 per day. Our actual per-diem cost is $9.36 per day."

In other words, the patient makes a contribution and the actual subsidy is $6.40 per day, which is certainly a far cry from the cost of having these people in the acute facility when there's nowhere else for them to go. Perhaps the minister could look at that particular question.

I've also had quite a bit of correspondence from a committee which calls itself the ad hoc committee on community resources for persons with psychiatric problems. The letter I first received is from Mr. Ralph Buckley, Master in Social Work, at St. Paul's Hospital, and he is mainly saying the same thing as the Mental Patients Association, that there are many persons who need some community care as a bridge between the acute facility and their home, or, in cases where the recovery is incomplete, they may require this kind of intermediate care facility on a permanent basis.

The point Mr. Buckley makes very clear is that study after study after study has been carried out over the last number of years and they all come up with exactly the same recommendation. You would tend to think that if different groups study the same subject and all come up with the same recommendation, probably the recommendations are sound. There's one particular study entitled the Greater Vancouver Boarding Home Status report by Dr. J. Cumming and Mrs. Sharon Martin and it says:

"Repeatedly the treatment team was forced to admit patients who would have been treatable if partial hospitalization had been available, something of the nature of day treatment, overnight hostel with supervision, available boarding homes, and so on."

And he states:

"After the initial crisis, hospital admission often reflected the unavailability of essential support services."

And then in a more recent paper, Dr. Cummings states:

"Institutional care for the mentally ill will

[ Page 2401 ]

decrease dramatically in the next five years. If, however, this process is not to result in a new crisis, we must develop an alternative to the institution which provides the same care elements which the institution does, and important among these elements is the need for housing."

Then he goes on to make the point that there are enough existing and planned acute-psychiatric beds in general hospitals in greater Vancouver to service this area if we could provide adequate support facilities. Without breaking the rules of this House I would just recall that this is exactly the same kind of thing that we're talking about with this 240-bed acute hospital proposed for UBC campus. It's insane, absolutely stupid. Vancouver does not need acute-psychiatric beds, but the whole province desperately requires intermediate-care beds.

It just defeats me that we have to go on hammering away at this absolutely fundamental fact that's been known for something like 15 years when you look back on all the studies that have been done, starting with the Hall Royal Commission and the task force reports and the report we had a couple of years ago by Dr. Foulkes.

Now all these studies add up to the same conclusion, and I just feel that with unanimous recommendation coming from so many directions, this, to me, should really be one of the most urgent crash programmes that the government should be looking at.

The report that I mentioned of the ad hoe committee finishes up by saying:

"As inflation seems to be continuing, the precise costs of alternative proposals will vary. We can say with certainty, nonetheless, that these proposals do offer proven alternatives to hospitalization which are cheaper than erecting more hospitals; they are more humanitarian and more in line with modern concepts of community mental health."

So I just can't put that plea to the minister in stronger terms, that in the short run could he take another look at the possibility of helping the Mental Patients Association with the kind of grant they're asking of $66,000 until April 1 next year — or March 31, next year — and in the long term could he tell us what early moves he's able to make to have a co-ordinated province-wide programme, particularly in relation to the large metropolitan areas, to provide these intermediate care facilities?

The last similar example I would want to mention is another facility that the minister's well aware of, and he's tried to come up with funding and has been unable to do so. I'm talking about the recreation centre for the handicapped on Government Street in Victoria. That is a very simple place — you couldn't even call it a furnished facility; it is simply the four walls and little else — where some of the most dedicated people you'll ever meet in your life are busy trying to provide some outings and recreational pursuits for very seriously disabled and handicapped young people.

Mr. Chairman, the use of the words "recreational centre" might suggest that this is of lesser priority than some of the other needs of the handicapped, but I think we have to emphasize that some of these handicapped persons are otherwise trapped within the four walls of their own home and present a 24-hour-a-day responsibility to the parents of these handicapped children. Again, it very often ends with one or other parent developing a serious degree of emotional illness and that one or other parent — and I could quote examples, but I won't mention names — ends up receiving psychiatric care simply because of the tremendous strain of 24 hours a day, seven days a week, looking after a seriously handicapped person.

Now this recreational facility — and I think you can't call it anything other than a facility — on Government Street is serving that invaluable purpose of getting some of the younger and seriously disabled and handicapped children out for various pursuits, whether it be swimming or visits to the park, to the degree that they can also be shown how to practise handicrafts and other simple tasks. And this, I think, is more than just providing the recreation. It's of tremendous value to the parents and the individuals who otherwise, for all the other hours in the day, seven days a week, are responsible for the care of these young people.

Now the minister has looked the situation over, and I appreciate his efforts. I have his reply which, in effect, says there is only so much money and he's had many, many requests, and I appreciate that. I'm not expecting the minister to produce money out of the ground, but I wonder if at least we could perhaps sustain this facility for one month or two months, on a very temporary basis, while the supporters of the programme make further sustained efforts to obtain funding elsewhere. They've made every effort to raise money on their own. They've also sought federal help from the Secretary of State (Hon. Mr. Faulkner), and there's a most diligent and conscientious group of parents and public-spirited people who are trying to keep this centre going.

So I just suggest that perhaps while the initial request was for one year's funding, things are at such a critical state now that it would be of great value if we could even have a stopgap funding for a month or two while we try to arrange longer-term funding.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Chairman, certainly all that the hon. member has said with respect to adult-care facilities is quite correct. I know that many studies have been done with respect to intermediate-care facilities, private hospitals and the

[ Page 2402 ]

like; however, we now do have two people from Health and two people from our department pulling together all the information that presently exists with a view to making recommendations regarding intermediate care and also rates for private hospitals which are now very necessary in order to meet the need that exists. So hopefully this, we expect, will be finalized sometime in August. We have a meeting then with the private hospitals' association for their end of it, and we'll be making a number of recommendations with respect to intermediate-care facilities, the need, how they might be encouraged, and where. All this information hopefully will be available about the end of August.

I certainly agree with all that was said, and if the hon. member has any information — and I'm sure he must, having had a real interest in this for a long time — that would be of help to us for the review, I would certainly welcome it.

The matter of the Mental Patients Association and their request for $66,000 has been noted by my deputy. We have no record of this request. However, I am sure.... You say a request was made to my department — not the Health department? In any case, we'll search the files to gee if there was, in fact, a request to our department, or if it went to Health if it should have come to our department, and I'll certainly advise you on that later.

With respect to the recreational facility in Victoria for handicapped, the problem here is that our most recent addition would indicate that if we approved this one now-defunct LIP programme, we're probably looking at $250,000 worth of more like it, none of which is shareable. It's all straight provincial dollars.

I agree again with all you've said about the usefulness of this, and the value with respect to particularly, I'm sure, the handicapped, but also the parents, in the relief they get for at least the time that the handicapped are involved in the particular programmes. We'll look at your suggestion and see what can be done.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the member deferring. I want to leave the record completely accurate in regard to my statement about $66,000 being asked by the Mental Patients Association. A letter of June 2 states that the Vancouver Mental Patients Association residence programme was not funded by the Department of Health, and is looking to the Department of Human Resources for $66,000 to take them from August 1 to March 31. So it does not specifically state that they've written to the minister; they are looking to a department. I wouldn't want to leave the impression that they have written to the minister when perhaps such an approach is pending.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, the office has obviously received the letter, but I suppose June 2 is perhaps too recent. However, could the hon. member perhaps advise me if this is an operating cost or capital cost?

MR. WALLACE: An operating cost.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, this might help the minister: as I understand it, they also made a direct request to the Vancouver Resource Board grant committee for the money — they applied there because it's in their area.

What I want to do was go over with the minister a statement he made in the House on May 6 in reply to a question from the member for New Westminster in respect to the Glendale Hospital budget cut. At that time he indicated, if I might quote: "I'd like to provide an answer to a question which was placed on the floor yesterday by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). Contrary to the statement made by this member, the budgetary estimates of the Glendale Hospital have not been decreased."

