[ Page 1879 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 1) Bill 7. Hon. Mr. Davis

Introduction and first reading –– 1879

Oral questions

Payment to northern central municipal association. Mr. Lea –– 1880

Release of tanker traffic studies. Mr. Gibson –– 1880

Rental car contracts at ferry terminals. Mr. Wallace –– 1880

Private contributions to government conventions. Mr. Lea –– 1881

Deletion of land from Agricultural Land Reserve. Mr. Skelly 1882

Condensation problem at MacInnis Place complex. Mr. Wallace 1882

Use of courtroom time. Mr. Macdonald –– 1882

Deletion of land from Agricultural Land Reserve. Mr. Barrett –– 1882

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Human Resources estimates.

On vote 184.

Mr. Macdonald –– 1883

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1884

Ms. Brown –– 1887

Ms. Sanford –– 1892

Mr. Wallace –– 1893

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1897

Mr. Levi –– 1899

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1904

Mr. Barrett –– 1905

Mr. Gibson –– 1909

Mrs. Wallace –– 1913

Appendix –– 1915

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, on the floor of the House today we have a i visitor from England, Lady Alexandra Metcalfe, CBE.

Lady Alexandra first worked for the Save the Children Fund through her fund-raising activities in London, England, where her father, Lord Curzon, was the foreign secretary. In 1955 she became a member of the council which is the fund's governing body. Later she became chairman of the Overseas Relief and Welfare Committee, which has the responsibility for controlling all overseas work of the fund. In 1974 she was elected vice-president.

Over the years she has, at her expense, visited countries where the fund works, and in many of them has laid the foundation for pioneering work in education and child care. She has seen the fund's work develop from a first-aid measure to an establishment of long-term projects in mother-and-child health and welfare. In 1975 Lady Alexandra was made a CBE for her services to the Save the Children Fund. She is here to meet with the B.C. Save the Children Fund, which is the oldest branch of this organization outside Britain. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome Lady Alexandra.

Mr. Speaker, with Lady Alexandra is Ralph Smith from Vancouver, who is the president of the B.C. branch of the Save the Children Fund. In the gallery is Dr. Joan Ford, the vice-president of the B.C. branch, and Mrs. J.F. Dewhurst, who is executive-director of the branch. I would ask the House to welcome them as well.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome today Mr. Tom Alsbury, an outstanding British Columbia citizen, who is accompanied by a group of senior citizens who are on an information visit to Victoria. Mr. Alsbury has been an outstanding citizen of this province for many, many years, and now, in his retirement, he's working harder than ever on behalf of the people of this province. I ask the House to welcome him.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Before introducing my guests, I would like to also lend my voice on behalf of the women of British Columbia to the warm welcome to Lady Alexandra. She is an inspiration to many women as to how a responsible contribution in society is acknowledged. I hope she enjoys her visit here.

I would also like to mention that Mr. and Mrs. Daryl Weitzel are in the members' gallery. The Weitzels are very much a part of the small-business community in the North Okanagan, as well as being people who offer considerable leadership in the area f volunteer services in our community. I would ask he members to give them a very warm welcome.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Also seated n the gallery are a group of women from the Malaspina College Employment Orientation for Women group. Today is their graduation day. They have completed their course.

So, I would like the House to join me in saying congratulations to Donna Andreassen, Susan Beadle, Carol Swanson, Gwen Titian, Grace Williams, Bev Grounds and D'auria Wilson. They are accompanied by their teacher, Pat Furdeck. Also graduating are Darlene Manson, Deirdre Laforest, Muriel Porteous, Darlene Dore and Mrs. Shirley Mann, who is a personal friend of mine.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): At 3 o'clock a group of 35 students and their teacher, Mr. Robert Lowe, will be arriving. I would ask that we express the welcome to them now.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is Mr. Michael Wood, a DC-8 second officer with Air Canada in Vancouver. I would like the House to make him welcome.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): In the gallery today is Don Ruhl, an associate from Valemount, in the eastern part of my riding of Fort George, I ask the House to bid him welcome.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): I would like the House to welcome please a group of students who are here to view the legislative proceedings this afternoon from Brookswood Junior Secondary School in Langley.

