[ Page 2419 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Judicial Review Procedure Act (Bill 49) Hon. Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading — 2419

Credit Unions Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 60) Hon. Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading — 2419

Sheriffs Act (Bill 56) Hon. Mr. Gardom

Introduction and first reading — 2419

Consumer Protection Act (Bill 65) Hon. Mr. Mair.

Introduction and first reading — 2419

Statement

Increasing unemployment in B.C. Mr. King

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2420

Mr. Gibson — 2421

Mr. Wallace — 2421

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Reduction of Gorge Road Hospital nursing staff. Mr. Barber — 2422

Ferry terminal parking lots. Mr. Wallace — 2422

Canada's Habitat submission on unearned profits on land. Mr. Gibson — 2422

Food prices on ferries. Mr. Wallace — 2423

Education decentralization policy. Mrs. Dailly — 2423

Tabling of Lotteries report. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy answers — 2424

Defacing of Saltspring petroglyph. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy answers — 2424

Statement

Revelstoke dam project hearings. Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 2425

Mr. King — 2425

Mr. Gibson — 2426

Mr. Wallace — 2426

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Human Resources estimates.

On vote 113.

Mr. Macdonald — 2426

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2427

Mr. Wallace — 2427

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2431

Mr. King — 2436

Ms. Brown — 2436

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2438

Mr. Barber — 2438

Mr. Lea — 2439

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2439

Mr. Barnes — 2440

On vote 116.

Mrs. Dailly — 2441

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2441

On vote 117.

Mr. Wallace — 2441

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2442

Mr. Levi — 2443

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2443

Mr. Wallace — 2443

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2444

On vote 119.

Mr. Levi — 2444

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2444

On vote 120.

Mr. Wallace — 2445

Mr. Levi — 2445

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2445

On vote 12 1.

Mr. Levi — 2446

On vote 122.

Mr. Levi — 2446

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2446

Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act (Bill 28) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 2446

Mr. Levi — 2448

Mr. Gibson — 2452

Mr. Wallace — 2453

Government Reorganization Act (Bill 59) Hon. Mrs. McCarthy.

Introduction and first reading — 2454

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): I would ask the House to pay a special welcome this afternoon to Father O'Brien, a constituent of mine, whose parish is located in Langford.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon is a rather large contingent of students from Moscrop Junior Secondary School accompanied by their very able teacher, Mr. Kozak. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. L. BAWTREE (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the members to make welcome Mr. Bob Egby, one of the managers from Weyerhaeuser Canada, and one of my friends I've known for a long time.

Introduction of bills.

JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEDURE ACT

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Gardom, Bill 49, Judicial Review Procedure 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.

CREDIT UNIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Gardom, Bill 60, Credit Unions 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.

SHERIFFS ACT

Hon. Mr. Gardom presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Sheriffs Act.

Bill 56 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.

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Mair, Bill 65, Consumer Protection 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.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a brief statement.

Leave granted.

INCREASING UNEMPLOYMENT IN B.C.

MR. KING: The statistics which have just been revealed this morning regarding the unemployment rate in British Columbia are, I'm sure, of equal concern to all hon. members of the House. They show an increase to 9.8 per cent of the work force unemployed in British Columbia, a pattern which is inconsistent with the downward trend being experienced in the rest of the nation.

I want to make some recommendations to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, which I hope he would respond to. In light of these startling increases I would suggest a general reconsideration of the massive layoffs which have been announced on the British Columbia Railway. I think it's safe to estimate that there are between 116,000 and 120,000 people unemployed in the province of British Columbia at the moment, because it's obvious that many young people who have not been able to obtain employment have removed their applications from Canada Manpower and hence do not reveal themselves in the statistics. So I suggest that the real picture is much more bleak than Statistics Canada suggests.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that in addition to the suggestions I have made to the government, I would ask that they consider and give some indication today of what precise actions the government will undertake to mitigate the adverse effects being felt by citizens of this province. I suggest direct employment programmes which will provide opportunities for permanent work-force people and for the university and high school students of the province who are experiencing a hopeless employment market.

I might read for the House, just briefly, a telegram I received from the Hon. Robert Andras, federal Minister of Manpower and Immigration, in reply to a request I directed to him in May, and it reads:

I HAVE RECEIVED YOUR TELEX OF MAY 18 REGARDING THE UNEMPLOYMENT SITUATION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA. THE UNEMPLOYMENT LEVEL IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, AS ELSEWHERE IN CANADA, IS OF GRAVE CONCERN TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND WE ARE CONSIDERING WHAT ACTION MIGHT BE TAKEN WHICH WOULD NOT ADD TO INFLATIONARY PRESSURES. ANY GOVERNMENT DECISIONS IN THIS REGARD, HOWEVER, WILL BE ANNOUNCED IN PARLIAMENT. AS YOU ARE AWARE, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS IN PLACE A $150 MILLION JOB-CREATION PROGRAMME, CREATING MORE THAN 5,000 TEMPORARY JOBS. THE FEDERAL

[ Page 2420 ]

GOVERNMENT HAS ALSO ANNOUNCED A $100 MILLION DIRECT EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMME FOR THE WINTER OF 1976-77, WHICH WILL BE CONCENTRATED IN HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT AREAS. PROGRAMME CRITERIA AND THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS WILL BE ANNOUNCED IN DUE COURSE. (signed) THE HON. ROBERT ANDRAS.

I want to make a very strong appeal, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier to contact the federal Minister of Manpower and Immigration asking that those direct employment programmes planned for this winter be advanced to a current basis so the suffering population, the suffering working people of this province, may receive some assistance. And I want to suggest further that the provincial government augment those programmes with direct employment programmes of their own.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I thought perhaps we would deal with this later, but I feel the matter is of such importance that the government took the unprecedented step of allowing the acting Leader of the Opposition to make his statement on unemployment.

I'd like to respond by saying the unemployment rate in B.C. for May, as he said, stood at 9.8 per cent on a seasonally adjusted basis and 9.1 per cent on an actual basis. These were the highest unemployment rates in Canada except for Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Newfoundland, a position B.C. has been in for some time now.

The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of 9.8 per cent was up slightly over the April rates of 9.7 per cent. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I'd point out that the actual unemployment rate for May, 9.1 per cent, dropped by almost a full percentage point from the April figure of 9.9 per cent. This was primarily due to a sizeable month-to-month jump of 26,000 in the actual number employed in B.C. This large increase was 8,000 more than the actual increase in the B.C. labour force between April and May.

While the unemployment rates remain unacceptably high in B.C., the May figures do show some improvement over April, particularly in the actual number of employed, as I just pointed out — 26,000 more employed than were employed previously. Undoubtedly the picture would have been better still if it were not for a number of work stoppages in this province, particularly in the B.C. Railway which has been plagued with strikes and shutdowns that affected not only the personnel on the railway but employment in the forest industry and whole communities.

I'm glad the acting Leader of the Opposition realizes that this situation must be dealt with in a very positive way. In the very near future he and his party will have a chance to bring about some positive action in resolving that dispute and in bringing economic stability to the interior and north of this province, and we will look for your strong support.

I might point out some of the unusual factors that show a sign of increasing strength in some areas, Mr. Speaker. A comparison of the change between April-May, 1976, and April-May, 1975, shows there has been a larger increase this year in employment for men. This improvement seems to be in the manufacturing sector, and right now the Economic Development department is monitoring the change in the statistics, particularly the jump of 26,000 extra in the work force in a one-month period.

I'd also like to point out to the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) that the very fact that we have had this high unemployment in this province is of concern to the government. That's why this government tried to take the lead, and has taken the lead, in activating the study of the pipeline proposal from Alaska through British Columbia and through to Washington state and elsewhere. This proposal has been known since the late 1960s, but no action had been taken, particularly in British Columbia, in the last three years and we are acting when it's almost too late to get that pipeline considered before the FBC and the NEB. But that's one of the proposals we are making to stimulate the economy.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, and without dwelling on legislation, it's interesting that the first part of our action programme to regain employment in British Columbia was brought in on Friday with the changes in the Mineral Royalties Act. There's no comfort in comparable statistics. The fact that unemployment rose at a greater rate than the 0.1 in British Columbia in Alberta, where it rose 0.4, and Saskatchewan where it rose 0.5, doesn't help the problem in British Columbia.

The proposals that we talk about are real proposals. Beyond the mining legislation, which will take some time to reinstitute jobs and activity in this province, and before we consider the pipeline, the first thing we must do in this Legislature is ensure that the B.C. Railway runs and runs continuously.

We may have to deal in this Legislature with the problem of strikes in the total British Columbia economy, which have contributed to the slowing down of what should be a period of recovery. All Members of this Legislative Assembly, Mr. Speaker, will get a chance to put their votes and put their positions in a very positive way to resolve the effect of these disputes on the economy of British Columbia, and the people will assess this Legislature and all members by the positive way they react to the proposals that will be placed before them, or voted on, or debated very shortly in this assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Members, before I proceed to allow the hon. member for North

[ Page 2421 ]

Vancouver-Capilano to address the House, I think leave should be granted in a case like this.

Leave granted.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I'd like to congratulate all sides of the House for the procedure that's been adopted today on the release of this very uncomfortable statistic. The announcement that British Columbia's unemployment rate increased last month to 9.8 per cent while the national average was going down to 7.1, is unquestionably a terribly serious indicator for our province.

I don't think too much comfort can be taken from actual figures. It is correct, as the Premier said, that actual numbers of unemployed decreased during the month and the number of employed went up considerably, but that is normal for this time of year. It's the seasonally adjusted figure that's the important one. I have to tell the House that this May figure is the worst since 1953, which is the earliest date I've been able to compare with so far, and, I suspect, the worst figure for May since the great Depression.

This is bad enough, in the short run, but I suggest to the House, Mr. Speaker, that it is not a short-run phenomenon. Strikes and weather conditions and so on all have an impact on month-by-month changes, but this trend is one which we have seen throughout 1976. Normally, British Columbia's unemployment rate has run between 1 and 1.2 per cent above the national average for the last few years. It's been double that during the first part of this year, and, of course, for the last decade our economic growth per capita has been the very last among the Canadian provinces.

So there is something more than a month-to-month fluctuation. There's a basic structural problem which, in my view, comes down to the fact that in recent years we've been living off capital, we've exploited higher-grade resources which have bid up our labour and capital costs to the point where we are getting much less competitive in the world. The end result will be a very serious economic dislocation if we don't heed warnings like this unemployment statistic. That, in my view, calls above all for cooperation between management and labour in this province, and I think it calls for an urgent early measure.

I would like to suggest to the Premier that he use the status and prestige of his office in taking the lead in convening a top-level economic conference in this province this summer, with some urgency, with representatives of business and labour, and representatives as well from the Department of Manpower, municipalities and other levels of government, to develop programmes to deal in the short run with creation of jobs, but also with the longer-term structural problem of putting British Columbia's productivity back into shape.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Oak Bay, with leave.

Leave granted.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, there's, no question that we need not play around with figures on unemployment. The situation is serious and that's very obvious, whether it's 9.8 per cent or whatever, and the Premier has quite rightly focused on labour problems as a contributory factor. But I would have to say that it would be unrealistic to overlook the budget which has just been voted on in this House which, by the imposition of various taxes at a time when there is already high unemployment, can only have the effect of cutting back on consumer spending. With a reduction in consumer spending there is a reduction of purchases and there is a reduction of employment, or at least a failure for the increase in employment which is customary at this time of the year.

I've asked questions until I'm blue in the face about student employment, in particular during this session, and I recognize that the Premier has outlined some of the longer-term initiatives which this government is taking by such acts as the repeal of the Mineral Royalties Act. But, Mr. Speaker, I believe very sincerely that we have a short-term and a long-term problem, and I'm completely behind the Premier's efforts in the long-term, through pipeline construction and highway construction, and many other longer-term goals to which the Premier has made the commitment. But it's a little bit like fiddling while Rome burns, I would suggest, because we have an immediate problem which, in my view, can only be alleviated by the government considering a supplementary budget.

I know that the Premier rejected this proposal a week or two ago when I asked him in question period, and I know that it would involve deficit financing and that, until recently, the government has elected to avoid that particular way of trying to solve the real human hardship which exists right now.

While the Liberal leader's (Mr. Gibson's) suggestion also has a great deal of merit, that we should have a conference with economic leaders in our province, I do feel that the quickest, simplest initiative which this government could take.... I plead with the Premier to reconsider, even although he has rejected the proposal up until now; it has been done in other jurisdictions. Economists have said repeatedly that the last thing you do at a time of low employment is increase taxes, and it seems now that the figures are coming home to roost to prove the fact that however much we would prefer not to go

[ Page 2422 ]

into a temporary period of deficit financing, we are simply balancing the budget at the expense of the unemployed in this province.

Oral questions.

REDUCTION OF GORGE
ROAD HOSPITAL NURSING STAFF

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): My question is to the Minister of Health, and for purposes of clarity it is in three parts. Can the minister confirm that he has received a report, signed by four registered nurses, dated June 3, which indicates that nursing staff at the Gorge Road Hospital in Victoria will be reduced by 10 per cent?

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, yes.

MR. BARBER: The second part is, Mr. Minister: can you confirm that such a cut would reduce the nurse staffing level below the 2.5 hours per patient per day, the absolute minimum set by BCHIS nursing consultants for extended care?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question, the Gorge Road Hospital had a substantial over-expenditure of budget this year. Even after the government picked up two-thirds of their residual deficit, there was still a $61,000 budget deficit left. The 10 per cent hold-back in cost escalation was the administration's proposal only, Mr. Speaker, to their department heads for suggestions from the various department heads in the hospital. The policy has not yet been referred to the board of administration; nor has it become adopted by anyone involved in the hospital administration.

MR. BARBER: I'm not sure if that was an answer. My question, if I may repeat the second part, was: can the minister confirm that such a cut would reduce below the 2.5 hours per patient per day...?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You've already asked that particular question.

MR. BARBER: I'll try again later. If I may ask the third and final part, Mr. Speaker, can the minister confirm that such a reduction in staff would, as suggested by the authors of this report, endanger the accreditation of the Gorge Road Hospital?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm that. There has been no cut at the present time at the hospital.

FERRY TERMINAL PARKING LOTS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Transport and Communications a question with regard to increased ferry fares which encourage travellers to park their cars and board the ferry on foot. Is the minister aware that with only 300 spaces in the Swartz Bay parking lot, on the weekend of June 5 and 6, 32 cars parked even quite some distance from the ferry terminal were towed away at an average cost of $14.50 and that the car owner has a journey of several miles from the terminal to retrieve the vehicle?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I am aware there was some illegal parking near Swartz Bay over the weekend. The ferries were heavily loaded over the weekend, contrary to some reports. I might also say, however, that the new fare structure does not encourage passenger traffic as opposed to car traffic — it is not as a result of the new fare structure.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the supplementary question relates to the fact that there are practically no areas near the terminal where a vehicle owner can park legally if he or she cannot get into the ferry terminal parking lot.

MR. KAHL: It's been like that for years.

MR. WALLACE: In the light of these difficulties, which can be urgent in the case of an individual reaching the ferry who simply has to go on the ferry and leave his car somewhere, has the minister taken any initiative to increase parking facilities for ferry passengers in the area of the Swartz Bay terminal?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of real concern. It is not a new development, but we are certainly looking very actively into the provision of additional parking spaces for walk-on passengers for the ferries.

CANADA'S HABITAT SUBMISSION
ON UNEARNED PROFITS ON LAND

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. In view of the reported submission of the Canadian delegation to the Habitat conference reported this morning on land profits as follows: "The unearned increment resulting from the rise in land values resulting from change in use of land, from public investment or decision or due to the general growth of the community must be subject to appropriate recapture...." I would ask the Premier if the B.C. delegate approved of this position and whether it is B.C. government policy.

[ Page 2423 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, positions at the conference are not necessarily B.C. government policy; nor do they require the approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who is our delegate there. He has been at Habitat last week and through this week; he will be reporting back to the House tomorrow. He will be in consultation with the government over the findings of Habitat. All proposals at the Habitat conference will be considered by the minister and through him to the government as part of policy. But as you know, Mr. Speaker, question period is not to deal with policy.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): What's it to deal with, Bill?