I recall in dealing with the estimates of the department, when we were still government, that we had estimated $6.45 million, which was done sometime at the end of 1974. During the fiscal year 1975-76 a considerable sum of money was added to the expenditures of Glendale Hospital — as a matter of fact, something in the order of almost $600,000. That amount of money was deemed necessary as a result of contractual arrangements in terms of the collective bargaining agreement and to meet auxiliary personnel.

Now what concerns me is what the minister indicated in his statement made in the House on May 6. He said: "In 1975-76 the budgetary estimate for Glendale was $6,041,000" — which was correct; that was the budgetary estimate — "and our estimate for the 1976-77 fiscal year projects an increase to $6,091,000." Now the crux of this discussion — the question that was asked by the member for New Westminster, and also in which the member for Oak Bay was involved — really related to a $50,000 increase in the budget that was estimated at $6,041,000.

I was in the House that day, listened to what they were saying and was quite perplexed that you could take a large operating budget of some $6,041,000 and then get up in the House and say: "We haven't decreased the budget; we've increased it by $50,000." The crux of the argument put forward by the member for Oak Bay was that service was cut back. I'm not making that statement at the moment, but what I'd like to know from the minister is: how can you take a budget of $6,041,000 increase it by

[ Page 2403 ]

$50,000 and then tell the House that there won't be a cutback in service? Surely the minister knows that if you're operating on March 31 of any end of any fiscal year, when you start on the first day of that fiscal year you've got to project your incremental costs and other reasons.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: I'm not ready to sit down yet, Mr. Minister; I haven't finished.

The thing is, if you take a budget of $6 million and you project 15 per cent — which is a fairly good guideline to do it at; at least you know you shouldn't really go below that — you're looking at something like a need to increase the previous year's budget by about $900,000, bearing in mind that the minister said that they'd increased the budget by $41,000.

During the discussions that I recall when I was the minister and we were preparing the estimates, we were looking at a budget based on the projections of 15 per cent, approximately, plus the incremental cost of something like $8,600,000.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Yes, I actually have the documents and can make them available to you.

The thing is, perhaps the minister would be able to tell us how it's possible to start out with a budget of $6,041,000, put it up to $6,095,000, and not have a cutback in service. What wondrous things has he worked in order to save what looks like an approximate amount of money that's pretty close to well over $2 million, bearing in mind that during that fiscal year the amount of money that was appropriated because of a special request from that board...and we should be reminded that that is a non-profit organization.

As a matter of fact I have the document that I'm looking for here. When we looked at 1976-77 estimates, when we worked out the projection, the projected expenditure for 1975-76 was estimated at $6.8 million — actually, $6,842,000. Then we ran into the whole question so we had to work on a baseline, and the baseline was $7.4 million. We ran into a cost-of-living increment, which was part of the collective-bargaining agreement, of $1,137,000. That gave us a total of $8,600,000.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

Again, perhaps the minister could tell us if he's quite happy with the amount of money he's got in his budget and if all of the services that were in place in the fiscal year 1975-76 are going to remain in place. I know that he also said in his statement: "I would like to point out, however, that the 1976-77 estimates do not reflect substantial amounts of services rendered by other government departments."

Now what we're dealing with here is an operation. He may get up and tell us, I suppose, that some of the laundry and some of the cleaning and that kind of thing will be done by another department. Yes, he's shaking his head and that's what they did. He was able to accomplish something I couldn't accomplish.

I realize that we could do it under his estimates, but the issue here is really — as raised by the two members I mentioned — the cutback in service. Is he satisfied that (a) there will be no cutback in service and (b) that he does have enough money to finish the fiscal year? Is he aware that in calculating $6,045,000, which was what he started at — that was the budget figure last year — that figure was actually, as a result of the extra appropriation made during the fiscal year, $6.8 million? There was another $800,000 required which was approved.

Perhaps the minister would like to comment.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, yes, we do have sufficient money so there will absolutely be no cutbacks required and we have sufficient money for the fiscal year.

Yes, you're quite right. The Pharmacare programme, for example, will not be charged to the facility. Instead it will be charged to programme — the Pharmacare services.

The Public Works — the amount paid to Public Works annually is being charged to the debit account. We do not know what figure we're dealing with with regard to salary increases, and therefore those moneys we intend to take from salary contingencies. I hope that answers it.

MR. LEVI: Perhaps the minister would be good enough to indicate the sum amounts. After all, you started out on the basis of the expenditure of $6.8 million for that fiscal year. Presumably that was the expenditure. Now how was he able to save what appears to be something of the order of $790,000? He saved $790,000, but he also saved in total actually $2.6 million by scattering things. Would he mind telling us the amount?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, we're sharing with a budget which is slightly higher than last year. We have approximately $250,000 to add from the Pharmacare programme. We have about $1,100,000 for Public Works. As for the salary increases, we really don't know what figure we're dealing with. It might be anywhere from half-a-million to a million. We don't know.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): This follows up on an issue raised by the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi), at which time he was

[ Page 2404 ]

making reference to the Glendale Lodge Hospital question that was asked previously in the House by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). Here again, Mr. Minister, we find that because there is not sufficient money to provide for Glendale, they've had to cut back on services which affect people in the rural areas.

I'll outline this for you. I rose in the House the other day and was addressing the Premier with respect to cutbacks in services and how people in remote areas are the ones that are affected first. Here's just another example of what happens. I would like to read into the record, Mr. Chairman, a copy of a letter which I have received from the Campbell River District Association for the Mentally Handicapped. This letter is addressed to the Premier, and the Minister of Human Resources does have a copy of this letter as well, which, as I say, just arrived today. The letter says:

"Dear Mr. Bennett:

RE: Cutbacks in services at Glendale Lodge Hospital

"Our association was alarmed at the decision that Glendale Lodge Hospital will no longer be providing a travelling assessment clinic or the service of short-term relief.

"The operation of our programmes for the handicapped relies entirely on the directions we obtain from this assessment team. A four-hour journey"

— and I think this point is very well made by the president of this association —

"meaning down to Glendale Lodge itself, to strange surroundings, is a considerable strain on many of the handicapped and does not allow proper assessment to be made. In addition, this places a hardship on the parents or guardians and our association to arrange and finance these trips.

"Without the short-term relief, parents can no longer get a break from the strain of caring for a handicapped person. Babysitters are not only costly, but are not able to cope adequately with severe handicaps.

"The omission of these two services cannot reduce the expenses of the federal and provincial governments to any great extent."

I think this is important, Mr. Minister.

"On the other hand, they remove the only two services provided to many of the handicapped by the government.

"We hope that the government will consider reinstating these two services, as the benefits they provide are invaluable and cannot otherwise be obtained in this area."

I'd like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that this particular association has done an excellent job in obtaining the support of the community to construct a centre which the mentally handicapped who use the centre have named "Our Place." They were able to do this with donations from service clubs, with the support of the municipal council and with the support of the previous Minister of Human Resources (Mr. Levi), who was able to advance them a grant.

This is quite a blow to them, because it means so much to have the handicapped assessed in their usual surroundings rather than having them transported on a four-hour trip, which of course means additional expenses for parents or guardians because they have to stay overnight. As the letter points out, very often a proper assessment can't be made.

There is one other matter, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to bring to the minister's attention when I'm on my feet. This relates really to the attitude of the minister towards so many of the people who are serviced by his department. I'm somewhat concerned about this because the feedback that I get from people who are receiving social assistance, who are receiving benefits under the handicapped programme, is one of concern and alarm about the attitudes that have been expressed through the various media by this particular minister.

Most people — and I think the minister realizes this, Mr. Chairman — do not like to be welfare recipients. They are in that position only because they have been forced into it. They get frightened and alarmed by your talk of sending out sleuths to check out everybody to find out who might be defrauding the system. I think that the minister will admit, too, that the percentage of those people who are actually defrauding the system is very, very low. Yet everyone who is in receipt of social assistance feels uptight and frightened and alarmed by this talk of sending out sleuths throughout the province at an additional cost to the taxpayers of the province. They are suffering enough particularly single women with young children by having to raise their families on the income that's available to them under the Human Resources department.