Introduction of bills.

MOTOR-VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT 1977 (No. 1)

Hon. Mr. Davis presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 1) .

Bill 7 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

[ Page 1880 ]

PAYMENT TO NORTHERN

CENTRAL MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): This is a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The Kitimat Pipeline Co. has admitted paying to the Northern Central Municipal Association of B.C. $25,000 to ensure that the Princess Patricia, the boat on which the convention is being held this year from May 10 to 15, travels the proposed route of the Kitimat pipeline oil tankers. Will the minister assure me, and the people of British Columbia, that this practice - even though it has been labelled as normal practice by the vice-president of Kitimat Pipeline Co. - will not be allowed by the province of British Columbia, that this kind of influence will not be allowed on any form of government - municipal, regional district or the provincial government?

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member, the question makes several statements which I would have thought would be ruled out of order. I was aware of the intention of the Northern Central Municipal Association to charter the Princess Patricia since that information has been widely circulated. I was not aware of the information the member has just provided me. That's my first understanding of it so I'll have to take the question, therefore, as notice.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: There will be no supplementary on a question taken as notice, hon. member.

MR. LEA: No supplementary at all?

MR. SPEAKER: Not at this time.

RELEASE OF TANKER TRAFFIC STUDIES

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I have a question, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of the Environment. We know that the Environment and Land Use Committee has done studies on the possibility of a Port Angeles tanker terminal, and perhaps Kitimat, for all we know. Mr. Speaker, as a part of the information necessary for citizen representation to the Thompson commission, would the minister release these and any other relevant studies in the tanker traffic area paid for by the taxpayers' money?

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): Perhaps in stages it might be worthwhile first to determine precisely what studies have been made, and then I can provide the information to you and see if any are considered relevant for presentation to the Thompson commission. But as a first measure, perhaps, we'll determine which studies have been completed.

MR. GIBSON: I would have thought the minister would have known that right off. One of the other options, apart from the Kitimat dilemma, which has been suggested is a possible new location somewhere in the central British Columbia coast. But the studies to investigate whether this is a genuine option are expensive and beyond private organizations. Would he or the provincial government instruct the Environment and Land Use Committee to survey the possibility of central coastal sites for such a tanker terminal, if appropriate, and communicate those views to the public and to the Thompson commission?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I couldn't make that commitment at this time. I'll gladly take it as notice. In response to the member, I would think he would know precisely which studies had been undertaken. Perhaps it would save time if you would identify them as such.

RENTAL CAR

CONTRACTS AT FERRY TERMINALS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, to the hon. seatbelt minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think you'd better rephrase the introduction of your question.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Speaker - to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. With regard to rental car companies seeking contracts with the B.C. Ferries Corporation at ferry terminals, can the minister tell the House if it has been decided that one rental car company will be given the contract at the terminals concerned, or will there be a competition between at least two companies?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I don't know the answer to that question. I'll make inquiries and let the hon. member know.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary.

MR. SPEAKER: We get into a bit of a problem here, hon. members, in that the minister did not really officially say he's taking the question on notice. I would suggest to the House that to save time, if it's the intention of * a minister to take the question on notice, he states so, so the Chair can rule on any supplementals.

[ Page 1881 ]

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the supplementary I'm trying to ask would perhaps help the minister in his inquiries anyway. There are very considerable problems at Swartz Bay already regarding parking. If we are to have rental car companies with a fleet of cars, I wonder if the minister has had any discussions with the B.C. Ferry Corporation about these additional parking problems.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I'll take both questions as notice.

PRIVATE CONTRIBUTIONS

TO GOVERNMENT CONVENTIONS

MR. LEA: On a matter of principle of government, does the Premier agree or disagree that private companies should be allowed to pay, either in whole or in part, money for municipal, regional district or provincial elect ed-government conventions? Should private companies be allowed to pay any money towards a convention of elected officials in the province of British Columbia? I'd like to have the Premier's opinion on that.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): That question is in order.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You have no opinion.