MR. GIBSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. This is, of course, a question of present policy, not of future policy. My supplementary question is: is this British Columbia policy?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I will say it again: it is not present policy.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): My question is to the hon. Minister of Finance. Inasmuch as the government has been granted borrowing authority up to an amount of $400 million and inasmuch as the House has been made aware that the government has borrowed $181 million, can the minister tell me whether or not any further borrowings have been made to date?

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, through you to the member, as these matters are currently under discussion, I would have to take that question under advisement and report back to the House.

MRS. WALLACE: On a supplemental, would the minister also give me the amount of borrowings?

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please, Hon. Member. The hon. minister has taken the question as notice. I would suggest to you that you hold your supplemental questions until the original reply comes back. You may then have the opportunity to ask a supplemental.

MRS. WALLACE: I was just trying to conserve the minister's time a little, Mr. Speaker.

FOOD PRICES ON FERRIES

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport and Communications, with regard to changes in the food prices and catering services on the ferry, and specifically the fact that clam chowder is now 90 cents a bowl, a small soft drink 35 cents and a ham sandwich $1.25, does the minister have a figure which represents the average percentage increase which has been applied to food prices?

HON. MR. DAVIS: No, I don't, Mr. Speaker, but I'll try and have one prepared.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker. With regard to complaints about the food on the ferries, and in particular with respect to the minister's comment in the House on June 3 that 50 letters of complaint were, substantially, all written in the same hand, since I have received statements to the contrary, would the minister table the 50 complaints with the House?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The advice which I gave the House was related directly to me by senior staff of the ferries. I'll be glad to look into the hon. member's request.

MR. WALLACE: The minister did not answer the question. Will he table the documents?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I believe the hon. minister did answer the question.

MR. WALLACE: He did not. He didn't say whether he would table them or not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! you may not like the manner in which an hon. minister or an hon. member answers a question, but the minister has the right to either defer or answer in the manner he sees fit.

EDUCATION DECENTRALIZATION POLICY

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Education. As the decentralization policy of the Department of Education for Jericho Hill School was done without any consultation with the parents, I would like to ask the minister if he will take the initiative of setting up a meeting, personally, with the parents of the school, so that he can hear their concern.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, in replying to the question, I think the premise has to be refuted. There was considerable consultation with the parents with the advisory group of Jericho Hill School, so that that part of the question is incorrect. But, Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to meet the parents at any time in Victoria.

MRS. DAILLY: Supplemental. Just following that up, is the minister saying that the decision to

[ Page 2424 ]

decentralize was actually discussed with the parents? When? Would he please tell us?

HON. MR. McGEER: This was discussed in lengthy meetings, Madam Member, with the deputy minister and the advisory groups from the Jericho Hill School. Every single parent was written. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a new policy; it's a continuation of a former policy. Indeed, at the present time, more youngsters who are impaired in sight and hearing are educated in their own communities than they are at Jericho.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I have answers to questions that were raised in the House yesterday.

TABLING OF LOTTERIES REPORT

First of all from the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), the question was in regard to the lotteries branch. The report of the lotteries branch will be tabled in the House for the fiscal year 1974-75. With respect to the transfer of money from the consolidated revenue fund to the lottery fund, under the terms of the agreement between the four western provinces in operating the Western Canada Lottery Foundation each province was required to provide $100,000 for operating capital. One hundred thousand dollars was provided to the Western Canada Lottery Foundation on July 8, 1974, by the province of British Columbia from the consolidated revenue fund, under section 6(3) of the Act. The advance was subsequently repaid, with interest, on December 18, 1974.

DEFACING OF SALTSPRING PETROGLYPH

To the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), who raised the question regarding the petroglyph at Fulford Harbour, I'm glad to see that he's in his seat now, and I will give you the answer, Mr. Member.

On or about February 10, 1976, Mr. Simonsen, our provincial archaeologist, was informed by a resident of Ganges, Saltspring Island, that Mr. Gordon Cudmore of Fulford Harbour had recently moved a large boulder, approximately five feet in diameter, from a location adjacent to the beach, on the west side of Fulford Harbour, to his private airstrip in Fulford Valley, approximately one mile from its previous location. On February 11, the day after, Mr. Simonsen wrote a letter to Mr. Cudmore informing him that his action appeared to be in contravention of the Archaeological and Historic Sites Protection Act, which reads in part, in section 4(c): "No person or agency shall knowingly destroy, deface or alter an Indian painting or carving on rock, except to the extent, and in the manner, that he is authorized to do so by a permit."

Mr. Simonsen received a letter back from Mr. Cudmore informing him that in his opinion he had not broken the law, and that he had in fact taken this action in order to ensure that the stone carving would not be defaced in the future. On Friday, March 5, Mr. Simonsen visited Mr. Cudmore at Fulford Harbour, viewed the petroglyph with him and also discussed the entire matter. Mr. Simonsen informed Mr. Cudmore that he would bring this matter to the attention of the Archaeological Sites Advisory Board, who would in turn forward a recommendation to myself as minister. At a meeting of the Archaeological Sites Advisory Board on April 23, 1976, this matter was discussed and the following recommendations were made....

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm replying to a question which was raised in this same question period.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Since the Act does not specify the removal of a petroglyph as being prohibited, immediate action should be taken to have the petroglyph designated as an archaeological object under section 2(2), since a designated object cannot be moved without a valid permit. This would ensure adequate control over future disturbance to the petroglyph.

The Attorney-General's department should be requested to supply the provincial archaeologist's office with a legal interpretation of section 2(c) of the above Act.

Mr. Ferne of the Attorney-General's office has advised that Mr. Cudmore was correct in assuming that the above Act does not specify the removal of the petroglyph as being in contravention of the Act.

MR. LEA: You're not kidding.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I, as minister, on May 19, 1976, signed an order designating the Fulford Harbour petroglyph as an archaeological object within the meaning of the said Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. What is your point of order, Hon. Member?

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver-Centre): Does the Speaker intend to ask leave of the House for the hon. Provincial Secretary to continue her answer to the

[ Page 2425 ]

question, should the question period time run out?

MR. SPEAKER: That's a matter for the Speaker to decide. Proceed, Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: On May 31, 1976, a letter was forwarded to Mr. Cudmore from the Associate Deputy Minister of the Department of Recreation and Travel Industry, informing him of the designation and of the prohibitions affecting such objects. Mr. Cudmore was also informed that he would be contacted by Mr. Simonsen in the near future concerning any other measures which may be required to ensure that the above-designated object can be made accessible to the public. The petroglyph boulder received some minor scratches resulting from the moving operation carried out by Mr. Cudmore. However, no damage to the actual petroglyph carving has been observed.

MR. KING: How about all those fossils over there?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: And I would like to ask.... I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that...

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: ...the question that was raised by the hon. member is appreciated. However, I think he will appreciate that it would be, I think, in the best interests of our department if he would make known to me personally the source of his rumour, because actually it was all very well taken care of earlier in the year.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Abuse of the rules.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

REVELSTOKE DAM PROJECT HEARINGS

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Regarding the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Revelstoke project public hearing application, the public hearing before the comptroller of water rights, in connection with an application by B.C. Hydro for a water licence for the Revelstoke project, is scheduled to commence June 21 in Revelstoke. A number of objectors to this application have requested that the hearing be postponed to allow them further time to study and respond to the recent reports on the project issued by B.C. Hydro.

Included in this group are the city of Revelstoke, the provincial Department of Recreation and Travel industry, the B.C. Wildlife Federation and others. The applicant, B.C. Hydro, was requested to reveal its position concerning the scheduling of the hearing and has made the following points in their proposal relative to the application for a water licence. At the opening of the hearings, B.C. Hydro will propose, subject to the direction of the comptroller, that:

1. The comptroller commence by hearing a senior witness of B.C. Hydro, who will explain the features of the application and outline the procedures which Hydro intends to follow in presenting its application, including, in outline, the witnesses and the nature of their evidence.

2. Without further development of this witness' evidence or any cross-examination, the hearing be adjourned to the earliest possible date in September, at which time it should proceed to deal with the entire application.

3. All parties intervening and intending to call witnesses make themselves known to the comptroller and outline, preferably in a brief, the evidence which they intend to submit, the brief to be received by the comptroller by August 15, 1976.

During the adjournment, if granted, B.C. Hydro will endeavour to complete discussions in progress with intervenors directly involved in the development of the project. This procedure will give all interested additional time to review the material which has been supplied to the public with respect to the implications of the project, narrow the questions, if any, which remain after discussion and make for a better organized discussion during the hearing than might otherwise be the case.

Based on the information provided by the applicant, and in deference to the wishes of objectors, the following procedure will be adopted by the comptroller.

1. The hearing will commence on June 21, 1976, as scheduled.

2. The applicant will be expected to present the main features of the application and to outline the manner in which they propose to present their application at the later date.

3. Any objector who wishes to make an initial statement at this time will be allowed an opportunity to do so.

4. The comptroller will adjourn the hearing to a date in September.

5. Any party to the proceedings who does not make an initial statement will, nevertheless, be given full opportunity to participate later.

6. Based on the Hydro statement and other submissions, the comptroller will consider the procedure to be followed during the adjourned portion of the hearing and will announce the format in due course.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond

[ Page 2426 ]

briefly to the minister's statement, for which I thank him.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. KING: As the MLA for Revelstoke-Slocan I had written to the water comptroller asking for such a delay and I'm very pleased and gratified that the minister has heeded the widespread concern that adequate time has not been presented for intervenors to review the impact studies and to make a detailed and complete submission to the hearings. I'm very gratified by the minister's statement.

MR. GIBSON: I would just thank the minister for his courtesy in sending an advance copy. This is a responsive move; it should give a chance to reach agreement on facts over the summer and reduce debate to those of genuine difference of viewpoint or values or interpretation of the fact. I think it's a good move.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. If we are to continually get involved in statements made, which have been questions that originated in the question period, then the ministers making statements and replies...I think the members, before they reply, should ask leave.

MR. GIBSON: This wasn't a question, it was a ministerial statement.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would wish to raise a point of order. It's my understanding in the House that we had reached an agreement that where a minister made a statement party leaders would be afforded the privilege of replying. The difference today was that the procedure was initiated by the Leader of the Official Opposition, and he asked leave. Subsequently, the other party representatives were also asked to request leave. I just wonder if you could give a ruling for the future.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, perhaps it's a point that is well taken, Hon. Member, and one that I should explain.

You will recall a decision I handed down in the House, written decision concerning ministerial statements or statements made to the House. On occasions where I have been notified as Speaker that a statement will be made, I have said in that ruling that it is not necessary for the person wishing to make the statement to ask leave.

However, on occasion, as has happened today, statements are made, or leave is asked, without having filed with the Speaker any intent that that statement was to be made to the floor of the House today, and rightly so, I've asked that leave shall be granted. It's been granted to those who made the statement. Then I think in fairness to those who wish to reply should ask the same question to the House: "Shall leave be granted?" before the reply is made to the House.

MR. WALLACE: I beg leave, then, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I appreciate the courtesy of the minister in letting us know ahead of time about his statement. In light of the Idaho dam which burst the other day and which was preceded by a hearing just like the one we're to be dealing with in Revelstoke, where evidence was presented that the dam might not be safe and subsequently proven to be totally unsafe, I think the minister's wisdom in postponing the hearing in order to more thoroughly consider the points of objection has raised this government's esteem, in my view, very considerably.

I hope that in this particular instance in Revelstoke, where the dam is to be relatively close to Downey slide, which in itself is an area of debate, we must be doubly certain that all the preliminary investigation that can be done will be done and scrutinized to the greatest possible degree by interested parties.

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. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Chairman, this is the first opportunity I have had to speak to the minister (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) on his estimates, and, of course, naturally we wish him success in his portfolio.

I've got a very simple question. I am asking the minister directly whether he will repeal what I have to describe as the infamous amendment to regulation 29 of the social assistance regulations. That's to do, of course, with tightening the definition of handicapped people.

Mr. Chairman, as I read the amendment, it is terribly restrictive of those people in our society whom we may call the lost, the poor, the weak — the

[ Page 2427 ]

people who cannot cope with life in a normal way. It is terribly restrictive and I would like to think that in our society today we could be broadening the definition so that these people who, as I say, can't really cope with modern life, certainly can't cope in a period of unemployment; can't cope, in many cases, whatever the period may be.... I would hope that we would be broadening this kind of a definition so that they could....

You know, $260 a month is slow subsistence, but t $160 a month for life is slow starvation. That's what we're talking about. We're talking about a chance for the weakest and the poorest and the lost in our society. This definition, of course, is well known, but to qualify you must go to a qualified medical practitioner who confirms that the disability is apparently permanent. Now that makes it difficult or almost impossible. They say death and taxes are permanent, and that's about all.

To say that an illness, an injury, a psychological incapacity, which means a person can't cope, is permanent puts an onus on the physician which is almost impossible to meet. It's simply going to mean that some of the people are going to be forced back onto welfare who simply shouldn't be there.

Then it goes on with other conditions: " ...provided there is no remedy, no therapy available for the person to significantly lessen the disability." I would have thought that the important thing there was whether the remedy was at hand. I mean, if somebody refuses to take remedial therapy, okay, but to say there is that remedial therapy available somewhere and therefore in the meantime you are off, I'd say that is heartless.

Then the other conditions are just about as bad: "The person must have required extensive assistance and/or supervision to manage normal daily functioning, or very special diets." Training the person to become economically self-supporting is not possible, but the question is: is it fair? Has the person that immediate opportunity? If they have and don't take it, of course, we'd all agree. But what this adds up to, Mr. Chairman, is a heartless regulation in tightening the definition of those handicapped people who can receive what is a very, very modest allowance. I think that a society that neglects its handicapped, its poor and its weak is a decadent society. I think we brand ourselves with a mark of shame when we allow special privilege to flourish in society and deny to these weakest of our people a decent minimum income, and we are a wealthy province.

My simple question to the minister is: will he agree to look again at this regulation, this very restrictive definition? I'd like to ask him directly: will you withdraw it and reinstate the old, which I think was all right? Will you at least look again at this regulation which I think was passed on March 6 of this year?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Chairman, to the hon. member, certainly we don't make these amendments for the sake of making amendments. I'm sure that even with this amendment there may be problems which will have to be considered as they become evident. There were problems with the old definition, and I think the hon. member is aware of some of the problems. One in particular was a large number of appeals from the Vancouver area for those people who had alcohol problems.

Certainly the definition, or the assistance, was never intended to provide additional moneys to those who had an alcohol problem, because the least assistance they needed was additional moneys for alcohol. What instead they require is some remedial action through another programme, either sponsored by Health or Human Resources. So it was because of that problem that the change was initiated, and I'm sure that there may be problems with this definition. If these problems are such that we must again make further amendments, I can assure the member it will be so.

No one that I'm aware of has been affected by the definition change directly at this time, and hopefully no one will be affected directly if they're already in receipt of this allowance. What effect it'll have on new applicants I'm not sure, but certainly it's hoped that the definition, which is now in line with the federal definition, will be one with which we can live.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I want to make it clear to the minister that I realize that alcoholism is a separate kind of illness and should receive separate treatment and consideration, whatever that may require, but surely you could have taken the old definition and simply pointed out and made an exception for alcoholism and say that's a matter for subject...but leave the old definition there.

What you've done is to tighten the definition generally for all the handicapped because you say there is a particular problem with alcoholism. That, I think, should be looked at again.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, this subject was one that I had planned to raise this afternoon anyway, and I'm very disappointed at the minister's answer to the member for Vancouver East that he doesn't know what effect it's going to have on new applicants. Anybody who can read English will find out very well what it'll do to new applicants. In case we haven't got the message through, I think we should read into the record again the qualifying conditions to say that a person shall receive aid as a handicapped person. I couldn't believe it when I read it:

"Such designation shall be made only after a

[ Page 2428 ]

qualified medical practitioner has confirmed that the disability is apparently permanent and that there is no remedial therapy available for the person to significantly lessen the disability, and provided the disability is sufficiently severe that (a) the person requires extensive assistance and/or supervision to manage normal daily functioning..."

That almost defines extended care, never mind a handicapped person.