Mr. Minister, instead of talking about sending out sleuths and worrying people, I think you should attempt to encourage people who are in receipt of social assistance. I would like to point out why, Mr. Chairman.

The previous Minister of Human Resources took a great interest in the Courtenay and area low-income group. This is a group of people, Mr. Chairman, that had banded together in order to do what they could to make life easier for those within their income group. They started putting out a newsletter, communicating with each other. With the help and encouragement towards those people by the previous minister, that group has now got to the stage where they are operating their own shop. They collect items of clothing and furniture from everywhere in the community. They work in the shop. They have just

[ Page 2405 ]

recently opened it up to the public. Hopefully they will be able to manage on their own financially without having to look to the Department of Human Resources.

Mr. Minister, these things don't happen unless they receive the encouragement of the department and particularly the minister himself. I'm afraid, Mr. Chairman, that the attitudes and the comments that have been made in the media to date from that minister will not encourage this kind of activity, because instead they are inclined to draw back into their shells and to feel frightened by the statements of the minister. I wonder if the minister would be prepared to comment on those two specific issues.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I have a few brief further remarks at this point. First of all, I appreciate the minister having corrected the figure I gave of 8,000 children in day care to 12,000. The 8,000 figure is children in subsidized day care, the other 4,000 roughly being those whose parents pay the shot entirely.

I'd like to make a short comment on his discussion with respect to why funds were cut off from information centres, which I think describes about as graphically as possible why federal cost-sharing distorts provincial priorities. It's a fact of life. I appreciate the financial problems the minister has to grapple with, but he says that $1 spent in this area of services could give rise to $2 in a shareable service. That's true, but it's wrong that our priorities should be distorted in this way by federal cost-sharing programmes, in my opinion.

Therefore once again I make my plea to the minister and to the government, the Premier and the Minister of Finance and all those concerned to fight as hard as they can to get back those tax points from the provincial authority so we can establish our own priorities in this province. It's a fight that every single province in this country is engaged in, Mr. Chairman.

The subject I would like to discuss at this point is that of community resource boards. I was extremely disappointed when the minister came out with a statement — I think it was a press release of February 23 — where, in effect, he relegated the resource boards to the outer darkness. He took away their powers. I see the member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) is applauding that, but I think he ought to think a little bit about the philosophy behind that.

We have in British Columbia a tradition of local control which we treasure; in the municipal councils insofar as pertains to the operation of our local governments, in the school boards insofar as pertains to educational services in this province, but not in the field of social services. The theory had been that municipal councils would look after social services to the extent that was required. Certain municipalities excepted and certain times excepted, on the record in

British Columbia history, municipal councils have not shown a great interest in this particular field. Therefore there was certainly a theoretical case for a third type of locally controlled local administrative body which would look after the delivery of social services in the municipalities around this province and the local regions.

The community resource board legislation was a first tentative step in this direction. It wasn't a big step, Mr. Chairman, because aside from the city of Vancouver, these resource boards weren't given great powers. They were given advisory powers and the minister of the day was 100 per cent free to override their advice. At least they had a certain colour of respectability and authority because of the fact that they were elected by local citizens in local elections. Certainly the first turnout figures weren't particularly exciting. If I recall correctly, the first election was in the southeast portion of the city of Vancouver and I think only 10 per cent of those eligible voted. That same year only 10 per cent voted in the municipal elections in the district of North Vancouver. So that's at least a comparable figure. The fact that in these first elections few people voted was no reason in my opinion to throw this useful experiment out.

At the time that this legislation passed, Mr. Chairman, I voted against it. I admit freely that I changed my mind in the interim, once I saw them working. I voted against the concept of these boards because I was concerned that they would be captured by a small group of people with particular axes to grind and not be genuinely representative of the community.

As I saw it operating in my community, it was genuinely representative. There were people on those boards who were serving their community without pay and doing a good job and had the potential of evolving into what could be a good instrument of local control. The instrument was in place. It was an experiment. It was making some progress. The minister could have, and should have, left the CRB system at that stage, let it go for another year to see how it was operating. Because as I say again, Mr. Chairman, it was a fact of local control, and it was a fact of commitment, the people who had already been elected to those boards.

Coming back again to North Vancouver, there was a board elected in Capilano-Northgate, if memory serves me, in November, 1975 — in any event, in late 1975. These members were elected, they had held meetings. Yet because of the failure to issue an order-in-council to confirm that election, the minister was able to use that technicality to, in effect, disband them. I say, Mr. Chairman, that that was wrong. Again referring to my community, this board was costing the taxpayers of this province not one cent; it was costing the municipality not one cent. They were getting themselves into a position where they were

[ Page 2406 ]

able to deal with quite a number of local cases of social concern, and where they were getting ready to give advice to the government in the matter of the distribution of the various kinds of grants. And this was a good thing.

How much money was actually saved? Certainly in North Vancouver, Mr. Chairman, there was no money saved. But let's look at a place where it is contended there was money saved. I want to talk specifically about the Kamloops resource board which, of course, was dissolved as well or relegated to zero status, which amounts to the same thing. The budget there, I am told, amounted to some $25,000 to $26,000. I am also told that once that board has been disbanded it would have been necessary — or should have been necessary; I don't know if it was done — for the department to hire a new kind of administrative assistant to the regional director, or something like that, to look after the kinds of things that that board was looking after, and at a salary of probably $18,000 to $20,000. So where is the money saved?

Make no mistake, Mr. Chairman, to the extent that these boards were fulfilling some kind of a purpose, then there are two possibilities: either that purpose, that achievement, is erased, or else you have to pay for it in some other way. I submit again that following the line of these resource boards was one of the most useful experiments we have seen in terms of government structure in this province over the last few years. It was a question of increased and more sensitive local control.

I hope that the minister will tell us, not about the current status of these boards — because aside from the Vancouver area their status is zero, as I have said — but whether there might not be some development in his thinking along these lines, because the Act is still on the books; there is still a possibility of doing something. He need not fear, as I think there was some fear in his party, that these boards will not only not be locally representative but might become tools of any particular political party, because that just wasn't happening. In fact, there was strong local resistance to that kind of takeover attempt. There were areas where political parties ran a slate and saw that slate soundly trounced, as it should be, in my opinion.

So with all of those things said, let me consider, first of all, a representation to the minister — then, if he chooses to say that his thinking has developed to any extent, a request to the minister to tell us about it. On the other hand, if his thinking remains that he wants to get rid of the CRBs, I don't particularly want to hear about it. But I hope he is going to tell us that his thinking has developed.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): I'll yield to the minister if he....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Pardon me for bending over. I'm getting on; I have arthritis in my back. I am glad that the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) has been persistent on this problem of the elimination of the community resource boards, although I don't intend to repeat all the things he has said. I have stood in the House before and tried to impress upon the minister the need to reconsider that position. It indicates perhaps — and I hope I am wrong — that the minister has very little faith and confidence in certain of these democratic processes. I know that is a very strong suggestion to make to a minister responsible for such a department as Human Resources. I am sure he is going to stand and clarify any misinterpretation I may have placed on his actions.

I am basing my observations on what I feel to be pretty firm indications of just such an orientation on the part of the minister. The removal of the resource boards — at least the discouragement of the resource boards, to put it more accurately — by not giving them the kind of authority they enjoyed through the support of provincial legislation really relegated to them to ad hoc-ery and a role of incidental importance. That is the part that concerns me — that the minister has indicated an interest in volunteerism, I suppose based on some idea that most of us feel a strong commitment to be of assistance in any way we can to a community we all feel a part of.

Following this philosophy, you would expect the minister to do everything he can to assist the furtherance of this participation by the various segments of the community. The resource boards were just such organizations, made up of people who were prepared to give of their time — long, arduous hours in the cause of furthering community participation in the decision-making processes affecting their lives in the community.