MR. LEA: No answer!

MR. BARRETT: You don't know the difference.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, is my question in order?

MR. SPEAKER: It could be considered argumentative, but the question was taken. It was my opinion to allow the question to stand but it was not answered.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, the question is: in the Premier's opinion, should it be allowable for a private company to pay either the entire cost or part of the cost of elected officials to any government in British Columbia for a convention? Should that be allowed?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, there may be varying circumstances where particular functions for information in which the method of information is not designed to prejudice the opinion would allow other organizations - and I include organizations in your question.... Organizations are grouped to take the opportunity to present information in front of elected officials.

1 consider one of the greatest difficulties or the greatest crimes would be elected officials making decisions over areas and over items on which they have no information at all. So any opportunity to expand information may not, in my opinion, be a conflict to those officials but it may be that in some circumstances, depending on the type of offer and the type of aid extended or money extended, there would be a definite conflict.

I think the member's general question could only be answered in part. It depends on the specific circumstances. If the member would give me an exact situation we may be able to deal with it, but he's dealt in a hypothetical and general way in which there may be various answers and various different types of aid offered.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the wide range of the Premier's answer. I would like the Premier to address himself specifically to a current situation where in relationship to a major controversial project being initiated in this province -the Kitimat pipeline - the consortium involved in that pipeline has given a cash grant of $25,000 to a municipal organization planning a regional conference for the people who may be involved in influencing that decision one way or the other. As a matter of principle, does the Premier think that a cash grant of $25,000 to supplement a conference in that situation is appropriate? It has been granted already.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, that question has already been taken as notice by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) . I'll be pleased to also take it as notice and pass my opinion along to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) and the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) .

MR. BARRETT: Don't you understand morality?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LEA: Will the Premier order the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) to give the environmental groups in the Pacific . . .

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LEA: ... northwest $25,000 so that they can present their views to the municipalities?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LEA: Are you going to order that or is it all one-sided?

[ Page 1882 ]

DELETION OF LAND FROM

AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): This is to the Minister of the Environment. Did the Environment and Land Use Committee approve deletion of eight acres owned by Brett Motors from the agricultural land reserve near Chilliwack airport for use as a car lot?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Technically the answer is no, Mr. Speaker, but the cabinet did.

MR. SKELLY: As to a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, did the Environment and Land Use Committee recommend deletion?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The Environment and Land Use Committee heard the appeal and recommended the release to cabinet, yes.

MR. SKELLY: Is the minister aware that Brett Motors of Chilliwack, which will benefit from this decision, provides a constituency office for the Social Credit member for that riding?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No. I'm not aware of that, Mr. Member.

Excuse me, you were speaking of the Brett Motors' eight acres. It was an application to the Environment and Land Use Committee. The Environment and Land Use Committee recommended exclusion.

CONDENSATION PROBLEM AT

MacINNIS PLACE COMPLEX

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, this is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing with regard to the MacInnis Place complex in Burnaby, where they have serious condensation problems, and where residents have been told simply to keep their windows open - to heat the outer air, I guess. Can the minister tell the House if he has taken any initiatives to assist the residents of the MacInnis Place complex?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Of course. I've discussed this with the Deputy Minister of Housing. I've expressed my concern. He has expressed his concern to me, and we're attempting to resolve the problem. It's complicated. It may seem easy, but it is not easy. It is a relatively complicated problem, and I'm certainly expecting that it will be resolved.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, regardless of the nature of the problem, the residents have been asked to keep their windows open at a time when we're supposed to be saving energy. I wonder if the minister has carried out any investigation of the work that was done by contractors to determine if there are faults in the construction that have led to these problems and additional cost to the residents to heat their houses and keep their windows open.

HON. MR. CURTIS: In a review of the problem we would clearly want to examine the possibility of an omission or incomplete activity by the contractor or some failure that may have been built into the structure. The matter is under review in its entirety.