" ...or (b) as a direct result of the disability the person requires unusual and continuous monthly expenditures for transportation and/or special diets, or for other unusual but essential and continuous needs, or (c) training the person to become economically self-supporting is not possible."

Mr. Chairman, the minister suggests that he's not sure what effect that's going to have on new applicants. I would suggest that many of the people who will qualify under (a), (b) or (c) — one or other or all — will probably be in an institution to be this severely disabled within the definition of the new regulation, serial letter No. 562-466, dated March 15, 1976.

Mr. Chairman, the minister in recent months has made various statements which have caused a great deal of fear and misunderstanding on the part of people in our society who cannot keep up with the "rat race," to use a popular phrase. To try and define "handicapped" in such rigid and all-embracing terms, and so reduce it to such a minority of people, I think is not surely the goal of this minister or government.

This minister has been accused of showing something less than the expected amount of sympathy for the people whose needs he is appointed as minister to meet. He surely means what he said a little while ago — that it's the people truly in need that he wants to serve and that he wants to prevent abuses of the service and hence avoid the expenditure of money on persons who really do not need the help or who are seeking social assistance only because they cannot obtain gainful employment. We've heard that statement from the minister many times and I support that approach, but surely we're going overboard in the direction of adjudication in the awarding of benefits when we have a circular in the language of this circular of March 15.

The minister has also repeated on various occasions the positive kind of approach that he's taking to his responsibilities. I won't intrude on the legislation before the House, but he has repeatedly emphasized that indeed the challenge to his ministry is to retrain, re-educate, relocate and take various positive measures to try and minimize the number of persons receiving social-assistance benefits.

Now that also applies to the handicapped. There are many handicapped people in our society who with some kind of training, some kind of incentive, some kind of encouragement, whether it be physiotherapy or handicraft training or simple recreation pursuits, can possibly become partially self-dependent. But this is no incentive at all. This is an incentive to a handicapped person to magnify the handicap. It's a completely retrograde step, Mr. Chairman, in any kind of way of encouraging handicapped people who have even 10 per cent possibility of diminishing their handicap.

It reminds me of the same blind attitude we seem to have in the health field with the extended-care situation: as soon as a person improves just a little bit in an extended-care hospital, they're told they have to leave and we get into this whole terrible problem of intermediate care and the lack of facilities that I touched upon yesterday. It seems to me we're just exactly on the same theme in redefining the qualifications for recognition as being a handicapped person entitled to a handicapped person's allowance.

The minister may not have realized the degree to which this definition is restrictive. As a medical practitioner, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, through you, I know what will happen anyway. Thank God, many practitioners will thumb their nose at your regulation and they will define persons as being permanently handicapped simply because from a humanitarian point of view, a medical practitioner does not enjoy this kind of edict being stuck in front of his nose when a patient comes in for a medical examination. I can speak with some feeling as well as experience on this issue. The fact is that medical practitioners are having more and more of this kind of form-filling to do, and all the talk in the world about delegating authority to lesser levels of medically trained people will not get around this bald fact that in the case of handicapped persons applying for the allowance, only the medical practitioner is in a position to be the one to say yes or no to the definition of the permanency of the handicap.

Once again the theme of this regulation frustrates everything that doctors are trying to do. The medical practitioner is trying to get more and more handicapped people out of the rut, if that's the right word, which "permanent handicapped" puts them into. Here again, a doctor who may recommend certain services or procedures which would somewhat diminish the individual's handicap is going to ask himself the question: if I say that this person is not permanently handicapped, what happens to this person and what kind of impact does it have on the patient to be told that really there is absolutely nothing that can be done to help them?

If that isn't a negative, more retrograde, backward step, I don't know. I think the minister clearly has had a multiplicity of responsibilities in a short period of time and I feel confident that this is one of the changes in the regulation in which the minister perhaps has not had an opportunity to appreciate all the ramifications.

[ Page 2429 ]

While the ramifications are very practical, they're also certainly psychological in that, as I say, the whole thrust of this regulation tends to contradict so much of the attitudes in medicine and social work these days — that you never accept anything as being permanent, irreparable or unimprovable. We're all working within the social and health field to recognize that in improvements with medicines, procedures, technology and all the things that cost so much money, the real purpose is to rehabilitate, to retrain and to improve.

Some philosopher centuries ago said that in the role of the medical person there were a few people whose lives you could save, there were many you could improve and there were a great many you could comfort. So this kind of regulation seems to just look very much at the nuts and bolts, the hard, black-ink fact of how much money you're going to pay to handicapped people. I think if I were a handicapped person, this kind of regulation would just simply blow any feeling of hope, or any feeling that governments really understand the plight of the handicapped.

I could quote many examples that I know of, direct examples, where this is just the kind of demoralizing blow to people who are already struggling, as the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) has clearly pointed out, against all the problems that you and I have as healthy people in this province — all the problems of inflation and increased taxation, and even the problems of putting a nutritional meal on the table at regular intervals towards the end of the month — these kinds of things.

Now surely this province isn't as broke as we're told it is — and I don't believe it for a moment. But we are told that we are in terrible financial problems; surely we are not in such plight that we have to bring in this kind of extremely rigid, restrictive definition of handicapped people.

Before I finish this remark, I wonder if the minister could tell us how many people in the province, at the present time, qualify for handicapped person's allowance. I don't need the figure right this minute, but during the debate it would be very nice to know how many presently receive the allowance. I suppose from the minister's comment there's no way of knowing how many may be losing the allowance if they are reviewed by a medical practitioner who, under the old definition, completed the form and said that they were entitled, but who, under the new regulation, if he were completely rigid in his interpretation and completely persuaded that he had to follow the regulation to the letter of the law, would probably now say that the patient is not permanently handicapped. If we are to conduct any kind of an intelligent discussion on a regulation which has the clear purpose of saving money, then we should know how many people are affected and how much money is being saved.

I think, really, if the minister has accepted this new regulation because of the accepted problem of alcoholics receiving this benefit when that was not the purpose of the regulation in the first place, then it does seem rather unfair to other handicapped people that a regulation of this type should be introduced to deal with a small segment or a minor segment of the total population at risk in this case.

I wonder if the minister would care to give us the numbers. Would the minister also give us his opinion as to whether that number has been appreciably changed since the regulation came into effect three months ago, and what trend the figures are showing in regard to new applications, let us say, between the middle of April and the middle of May, which would be exactly one month after the new regulation was introduced?

I just want to touch on one or two other points quickly, Mr. Chairman. We didn't finish, in my view, our discussion on the problems of intermediate care and the commitment to an immediate...which the government made in the last election. I've quoted this full-page ad from December 9 many times, but I plan to go on reminding the House of the commitments made — not commitments made a way down the road when the economic situation in the province improves. We've heard that phrase so many times. I'm talking about the part of the election ad which said: "An immediate commitment will be the construction of community-care nursing units for those 65 and over." Immediate. There were no ifs, ands or buts.

The need was recognized by this government, this party in power, obviously, and a commitment was made. That commitment was made in December and this is June of the following year.

Yesterday I got no specific statement by the minister as to the creation of the facilities. As briefly as I can I just want to quote again from one of the studies done by this minister's department in November, 1975, just before this minister took office. If the figures are changed, or wrong or need correction, I'll be quite willing to accept the minister's correction.

This report is entitled: "Report on the closure of adult-care facilities in the capital region, and the current need for adult-care facilities, November, 1975." This is from the Department of Human Resources, adult-placement section, greater Victoria area. The figures are as follows: from November '73 to November '75 there has been a net loss of 31 personal-care homes, which represents 282 personal-care beds. During the same period four private hospitals have been lost.

At the same time certain private hospitals were taken over by the government and designated as extended-care hospitals, meaning that

[ Page 2430 ]

intermediate-care patients had to be relocated, and while on paper this appeared to increase the extended-care beds, it in effect quite drastically reduced the number of intermediate-care beds in the greater Victoria area. So the net effect has been a total net loss of 35 chronic residential adult-care facilities in the capital region, or a total net loss of 489 beds — quoting figures from the department's report.

Now if Glengarry and Aberdeen Hospitals are not considered in these figures, and we take into consideration the Saanich Peninsula extended-care unit, we have a net loss of 32 facilities and 269 beds.

I just repeat, Mr. Chairman, that the private-hospital beds were taken over by the government and designated extended-care. They are not new beds to the community; they are simply redesignated beds. And by redesignating them for extended care, the person who suffered most is the individual requiring intermediate care, who has, with some suffering and hardship, been relocated and very often in inferior circumstances.

Now I understand the minister has set up a task force to further look into the question of intermediate-care problems. I'm not sure just where the task force is in its deliberations, but I believe Mr. Pages, or a name similar to that, was made chairman of the task force and that briefs have been presented to the task force.

Yesterday I asked the minister whether there was any hope at all that we could bring at least some consistency into this whole field by having all the responsibilities for these patients under one minister. As I recall, the minister said that there was a committee of cabinet which was working well, but he also said that we should look at options. I wonder to what degree the minister has looked at the situation in Manitoba where all these facilities are designated as nursing homes — they are all under one minister; they are all under one commission. I'm not talking at this point about financing or shared costs, or anything else. I'm talking about the efficiency and humanity involved in the administration of all of these kinds of facilities.

I understand from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) that he visited Manitoba a month or two ago with the very specific purpose of finding out about better ways of providing intermediate-care facilities. I'd be very interested to know what the Minister of Human Resources has in mind in perhaps emulating the Manitoba procedure.

The other problem, in addition to the basic one of lack of intermediate-care facilities, is the management of what we call the ambulatory-confused person. If the minister has had any recent communications or meetings with personal-care homes such as Tillicum Lodge and others, he will find that one of the most difficult problems is the question of the elderly person who, from a motor point of view, is relatively ambulatory, has physical capacity to move around and sometimes move around reasonably briskly, but who is mentally confused. We've had problems, as the minister knows, of such persons wandering away from a hospital or a personal-care home and subsequently being found dead.

I know this is a difficult problem no matter what government is in power. I'm not for a moment suggesting that this government is any better or any worse than any other in trying to deal with this problem, but we are living at a time when more and more citizens are living to an older age, and where sometimes their deterioration is not of both a physical and mental nature. Where there is some cerebral degeneration or atherosclerosis, the patient becomes somewhat confused but may retain a fair amount of physical capacity to move around. I understand from many of the nursing staff in these facilities that the time and the responsibility involved in dealing with that particular type of patient is very much a strain on the staff. No matter how hard they try, there is always the recurring episode where such a patient wanders away and becomes lost or is involved in an accident, or worse.

So I wonder if the minister has had specific requests on this question of the ambulatory, confused patient, and what specific measures he has in mind to deal with this in the near future.

Another point I'm very interested to touch upon, as briefly as I can, is the whole area of the unemployed employable that the minister has referred to many times. I'm very fascinated by the most recent publicity given to the issue where the minister returned from a meeting in Ottawa. The headline that appeared in the Victoria Times on June 3 was: "Guaranteed Pay Plan Falls Flat on its Face." After researching this matter a little bit, I understand that all the provinces, as recently as February of this year, had agreed in principle to the concept of federal-provincial cost-sharing on subsidies to the working poor, which I think is another horrible phrase that we use — let us say to persons earning minimum income, or a little above the minimum income.

If I could just quickly quote figures, Mr. Chairman, I understand that the original proposal of the federal government which would have guaranteed $36 a month to the head of the household, $24 a month for spouses and $10 a month for each child was scaled down. Had that plan been in effect last year the cost would have been $225 million. Since that kind of assistance to low-income groups puts more money in circulation and gives these families some slight increase in consumer purchases, which, in turn, to some degree, will surely at least level off the unemployment in this province, if not reduce it, I wonder if the minister would be able to tell the

[ Page 2431 ]

House what was the sudden change of attitude by eight provincial ministers between February and May in regard to a plan which the federal government put forward and in principle had accepted. What's happened in the meantime? Is the decision by the provinces subject to review in the near future?

As far as B.C. is concerned, I understand that we're to have a pilot project, which the minister stated would be the only one in British Columbia. As far as I am concerned, I would like to congratulate the minister on at least showing conviction in the principle that it is far better for this province or any province to provide this kind of subsidy and leave the individual with the incentive to be employed, rather than save a few million dollars in one direction and finish up spending the so-called saved dollars either through further social assistance benefits, unemployment insurance, or some other similar programme.

So I wonder if it is possible for the minister to tell us when the pilot project will begin, if he knows, how it will be implemented, and what the actual formula will be. He is reported as saying that it will be in an area of the province with low employment. Does the minister have some information at this time as to where the pilot project will be implemented and how much it will cost the province? These are four very basic questions.

The other final point I would like to raise, Mr. Chairman, is the question of the job-finding programme which the minister has announced. There was the statement that a staff of 50 will be hired to find jobs for 24,000 employable people. I'm quoting from the Victoria Times of May 25, which states that the job-finding programme was announced and would cost $700,000.

Now there are two or three questions related to that announcement. First of all, I can't find the 50 new employees anywhere in the estimates. Throughout the estimates of Human Resources, if anything, there's a reduction in staff, except for one or two persons in the minister's office and in personnel administration, as I recall, and we may most suitably go into this under specific votes if that would be preferable.

But the fact is this announcement that there will be 50 people employed to find jobs for the unemployed employables at a cost of $700,000 — I can't find the 50 places and I can't find the $700,000 estimate. The minister in question period a week or two ago said that these jobs had not been filled. But the point is that if they are going to cost $700,000, it doesn't make much sense to debate the estimates if we can't find somewhere in the estimates the $700,000 that will be paid as and when these new employees are employed by the Department of Human Resources. That is a substantial sum of money.

I wonder if the minister can give us any idea just exactly where these jobs are at the present time. Because it is one thing to look for jobs; it is another matter to create jobs. While this minister is less responsible than, let us say, the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) or others for creating jobs, a lot of the comments I have heard from the man in the street is that this is just a great big smokescreen to try and create the impression that something realistic is being done about welfare.

While the great majority of people would surely agree that it makes much more sense to invest government money in the creation of jobs which will take the unemployed employable off the welfare rolls, I can't feel very excited about the employment of 50 members of the minister's department as job-seekers. That's the whole title in all the announcements and the publicity that was given on this issue. "Job-finding programme" is the phrase that is used time and time again.

As recently as this afternoon in the discussion on unemployment we realized that it is job-creation rather than job-finding that is the big challenge to the government at the present time. So I wonder in the last two minutes if I could ask the minister what kind of jobs he has in mind. Has there been some review of the areas in which the jobs might be available? The question of moving unemployed persons to areas where there is work — could he give us some idea what the guidelines are? In other words, is it 50 miles or 100 miles, or if there is a job in the Yukon, 1,000 miles away? Who will pay the cost of transportation? If a person is trained for a certain job and the only one that is available pays half the rate or one-third or one-quarter or whatever...?

This job-finding programme and some of the minister's announcements have raised a great number of questions as to just exactly how the proposals are to be implemented. I wonder specifically if the minister could tell us whether he is looking for jobs that already exist, but for one reason or another are not filled, or is he looking at job creation?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I will try to answer them as briefly as possible. Certainly we are looking for positions that may already exist with respect to employment. Hopefully new jobs will be created, but certainly that again will have to be the job of the private sector. Possibly we can encourage them to create more jobs. But largely it's a method of seeking out jobs. It's a method of training people, retraining people, of motivating people.

The process has been fairly — I would suggest very — effective and very, very rewarding in Surrey. Hopefully we might see this same process being applied provincially. Certainly the benefits can be tremendous, not only in the savings that it could possibly bring about in the social assistance vote, but

[ Page 2432 ]

also in that it will get people back into the community and into a normal way of life, which I am sure the majority of people want.

The staff that we have estimated to take care of this particular programme are 50. They have been approved by order-in-council. They are part of the 15 per cent which we have between the 85 per cent since the cutback in October and the 100 per cent which would normally be there. I'll try to think of the other parts of that particular question. I think that covers that particular question fairly. I could probably add to it.

MR. WALLACE: The relocation of people.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The relocation of people. The programme will be a working together of Canada Manpower and the Department of Human Resources. The cooperation that we have received so far from Canada Manpower has been tremendous. We look forward to far greater cooperation still. They are giving us not only office facilities, a desk and a telephone, but also manpower within the office when they have it available or when the need is there.