The minister said: "Fine. Well, if you want to continue we would encourage you to do so, but in an unofficial capacity. We don't feel you should have the legal authority to exist and have by some special mandate the right to the minister's ear on behalf of the people of any community, except for the Vancouver resource board and a few selected people in that respect."

By and large, the whole concept has been seriously handicapped by taking away the minimal funding that they were enjoying. I can speak from the experience I had in meeting with a few of these elected bodies that they, in fact, were spending the public funds very frugally and not squandering them and not being irresponsible and showing considerable fiscal responsibility, which is one of the things the government has indicated. as wanting to see demonstrated. So I think, you know, that there's

[ Page 2407 ]

some question about the basis upon which a decision was made. Perhaps the minister has a very good reason, but I'm hoping it wasn't based entirely upon the cost factor, because the cost factor was very minimal in terms of the large numbers of people who were involved.

On the other hand, the participatory factor, as far as people having something to say in the decisions affecting their various communities, was a considerable loss. In fact, a number of people really are alienated as a result of this decision. In our society there are few examples where people can participate realistically in serious decisions before the fact, not after the fact, and they can know that the decisions they participate in will be seriously taken by those people who have to implement them.

To be told that you can be in an advisory capacity if you wish but that you have no particular authority to put forward any recommendations that will carry any weight is really less than satisfactory. So we've lost a great deal, I feel, and this is in keeping with many of the minister's similar decisions respecting the lives of the people in the community. He has embarked upon a very ambitious programme to overhaul the Department of Human Resources, cutting across all sectors of the community, indicating a firm commitment to bring into line and within budgetary goals and objectives all services and all aspects, all traditions, affecting the people of the community, purely on the actuarial concept, on the basis of cost — on the pure and simple basis of cost. I'm wondering what the long-term implications and ramifications of many of these decisions will be on the people, Mr. Minister. I'm wondering if you and your colleagues.... Because you don't stand alone in the philosophy that you have been espousing and attempting to sell to the community. I think that you really represent an attitude ...

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: ...by many of the other departments, Mr. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) . Many of your other colleagues, Mr. Chairman, through you, have similar approaches to dealing with matters affecting and having serious consequences for the future in this province.

I don't want to digress, but one of the most obvious decisions that you made — I am sure that you have no idea about the consequences — was your decision to raise the ferry rates. Now you know that that's going to have an effect on every economy in every island in the province of British Columbia. Their economies will be affected by that decision, Mr. Chairman, and this minister who is making all these other decisions I'm sure could mass-produce for this House the evidence supporting his position that we'll be better off in the long run and that we are going to, in fact, realize a better fiscal situation at the end of this period, come next March 31. Because you don't improve a situation if you maintain the same revenue and cut down the service by 50 per cent. What you're doing is ending up with an inferior service and you haven't gained a thing.

So let's talk about value. It can't always be worked out on the dollar basis. This is the danger of moving too fast, Mr. Chairman. It's not that the minister shouldn't come in with a sense of enthusiasm and attempt to follow through on some of the recommendations or some of the promises he made during the campaign. I think he should do this. I think that every member in this House wants to help, but we have to be consulted in time, not after the fact but before the fact. You know, I don't recall at any time being asked what the consequences would be of some of the changes this government has brought in.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I'm sure the back bench are finding it more and more difficult, Mr. Chairman, to have input.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: If the resource boards think they are having trouble they should check the back bench of the government. I'll bet they're having trouble too, and this is only the beginning. As that goes on that government will be so anxious to carry on the business of the people that they will forget that the people should be consulted every now and then. So they will be the victims of the consequential effects of some of the things that are happening to this government. I recalled a while ago some of the changes on the handicapped policies, in qualifying people for handicap assistance, or those who qualified on a permanent basis,

You realize that to tell a person that they must be permanently handicapped in order to get assistance is really beyond imagination. Let's just stop and think what that really is saying, It's saying to people that they have no rights unless they can prove totally and absolutely beyond any doubt that they are out — completely out. That's not a very compassionate approach or concern on the part of a Minister of Human Resources who says that people are our most important resource. In fact, the minister has said in some of his statements that people are precious — the most precious commodity we have. That's what he said. He says, in fact, they are so precious that we're going to go out and ensure that they get off social assistance whether they want to or not. We're going to find them a job. "No work, no pay, " that's what he says.

[ Page 2408 ]

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I think your job-finder said that, Mr. Ron Stew. Did he say that? It was in the paper. He may not have said it, but there again the press is in error, quoting somebody out of context or whatever. Anyway, it's in the press and I can give you the details, but it says: "No work, no pay." If you don't accept the job, then you don't get any social assistance. I think that the effect of that attitude is the thing that concerns me, that the Minister of Human Resources would frame his position in that way. You know, even if you intended to put it to the people, you should show some compassion in the manner in which you present your programme.

You seem so ruthless, Mr. Minister, so determined to just lay it right out. After all, you are dealing with people, and your first concern is to give them some sense of enthusiasm to retain that sense of identity, that they are worth something, that this society is theirs — not the government's, but theirs. You said you have no money, that the money belongs to the people, and that you have to get what you need from time to time. Well, encourage them to participate — encourage them. Don't make them feel that they're being fleeced all the time. Make them feel good about participating in programmes to help themselves and to help each other. Instead of that, you make people feel like they're foreigners in their own country, aliens. In fact, you're working very hard to stop them from coming across the border. You don't want those who live here to move around — no mobility, not if you're going to get any help.

All of a sudden the government is important when it comes to people getting assistance when they fail in this competitive society. You say: "If you're going to get any money from the government, you'd better live in this area and watch yourself. Wear your clothes right and dress up. These are the rules." But then, on the other hand, the government has no money of its own. We've got to turn right around and say: "Give us some money so that we can lay down some rules for you."

Well, I think it works both ways. You know, people want to enjoy their lives in their lifetime. They don't want to pay everything today for the people of tomorrow. They want to pay a little bit today and enjoy some today because they may not be here tomorrow. Your programme is designed for everybody to be looking after tomorrow, but not all of us are going to be here. You don't believe in deficit financing because you want to look good now, but we'll be paying for everybody tomorrow.

Why don't you do the same thing when it comes to resources — the mineral resources? Why doesn't the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland), whatever he's doing over there, withdraw that bill he just brought in the other day that is going to remove all that taxation on the mineral royalties and so forth? You know, instead of taxing the people on what will never become a fact — profit — tax them before the fact, and then you'll be looking after the people of tomorrow. Be consistent!

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. BARNES: You only want to be consistent when it suits your needs today; otherwise you're way off in the ball park.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, you see, the problem is that the minister's integrity is questionable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: That's the only thing that bothers me, Mr. Chairman. I know he's sincere....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. May I just assist you?

Hon. Members, the committee is unusually noisy this afternoon. Could we give, perhaps, a little more attention to the gentleman who has the floor?

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): You're getting to them, Emery. Keep going.

MR. BARNES: Well, you know, Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The second member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

MR. BARNES: Thank you. I find it difficult right now to get down to all of the hundreds of details that all of us will want to ask this minister when we question his position — you know, his sincerity. He's talking about the difficulty, for instance, of providing information to people who would like to know what is on their files.

I believe...he now has a companion, but at one time he was referred to as the only member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald); he was asking him about the availability of information on people's files who are on social assistance, and he said: "Well, it's not really practical or possible for us to provide information, because we've got some 16 different files in different categories and, you know, it's all over the place." What he is saying is that it is too complicated to advise people of what's on their records in a social assistance situation. They all have a right to know what's on their files, and we encourage

[ Page 2409 ]

that and support that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Cover-up!

MR. BARNES: We believe in it as in the Department of Consumer Services. You tell the people: "If there are any files out there that they're holding on you, you have the right to know — your credit rating and everything else — but when it comes to social assistance, you can't know what's going on." That doesn't make sense. Do you mean to tell me that it's so complicated that even the welfare workers don't know what's in those files? Do they go out to those 16 different places and find that information before they deal with a case, or is it just really a matter of a smokescreen to avoid telling the people why you are not going to let them know what is on their files?