USE OF COURTROOM TIME

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, on January 17 the Attorney-General undertook to table records of time spent in courts by judges and courtroom use in the provincial court. I reminded him of the question the other day and gave him the date. I ask the Attorney-General when he will file, as he undertook to do, that information with the Legislature of B.C.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): In due course.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the undertaking was given on January 17. Is it respect for the Legislature to say "in due course" -two months later?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That's an improper reflection, hon. member.

DELETION OF LAND FROM

AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

MR. BARRETT: The Minister of the Environment stated that he was not aware of the Social Credit constituency office provided by Brett Motors. Did he meet with the Save the Farmland Committee and the MLA for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) in an office above the Brett Motors showroom to discuss the Chilliwack block deletion?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the member for Port Alberni (Mr. Skelly) asked me if I was aware that Brett Motors supplied an office to the Social Credit constituency. I am not aware that they supply any offices to the Social Credit constituency. I met with a group of people in Chilliwack some time back in an office in the Brett Motors building in downtown Chilliwack, where it's located at this time.

I'd like to respond to the member for Port Alberni to the original question asked. The various types of appeals which can come before government allow cabinet to make decisions under some circumstances.

[ Page 1883 ]

Just to make it clear, the ELUC made the decision on the Brett. It was a 9 (7) application, which is under the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Use Committee rather than cabinet.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 184: minister's office, $146,516 -continued.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I listened to the debate yesterday on the estimates and we didn't have very much specific information from the minister. I want to ask three little questions and I am sure the minister will give us his answers and opinions, as he should.

My first question relates to the famous letter that the minister sent concerning the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Gardom's) department last December, and which was then later released to the press, in which he criticized the Attorney-General's department on the basis that it was breaking up homes because VCLAS, the legal aid assistance society in Vancouver, through the Attorney-General's funding, was making available help for people who needed a divorce. I asked the minister whether those are still his views because I put it to him, Mr. Chairman, that these are marriages that are long gone. These are poor people who want to re-establish a home for their children and lack the $500, $600 or $700 that it requires to get a divorce in the usual way. I suggest that was an inhumane answer that the minister gave in that letter to this problem of people who are not able to invoke the law, as the well-to-do people are in this province, because they lack the means and were getting minimal legal assistance through the Ministry of the Attorney-General.

I am asking specifically whether the minister will stand up and disavow the sentiments he expressed about help for these people who need a divorce but can't afford it when the marriage is long broken up and they want to establish a new home. Is that still the minister's view - that that kind of assistance shouldn't be made available to these people? I think that criticism was totally unfounded.

The second question I want to ask the minister is about his 12 fraud investigators. There is no doubt that back in September, 1976, the Ministry of Human Resources wanted these fraud investigators to be clothed with police powers, which include, of course, powers of arrest, powers of immunity, Powers Of entry and seizure, which are not available to the ordinary investigator and which would, in effect, establish a political police in this province, a suggestion that was made during the time of Phil Gaglardi when he was Minister of Highways. That was a very dangerous suggestion to come from a minister of the Crown so far as a democratic society in British Columbia is concerned.

There is only one source, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, for police powers to be awarded to any investigator in the various departments of government, and that is the Attorney-General's department. I understand that since that time the Attorney-General's department has, on the advice of the police commission, said that this was an outrageous proposition that these people should have police powers. They have rebuffed the Ministry of Human Resources' attempts to clothe them with those police powers and to set up what, in effect, would be a political police. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, the investigators exist and I put it to the minister that they are acting as if they are policemen, and they should not be. You know, the ordinary citizen out there does not understand the difference between a person who is a peace officer and has been given the proper authority, either as a private investigator or as a private policeman, under the Private Investigators' Licensing Act or a peace officer duly established through the Ministry of the Attorney-General.

I suggest that the minister has not only made a very anti-democratic suggestion through his department when it was suggested that these people should have police powers, but that, in fact, they are carrying on and interviewing people and investigating fraud in the Human Resources department as if they were police officers. I say that's totally wrong and should not be permitted in a free society. I want the minister to specifically make it clear that they are ordinary investigators and that they cannot pretend, as they have been doing, to be clothed with police powers.