The moving of people — this is something which will have to be a judgment thing. No way can you say: "Well, we'll move you if it's 50 miles or if it's 100 miles." I think we have to approach this reasonably and we have to leave some discretion with the people who will be involved in the programme. I don't think you can have a hard-and-fast rule governing that.

MR. WALLACE: What about the other provinces?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: With respect to the guaranteed income supplement programme, yes, I think I can proudly say that British Columbia had the most positive position with respect to that programme. We came out in support for the reasons that you stated. For one thing, I don't think it is going to cost the province all that large an amount of money. However, we don't know just what the figures will be until we have them pulled together, which is presently happening within the department.

We'd like to see it tried in some of the areas of British Columbia, if not provincially, but perhaps if it were tried provincially it may create other problems with the movement of people from other parts of Canada which we perhaps couldn't cope with. So I'm saying that if we could try it in some of the low-employment areas, or in some of the areas where there are a large number of low-paid jobs, it might have a tremendous effect and the effect might, in several ways, be very beneficial.

We came out in favour. Why some of the other provinces came out against I can't say, except that the most common expression was one of "we can't afford it." There had been a considerable change in my first comments at the conference where, Mr. Chairman, if we have a further meeting, we'll have nothing at all because it just appears that the more meetings that are called the further away we drift. That's unfortunate. I can't speak for the other provinces.

Regarding the facilities for intermediate and personal care, yes, there has been some drop, particularly in the Victoria area. This hasn't happened just recently; it's been a process that began some time ago, largely because some of the older, converted homes which were being used as personal-care facilities became too expensive to staff, too difficult to operate. We are looking now at a formula which will allow us perhaps to deal with these non-profit societies on a non-blanket type basis where we say we have one rate and that applies to everybody regardless. We are looking at a formula which may allow us to deal with each of these societies, or facilities, on an individual basis. How successful we will be I don't know.

We're also, of course, now looking at the outcome of the study which has been initiated by a task force which is set up between Health and Human Resources to provide a better formula for private hospitals. Hopefully, this will relieve the situation some.

We have in the meantime, however, dealt very positively with a number of applications for such facilities, and I'd like to list those that are in process now: there's the I think it's Lutheran Court in Victoria; there's the facility proposed for the Gulf Islands, which is presently in the works; there's a facility in Fort St. John; there's the Villa Cafe in Vancouver; there's the one which was proposed by the Chilliwack General Hospital; there's the Jubilee Home Society in Vernon; and there is a facility which has been proposed by the Smithers Society. So there are a number of actions being taken there.

Your last question was to do with the handicapped definition, and I agree that what we've come up with may not be the total answer. I know, too, that what was previously there certainly didn't answer the question and we did see, and perhaps this is justifiably so, a very large increase in the number of handicapped people. It was increasing yearly at the rate of, I believe, about 2,000 per annum; however, since December of 1975 to January of 1976, there was an increase of over 1,000 in that one-month period. We had before us at one time 55 appeals, I believe it was, dealing with the very same question that I answered to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) .

I know too, as you stated, physicians can deal with this very liberally even though the restrictions are there, and we saw this happening, as a matter of fact. Hopefully that particular problem might be answered still in some other way, although I'm not

[ Page 2433 ]

sure how. I don't believe, and I agree with you, that we don't have the whole of the answer. We'd certainly be prepared to look at it very shortly again. We've had too many things to look at in the last five months, and they can't all be attended to perfectly all at once.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, I just want to comment on the....

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Do you want to get up and debate this, or shall I do it?

I'd like to just put some figures to the minister and ask him to comment about them. In relation to the income supplementation programme, the federal one, if at the optimum they are able to pick up, hopefully, on the one-third, two-third sharing basis.... Now that's when, of course, the legislation comes into operation. One of the pieces of information that we were able to come up with during the time we were government is that there are probably about 150,000 children in this province who are living in families that have incomes of less than $6,000 to $6,500 a year. We know that about 70,000 of those children are on the welfare roles. So there are about 80,000 children in families who are not on welfare. They are the so-called low-income working poor. We, in looking at those figures, Mr. Chairman, suggested there are probably about 25,000 to 30,000 families in this province today who have children, some 80,000 children, and who are living on incomes of less than $6,500 a year.

In respect to the federal programme for income supplementation, let's use the figure of 30,000 families. Just for an example say that each one of those families, in order to be supplemented, would be given $100 a month. We're dealing now with families with children; we're not dealing with couples who have no children. That would run something of the order of 30,000 times $100, which is — I see the deputy minister doing the figures, about $3 million a month and about $36 million a year if you go into that kind of supplementation programme. If you are successful enough to get the federal government to pick up two-thirds of that, then the government is looking at an expenditure of somewhere between $ 10 and $15 million.

Now the minister indicated in his statement that he didn't think it would cost a great deal of money. Well, I'm not sure really what he means by a great deal of money. Given that you have already cost-shared the programme, $10 or $12 million is a great deal of money. So in looking at the programme itself.... Now those are the number of people who would qualify, based on the study that was done about two years ago. You'd have to get more up-to-date income tax data.

But the programme is not inexpensive, even if you are able to get the cost-sharing through the federal government and that won't be, according to Lalonde, the federal minister, until probably sometime in 1978, because he doesn't expect to be able to introduce the legislation much before spring of 1977. So I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the minister must.... Perhaps he'd respond to the proposal that I've given him in respect to the amount of money that this kind of income supplementation will cost the province.

Now the other question is, of course, that if one agrees that all of these people should be supplemented, and it's going to cost the province $12 million, then presumably some kind of rigid asset test will be introduced and not all of them will qualify. So there is also another problem. The federal programme, while it is a move in the right direction, certainly was something less than the kind of thing that we'd hoped for, at least a couple of years ago, when we talked about the guaranteed annual income as opposed to the income supplementation, which was really categorizing people. So perhaps the minister might want to respond to that.

The other thing I want to raise is the change in the handicapped regulation. I think it's important to recall that some four years ago there were about 3,200 people on the various handicapped pensions that were in operation in the province at that time. The criteria for getting on then, both medically and asset-wise, were extremely rigid — very rigid. They were the most rigid criteria — more rigid, in fact than the supplementary assistance to senior citizens. Okay, during the three and a half years — or 40 months — of the previous government, that number went from about 3,300 to 3,400 up to about 10,000 people.

Now I can recall, Mr. Chairman, that when I was the minister I got literally hundreds of letters from people complaining about the fact that they could not get on. They had been rejected. I looked very closely over the years at the kind of criteria and they were tough criteria. That's not the easiest board in the world to get through.

But I will agree with the minister on one particular point. I think what he's done is used a sledge hammer to kill what really amounted to a fly. One of the things I stated very clearly, once we had changed the handicapped pension, was that I was not prepared to see hundreds of thousands of alcoholics get on it. I made that very clear and I made it clear several times. However, when we finally introduced...when the appeal procedure came in, frankly, much to my chagrin, about 40 or 50 people did get on, which I personally found very annoying. Because, as the minister said when he read a statement — I said it many times — he was not prepared to see somebody who could get drunk on $160 get drunk on $265.

[ Page 2434 ]

One of my alcoholic friends tells me that you don't really need money to get drunk anyway. You've got enough cronies who will always keep you going. That was the situation.

Unfortunately, I think that the minister reacted so strongly to that situation that he put in this extremely rigid qualification for handicapped. He did exactly the same thing with the special needs. Presumably he had been told by one or two people that one or two people during the course of three and a half years of special needs had ripped the system off. He again moved in very quickly and put the clamps on — no more special needs. He told us the other day that there were special needs. I'm prepared to argue with him about that one. I'm in touch with the field all around the province and my understanding is that the criteria and the instructions are very clear, and some decisions are made by regional directors, but by and large it's pretty tough. So what he did was to introduce a change in reaction to a problem that certainly raised its head but could have been remedied. It could have been remedied by a change in the regulations which would have said very clearly that people who have alcohol problems are exempt from the eligibility to receive the handicapped pension.

I think that that particular category was not one that in this province even the previous government was prepared to get into in terms of financing. But what is the atmosphere in which this kind of policy is being enacted?

For instance, in terms of the handicapped pension, when he brought in the regulations he was interviewed by the press, and substantially what he said was that under the former definition it was very easy to be designated "handicapped." Well, I would suggest he go take a look at the files in the committee that was looking after the medical definition and the determination, because it wasn't easy — it was very difficult.

But then he goes on to say — this is really an insult to the handicapped, and I'm sure that after he said it he might have wanted to repent it — that "if you had a stomach-ache or you had to go to the toilet on a regular basis you could qualify." Now the minister knows that that's a lot of nonsense, but that's the kind of insulting statement that was made. At least, he's alleged in the paper to have made it at approximately the same time.

"Any person who has taken advantage of a situation to qualify for the handicapped pension will be cut off." Well, what you're saying is that something's wrong with the staff, in terms of the people who make the determination as to whether somebody should get on.

In April, 1973, when we introduced the changes to the rates, I can recall very clearly, Mr. Chairman — unfortunately the Chairman who was there before was in the House and this Chairman was not — the former Premier of this province, W.A.C. Bennett, standing up in that seat (he didn't stand on the seat, he stood up beside it) and he had tears in his eyes. He didn't make reference to the welfare rates, but he said: "But I really appreciate that you are doing something for the handicapped." He made quite a point on that. He made quite a point about that when he stood in his place and he reacted to the statement that I made in the House that there was going to be a range of increases.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

When we debated the handicapped persons income assistance in October, 1972, we talked about the very stringent conditions under which people could get the pension and then we talked about letting some light into the situation to allow these people to come out. In the next three years there was a feeling among the handicapped people that they were getting closer to being accepted in the community and that they were going to have opportunities to be able to make it like anybody else, regardless of the fact that they were handicapped — that they would not have to go through a degrading process. But in March the dark cloud came back over again because of the definition of "handicapped."

I don't know whether the minister met with the handicapped people this morning. We met with them yesterday. There were about four or five people, I think, among that group who were people who had been rejected. As for three of them particularly that I spoke to, I couldn't see in the minister's wildest dreams that somehow these people would not be eligible for handicapped pension. They simply would not be eligible other than the new definition, which is "permanently disabled."

Now that was contrary to all of the effort that was being made by the handicapped over the last three and a half years who were saying constantly to the government: "We don't want to get locked into a system. If we're able to get out and work we want to be able to get out and work and we don't want to be looked on as some special category of people."

This definition, of course, will presumably affect only the people that are coming off, because I doubt very much that the minister is going to be able to find anyone who's on there, other than the 40 or 50 alcoholics that he made reference to, who is not entitled to the handicapped pension.

The atmosphere that has now been created among the handicapped, which is a great tragedy, is that now they're beginning to wonder where they stand — even those people who are on it.

A letter arrived today from a man called Kee Ming Lee. I'll read it because this is what he writes:

"Enclosed please find some newspaper

[ Page 2435 ]

articles which I try to understand. Somehow it's very difficult for me to understand them in layman's terms, especially articles dated March 10, 1976, and March 11, 1976."

These are at the time when the statement was made about the change in the handicapped.

"Would you please explain to me in layman's language? In March of last year when I was on the HPIA I thought my social worker from the CRB explained to me that there was a difference in being on HPIA than on welfare, but after reading the article March 11, 1976, and May 19, 1976, my mind is very disturbed."

He has now gone on to refer to the GAIN legislation, I presume.

"I think I am very much agreeable with an article by Miss Russell" — and he's talking about an article that appears in the Sun on May 19. "I strongly resent that HPIA is the same as welfare." Okay, this kind of thing we'll have to cover under the legislation, but here's one thing:

"The handicapped people are very much different than the people on welfare. These people are able-bodied people; most of them could be working and join the union if it was necessary. But would you please remind the Minister of Human Resources that how hard we, the handicapped people, try to find a job we could not do it because for one thing our health conditions are not the same as the able-bodied people.

"Would you please ask the minister whether he needs any clarification letter from my physician? I'm an epileptic and could not hold a unionized job. I'm very happy to call my physician and ask for a letter of clarification if he wants one.

"Now I'd like to quote for you an article in the Sun newspaper dated January 26, 1976: 'In the same interview, the Hon. Robert Andras also said that handicapped persons should be made to feel that they belong in the community. "It's not enough in a society as wealthy and affluent, even in these days, to be satisfied by sending cheques to lonely people and assume that this is sufficient. We have too long accepted that somebody who may be handicapped, whether physically or mentally, is therefore to be set on the sidelines and our conscience is cleared by sending him or her a cheque. We must give the handicapped the opportunity to be part of society. "'

Sincerely yours,

Kee Ming Lee"

Now he has said substantially in his letter what the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) said and what I have said and what other members have said.

The attempt over the last few years was to make sure that the handicapped had at least an equal opportunity to feel that they were part of society. But we got it yesterday in our caucus, and presumably you got it today in the Social Credit caucus, from the group of handicapped people who came in to see us and stated that they were afraid. They had been rejected and they were afraid that even those people who were on might have to get off. So there is an atmosphere of fear. An atmosphere of fear is consistent with many of the statements that that minister has made in the past five months.

He started with a very inauspicious statement about shovels. He talked about cutting back on the emergency, on the special needs. He's cut back on the welfare and on the handicapped because he's changed the definition. He's changed the payments, but that's the piece of legislation we'll deal with next. So all of it has been extremely negative.

His reaction to the definition, when it was raised by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), was: "Well, we had some trouble with 40 or 50 alcoholics." Again, he's using a sledge hammer to kill an ant. Yes, it's that way now if what he's saying, as he seems to be indicating from his seat, is that he's going to have a big witch-hunt. He's going to go through the records of all of those people who are on the handicapped pension and he's going to chase those people off who don't qualify because he feels — as he was quoted as saying — that it was far too easy to get on the handicapped pension. If you had a bellyache, or you went to the bathroom too often....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: You said that. Well, if that's not what you're going to do, what are you going to do? I suggest that you should go back to the previous regulation. If you want to exempt the alcoholics, do it. That's okay. But don't create and continue to create the kind of fear that exists not only with the handicapped but with the Mincome people — because they're scared too — and the welfare people. They're literally scared to death.

So you're going to have to explain to us now, but if not now hopefully when we get to your Bill 28, because then we're going to have to go all over it again. You're going to have to be much more explicit because this is the place where you have to stand up and tell us what you really feel. If you don't want to do that, that's your prerogative, but only there there are thousands of people who are scared to death of your name because of the kind of rhetoric that you're constantly coming out with.

Yet it's amazing that when you come into this House and you're asked to explain, you're really a bit of a softie.

[ Page 2436 ]

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Yes, you're a bit of a softie. The rhetoric is for the people out there. The rednecks like to hear that. But in here when he's on the spot, he really is a softie. Why don't you be a softie out there and be a redneck in here? Then we can deal with you much more reasonably — because they can't deal with you out there. The handicapped can't deal with you, the Mincome people can't deal with you.

So lay it on the line, tell us what you're really like, because out there you've got one heck of a lot of people scared to death. The people at the top of the pile who are scared to death are the handicapped, the people who are least able to help themselves. That's what you've created — this kind of atmosphere.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): I have come to the conclusion that it's futile to really appeal to the Minister of Human Resources to have any feeling or sensitivity for those poor people in our province who have to rely on the Department of Human Resources for sensitive understanding, for assistance when they need it, when they're in real need, for rehabilitation and so on. The minister's statements, I think, have been harsh. They've been unfeeling from the very moment that he was sworn in as a member of the cabinet.

I had occasion, Mr. Chairman, to meet with a group of people who demonstrated outside this Legislature, who were similarly concerned at the harsh and insensitive statements that have been made by the minister. He indicated that people might exist successfully on a diet of tulip bulbs. He indicated that if people were unemployed, they should be provided with a shovel. Mr. Chairman, those poor people, when they were expressing their concern outside this Legislature, asked me on their behalf to extend a token of their frustration to the minister, and I undertook by solemn vow and pledged to do that for them.

So, Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask the Page to take across to the Minister of Human Resources the emblem that he has become famous for in this province, with a flower attached to the handle, Mr. Chairman, and some vestiges of the Social Credit propaganda from the last campaign still stuck to the blade. (Laughter.) I'm going to ask the Page to take it over and deliver it to the Minister of Human Resources with the request, Mr. Chairman, that in the future he might have a bit more sensitivity to the people in this province who are unemployed, who are indigent and handicapped, and rather than shrugging them off with crass statements of "get a shovel, " he might try to come to grips with the root causes in the future.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I'm sure that after that last gift you wish you had recognized me instead of the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) .

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I notice the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) isn't allowing that shovel to get too close to him either.

I just have four very short questions which I know the minister will be able to deal with very quickly. I think it was on the night of Thursday, April 29, Mr. Minister — is that a 29? I can't see without my glasses — when the issue of funding for the rape crisis centres was raised on the floor of this House. It was brought to your attention that the Department of Health was only going to be able to afford the sum of $75,000 to be shared between the three centres, and you did really a very good thing and said that your department — through the Attorney-General — would be willing to look at the whole business of the funding for the three existing crisis centres dealing with rape which were presently in operation in the province.

Well, nearly two months have passed since that time, Mr. Minister, and budgets have come and gone and neither of these centres have been able to get a firm commitment from you as to just what form this funding is going to take. There is some anxiety out there as to.... I know you are not going to renege on your promise; I know that. I'm not worried about that. What I really would like, though, is to hear you explain to me so that I can probably convey to the existing centres just how the funding is going to be dealt with.

The other thing I want to ask you at the same time, dealing with the rape crisis centres, is the funding for new centres. As you know, there are only three presently in existence for the whole province, and that's not nearly enough, Mr. Chairman. I'm hoping that the Minister of Human Resources, in replying to my question, will be able to tell us that he and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), as well as possibly the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), have come up with a formula for funding new rape crisis centres, because three are just not enough for the entire province.

The other issue has to do with transition houses, Mr. Chairman. Again, the minister made a commitment to continue funding the transition houses on a fee-for-service basis. My question to the minister, through you: what about the funding again for starting new transition houses throughout the province, because the problem exists that there are just not enough transition houses in existence, unfortunately, to deal with the really large increase in wife-beating around the province. I know that the

[ Page 2437 ]

Minister of Human Resources has indicated his concern about this phenomenon and his willingness to continue funding these centres. The message I bring is that we need more of these centres. It makes me very sad to have to say that, but we really do need more of these centres.

I was in the north recently, and there isn't a transition house there, except in Prince George, for example. Even in the lower mainland there is a need for more. Is there anywhere in the minister's budget where start-up funding for these transition houses could be dealt with and, if so, would he explain to us just how this would be done?

My third point has to do with Vancouver Indian Centre, Mr. Chairman, and their request for an assistant director, a programme director. Now the Vancouver Indian Centre is really quite different in terms of community centres. There is nothing else quite like it anywhere in the province. They do a number of jobs: they're your welfare office; they're your housing bureau; they're your employment centre; they're your recreational centre. The Vancouver Indian Centre really is the focus for any Indian people coming from any part of British Columbia or, indeed, from anywhere in Canada, who need a centre, a place from which to get information, a resource referral, or whatever.

What they have found is that this is just too much work for one person to do, and the request was made to the Department of Human Resources for funding for an assistant. It really wasn't very much money, as a matter of fact. They were asking for something like $12,000 to pay for the funding for a deputy or an assistant to help in the carrying out of the job, the really good job being done by the Indian centre.

Now the response which they received from the department was in the negative. They met with me and asked whether I would convey to the minister, during his estimates, their real need for another person.

Their caseload has increased incredibly. They're involved in a health clinic, a tutorial programme for students. They have a programme for native people in prisons. A couple of times I have gone out with some of the women who go out on Thursday evenings to meet with the prisoners at Matsqui and listened to some of their concerns. They even supply food to people who turn up at the centre and have no food. They either have used up their welfare cheques or whatever. But they actually do provide meals every day.

The demand on the centre is increasing during the summer because of students coming and going and people travelling, and there is absolutely no way that they are going to be able to successfully carry out their function unless there is an increase in funding from the Department of Human Resources. So I'm hoping that the minister will find, somewhere in his budget, the possibility to extend the funding for one more person in the Indian centre and certainly for the additional budget that they're asking for to cover the cost of food and other things in their programme.

My final topic has nothing to do even with my own riding, quite frankly, but the member who is responsible for this riding is in the House. I've been waiting for him to talk about the needs of Osborne Guest House in Terrace, B.C. He hasn't raised the issue yet, so I'm going to do it for him, and I know he's going to support my statement when he gets up to speak on these estimates himself.

Through you, to the minister, Mr. Chairman, Osborne Guest House is a halfway house for these people who are discharged from Riverview. It is a place where people who are mentally ill and some people who are retarded live for a while until they can move into the community and survive in the community as a result of having this period of supervision. Now Osborne Guest House had the benefit of the service of three people on the LIP programme, and, as you know, the LIP programme has been discontinued. And these people — there is no money for their funding. I want the minister to know that I disapprove of the way that the federal government handles things like LIP and OFY and this thing. I do not believe that they should be allowed to come in and fund a programme and then pull themselves out and leave it to the province to pick up the tab. I'm totally against that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MS. BROWN: Nonetheless, the reality exists. Osborne Guest House cannot survive unless the funding to pay the additional three people is picked up, either by the minister's department or by the Minister of Health. Now the really strange thing about mental health is that the federal government has decided that it's not a health problem. I don't know just what category it comes under but certainly Mr. Lalonde does not see it as coming under his department. So for that reason the Department of Health in the province doesn't get the funding, the cost-sharing to make it possible for them to subsidize this kind of programme. So back we come to the Minister of Human Resources again.

I would appreciate it if, in responding to me, the Minister of Human Resources would indicate, first of all, whether he's aware of the dilemma that the Osborne Guest House is facing at this point as a result of these three people being chopped. Is he aware of the fact that the house is continually in use, that there are facilities for 17 people and there are never more than one or two beds that are vacant at any time — people are continually coming and going? This is the only resource that Riverview has in Terrace, B.C., and must be kept open, if for no other reason

[ Page 2438 ]

than because it makes it easier for people from the north to be discharged from Riverview back to a Terrace, as long as the Osborne Guest House is in a existence. Finally, is he willing to consider picking up the tab for this? I know that the member responsible is going to stand up and speak in support of Osborne Guest House, now that it's been brought to his attention. Maybe after the minister has spoken, if he would like to add some of this, and if the minister doesn't have a copy of their budget, Mr. Minister, I have it here and I would be very happy to pass it on to you. Thank you.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, to the hon. member, I don't know when this information was given to the member, but certainly as of fairly recent date we've been very actively involved with the Osborne Guest House. As a matter of fact, presently we are very carefully looking at the whole matter of staffing and management and cost of the Osborne Guest House. So probably the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) is aware of this and that's why the question wasn't raised. But it's very much in hand. I can't say what the outcome is, because it's with staff at the moment.

MS. BROWN: Did you say that you are picking up the tab for the staff at the moment?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Presently the staff are now looking at staffing and management and cost to get all the information on the Osborne Guest House. There hasn't been any indication or any statement of discontinuing that particular service,

MS. BROWN: No, no, if I could just clarify for the minister, I know that the minister is looking at all of these things. I was in Terrace last weekend and as recently as that it was discussed. What I'm saying to the minister is, please, when you are looking at all of this, recognize that Osborne's jeopardy has to do with the fact that they are going to lose three people as a result of the federal decision to cut off the LIP funding. Okay? Thanks.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I am aware of that, Mr. Chairman.

The other matter of the Vancouver Indian centres and the other Indian centres in the province: we have been funding these, of course, through the Department of Human Resources. They are presently still being funded through the Department of Human Resources although we have raised the question with the Hon. Judd Buchanan in Ottawa regarding the funding and the financing of such and similar centres in British Columbia, as apparently in other provinces there is far more assistance from the federal government.

Following that meeting with Judd Buchanan it was agreed that our staff and their staff would meet to try and come up with a more equitable formula or something that we could both accept with respect to funding facilities that are there to assist Indians that move from the reservations to the city or otherwise. So that again, is being looked at.

Transition houses: we do not, within the budget, have any moneys for capital funding to begin transition houses. We have said that we would fund them on a per diem or a fee-for-service basis. We would like to see how it works out for the year. Apparently it didn't work out too well in Aldergrove; we are sorry for that. Actually I didn't become aware of the closure until after the fact.

I agree with you that there is a real need for transition houses. We would like to assess that for the balance of the year. If we deem it advisable to put some capital funds into the budget for next year, this will be done. But there are no capital funds for this year.

The final question on rape relief centres: yes, the Department of Human Resources will be funding a part of the cost for the additional centre. I can't give you the exact amount at the moment. Our grant budget is getting very thin. I can tell you that I have told the hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) that the funding will come. What funding we can make available will come from the Department of Human Resources and it will be on a matching dollar basis.

MS. BROWN: Matching with whom?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: With the centres. They are getting moneys, of course, also from the United Way and other such groups.

MS. BROWN: Clarify that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea).

MS. BROWN: No, we want to clarify the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. member for Prince Rupert yield to the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) ?

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. The Rape Relief Centre in Victoria, with which I am most familiar, receives no money from the United Way or any other source. Indeed, a dollar-for-dollar matching grant is of little use to them. To my present information, the one in Kamloops also receives no other grants, Mr.Minister; again, a dollar-for-dollar system would make

[ Page 2439 ]

little sense.

The $75,000 granted as of April 1 by the Department of Health is at the moment being split among the three rape relief centres in British Columbia. The one in Victoria is finally able — we are very grateful for this — to pay three staff, each of them $800 a month for their services. These are, though, around-the-clock services; the centre never closes, the doors are open or the answering service is available all the time as are these three women.

There are at present, though, in Victoria no moneys whatever for overhead or operating costs. Zero, not a penny. Not a penny for telephone, not a penny for rent, not a penny for transportation. What I would just like to express, if I may, Mr. Minister, is that there is some urgency to this and that I and they and the people they serve would be very grateful if as quickly as you can you give them your advice. If you choose to match dollar for dollar the grants from the Department of Health, that would be quite fine, indeed.

MS. BROWN: Yes, that would be it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I am aware that they would like to have a decision before July 1. I think we will have it plenty before then.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring up the topic with the minister of the health and human resources board on the Queen Charlotte Islands. I would first of all like to thank the minister for allowing that board and that service to the community to continue.

I am sure you are aware that I did write to you asking that the one-year continuation that was allowed by yourself is really not good enough in terms of those people trying to plan the future services that they are going to supply to the island. It is very difficult for them to look at programmes that they would like to implement not knowing whether at the end of this year they are going to be in existence.

I think that probably by this time you have a chance to check not only with your staff but the staff of the Health department to find that that committee, that board, on the Queen Charlottes is voluntary, elected and doing a good job of supplying social services both in health and those services from your department to the citizens of the Queen Charlotte Islands — in many cases, a service that was never supplied before. They are bringing in dentists; doctors are coming in now, working for wages for the board and for the people of the Queen Charlotte Islands.

The request that I am making isn't going to cost the government or the people of British Columbia any more money for this coming year than has been planned. But it is very difficult for that board — for that group of citizens — to try and decide what they are going to do in terms of future programming if they only have till the end of the year.

I am sure that at the end of the year you will see your way clear to allow another year and another year. But to give that community a chance to do the kind of planning over a long period of time that will eventually save money for the community of British Columbia is something that I believe the minister should consider. I would ask that at least a five-year programme be initiated, that that programme be allowed to remain in place for five years, and at the end of each year you would have the opportunity to assess what that group is doing, the kind of services that are being supplied, and there could be adjustments within the five-year programme.

If a programme is not working out well, maybe stop it. If it looks like it needs a bit more funding in that area, or a bit more help in some other way other than funding, then do it. I think the year that's been allowed isn't long enough, and I think that everyone will tell you that has had anything to do with that programme on the Queen Charlottes that it's worthwhile, it's doing a worthwhile function, and it's acting properly and supplying services.

I wonder if the minister would, in these last moments of his estimates, make a commitment that it could be at least a five-year experimental programme from now for five years hence?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, to the hon. member. I hope to be paying a visit in the not-too-distant future to the Queen Charlotte Island Human Resource Health Centre, or board. Certainly I've spoken many a time very much in support of that particular board and similar boards like it, because they're providing a tremendous service in an area where formerly there was nothing at all, and where without it there wouldn't be anything, perhaps.

The year trial I think perhaps is an overstatement in that perhaps what should have been said is that we'd like to assess the whole concept in a year with a view, I hope, to expanding it to other areas where such services are required. The development group presently does have a considerable budget, and I think perhaps they are also looking not only at that concept but alternate concepts somewhat similar for areas that have other needs. The combining of the two is good.

MR. LEA: I think there has been some misunderstanding, then, because the board is under the assumption that they're finished in a year unless there's another decision made to allow them to continue. I believe that the people are worried because, as the minister has said, they are getting

[ Page 2440 ]

services they haven't had before and probably wouldn't have now if it hadn't been for that volunteer organization spending a lot of time and effort.

I would like to say that if the minister would let me know when he is going to the Queen Charlotte Islands, I would be very glad to make sure that I could be there with him to take him around and to meet with some of the people.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Chairman, I made most of my remarks yesterday and I only want to recap a couple of things if the minister will give me his attention.

Earlier this afternoon the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) was again pointing out one of the unfortunate aspects of the regulations respecting the definition of handicapped. I had raised these points yesterday, and I'm wondering if the minister has considered the untenable way in which this section of the social assistance regulations is drawn.

I think by now there's been sufficient representation from members on this part of the House to raise concern even within the minister's department, and I hope that he will assure the House that this section, which I will read again for the record, will be sufficiently revised as to be more meaningful and more useful to the medical profession. As it stands now I think it would frighten off any medical practitioner for fear of being implicated and assuming certain liabilities because of the nature of the legislation. The particular regulation reads as follows:

"Handicapped person means one aged 18 years of age or older. At the discretion of the director...has been designated as handicapped due to the person being mentally ill or mentally retarded as defined in section 2 of the provincial Mental Health Act, 1964, and due to the person having a physical injury, amputation or physical malfunction of the body. Such designation shall be made only after a qualified medical practitioner has confirmed that the disability is apparently permanent, and that there is no remedial therapy available for the person to significantly lessen the disability, and provided the disability is sufficiently severe that (a) the person requires extensive assistance and supervision to manage normal daily functioning, or (b) as a direct result of the disability the person requires unusual and continuous monthly expenditures for transportation and/or the special diets or for other unusual but essential and continuous needs, or (c) training the person to become economically self-supporting is not possible."

You can imagine how hesitant a practitioner would be to permit himself to do anything that is going to imply that he has finally and conclusively made a designation as to permanency; it's just too tight.

I think the minister is wanting to clean up the situation where he feels there may be too much discretion and too much looseness in the hands of too many, and I can appreciate the problem he's faced with. But I think, on the other hand, there is a valid argument that it's better to have a few slip through than be unduly overbearing on those people who may suffer as a result of legislation that's a little bit too rigid. I merely want to remind the minister that we on this side of the House are not attempting to be total obstructionists at all times. I think from time to time we make some points that he would do well to consider, and this is all I'm going to say about that.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

Just one other inquiry, and this again is an inquiry because I've attempted to get some further information on it, but I only have a sketchy bit of information. I'm hoping that the minister can feel if he knows anything about an organization calling itself the New Opportunities Handicap Rehab Programme. I just heard about it briefly. It's located on Dunsmuir Street — 444 Dunsmuir, unit 104.

I understand that this organization has been soliciting the assistance of persons who are handicapped and has been offering them job opportunities or training programmes and, in fact, has been consulting with people in the Department of Human Resources in getting referrals to their organization. It's an American organization, I understand, with a base in Decatur, Georgia, and they have a subsidiary regional area office someplace in Edmonton. They supply Vita lamps, which are put out by the Philips Co., I understand. These lamps have an extended life beyond the normal light bulbs — lamps — and they are giving a three-year guarantee with them. As an example, there is a 60-watt bulb that sells for something like $1.98.