You know, this is a democratic society, Mr. Minister of Human Resources, responsible for encouraging people to feel a sense of self-worth and to develop programmes that further that cause. This is a free society, a society made up of people living various lifestyles and with alternative ways of living, and who should be encouraged to do that.

When I take a look at the implications of your job-finding programme, I get the idea that you feel that everybody can pick up a shovel. I thought you were being cute when you said that at one time, but I really believe you really mean it. "No matter who you are, if you're on welfare and we offer you a job and you don't take it, you don't get any welfare." I think you should stand up in this House and say: "No, it's not what I mean." There are differences in people. People have different abilities and different skills and different physical capacities, and so forth, and backgrounds, and you must not expect to be able to get every "employable" person, and it remains to be seen what an employable person is...because as long as a person is living at all, breathing at all, even if he is fully handicapped by your terms, Mr. Minister, he can be employable. It depends on what you want them to do.

Don't sit there and say no. It's a subjective thing, and you know it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the member please address the Chair?

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I am addressing the Chair. I must apologize if I appeared not to be, because I respect your integrity and your ability to keep the House in order. You do a very fine job of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARNES: I'm asking this minister through you, Mr. Chairman, to give me an example — just one example — of somebody who is totally, completely unemployable. You stand up and give me one when I sit down, and I'm going to tell you something, Mr. Minister. In his regulations, Mr. Chairman, he comes out with a special order-in-council, where he says you must be permanently disabled. If there's any hope of rehabilitation in any way, if we can recoup any part of your faculties, then you're not permanently disabled." I'm asking the minister to stand and give me an example of somebody who is permanently and totally incapable. I will tell you that somewhere in this world that person could fill a role. If it was nothing more than being called "permanently disabled," maybe somebody would like to see him.

All I'm trying to point out to you is that it's a subjective thing, it's an unfair thing, and you should not be making regulations like that; you should allow some room for people to be human beings and to have some dignity. Some of the rules that you come down with are most insensitive. I think that you should be concerned not always with the hard regulations but with being a human being who cares and who allows for flexibility, If a few people do get away with a dollar or two, it's not going to break this province, because I tell you that the Minister of Mines has allowed a lot of room for the guys on the other end of welfare. You don't think it's important on the other end, and that's very questionable!

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): Don't shout!

MR. BARNES: I'm sorry. I got that from the minister. That minister should never talk.

MR. LAUK: The old wind tunnel himself.

MR. BARNES: I'm just going to allow the minister to answer some of my questions, which I'm sure he's just dying to get on his feet to do, but there's just one little thing more. There's all this interest in a little quote that his assistant may have made, or he may have made. They talked about their "selling a very precious commodity." This was in reference to going out and getting those 12,000 jobs that apparently the PREP programme is going to get for all those employable people on social assistance. Apparently this Mr. Stew had done about 6,000 jobs or so in Surrey at one time, and had proven his ability to get good response from the community. So the minister, naturally, would be exuberant to have such a person to go before the people and try and sell the people in a position to do the hiring on those people who unfortunately have had to receive social assistance from the public at large. He's going to sell this idea. He's going to take these poor people out and sell them to the business community who are the

[ Page 2410 ]

guardians of the fate of all of us. He hasn't said anything about telling them about their sense of duty or responsibility, but he is going to sell them.

He's going to give high-pressure salesmanship and tell them about how important it is to take these people off welfare and give them a break in society, but what about the programmes on behalf of this government about giving jobs of respectability and giving people some sense of decency so they don't have to go out and ask for something from someone else who's had a cornerstone on the market, who has received the tax breaks and everything else, and is now saying, "I helped those guys who couldn't make it," when the game was stacked against them in the beginning? I'm not impressed with that.

We also thought, Mr. Minister that you were going to have some participation, on behalf of the government.... I'm just wondering if there's a little conspiracy going on here. I'm sure you'll advise the House if there are any questionable implications in your suggestion that the provincial government might participate in this programme of finding 12,000 jobs. Specifically I'm saying that there'll be no way for any of the funds from the Department of Labour in the summer programme to be calculated in the total of jobs that are going to be made available for the next six months.

The various departments in the provincial government are having enough fear and trepidation because of the government's policies of putting everything out to Crown corporations, so you're cutting down on the public service. I didn't know how you wanted to do it during the last election when you talked about cutting down the public service through attrition. I thought they meant through retirement — you know, people just sort of dropping off, a few passing on from whatever reasons. But your plan was wholesale emasculation of the public service.

You're going to take one department at a time and turn it into a Crown corporation. You're knocking people out by the thousands — the ferries, Public Works, no telling what else. I can't keep up every day. A few days that I missed there's something else in the works. So in that way, Mr. Chairman, you're removing a lot of the public service. But then they turn around and say they hope that the government will participate in making available jobs for those poor people on social assistance who can't get them.

Now that is an interesting contradiction. On the one hand you want the government to participate in helping you get jobs for people, to help your political games that you're going to play, but on the other hand you're going to get rid of the public servants because you don't think that they should be the responsibility of the public. Very interesting. Your logic is indeed questionable. I'm wondering about the protection that these People will have when they get off the social assistance.

There's another thing. What are you going to put in writing to say: "Okay, you're on social assistance today. You're employable, and we're going to give you a job"? When a person goes out and picks up a shovel for a couple of days, are you going to put them down as being employed and no longer on social assistance? It makes it look good. What's going to happen; Show us some mechanics of how this will happen. Let's make sure that they're going to be working for one week or two weeks and you'll have a statistic on the one side, but when they go back, as recidivists often do who have a difficulty in this society, the calculations will get lost.

They talk about the minimum wage being guaranteed, but a lot of it, as you know, is a cost-shared arrangement and the federal government — and I suppose the provincial government — more or less will participate in the cost in support of these job-finding ventures.

I would like you to provide up-to-date, ongoing statistical information as to how successful this programme is, because it's pretty ambitious. There were some 24,000 employable, I think, you were going to try and place.

One final thing. I was going to ask the minister to table for the House the numbers of people who are alleged to have taken advantage of the welfare system. This is something that I've been wondering about. I know that you've said that you're going go have a war on those people who are taking advantage of the welfare system. You say that you've had hundreds of letters from people demanding that you stop those people from taking advantage of the public purse and receiving all this welfare money. I would like to know who they are and I'd like to read these letters for myself. I want to see what kind of people and who they are, and what they've been doing, and numbers that would justify waging war on a group of people who are perhaps less than 2 per cent of the total workforce of the province of British Columbia. I'd like to see that. I want to read those letters.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, it's amazing that you have to keep reminding me to address you. As I say, I've indicated my respect for your ability and obvious patience and tolerance. I address you, Mr. Chairman, but I would like the Minister of Human Resources to provide for us some tangible evidence, specifically showing, category by category, the various kinds of situations that compel him to take such drastic action and wage war against the working people of this province and those people who are unfortunate enough not to be able to survive on rigours of competition in a free marketplace.

I'm suspicious. I think perhaps he's got some

[ Page 2411 ]

friends out there writing letters in and making all these demands, but I want to see some specific cases. I want to see how many cases there are, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to read these letters. I'm sincerely interested in informing myself. It's a shame to have to ask the minister for information that should be available to us all as members of the Legislature, but from time to time the members of cabinet will proceed to carry on their activities without reference to the Legislature, not even to the back bench, so we all have our problems.

I'm sure the members of the back bench will agree with me that they would also like to get better input on this particular decision. If the minister could assure me that he will be tabling in the House those letters that he had received from countless numbers of constituents and so forth, right across the province, indicating a need to crack down on welfare abusers and indicating to this House that there was every reason for him to take the action he has taken, then I think we can more responsibly decide what kind of programme would be appropriate in dealing with the situation.

I'll just take a break for now, Mr. Minister. I hope that you won't be in a hurry to get your estimates through and will allow us an opportunity to carry on for some time in getting down to the details after you have laid out your philosophy more clearly.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, I don't particularly want to change the course of the debate, but I would like to tell the minister a success story. The success story is around a group that started in 1970 a very much needed service in the constituency of New Westminster. At that time a relatively young woman, who had been left by her husband, caring for four children, was sort of plummetted from middle-class society, an economically sound situation at home, to a situation where she was totally dependent on the public purse, on welfare, for her support and for the support of her children.