The third point I want to make relates to my own riding but it also relates to the Greater Vancouver Area Homemakers Association. I have two cases here in which I have the details. The one family I have the details about were semi-handicapped, to put it mildly. I visited their apartment. They had suffered from strokes and back ailments, each of them, and through the homemakers association service they were getting eight hours of help in their home a week, which is not very much but is certainly of great importance if this couple is not to end up in a nursing home.

In spite of the AIB, and how we are all asked to practise restraint, and the tax impositions that have been made in this province in the last 16 months, this couple of senior citizens - semi-handicapped, semi-mobile only - were voluntarily contributing $ 10 a month to the homemakers service. They were asked for $1 or $2 a day, but they said, "no, we can afford

[ Page 1884 ]

$ 10 a month, " and they sent that in voluntarily.

But starting in January they were given a means form and it went through all of their income. They co-operated with the worker, who was very pleasant about the thing and rather disturbed that they had to undertake this kind of an inquisition. But their savings were examined to see how much they might possibly have left at the end of the month possibly for savings, possibly for burial expenses - who knows what life may hold in the future if all of their savings are wiped out?

In the case of this couple, from $ 10 a month it's gone up to $134. Perhaps I should have the exact amount here. It was first billed to them at $6.75 an hour and their final bill at the present time is $134.50 - an increase from $10 a month to $134.5 0, enough to reduce the nutritional diet they are receiving and certainly enough to wipe out whatever they might hope to save for a possible rainy day or possible burial expenses.

The other family, also in Vancouver East, is up from $2 a month to $167.40, just enough to move in and absorb any possible savings that couple could make, or to deny them the service. These are astronomical increases in specific cases that are taking place under the Human Resources ministry at a time when they are boasting of saving - what? - $50 million out of your budget to be proud of, when these semi-mobile couples, senior and seriously disabled, are not even able to have this minimal service that had been provided.

Mr. Chairman, there is another feature to it. Although this was not supposed to be reported, the young woman who comes in and provides the homemaker service in the first case I mentioned, while the couple were having the rate raised to $6.75 an hour, informs the couple that she received $3.50 an hour. That's all she's getting. So even if you raised it to $3.50 an hour, it would be a real hardship on this couple. But I want to know where the extra money is going. Is this a direct attempt to save money not only by increasing the rates, but making a profit of what would be $3 an hour on the provision of this service?

I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that we'll get down to specifics, because here are two couples in particular who have been badly hurt by the so-called restraint practised by this government which grinds those who are poor and sick and boasts at the same time of big savings in the budget of the Human Resources ministry as being quoted by the Legislature of B.C. I want a specific answer about why this young woman should receive $3.50 and these people be billed $6.75 an hour, because even if the policy was right and you're going to turn your back on the humanitarian programmes brought in by the former Minister of Human Resources (Mr. Levi) , surely that cannot be right and this kind of a means test is surely invidious.

So I have three specific questions, Mr. Chairman. First I want the minister to stand up and say that he agrees with what I hope the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) will say - that divorces and broken-up marriages should be assisted where the means are not there through the Department of the Attorney General, if only to re-establish family life in this province.

Secondly, will he undertake to investigate whether these investigators of his are assuming that they're clothed with police powers? They are not and should not be, but they are carrying on in that way.

Finally, there's that question about the homemaker service.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Chairman, with respect to the first question by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald): yes, I did send a memorandum to the Attorney-General. It was a memorandum between he and I and certainly it wasn't for publication. In that memorandum I expressed concern, and I expressed concern as a minister in charge of a ministry which sees more and more family breakup day by day to the point now where it would seem 4 out of 10 are breaking up and, if the present trend continues, it may be as high as 5 or 6 our of 10 in about 5 years. I'm concerned about this day by day, every day, every hour of the day; I'm concerned about the amount of family breakup in our province and in our country. I took it upon myself to place my concerns with respect to a publication that came to my office in the form of a memorandum, and I addressed it to the Attorney-General.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair. ]

The publication which arrived in my office bragged, in my opinion, haughtily of the number of people that were being served through a particular society which was being funded through another branch of government. In my reading it it appeared as if that society was very pleased, much more pleased with the numbers that they were dealing with than with the particular function that was being performed. That was my opinion.