Now the point I'm interested in the minister responding to is the actual job assignment given to the handicapped people, because I understand they are asked to.... It's because of their handicapped condition that they qualify for the job of soliciting by telephone prospective buyers of these lamps. The pitch is that they must state that they are handicapped and that they, by virtue of their handicapped condition, have been given a special rate on the merchandise that they're selling and they are asking people to purchase from them in order to assist them to maintain themselves.

If this is true, needless to say, it is an exploitation of a physical condition, by perhaps no fault of the person, but they are victims of a situation where they are being exploited to sell merchandise. I'm not sure

[ Page 2441 ]

if the Department of Human Resources is aware that there have been some referrals, but I would hope that they would want to look into the whole programme to see if everything is in order. I'm wondering myself.

One of the things that I've heard, for instance, is that some of the people who have responded to the solicitations of this organization have, in fact, been told that they must sell a number of lamps per hour — I think they said something like a figure of seven lamps per hour — before they start to qualify for their commission. There is no salary involved — it's straight commission — and there is no training involved, but they say they're going to train these people.

Now these are all questions, and certainly, if it's true, we should want to look into it. Even if it isn't true, I think it points out the great need we do have to provide for these people legitimate training opportunities so they can be actively engaged in carrying out their own livelihoods with dignity and with meaningful activities. By doing this, it makes it no longer necessary for them to have to opt for any opportunities, such as these, which may be very small in remunerative value but, out of desperation — for instance, if certain of these people on prior-handicapped income assistance found themselves not qualified — they may be, just out of sheer desperation, falling prey to certain organizations such as this.

I must qualify that by saying that I don't really know if this organization is licensed in the city of Vancouver to operate or not, or just what the situation is, but I've had it from pretty responsible authority that there does exist such an organization and that, in fact, there are many handicapped people who have gone down and are presently working at this organization and are complaining that they have not received payment for work they have done.

They've attempted to protest and they haven't received any satisfaction. Now your colleague, perhaps, the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) may be interested as well in investigating.

If you find that there are some irregularities I hope that we in the Legislature will be the first to be so informed.

Vote 113 approved.

Vote 114: departmental administration and support services, $5,365, 281 — approved.

Vote 115: community services, $17,171, 241 — approved.

On vote 116: services for families and children, $65,791, 568.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Chairman, to the minister. I'm not sure, as I haven't been in all afternoon, whether there was any discussion on child abuse, and if there was I don't wish to....

I was wondering...the hon. minister I'm sure is aware that the incidence of child abuse is increasing in this province. Not only in B.C., of course, but right cross Canada. I'm pleased to see that the human services committee which was started by the former government is continuing with the Ministers, I understand, of Education, Health and Human Resources.

What I really want to ask the minister is, are you giving any specific attention in that committee to the problem of child abuse and are there any plans by the human services committee to assist, as much as possible, parents in our community to...? We seem to find there is a great increase in child abuse. It's obvious that a great deal of counselling services are needed for parents who find themselves in this difficulty that they seem unable to cope with, and tremendous help is needed here.

Now I was wondering if the minister could tell us if the human services committee is dealing with this matter specifically and what his own feelings are on this very serious social problem today.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't know whether I have sufficient information to give a satisfactory answer now but we are discussing.... As a matter of fact, it's an item which is under consideration by the Attorney-General's department as well, and I believe it's an item which is on the paper for discussion at the provincial conference of welfare ministers in September with a view to having uniform legislation for all of the provinces.

Vote 116 approved.

On vote 117: services for senior citizens and handicapped persons, $187,389, 883.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to touch briefly on the homemaker services programme on this vote which represents a slight increase from $7.6 million to $8.4 million. But since we keep paying lip-service to the efforts of government to keep people out of hospital, and since home care is certainly one of the most promising ways in which the senior citizen and any citizen for that matter can be kept out of hospital, I wonder if the minister could give us something more than just the bald figure increase, which is not very high.

It's about, oh, a 10 or 12 per cent increase in the budget, but as the minister probably knows there is tremendous scope to expand the programme, and once again the immediate dollars that might be involved in the short run could be overlooked in

[ Page 2442 ]

terms of the savings in regard to expensive institutional care, particularly acute hospital care.

I wonder if there's any active committee or task force, or whatever jargon we might use in our government circles, for a more specific and active attempt to expand home care and to set up some form of standard. I believe it's a variation from region to region of the province. Different rates of pay apply, and there's altogether a need for the home-care programme to be brought under a more uniform and even-handed approach from region to region.

While it might take some time to demonstrate reduced hospital admissions because of increased home-care services, I think that if we are to be persuaded in any obvious way by the Minister of Health and the Premier and many other members of government — we have talked about the escalating costs of hospital and institutional care — surely we have to put our conviction into action and show that we really are trying to diversify not only the funds and the personnel but the access to alternative methods of management which will, in fact, either prevent the need for hospital admission or, hopefully, reduce the number of days which a citizen might be in the hospital.

We had a case raised in, I think, question period some weeks ago about a woman who wanted to have her baby at home and avail herself of home service. The bureaucratic rules got in the way. And because of the way the service is written, if the lady had her baby at home, she couldn't have home care until she had been in the hospital. This kind of ancient thinking might have been a good idea 20 years ago, and I don't know if it was even good at that time.

This is the kind of situation where we talk, talk, talk in this House about optional ways of reducing institutional hospital care, and yet, with respect, the kind of extra money or the increased money that's going into home care doesn't really begin to provide a reasonable option when you consider that the cost of an acute bed is $125 a day. You can provide a lot of home care to compensate for that kind of expenditure, and I wonder if the minister could give us some specific outline of what the home-care programme will be doing in this coming year.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, to the hon. member, I think perhaps your reference is not only to what's taken place here, but also in the health and home nursing services....

MR. WALLACE: The old story of overlap of two jurisdictions.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I completely agree with all you've said, and I agree also that there are tremendous savings to be made in perhaps refocusing attention on these particular programmes, as opposed to the expensive hospital care.

If you look at these votes combined, we are looking at the.... We have a review with respect to adult care, homemaker services, home nursing of health and activity centres. The whole combination is being looked at in the review to determine just where and how best these services can be provided. I can give you a copy of this later.

MR. WALLACE: Just a quick follow-up, Mr. Chairman. Can the minister tell us if there is a combined committee of health and welfare, and perhaps who else is reviewing this whole thing? Again, I make the plea — is there any possibility that in this particular area of care provided outside of the institution, is there any likelihood that this minister might be given total jurisdiction to implement the kind of recommendations that apparently we're all agreed upon?

I get the feeling every year in this House that we all agree on certain basic principles that we should be implementing, but the machinery gets in the way, or the bureaucracy gets in the way. This minister might be able to make a unilateral decision, if he had the authority, and get on with some of the improvements, but there's so much time spent in different meetings between ministers and deputy ministers and so on, where everybody has to agree before one of these authorities can take a positive step forward and suggest that we get on with this.

I've been in this House a few years, and we were talking in this vein years ago, and it seems to me that we keep screaming — quite rightly — about the tremendously escalating costs of hospitals, but we're not really coming in at the other end to provide the options which would either reduce hospital stay or maybe even prevent it.

I get the impression from the minister's answer that he very keenly wants to meet this need, but there's such a whole lot of administrative machinery involved amongst overlapping departments before we can get decisions. Now is there any hope at all that our Minister of Human Resources might be given total jurisdiction to put together all these different services that he mentioned just a moment ago with the hope that under one roof, under one minister, under one administration, there might be some more rapid, more effective action taken in providing the service and, hopefully, in minimizing the utilization of acute hospital beds?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, to the hon. member. The members on the task force which is Health and Human Resources, are Mrs. Bristowe, Mrs. Kimmette, Dr. Larson and Mr. Lyle. That's Health and Human Resources. I don't know just what the recommendations will be, of course, but one of those recommendations might be just what

[ Page 2443 ]

you've stated. Also, I might mention that this was discussed at the recent conferences in Ottawa, when we dealt with the new Social Services Act, where they also recognized the things you just mentioned.

MR. LEVI: The member for Oak Bay, he's a great lad, but he keeps talking as though nothing has changed over the last several years. I think that even though the minister is new, we're not going to give him any credit for it, but at least maybe next year he might take some of the credit, but things have changed somewhat.

There's a very significant increase in the homemaker programme. There is the home-care programme; there is also the responsibility, the very much increased responsibility of the Department of Human Resources in terms of the number of people they're looking at in the boarding homes and the private hospitals. It's up significantly, as I recall. It was around 3,000; it's up just over 7,000 now. Those are the last figures I saw last November.

But I'm sure that as the minister gets his feet wet in this thing, he's going to run into the strange conflicts that go on in terms of the departments, but particularly with the federal government, you know, breathing down your neck all the time, and this terrible business of what's cost-shareable in terms of what is a social service versus what is cost-shareable, which is considered a medical service.

Frankly, until the federal government is really prepared to move on making some very specific policy decisions — proposals they've been making for years, statements they've been making for years — that in fact they're prepared to consider the so-called intermediate care, I'd much prefer to refer to it as the non-extended-care area, the adult care area, which is not included in the extended-care area as a cost-shareable item. And that makes good sense.

But I think what is important for the minister to recognize and understand as he goes through over this present year is that under no basis must we look to see a decline in the expansion of the homemaker service. It's crucial that it continue to expand because what is happening is that our senior citizen population is expanding.

There isn't the so-called attrition rate that we used to refer to. It is much slower because of all the numbers of services that we have, both medical and support services. People are living longer. The average age of someone going into an extended-care hospital, I understand, is about 83 or 84.

So the thing is that it is important that the government do not move back on this. Now there is another problem and the problem relates, specifically in the homemaker service, to that constant question of the asset test of what's shareable and what isn't shareable. And that's a tough one. That was one which the people have grappled with for some time.

The previous government took the position — very much as I think it took it with the support of the senior citizens, in terms of income support — that the basic consideration was broadening the service to as many people as possible without too much consideration in the first instance of the cost-sharing factor. Because if we're constantly going to be wrapped into the business of cost-sharing, then programmes are simply not going to expand. We're going to be continuing to service an ever-limited number of people. I'll have more to say about this under the debate on the GAIN legislation, but I do have a question for the minister which relates to vote 117. Maybe his deputy will take it down and we can get an answer.

Last year the seniors' counselling programme was at $145,000, and I see that this year it's $129,000. Now does this reflect (a) a reduction in the number of counsellors that are in the programme? I can't remember now whether it's 130 or 160 that were in the programme. But what is the basic reason for the reduction? That's really what I'm interested in.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We didn't spend the $145,000. The $129,000 is for 160 counsellors, so it hasn't changed.

MR. LEVI: So you're not looking to give them a bit of an increase this year like we did last year?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: They got one recently.

MR. WALLACE: Just a quick follow-up on the member for Vancouver-Burrard's comment about cost-sharing being one of the major obstacles to real progress. In February, as I recall — I don't have the clippings in front of me — the federal minister made what at that time appeared to be a very substantial step forward when he recognized publicly at a conference of family physicians at Harrison Hot Springs that indeed the federal government should share in levels of care below extended care.

He made the statement, and I regret that I don't have the clipping with me, but it was to the effect that it would involve the federal government in more dollars in the short run, but would, in the long run, provide the optimum and most economic use of health-care dollars in the long run.

Now the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) went down to Ottawa about a month ago, and I heard the Minister of Health speak at the B.C. Health Association convention, when he stated that the federal minister was not prepared to go in that direction. I wonder if this Minister of Human Resources could tell us just what is the present position, as he understands it, of the federal minister in regard to the long-term obvious feasibility of sharing lesser levels of care with the provinces so that

[ Page 2444 ]

there will be the least possible utilization of expensive levels of care.

Now I'm confused, because Mr. Lalonde definitely said in Harrison Hot Springs in February, that he was.... For the very first time he made a public statement that it would make a lot of sense for the federal government to cost-share these lesser levels of care. But I'm equally certain that I heard the Minister of Health say in Vancouver a few Saturdays ago that at the most recent conference in Ottawa the federal minister had said that he was not prepared to share in these costs.

I couldn't agree more with the member for Vancouver-Burrard that in the long run this is the direction the policy has to go, and we're really just nibbling away at the problem if again there is no incentive to provincial governments to set up those policies whereby the least necessary level of care will be provided.

If it is going to save the government money to put them in extended-care hospitals, there is always that tendency to encourage definitions of illness which is, in my view, a retrograde approach in the first place, but the tendency by governments is to define people as being in certain categories of illness and certain categories of need, and if there are certain categories that are cost-shared with Ottawa, the real incentive is to lump everybody into that category. Very often that means that the person finishes up in an institution at a more expensive level of care, simply because Ottawa is paying half the bill.

It's simplistic to look at it that way because the taxpayer, every single Canadian, whether he pays his taxes provincially or federally, is paying money to provide that service, and it just doesn't make any sense at all to spend money on more sophisticated levels of care when perhaps what is needed is a boarding home or a personal-care home or even looking after the person in their own home with the appropriate personnel.

I just wonder if the minister could clarify my confusion as to where Mr. Lalonde stands right now in any kind of commitment to the sharing and the cost of lesser levels of care.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Chairman, again I can only speculate, but I'm inclined to agree with the assessment that you've made, considering that the new Social Services Act provides not only sharing, as it does now, for even the lowest level of care, but it also goes one step further by allowing us to make available this service to a much broader spectrum of people and still receive sharing. It allows us to make it available to people who are not on welfare, while presently you almost have to be on welfare to take advantage of the service.

So I'm inclined to agree with your assessment, but only speculating on the basis of what I've seen in Ottawa.

Vote 117 approved.

Vote 118: health care services, $33,605, 590 — approved.

On vote 119: community programmes, $30,592, 423.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, some weeks ago I asked the minister a question regarding the Kelly Lake project, which is a project with an Indian community up in the Dawson Creek area. I understood that the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), in whose riding that reserve is, was going to ask him something. I gather by the....

First of all, that grant was terminated in February. This was a project in which the band, or the group — it's not actually a reserve; it's a BCANSI local — received approximately $28,000 and they purchased service from the Frontier College people. My understanding was that when it was terminated — that's one of the reasons I asked the question...and whether it's being reconsidered.

The second one is that up until about three weeks ago it was my understanding that the Indian friendship centres had not yet heard about their funding or who would fund them. Perhaps the minister could tell....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: The second one was PACIFIC you know, the friendship centres. The department previously was funding 14 centres, with a programme manager, and also the central operation which is called PACIFIC, the Pacific Association of Canadian Indian Friendship Centres. I think that's what it stands for.

So the two questions are — one is, did the department reconsider the cancellation of the grant to the Kelly Lake people? That's a very unique kind of reserve. It's the kind of reserve and the kind of location — not a reserve but a community — where in order to get there they have to go into Alberta. They are very remote, and there was a very interesting programme going on for two years.

The second one relates to the friendship centres. Has a decision been made to fund them? Is it being done through the department? Those are the two questions that I have.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, to the hon. member. That Kelly Lake project is being looked at through Education and the — what's the name of the college? — Frontier College, and no decision has been made as to how it will be dealt

[ Page 2445 ]

with. I'm sorry. I believed that the answer had been tabled. We were discussing this. I don't know what happened to it. So I will have to check out and see why it wasn't tabled or where it went astray.

MR. LEVI: I don't recall it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: And on the other, on the friendship centres, we have funded them now for 40 per cent of their total requests, and the balance is still with the social services committee in that we are attempting to determine just how much should be with Health, Education, Human Resources and the Attorney-General's department, as they did provide us with a breakdown of the services they gave.

MR. LEVI: If I could just ask you another question. Is that 40 per cent of the central operation or 40 per cent of the total? As I understand it, the department was paying the salary for one person at about $720 a month. Now are you saying, in fact, that you are going to fund that salary at 40 per cent? Is that what you are saying?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, we have provided them with 40 per cent of their total budget, and that is to all of the centres.

MR. LEVI: I just want to get this clear....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

The second member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. LEVI: Oh, I'm interrupting myself. I'm sorry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, you are interrupting Hansard, Hon. Member.