She was a very productive kind of person, that is, she had a very productive mind, and thought of ways and means of producing something that could be of importance to the older people in New Westminster. As it turned out, at just about the same time the Hon. Pierre Elliot Trudeau and his cabinet decided on producing what they called LIP grants. The group that was put together by this person secured one of the earliest LIP grants available, and that LIP grant afforded them the nucleus of the Senior Citizens Service Bureau. We all know what occurred: the LIP grants became more readily accessible; they became larger, and the group grew. Then, much to the chagrin of our government and I'm sure every government across Canada — that is, the provincial jurisdictions — the LIP grants suddenly faded away into the distance and what were very important services either dried up or were funded from the provincial resources.

Mr. Chairman, in the process of all of this, because I had a very keen interest in the group, I can recall seeing a great number of women come into the Senior Citizens Service Bureau — women who had lost their confidence, women who were prior to that totally dependent upon welfare, but women who once again developed an ability to serve society and finally serve their own purposes, and who developed enough confidence to get out into the work force, find other jobs, and who are now very productive people.

That was the history of this particular group. I can't tell you how many people went through that particular group, but, Mr. Chairman, it was one of the most satisfying things I have ever had anything to do with, just watching and discussing questions from time to time with this particular group. Our relationship began quite early. As a matter of fact, when they began I had a little office and they shared some of our facilities; otherwise they would have been on the sidewalk.

But over the last seven years that group has grown into a very valuable group affording the senior citizens not only transportation but also affording senior citizens assistance in some of the areas where they really require assistance — helping them with their doctors appointments, keeping them out of institutions, Mr. Chairman, with every respect.

As a matter of fact, as recently as this weekend I had two phone calls from people who have been served by this group. Very sadly, last year the founder of this group, a young woman 44 years of age, died of a cerebral haemorrhage, but she left behind her a heritage of service that we in New Westminster have all been proud of.

Mr. Chairman, naturally that kind of service sometimes, if you're not careful, begets more service. All of the service that has been provided has had a positive effect not only upon our community, but also incidentally it has provided opportunity for people who are prepared to volunteer their services, as well as those who are being assisted, improving their ability to serve and also, finally, their ability to care for themselves. So it's been a most valuable situation for not only New Westminster, because it has spread. It has spread to parts of Burnaby and parts of other neighbouring municipalities. It has what I consider to be the complete support of most of the thinking people in our area, certainly has had our support and certainly had our government's support in the past. The former Minister of Human Resources (Mr. Levi) recognized just how valuable this service was. While we couldn't, as the government at the time, pick up all of the LIP grant projects that had been dropped by the federal government, we certainly felt it was in the best interests of our province and the people involved to pick up this particular one and others like

[ Page 2412 ]

it.

Mr. Chairman, we have seen a group that has served. I know the Minister of Human Resources has to set his priorities; I know the Minister of Human Resources is a very personable kind of person. He presents a facade of warmth to those who know him; he presents a very brittle facade through the media — and sometimes I wonder just what his direction is, but I would hope that his direction in this particular area will improve somewhat.

We've seen questions asked in this House as to why it was, for an example, that a very elderly senior citizen, who lacked his sight, was permitted to go from an automobile unattended — and I'm saying a person without sight; I'm not saying a person who couldn't walk — into a medical building where, after having run for an elevator, proceeded to walk into an empty elevator shaft and died.

Mr. Chairman, none of us know what would have occurred had there been an attendant. But one of the reasons there was no attendant in that particular car on that significant day was the fact that the group is presently unable to run a service that can perform because of a lack of budget assistance from the provincial government.

I think it's so important that a government, a new government, a government that's wet behind the ears, a government that has made many decisions very quickly, should take stock of what they are doing.

I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that this minister, along with a lot of other ministers, has made decisions based on emotion or based on bottom-line planning, and not based on the needs of human beings in our society.

I would ask the minister only one question: be as unlike some of your colleagues as is possible; don't make hasty decisions based on what might appear on the surface to be good, economic decisions. Make your decisions in your department, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister. He should make his decisions based on the vital needs of people, and not only in the long run will he actually save money; he'll also be a hero.

We have listened for countless hours in this House. We have listened to the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) talk about needs for intermediate care. The need for intermediate care is so terribly acute because we don't serve enough people now in the community. We, as a team prior, had tried our utmost to see to it that there would be service within the community to keep people out of an alienating facility, were it at all possible.

Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that the Senior Citizens Service Bureau and others, the pioneer projects in this province, should be given a great deal more credibility, should be given a great deal more support, because in the long run it's going to make us a better society, and it's certainly going to serve the people in British Columbia the way we'd like to see them served, particularly our seniors.

I would just like the minister to indicate to the House that he's going to be giving a great deal more weight to this kind of philosophy — a great deal more weight.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the hon. member for New Westminster: we certainly are aware of the good service provided by the transportation services — New Westminster was a good example of it. However, I'm sure he's, also aware that the costs were escalating at a tremendous rate and, in the case of New Westminster, to combine both Coquitlam and New Westminster made very good sense. The arguments provided were that in fact they could provide a higher level of service for a fewer dollars, thereby giving us the opportunity to provide services in an area where previously there was no service. Only time will tell just how good that particular decision was, and certainly we'll be watching it very closely.

The other questions raised.... I just want to comment very quickly with respect to Glendale. The hon. member read a letter saying that the services have been curtailed or that, in fact, there would be cutbacks. I also have a letter saying there wouldn't be, so I'm not sure just exactly which is correct, but I'd be very pleased to check it out, and there's no intention at all to have any cutbacks in those areas.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to just go back over what the minister mentioned in respect to the New Westminster transportation group. The combining of the two groups both in New Westminster and Coquitlam made good sense. That certainly was something that was looked at last year. The combined budgets were something in the order of $180,000. They also had in the New Westminster project nine incentive workers. They are people, mostly women, who were on welfare who were making either $ 50 or $ 100 assisting that programme.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, that programme has gone for a number of years. At the moment, I am informed by the organization, they have one incentive worker where previously they had nine. Now the minister was asked a question in the House and he undertook to come back to the House and tell us what he had found out in respect to the death of the old gentleman some three weeks ago.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Well, he hasn't been able to find out. It's amazing! His colleague, the Minister of Labour

[ Page 2413 ]

(Hon. Mr. Williams) came back the next day because he realized that it was of public importance to clarify what went on. This minister hasn't been able to get enough information to clarify that for the benefit of the public.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: All right, there's an inquiry. Yes, there's an inquiry. That doesn't prevent you from making a statement in respect to the question asked, which was: because of the cutback in the programme, did this contribute to the death of that man? I maintained in the House it did previously and I maintain it now. If the minister shakes his head much further he'll fall over backwards and we will have to get another minister.

I want to now make reference to the volunteerism which the Minister of Human Resources and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) are so fond of talking about. They are going to be the rescuers of the volunteer sector. There is so much of a rescue, Mr. Chairman, that in the Minister of Health's own riding the Langley Volunteer Bureau had its budget cut by 70 per cent. I don't know whether he checked with the minister about that, but that's what happened — cut by 70 per cent.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Oh, yes, yes.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Go look first of all and.... You see, the minister is so upset because he thinks maybe he might be wrong. There is the Langley Volunteer Bureau. It is contained in the list of grants that that minister sent around to all the members of the Legislature.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Will you resign if you are wrong?

MR. LEVI: I will resign if I'm wrong. All of my constituents will be happy. That's the level we've got to in this House. He wants to tell me to resign.

But you know, that minister over there, he is the great freedom fighter, Mr. Chairman, for the volunteer sector. He is the guy — or the minister — who went.... Who was it before? He went to speak at the Red Cross. I am sure the Minister of Human Resources will be interested in this. During the discussion at the Red Cross he said: "Oh, in passing I should congratulate you on those wonderful programmes that you have that are funded by the government." He praised the programme. Then the next day he found out the programme had been chopped by his colleague, the Minister of Human Resources.

You talk over there about protecting the volunteer sector, Mr. Chairman, but what happened? Earlier we heard from the member for  North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) who talked about the community resource boards and the passing of the community resource boards. They have gone, and another piece of progressive legislation is destroyed. What was that made up of? What was it made up of? It was made up of people. There were some 60 different resource boards in various stages of development in the province, and each one having a minimum of 50 people in some way....

AN HON. MEMBER: He said they were made up of socialists.

MR. LEVI: Socialists. Well, that is the attitude they have. I am surprised that our freedom fighter from.... Where is it?

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: The fellow with the big boots. They were NDP cells. That's right, they were NDP cells. I am sure that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) knows....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Ah, democracy! There we are. That's the minister who should talk about democracy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Hon. Members. Let's not interrupt the member who has the floor.

MR. LEVI: They are the great freedom fighters for the voluntary sector. What happened? The first thing they do when they come in is they chop the resource boards. What did they chop? They chopped all of those hundreds and thousands of hours of volunteer activity in the resource boards. They chopped it. They just cut it out on the flimsy excuse that some of the orders-in-council in Vancouver had not been approved.

But let's go beyond the Vancouver area. Let's go into the rest of the province where they were developing the boards. All of these people — all of these people — were volunteers. Even the mayor of Houston, the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) ran for the board.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Wrong again, wrong again.

MR. LEVI: You didn't run for the board?

[ Page 2414 ]

MR. KEMPF: You're always wrong.

MR. LEVI: He didn't run for the board?

MR.KEMPF : I did not.

MR. LEVI: You didn't run for the board?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEVI: Well, in the words of the Minister of Health, if you're wrong, will you resign?

MR. KEMPF: You're a liar.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: He was fired?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. LEVI: Oh, withdraw!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, get him to withdraw or else I am going to sue him. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the member for Omineca please withdraw the words: "You are a liar "?

MR. KEMPF: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

MR. KEMPF: I will leave the people of British Columbia to decide...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. KEMPF: ...whether he is a liar or not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! We need an unqualified withdrawal of the words "you are a liar." That will end the matter.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: It's okay. I mean, he's a new boy.

What does he know? Let him sit down; it's okay. You know, he wants the people of British Columbia.... Are you going to withdraw? I'll sit down.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Does the member for Omineca have a further point of order?

MR. KEMPF: No, I haven't. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, here we are waiting breathlessly for the golden words to spill out of his mouth, and all he did was dribble.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The matter is concluded.

MR. LEVI: You know, he said that he would withdraw — and that's good because that's what an honourable member would do — and we would let the people of British Columbia judge....

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 113, please.

MR. LEVI: Yes, and they judged last Wednesday night. My, they judged last Wednesday night!

MS. SANFORD: It was Thursday.

MR. LEVI: Was it Thursday? You mean it was Thursday night when the Premier stood up in this House, 10 minutes after the polls closed, and conceded? I thought that was Wednesday.

MS. SANFORD: No, Thursday.

MR. LEVI: Thursday, I'm sorry.

All right, we are now talking about the voluntary sector. So that's the first step towards wiping out some participation in the voluntary sector. Now just for a moment let's deal with the record of the previous government in terms of the voluntary sector, in terms of what goes on.

All of the members in this House are in receipt of a publication which is called Voluntary Action News. I believe everybody gets it.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Ah! Listen to that vicious attack on my spouse. Isn't that terrible?

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Well, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) had a go at that about two years ago, remember?

[ Page 2415 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I was caught busy.

MR. LEVI: Oh, you were busy, I'm sorry. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! On vote 113, please.

MR. LEVI: This is the Volunteer Action News, published from the Voluntary Action Resource Centre, 1625 West 8th Avenue, and that is a group that was funded by the Department of Human Resources.,

They came to see the government in 1974 and submitted a brief in which they said that they saw value in having a resource centre that would assist existing volunteer bureaus and help develop other volunteer bureaus in the province. They laid out in some detail a proposal and a request for funding of some $43,000 which would set up this information collection and distribution agency.

Well, after they came to see us, we looked at it, we approved it and the operation is still going. It's playing an extremely valuable role in terms of the voluntary sector. It's part of that total voluntary participation that's been going on in this province for years, and which was not retarded by the previous government but is being retarded by the present government, because the first step they took was to eliminate what probably is the essence of the voluntary involvement, that grass-roots participation in terms of decision-making in one's own community.

It's my suggestion, Mr. Chairman, that the reason the Minister eliminated the resource board.... You know, they had a little trouble during the election: they didn't know whether they were for them or against them. They kept saying, "yes, we're going to eliminate them; no, we're not." I suggest that that minister finally yielded to the pressure of his colleagues on the Union of B.C. Municipalities, because they were the people who did very little to want to understand what was going on. And I did meet with them, because one of the members who sits on that side of the House, the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) from Penticton, attended a meeting when he was on the executive.

MR. KEMPF: I suppose he ran the resource board too.

MR. LEVI: Oh...! Why don't you send that guy to Quebec?

The thing is, he was there; we met with the UBCM, spent two hours in one of the rooms here going over very carefully what the reason for the community resource boards was — very carefully — what the reason was and assuring them that there were no local costs, that it was taxpayers' money, but no local cost. That was one of the things that they were concerned about. But the other thing they were concerned about was that they would not have a role in what the resource boards were doing.

Why, I remember, Mr. Chairman, that the mayor of Vancouver made a statement about resource boards in which he said: "We can't have resource boards. These people keep coming to city council and demanding their rights — well, we can't have that. We are the elected people and only we can say what they can have and not have with no commitment to local participation." Yet that man was the mayor who ran in 1972 on the conviction that there should be a ward system, that there should be local representation.

All right, the UBCM was not able to develop a reasonable position in respect to the resource boards. Frankly, I think they were scared by the concept. They didn't understand it so they came out flat-footed against it, Mr. Chairman. That's what they did; they simply did it that way. You know, I can remember the kind of hysterical statements that used to come out of that group, but I'll leave that until we get to the Minister of Municipal Affairs' estimates.

Yes, I can remember the famous statements by that organization back in August and September — the hysterical haranguings they came out with. But in terms of their approach to resource boards, they didn't understand them; they didn't want to understand them and they put the pressure on that minister and he buckled. Now he's got what he calls advisory committees. That's their perception of how you have grass-roots participation: somebody sits at the top and they select who they want; it's the buddy system. That's what they want, a continuation of that system. Well, that's not what the people wanted. That's not what the people wanted in Houston when 38 per cent of the people turned out to vote.

MR. KEMPF: Wrong again!

MR. LEVI: "Wrong again," came the voice. Well, you tell us how many did turn out to vote.

MR. KEMPF: Ask about the intimidation....

MR. LEVI: Oh, he's getting very intimidated, is that member.

MR. KEMPF: Ask the former Minister of Health (Mr. Cocke): he'll tell you.

MR. LEVI: Intimidation! My, to hear that man speak, Mr. Chairman...can't you get intimidated by that noise? The Chairman is shaking his head in agreement.

AN HON. MEMBER: The intimidation of the people of that municipality.

[ Page 2416 ]

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: So what do we have?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEVI: We have an elimination of the resource boards. We have the health and human resource boards on a very short leash. They're going to look at them. One has already been eliminated; the one in Grand Forks has gone, been eliminated just like that, overnight. They were told they were not needed any more.

I would like to hear the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt), Mr. Chairman, get up and tell us what he thinks — but not yet; just take it easy — get up and tell us what he thinks about that, because that was one of the groups that probably worked as hard as any other group in community health and human resources to set up that organization. But that group, all volunteers, all people who spent hours and hours, actually fell victim to what? They fell victim to the internecine warfare between two departments. That's what happened — internecine warfare, where the Health department won out over the Human Resources department and overnight they were thrown out, told they were not needed. That's how far integration got there.