MR. LEVI: You are going to give them, if I understand what the minister has said, Mr. Chairman, 40 per cent of their budget. Now are you talking about the budget that was previously provided by the department or the budget that the centre operates on? Because if you're going to give them 40 per cent of what the department was giving them, then you're going to give them 40 per cent of approximately $700.

Now if you're talking about the operating budget which the total centre had, it varies, but that would be 40 per cent of about $20,000, which is $800.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Is that what it is? So actually what we can say is that you've given them an increase. Grab onto that one, if you can. Well, 40 per cent of $20,000 would be $800 a month — something like that.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: No? Well, we'll leave it at that and we'll probably have to go back to the general question.

Vote 119 approved.

On vote 120: income assistance programme, $218,800,000.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask, in light of the minister's circular of March 15 regarding Mincome benefits effective April 1, and the fact that persons over 60 who are not in receipt of the spouse's allowance would not receive the increase, what total saving this represents to the provincial government.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's in a different vote.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, could I have clarification? The member and I may well be wrong, but I just don't want to miss a vote and then be told that I should have raised it earlier on.

As I understand it, this vote is entitled "income assistance programme." I presume this is not relating then, according to the minister, to Mincome payments which supplement OAS and GIS.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's 117.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the question isn't of all that great significance, but if it was under vote 117, I would have to withdraw this present question which apparently is not applicable under 120.

MR. LEVI: Is this the vote that the GAIN legislation will come from if it passes the House? Are we to understand that based on the estimates of the department the GAIN legislation expenditures are in this vote?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: In several.

MR. LEVI: In several?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! If the answer is to be given and registered in Hansard, the minister will need to stand in his place.

MR. LEVI: The minister said "several." Does that mean that the minister is referring to vote 120 and to vote 117 which is the... ?

[ Page 2446 ]

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: There are others? Several is more than two, is it? Perhaps the minister could tell us, Mr. Chairman, what the other votes are.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Basically the two.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Minister, the only way the answers can be registered for Hansard is if you rise in your place and give the answer.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Basically, it will be the two votes, Mr. Chairman — 117 and 120.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for that answer.

Vote 120 approved.

On vote 121: special programmes for the retarded, $33,606, 573.

MR. LEVI: The question to the minister may appear facetious, but do you have enough money in this vote for more than a $3 can of paint? He made reference on a very swift, inexpert visit to Woodlands — I think it was Woodlands he was mainly in — and he was very upset because they'd only found enough money to spend on, I think, $3 worth of paint, which is really not the case, because the McBride Centre cost quite a bit more than that to operate.

Do they envisage in this budget any structural improvements to Woodlands, or is that now under the Public Works vote?

Vote 121 approved.

On vote 122: Burns Lake Community Development Association, $188,000.

MR. LEVI: Does the minister have a report from the Burns Lake programme? There was an undertaking on the part of the Burns Lake people that they would make available, prior to the opening of the Legislature, a report. We did table a report. Is there a report available, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, there's a slight oversight. I can table the report tonight.

Vote 122 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 28, Mr. Speaker.

GUARANTEED AVAILABLE
INCOME FOR NEED ACT

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak briefly on this very progressive legislation. As a matter of fact, I believe it is definitely a model for the balance of the country. I am sure that it is the envy of many areas. I would like to circulate it to all of the other provinces for their consideration as well.

Not only does it have considerable benefits that didn't previously exist or weren't perhaps available, but also it provides a good many incentives. We don't want people on welfare any more than they want to be there. I think that should be made very clear. Hopefully the bill will provide the benefits and the incentives that will make this very clear and that will help to change the pattern that has unfortunately developed not here but elsewhere also.

The legislation provides the assistance for people to get off welfare; it provides the assistance in locating employment. I don't believe that this really was available in the other legislation. It was difficult to tell, of course, because the other legislation was actually quite a mish-mash and probably wasn't being used nearly as much as it might have been, in that much of the action and much of the direction came instead from the regulations.

The previous bill, Mr. Speaker, did not contain any provisions requiring recipients to report changes in marital status or address or employment or any number of things. The new Act definitely does provide for this. But perhaps more important still, there was no reference to special provisions for deserted families, even though we spend $8 million to $9 million a month in support of these families and only get back pennies in maintenance payments. There was no allowance for special groups or recipients ignored: the handicapped, single parents, and the 55-to-59 age group.

There was no provision in the previous legislation for COLA — for an increase to be made according to the changes in the cost of living. Really, the only time that any changes were made was when there was an election in the wind.

MR. WALLACE: So what else is new?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Certainly this shouldn't be the guide as to whether or not someone receiving the benefits of the moneys made available through social assistance should receive these increases or not.

We have closed a number of the loopholes that existed in the previous legislation. We have placed our

[ Page 2447 ]

intentions in the Act, where they belong; we have spelled them out for everyone to see exactly. So I don't think there is any guessing or any questions. It is all there in the new GAIN legislation.

The GAIN legislation stresses more benefits, more assistance and more incentives. It is employment-oriented in that it provides incentives, for example, to the handicapped to take employment whenever possible or whenever they wish, even if only on a temporary basis. Previously, of course, if a person did take employment for a week or a month or two months, they didn't receive the allowance which they had received previously. Furthermore, their health benefits were discontinued. We believe this to be totally wrong and completely a discouragement for these people to in fact return to the community whenever they wish or wherever or whenever possible. The new GAIN legislation is very positive in this respect. It provides them the opportunity to go out and seek employment for even a short time, continue with the health benefits and be reinstated for the allowance without all of the red tape immediately upon quitting the employment because perhaps they couldn't continue or upon the employment opportunity being discontinued.

There is also an incentive for the single parent — those who wish to go out and become involved in the community once again through employment — to know their friends, to know the people in the community through their job opportunity. We are doing this by extending the health benefits to these single parents and their families.

Of course, in conjunction with this, we have our PREP programme, which will be a further assistance to try and offer the opportunities to these individuals in seeking employment.

As for the benefits of GAIN, we will be announcing additional income for the 55-to-59 year age group. This will be done through the regulations. We will have additional moneys available and very much needed money available for the single-parent groups. Again, I would like to stress that we are able to make adjustments according to a formula yet to be devised but to allow for increases according to the cost-of-living increases.

Also I'd like to stress the provision which makes it possible for us to collect maintenance payments from deserting husbands or wives, whichever the case might be. GAIN also tightens some of the...it's tighter with respect to those who refuse employment in that it increases the penalty for fraud and it also tightens the regulations for reporting changes in status.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the House will certainly debate the legislation, but pass it and pass it enthusiastically because it's very progressive legislation. Thank you.

MR. LEVI: Well the only thing that was left for the minister to say was: "Will somebody bring the envelope and open it up and we can find out exactly what these people are going to get?" You know, he had a beautiful amount of "progressive, " and "it's going to be better, " and "it's going to be this, " and "it's going to be that, " with a very big emphasis on employment. But nobody knows how much they're going to get. That's really the great tragedy of introducing a bill just that way, by just leaving out the key part of what we want to be dealing with when we're talking about income support. We don't have that; that's going to come down by regulation.

Mr. Speaker, what do we have in terms of the bill? The bill itself is very simply an amalgamation of three existing pieces of legislation — the Social Assistance Act, the Handicapped Persons Income Assistance Act and the Minimum Income Assistance Act. The three of them are put together, incorporated into the legislation as some of the regulations.

Okay, that's the window-dressing for the legislation. Basic object of the bill: No. 1, to wipe out Mincome; that's the basic objective and that's what they've done. We've got now Social Credit Newthink — everything started on December 11; there was never such a programme as Mincome. Consequently Mincome is now gone and it's replaced by GAIN.

GAIN is what? GAIN is an asset-tested programme. Now let me give you an example of the kind of an asset-tested programme on people who are 55 to 59. There are approximately somewhere between 110,000 and 120,000 people in that category. I earlier said a figure that was a little higher, but it's not quite that high. It's about 110,000 to 120,000.

The minister has said that approximately 5,000 people will qualify — for this programme. Just 5,000 people. In 1972 the predecessor of the previous minister was asked a question about their programme which was an asset-tested programme. I still haven't found what I'm looking for, Mr. Speaker. He was asked a question in terms of the supplementary assistance programme to the Old-Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement.

He was asked, for instance: "How many people get the maximum?" He was told, and he reported to the House, that 1,280 people got the maximum; 1,280 people on an asset-tested programme were able to qualify in 1972 for the $41 which was then the provincial supplement!

That was 1,280 people out of something like 205,000 senior citizens. That's important that we remember that because that's exactly where we're going back to with the assets programme that the minister is talking about implicit in this.

Again, back in 1972 the then Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Mr. Gaglardi) said that there were another 16,000 people who were getting anywhere from $1 up to $41; 5,000

[ Page 2448 ]

got $1 to $5; 6,000 got $5 to $ 10, and that's the way the programme worked. It was asset tested.

The remarkable thing is that they want to go back to that kind of test. Not only do they want to go back to that kind of test, but they want to throw everybody into the same barrel. They want to put in the welfare recipients, they want to put in the handicapped, and they want to put in the senior citizens, and they want to make them all welfare recipients, because they're all going to be subject to the asset test.

Once this legislation goes through, everybody in this province on the GAIN programme will be in receipt of social assistance.

He calls that "progressive, " that it's going to be the envy of all of the provinces in Canada. That's really quite remarkable, because back in '72 when the previous government brought in the Mincome programme, that became the envy of all of the provinces, but for an entirely different reason.

The reason was that we moved to an income-tested programme. Now I thought before, when the minister was doing his estimates, that he was about to come out advocating for income-tested programmes. But he stopped short; he didn't. That's what we spent — the previous government. That's what I spent, when I was minister in over three years, trying to convince those people down there — and some of them were real turkeys — that the only way to go, in terms of supplementing people, in dealing with people's needs, was to look at an income test, not an assets test.

Because the minister says — or it's been attributed to him, although he hasn't said it in the House — that about 5,000 people of 110,000 people will qualify. Now what he's saying to us is that the other 105,000 or 110,000 people out there have no need for the GAIN legislation. That's what he's suggesting.

When we looked at the 60-to-64 programme back in 1973, we had to project based on two-year-old material that's only available from the income tax people, because next to the CANDU secrets in this country I think the income tax information is kept almost as secret. But we were able to project, based on income, that about 24,000 would go on the 60-to-64 programme, and that's pretty well the way it worked out, that about 24,000 did get onto the programme.

Now earlier, before that programme, when we — the previous government, Mr. Speaker — introduced the Mincome legislation, the attempt was simply to provide for the needs of senior citizens, based on the income that they had, not on their assets. We did not put an assets test on, because if you put an assets test on you are going to exclude a large number of people.

We took the position that we were not prepared to exclude large numbers of senior citizens, particularly when in 1972 in this province about 108,000 senior citizens had a total income of about $120 a month.

That was the average payment — and I've been through this before but I'm going to do it again. The average payment on the Guaranteed Income Supplement back in 1972 was an average payment of $42.

The thing is that six weeks later, after we'd completed the legislation, somehow — and not remarkably so because the first people that knew that they needed it were the seniors — some 108,000 people received cheques which guaranteed their income up to $200.

The minister told us that this is the legislation that's going to be the envy. Do you know who it's going to be the envy of? It's going to be the envy of those people who want to continue to run asset-tested programmes. It's going to be the envy of the provinces, such as the leader of the Liberal Party constantly refers to as what we should really do is to take tax points instead of cost-shared programmes.

Well, I know that Alberta is in favour of that. They would like to have tax points, and Ontario said they would like to have tax points instead of cost-shared programmes. That doesn't do any good to the rest of the country — the have-not provinces, the Atlantic provinces. Tax points are no good to them; they don't have much of a base.

MR. WALLACE: Give them block grants.

MR. LEVI: Give them block — oh, what are we going to use...? Euphemisms now! We won't talk about "cost-shared programmes." We'll give them "block grants." Well, you know, I thought after the last federal ministers' conference that there we had a statement from poor old Marc Lalonde, the minister who a year ago went through that tragic misunderstanding with his colleague the Minister of Finance; and I made some statement in Ottawa that he came along on a white horse, and along came John Turner and shot the horse.

Lalonde had good intentions, but he couldn't deliver in cabinet. You know, I think it's very difficult to be able to deliver in that cabinet. After all, you've got a Prime Minister that muses about the irrelevance of the free-enterprise system. You know, this party on this side, we've not only mused about it; we've been so concerned about it that we're trying to get rid of it, but that's not possible.

MR. MACDONALD: You never had trouble in cabinet.

MR. LEVI: No, I never had trouble in cabinet. I went to the well several times and always got what we needed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, we remember.

[ Page 2449 ]

MR. LEVI: You remember? You don't remember, Mr. Member.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: You don't remember what the money went for. It didn't go to build a dam down on the Columbia for $800 million worth of deficit.

AN HON. MEMBER: It went over the dam.

MR. LEVI: Yes, it sure did. It went right into the pockets of people. But we have the new white horse rider here. You know, we have the Minister of Human Resources telling us that he's got a piece of the most progressive legislation ever to come out of never-never land.

MR. LEA: The senior citizens are going to subsidize the mining companies.

MR. LEVI: That's what it is, exactly.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: He's cut back the handicapped people — they're back at $165, so they've been cut. That's just the first thing, and where's that money going? Well, that's going to go to pay the mining companies. They're going to get a tax-free, gratis, election payoff of what — $20 to $23 million? That's a beautiful payoff.

But you know, Mr. Speaker, he talks about, again, the progessiveness of the legislation. He talks about job finding. Okay, let's examine what we have and who is he talking about?

In the GAIN legislation, presumably, the people that are affected are as follows, if my figures are.... I'll round out the figures, but as I understand it there are probably about 84,000 people on Mincome over 65 — approximately 85,000. I guess it's about that.

There are about 24,000 people who are on Mincome — well, perhaps a little less than that; maybe about 21,000 — who are under 60 to 64, and approximately 10,000 people who are handicapped. Then we have to include in the GAIN legislation 130,000 people who were on welfare — and we went through that the other day — approximately 70,000 children, I think it was 28,000 family heads, and about 30,000 single people between the ages of 18 and 59: approximately 250,000 people.

We heard from the minister the other night, Mr. Speaker, that he estimates there are 23,000 employable people in that category. Well, he's got a hope. Looking at the situation over two years, we were not able to find, in a realistic fashion, more than about 12,000. But he's got a programme, he's got a job-finder; that's included in an incentive programme for jobs. Well, we had the member for Vancouver Centre talk about one of the jobs that was offered to one of the handicapped people. I also got a letter about it. But look, if you're going to introduce a piece of legislation and you want to be the envy of the country.... You know, you went through this whole business during the election of returning us to No. 1. Yes, you were No. 1 back in 1972. You had 1,282 people in this province who were getting the maximum pension of $191. That's the way you feel you should achieve being No. 1.

Then you had a government that came in that really made it No. 1, because what we were interested in was getting the greatest good for the greatest number. Now the only way you can accomplish that is that you either say to yourself, "we are committed to an income-tested programme, " or — you're committed to an asset-tested programme, which means you are going to exclude thousands of people from the programme. You are not going to be able to get away with it in terms of the seniors, because it's quite a different thing when you can demonstrate....

You can brag all you want about being No. 1 in 1972 with 1,280 on that programme, but then three months after they were no longer the government, there were 108,000 on it. Now that's something to brag about. The incredible thing is, Mr. Speaker, and you were in the House at that time so you remember, that one of the gallant members on this side of the House in those days stood up and felt it necessary, she was so in agreement with the Mincome legislation, that she said it shouldn't be just $200; it should be $225. Do you know who said that? That ex-cabinet minister lady member sitting down there in the boondocks. She's down there at the bottom of the line, Mr. Speaker. She stood up and she said we should make it $225, but she wasn't talking about $225 to people on an income-tested programme; she was talking about $225 on a means-tested programme. That's the means-test party. That's what you've gone back to. After three and a half years you've gone back to the means test, and you're really doing it to the handicapped already. They're going to be means-tested; that's the way it's going to be.

Somehow you think that in this day and age, after 40 months of Mincome on an income-tested programme, you somehow are going to be able to say to the rest of the country, "Why don't you follow our lead?" when at least four of the provinces have introduced Mincome programmes. They've introduced them. So much for the example you're trying to give about following the lead in the country, because that's not the case.

So we have in this piece of legislation, first of all, an attempt to rewrite history, because that's what it is: "We'll eliminate Mincome, we'll introduce GAIN, and if people don't look too closely at the legislation,

[ Page 2450 ]

they won't realize that we've rolled back time almost four years and everything is back where it used to be."

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: That's okay, Mr. Speaker. Don't....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, would you come to order please? The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor.

MR. LEVI: They're having a hard time listening, Mr. Speaker. It's a very hard time for those people back there. After all, all during the election they had their leader going through saying: "We'll never touch Mincome; we'll never touch the handicapped programme." Why, he even said something like: "Bennett promises increased aid for the senior citizens" — increased aid for the senior citizens. You know, they all participated in the myth of the increases for senior citizens, because if they talk about senior citizens only over the age of 65, that may be, but the previous government didn't talk about senior citizens as being over 65; we talked about them being over 60. We did that kind of a programme.

So what have they done? They went around and published ads. They told the people: "Vote for us and this is what we'll give you." Now they've produced the GAIN legislation. You know, they spent a great deal of money putting ads in the newspaper. They put one ad in which said: "From Bill Bennett to the senior citizen" — very chatty little piece — "re Mincome and Pharmacare." Then again, the paranoia creeps in: "An unfair rumour is circulating that the election of a Social Credit government would end or reduce Mincome, Pharmacare and other pension benefits. My pledge to you is this" — now, mind you, this isn't signed in blood — "Any Social Credit government I am privileged to lead will guarantee the continuance of these benefits."

It's not true. It simply is not true. That ad is not a true statement of what has happened and what is going to happen in the future. The handicapped know it. The Mincome people 60 to 64 know it, and the over-65s are going to know it. Because, you know, within the legislation there is a section which one can really refer to as the "witch-hunt section." That's the section which empowers the minister — and I'm sure that this minister will use it — to go back five years and take a close look at all of the income, all of the assets and disbursements that senior citizens have made over the past five years, and if any of those disbursements appear not to be in order, then they're going to get struck off Mincome, and, of course, there is a penalty clause in the whole Act too.

I mean, now if you're on welfare and you do something wrong and you're a welfare recipient, you don't have to pay a fine of $500 any more. Now you're going to pay $2,000, or, in lieu of, go to jail. That's the new penalty. That's the kind of progressive legislation we have. They couldn't even pay the $500. Now he's bringing in a $2,000 one.

But the thing is that that's the kind of promise that was made. Your Mincome and Pharmacare are here to stay. Well, Pharmacare so far is safe. Mincome is eliminated, wiped out.

I remember the minister came into the House, Mr. Speaker, very upset one evening. He came in and was so upset that he got up and he had to make a statement about the fact that one of the members of the Legislature — presumably myself — was misleading the public. Somehow Mincome was not wiped out and the benefits that had been there before were still in place and they would continue to be in place. That was not accurate and it was not so and, of course, it's not the case now. The handicapped don't get what they got before. The 60 to 64.... He's wrinkling his brow as though he doesn't know what I'm talking about.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: The handicapped are getting the quarterly increase. The minister — all he has to do is to nod.

The handicapped received the quarterly increase on April, 1976. The minister doesn't nod. He doesn't shake his head....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: They're going to get more.

MR. LEVI: He sits there and he says, "They're going to get more under this."

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: They're going to get more than under the NDP.

MR. LEVI: "They're getting more than they did under the NDP." Well, isn't that delightful! Isn't that delightful!

The argument that we made was that Mincome payments for the handicapped, the 60 to 64 and to the people over 65 would be the same. We would not differentiate between the handicapped or 60 to 64 or over-65. Those are the people who needed it and we gave it to all of them. You're not doing that. You're simply not doing that.

But you know, the interesting thing is that had there been no Mincome programme at all, what we would have had presumably would be a continuation of the previous Social Credit government policy that was in there before of a straight asset test on the

[ Page 2451 ]

handicapped. If you could crawl you might qualify, and in terms of the supplementary pension to the old-age pension and guaranteed income supplement, if you didn't burn such bright bulbs, then you could pass the means test. You could get that kind of assistance.

But you know, the ad goes on to say that "they" — that is, Mincome or Pharmacare — are not only here to stay, but they will work better for you, because under the Social Credit government the size and timing of increases for Mincome, for example, will be pegged automatically to the cost of living. But we're not sure how that's going to be done.

The minister is not able to tell us how it's going to be done. Probably we are going to get into a debate when we get into the committee stage as to whether it's going to be the consumer price index or it's going to be some other kind of basket or what.

We could, for instance, suggest to the minister if he wants to amend his bill that he should tie it to the industrial composite which relates really to the average increase of wages that are settled in the province over a year and not tied at all to the consumer price index.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the rest of the bill which wants to do things for single parents and wants to do things in terms of the people who want to get retrained — all of that was in place. There are, in terms of the bill, some positive features. I don't disagree with the question of the indexing, but what I disagree with in this bill is the basic intent. That's why I'm going to vote against it, because the basic intent of this bill is to rewrite history, is to try and kid the people of this province that they're going to be better off under the GAIN legislation than they were under the Mincome legislation.

First of all, we have the first-class piece of what has already been characterized as election treachery. They've gone back on what they said. They have destroyed Mincome. They have brought back the means test, and on this basis they're going to try and sell this programme. But you know, most people out there are not going to buy this. They're not going to buy it because there is no explanation really of who is going to benefit in terms of the financial end of it. Because if they can't tell us — and they can't because they're not prepared to tell us until after the bill is passed — or give us any idea what kinds of level of income is involved....

How many people are going to be affected by it? Who is not going to qualify for a handicapped pension? Who isn't going to qualify for the 60-to-64? Who isn't going to qualify for the 55-to-59? It doesn't tell us anything. All it does is rewrite history.

Some of the members were in this House before like that great freedom fighter for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) who, when he was here in February, 1972, stood in his place and voted against $200 a month. He'll have to be careful how he gets out of his chair now — $200 a month he voted against in 1972.

I'm also interested because sitting on the front row, the now Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), when he sat way down there, when he was a Liberal and they were talking, said in respect to the services given to seniors:

"Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver Centre"

and that, of course, was the gay Roman in those days, Capozzi —

"was very brave on the budget, but tonight he tells us he won't vote for the elderly. He's going to support the government, despite the niggardly nothing they give to the old-age pensioners. You're a $19.30 government, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker. Each year the amount of supplement that we give to the old-age pensioners goes down while the surpluses grow."

That wasn't from this side of the House, Mr. Speaker. That was from that side of the House. It was the young man sitting in the front row there — the Minister of Education.

What did we hear from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams)? He also had to get in on the debate. I've got to find the right quote. I don't want to really misquote the individual here.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Yak, yak!

MR. LEVI: Well, in terms of yak, yak, I hope the Minister of Human Resources is going to have at least 75 per cent of the back bench up defending this one, and I hope that every one of them is going to send back the press releases to their home constituencies so that people will know exactly what it is they are voting for.

You know, we've heard very little from the back bench except a lot of yak, yak and muttering, but the thing is, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot vote for this legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. LEVI: No, there is no way that I can vote for this legislation, because what you've done is rolled back the clock. You've rolled back the clock to the means-test era. There are some of you over there who remember the Dirty Thirties and the means test and the way they used to give out welfare. Well, that's the way they're going to give out welfare.

Remember, Mr. Speaker, that's the name of this bill. It's a welfare bill. It has nothing to do with income. It has nothing to do with handicapped pension. It only has to do with welfare. Everybody is in the same bag, in the same barrel. They're all welfare recipients, and if you call that progressive

[ Page 2452 ]

legislation, then you've got to be out of your mind, because in this country, over the past 40 months, the previous government gave leadership in terms of social legislation that the people of this province were proud of. But on this one we can only suffer absolute shame in the eyes of the rest of the provinces in this country.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, it's very difficult to know what to say about this bill because it's very little more than the power to make regulations, and without those regulations it's not meaningful. I would certainly hope that the minister, on closing this debate, would tell us, before we have to vote on this bill, exactly where he intends to go in terms of regulations. What kind of asset testing does he intend to get into? What kind of levels of support does he intend to make available under his new legislation?

The critical importance of these regulations, Mr. Speaker, is obvious in the fact that I don't think there's a dollar figure anywhere in this entire bill of some 10 pages.

Mr. Speaker, this bill should provide that the regulations made hereunder, if it is passed, should be referred to a special committee of this House, year by year, to look at and to call the minister before it and to call senior officials before it and say: "Since the bill itself is so imprecise, give us a chance to look at the precise regulations under which people in the social-security system of this province must live." It is simply not here, Mr. Speaker, in the second reading that we're debating now.

The second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) made some very serious charges in terms of asset-testing programmes that I think require reply by the minister. Exactly who is going to be eligible for what we used to think of as Mincome under the provisions of this bill, and under the regulations that will be drawn under this bill? One of the tremendously important things, it seems to me, is the manner of perception by senior citizens in particular of the assistance which they will be receiving under this bill. If it is perceived as welfare, with all the connotations of that word, or anything to which they feel that they may not be entitled as a matter of right but simply as a matter of charity, then unfortunately there are going to be some people receiving a good deal less than their due from society, a good deal less than what they are entitled to under this legislation because of semantics.

That's why I'm a little bit concerned about the doing away with the concept of Mincome as we used to know it. I don't want to suggest here that benefit levels may be changed, because we just don't know. We haven't heard from the minister. But the way in which it is presented seems to me to be tremendously important.

There are a number of concepts put into law in this bill which are good things, but they were all possible before, Mr. Speaker. Indexing — a kind of a COLA clause is a good thing, but it was possible before. It simply required an order-in-council as each new consumer price index came out. The work incentives for people who have been on the welfare system and then are going to work and want to retain things like the medical benefits — which would otherwise have been a disincentive had they not received them — good things also possible currently under regulation. Single-parent benefits, handicapped benefits are the same kind of thing — good, but also currently possible under regulation.

The next section I would address myself to in principle is the section which deals with maintenance orders. The section, in my opinion, does not tackle the basic problem which can only be reached by the institution of a unified family court system in our province. Things such as the theory of conciliation rather than conflict in family life that this section 16 is designed to get at can better be handled with that kind of a unified family court system. The maintenance order enforcement provisions may be an improvement on the existing situation, but certainly we want to know details.

The ways in which these orders are enforced must not be such as to prejudice the amount otherwise receivable by the person concerned. The Crown will be paying only general social assistance levels except insofar as it collects further amounts from the spouse who has the duty of maintenance. There will therefore be a temptation on the Crown to simply collect what is easiest — that is, only the social assistance levels rather than the full maintenance order by the court.

I would like the minister to give us his clear undertaking when he closes second reading that the bill will not be read in that way, but rather that this new enforcement will seek to obtain for each individual who is entitled to maintenance the full amount of such maintenance, and not simply social assistance.

There are extremely serious powers provided under section 17, the section to which the hon. second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) referred as the "witch-hunt section," I think it was. I think that is a fair description, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker. The extraordinary powers of the minister to deem that eligibility for social assistance for actions up to five years in the past to me are powers which can to some extent remove a sense of security from people.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: They are powers which I don't believe should be delegated by this Legislature to a

[ Page 2453 ]

minister. It is an arbitrary sort of thing that has no place in legislation of this kind, in my opinion. The same sort of thing....

AN HON. MEMBER: Dictatorial!

MR. GIBSON: The same sort of thing applies to the retroactive sections — to the retroactive force of section 22. Retroactive legislation, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, is almost always opposed. The retroactive features of section 22 fall into that category.

The appeal section could be a good one; again, we have a lack of details. The appeals tribunal is to be set up by regulation; we have no idea what those regulations might specify. All in all, Mr. Speaker, I feel that I have to suspend judgment on this bill for the moment. But I will be listening with very great attention when the time comes for the minister to close second reading and answer some of these questions, particularly the direction of the principle regulations that will be drawn under this bill within the first three months. The minister must have a pretty good idea of those things in order to have drafted the bill in the first place.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, generally speaking, one would be encouraged to support legislation which co-ordinates and brings together different pieces of legislation where there is overlap. That, essentially, is the main thrust of this bill: to co-ordinate under one piece of legislation many of the provisions which a modern government has to make. So one approaches the bill with that kind of optimism that the government is trying to simplify the bureaucracy and to make the various forms of income assistance and social service more clearly definable, more readily understood and hopefully more efficiently administered.

When one looks into the bill further, unfortunately, one again discovers that the old pendulum has swung very far. By that I mean that in attempting to simplify and unify the provisions of the bill, it's just really an incredible document in the discretion which is being given to the minister.

We've already learned how this government has accepted the complaint of the mining industry that there is too much ministerial discretion allowed to the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland) — for example, agreeing to a production permit. The government has recognized that that was wrong and has amended the legislation, but here in this bill they've gone in the opposite direction.

There is hardly a single thing in this bill that the minister cannot do. The second big defect in the bill is the lack of specific information. I haven't taken the trouble to count the sections that refer to the regulations, but there are 29 sections in the bill. I would think, Mr. Speaker, that in at least half, or more than half, of the sections the general principle outlined in the section very often makes a lot of sense, but the specific impact of the section will await the regulations.

To give a clear example of that, Mr. Speaker, the minister gave a press conference on May 17 when GAIN legislation was first announced. Just to take a specific example, one of the questions that the minister was asked was the matter of unemployable single parents. When he was asked by how much the rate for unemployable single parents would be increased, he gave the answer: "It would be substantial."

I'd like to know, does that mean that the minister knows by how much these rates are to be increased right now? If so, what kind of insult to the House and to the opposition parties is it if we're presented with far-reaching legislation in very general and vague terms when only the minister, or at least the cabinet, knows what the specifics are going to be?

We've heard that this is going to be an open government, that there's going to be much better scrutiny of government actions and policies, and that opposition members will have access more readily to information. I'm very disappointed that in the overall general thrust of this bill, which seems good — and I can comment in my remarks in a moment about some of the excellent sections in the bill — there are other sections which are so general and diffuse, and yet which extend the minister a great deal of power, that I just simply have to try and decide in my mind whether the disadvantages of that kind of section outweigh the optimistic and progressive directions taken in other sections of the bill.

Again, so that I can't be accused of making judgments without giving the evidence for these judgments, section 1 is just an absolute endless opportunity in the interpretation of the two important phrases in the bill, one of which is "income assistance," the other one "social services."

When, Mr. Speaker, one looks at the language used in the interpretation section, for example, there's one phrase that finally defines income assistance as being "generally any other form of aid." Without getting into the specifics which we can do in section-by-section debate in committee, the same kind of thrust of this bill is included in the definition of social services. It takes a whole half of a page to define them, and it just defines everything you could imagine that might in the remotest way be related to social services.

One has to ask: how can we judge in a very intelligent way as opposition members the precise impact of this bill when it simply outlines some general attitudes as to how social services and income assistance should be made available without telling us exactly what these forms and procedures and

[ Page 2454 ]

amounts will be?

There are many other sections of the bill which cause me some considerable concern. I'm very I puzzled by the section — it happens to be section 22 — where every kind of community resource is defined — private hospital, personal-care home, intermediate-care home, et cetera. There are seven different definitions, and interestingly enough the last definition is "any other institution." I don't know if that includes this chamber, Mr. Chairman.

I sometimes think that we could all do with a little bit of psychological help in this chamber, but in the same way that income assistance is defined as "any other form of aid, " we have section 22 talking about "any other institution" as being the kind of place under which the minister can determine the rate that will be paid. It's retroactive to May, 1974. We're now in June, 1976.

First of all, I have no idea why May, 1974 is the retroactive date, but I'm amazed that there haven't been more public questions asked and by the fact that the media don't seem to realize that in this part of the bill the minister has the power to make retroactive to May, 1974, the rate of payment in these different institutions, regardless of what has been paid from 1974 until the present date. The language is unmistakably clear; it just says that this order is retroactive.

I think that while there are many other comments I would like to make about the bill, the time being 6 'clock, Mr. Speaker, I will draw your attention to the clock.

Mr. Wallace moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Government Reorganization Act.

Bill 59 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at he next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.