But we do have still the integration of the health and human resources here in James Bay. We have it working very successfully on the Queen Charlotte Islands, and also in Houston and Granisle.

Those experiments in terms of the community health and human resource boards are the very essence of a project that is needed. As the Minister of Human Resources indicated this afternoon, they are looking for the kind of information that will mesh things between the two departments. And he's right. They have to have this kind of information, and that information can come from those projects because that's where the integration process is taking place. Not only did it work in terms of the Vancouver boards, where you had an integration of a number of services, all related — these were private agencies and public agencies — but here you have an opportunity of bringing together at least two departments of government and, in the James Bay area, a third one in terms of the Education department.

So there you have three models which, given time, a lot more time than the few months they have got left...according to the ministers, who said: "We're going to look at it for a year...." I hope these people can be assured well before the end of the fiscal year that they are going to be continued, because the kinds of information that will come out of that will be extremely valuable in terms of the integration of certain aspects of the two departments — Health and Human Resources.

But again, apart from the staff that were in place in any case — except for the co-ordinator, who was the only person, really, who was hired — you have a complete voluntary involvement of the community. These people have annual meetings, and they have monthly meetings where you have as many as 150 or 200 people turn out, where there is a tremendous interest. That was the same kind of interest that existed with resource boards. But that's gone. That's gone, disappeared.

I've recently been in touch with people from places like Kamloops and Dawson Creek. I've spoken to the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), where there were boards, where there was tremendous interest in the kind of activities that were going on. What has happened as a result of the elimination of these boards, which is really a slap in the face to the people who were volunteers, is that the workload that these people picked up is now being assumed by departmental staff who already were overworked in any case. Those kinds of services provided by the boards were essential for the whole span of services that have to exist in a community. They are gone. Consequently, many people, Mr. Chairman, are not being served in the way they were being served previously.

What we have to look at then is that if the decision was simply one of eliminating what was felt to be a political project rather than a social service project, that's one thing, but if the objective was to save money — and we have no indication that there was any money saved — then what has happened is that the future cost incurred by removing these services is going to be 10 and 20 times the kind of money that they think they have saved. It's future cost with no consideration whatsoever for what is going to be in the future in terms of the people who fail to get the services. But again, we must constantly go back to that feeling among people in the voluntary sector who spent all those hundreds of- thousands of hours, being told: "Thank you, but no thanks. This is not a project that we want to be involved with."

So that's how much they have done for the voluntary sector. That's their proud boast, that they were going to add to the effectiveness of the voluntary sector, but they haven't done that. What they've done is only to destroy, only to dismantle. I've yet to have anybody stand up, Mr. Chairman, on that side, whether it's the Minister of Human Resources or the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), and tell us of one programme that they have put into place that has provided anything — any kind of service, any kind of employment. All we have is a succession of statements about reducing service, about creating unemployment, about the projections for unemployment, but nothing practical.

You know, that's the wrecking crew. They always

[ Page 2417 ]

were the wrecking crew, and there they are; they're in office. He's one of the team, Mr. Chairman. He is; I'm not talking about you — you're the Chairman. You're an impartial person.

Mr. Chairman, it's 5:58. I guess...

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: My gosh, we heard something from the Minister of Education. I would move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) has told a lie about...

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. KEMPF: ...me on the floor of this House and I would ask...

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: What's the lie?

MR. KEMPF: ...that he withdraw. If he doesn't withdraw I would challenge him to say the same thing out in the hall.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think that the proper method here would be, if a statement other than fact was made, that perhaps the member in good time could stand in his place and make a speech of the fact and the matter could rest. I do not believe that the House can be well served by making accusations of that sort across the House. I would make that suggestion.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, the fact still remains that the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) told a lie about me in this House, and I would ask him to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I recognize the fact that the member is a new member in the House and that perhaps he could be unduly exercised by what, to him, might appear to be other than fact. However, I must remind the member that we do not accuse any hon. member of lying in this House, and I must ask you to withdraw that accusation.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw, but I ask that the member set the record straight.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): About what?

MR. KEMPF: I did not run for resource board. I will not run for resource board ever, and that member accused me of running for the resource board in the district municipality of Houston. (Laughter.) And that's a lie.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's not Housebroken.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Hon. Member. That will correct the matter.

MR. LEVI: On a point of order.

My colleague says that that member isn't Housebroken, and it's quite obvious. I don't want to upset the member, Mr. Chairman. I am quite prepared to withdraw any inaccuracy that I might have imputed in terms of that member. I withdraw. Don't sue me, please. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is action becoming an honourable member.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to make a statement with regard to a question asked me in question period regarding the British Columbia Railway.

Leave granted.

PREMIER'S PRIVATE RAILWAY COACH

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I have been advised by the management of the British Columbia Railway that Railwest has never done any work on the railcar referred to by the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) in question period.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The car in question, once used by former Premier W.A.C. Bennett and once known as "The Northern Summit", is currently in storage. Other than installation of holding tanks for use as part of the museum train following its conveyance to the museum train by the former NDP government, no work whatsoever has been done.

MR. LEA: Lazy.

[ Page 2418 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The car in question remains in storage, and statements contained in the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre's question today are totally erroneous and without basis in facts, Mr. Speaker.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

STATEMENT: NANAIMO SCHOOLS DISPUTE

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that today a five-man industrial inquiry commission has been appointed to intervene in the dispute between the Mid-Island Public Employers Association and locals 401, 606 and 1858 of the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

The chairman of the commission is Mr. Louis F. Lindholm, a Victoria lawyer with a broad experience of labour matters. The two members nominated by the employers are Mr. John Oolinder of Ladysmith and Mr. Paul Smith of Parksville, who is chairman of the regional district in Nanaimo. Nominated by the union are Mr. Tom Smith of Victoria, who is CUPE representative on Vancouver Island, and Mr. Hugh Robinson of Nanaimo.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that in the appointment of this commission I requested the two parties to make nominations. There was only one restriction. One of the nominees could be a member actively associated with either of the parties and indeed involved in the negotiating committee but the other nominee had to be someone who resided within the community but with no association whatsoever with either the employer or the employee, and Mr. Oolinder and Mr. Robinson fall into that category.

I regret to say that as yet there has been no agreement between the employers and the union as to whether the recommendations of the commission shall be binding on the parties to the dispute. Therefore the strike will continue. The three CUPE locals are on strike against Nanaimo School District 68, Malaspina College, the city of Nanaimo, the regional district of Nanaimo, the town of Ladysmith and the Nanaimo parks and recreation commission.

Earlier today I met with the representatives of the union and of the employers for the purpose of settling a memorandum of understanding between the two parties, setting up a basis on which they would accept as binding the recommendations of the commission. I felt that progress was being made, but an impasse was reached when the employers refused to agree to a union request that its former contract be extended until such time as a new contract was signed, and that there be no reprisals against the union by the employers or by the union against its own members or the staff of the employers for their conduct during the strike.

Therefore I have asked the commission to make as its first order of business a further attempt to conclude a memorandum of understanding which would permit the commission's recommendations on the substantive matters in dispute to be binding and therefore bring about an end to the strike. The chairman of the commission proceeded this afternoon with the inquiry.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): I just want to thank the Minister of Labour for his statement and to once again suggest that the House is concerned that the strike, which has interrupted the education of thousands of school children, should be terminated as quickly as possible, and once again to re-emphasize the support of the official opposition in urging the parties to accept this approach as providing a binding resolution to the dispute.

I just wonder, Mr. Speaker, about the need to deal with the problem of continuing the collective agreement. It seems to me that as a condition of law it would be continued until there's a renewal of the collective agreement in any event. I just wonder if that isn't a somewhat artificial roadblock that could be removed, perhaps, by a ruling from the Labour Relations Board.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I wasn't in the House Friday at 1 o'clock when a similar statement was made by the minister. I would like to take this opportunity to associate myself with the suggestion that the parties would agree that the findings of this commission be binding, and I wish them well in the inquiry.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:07 p.m.