I was disturbed because I had just been faced with specific problems relating to family breakup, and I then expressed those concerns to the Attorney-General. I will continue to express such concerns to the Attorney-General when they occur to me, to any other minister, to government or to any other member of society who wishes to listen. I am worried, I am concerned, and I believed I have every right to be. I believe that when I express such concern, I express it not only for myself but for all British Columbians.

[ Page 1885 ]

The No. 2 question dealt with the fraud investigators. I know that you chose to call them fraud investigators. They are formally called inspectors, but if you wish to call them fraud investigators. . . . I've done so myself on occasion, because they do that - they investigate fraud. Certainly we can address them as such.

But the suggestion by the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) was that we had required these members to have police powers, and that is not so. It never was and never will be. We had requested or required that where possible they have police experience. The reason for that is because it would save an extensive training programme and, secondly, it would avail us of people who have the know how, the knowledge and the experience not only to protect themselves in the duty they carry forth but also to provide protection in knowing the rights of the people they serve or, for that matter, the people they're investigating.

I think it was good; I think it was just. It was not intended, as the member was suggesting, that they be men who would act as police, move in and investigate, move in and arrest, or move in and seize where there was no cause for such.

No. 3 is the Greater Vancouver Area Homemakers Association. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can appreciate that this matter was brought to the attention of the public yesterday by Mrs. Diane Cox, who was speaking on behalf of the association, and I can appreciate the concern expressed by the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) about the rate being charged by that particular agency. I think perhaps the former Minister of Human Resources (Mr. Levi) , who was a party to the workings of this particular organization, would now be equally concerned about the rate being charged by this particular society.

1, as Minister of Human Resources, have expressed my concern to that particular society about the fact that they're charging a $6.75 rate or the equivalent of $70 per day for homemaker service. That is what it's costing this ministry - $70 per day from the homemaker service that is being delivered through that society or agency. That society or agency, like the programme, did not come about during the last three or four years-, they have been operating for a number of years. But like so many areas within our society, their price has been allowed to get somewhat out of line - at least, so some would say, relative to the amount of service we can afford in that area.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): At $3.50 an hour for a homemaker?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You state that they're paying their workers $3.50 an hour, and I think this gives us all the more reason for concern. When you have a society, a so-called non-profit society, charging $6.75 for a service and paying those that are providing the service within that society at $3.50 an hour, yes, there's all the more reason for concern.

The member for Vancouver Centre says that now we have suddenly imposed a means test upon the people who are requiring homemaker service. That is completely wrong. That means test has been in existence for as long as the previous minister, or anyone else here, I imagine, who has any knowledge of the homemaker programme can remember. A means test has always been in existence.

There was, however, one thing which, I think for reason of perhaps lax administration, had been left out over the last several years. That was that the service was provided without a needs test to approximately 100 to 150 Mincome or GAIN for seniors recipients. What this means to the hon. member who posed the question is that anyone in receipt of Mincome was not being needs-tested, but someone in receipt of a similar income but not Mincome, was being needs-tested. So we were in fact being faced with having two people with the same income but from different sources, one being needs-tested and the other receiving the service at absolutely no charge.

Our decision was that following a period of time, giving fair notice, we would treat all people equally. That's not to say that I would not prefer to see a programme which, as the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) expressed yesterday, would provide the homemaker service on a much more liberal basis, that would keep people out of institutions and in the home. I would prefer to see that type of programme, and we're working towards that end with the federal government. They have been most co-operative in this and I'm hoping that we'll see it resolved in the not too-distant future.

With respect to the underrun in my ministry, if that underrun comes about through good administration in reducing the number of people on welfare, then great. That's how it is. It is not being produced at the expense of programmes or by programmes being cut back.

I think the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) will recognize, too, that any other programmes that are being introduced this year will be not only for this year. They're ongoing, so that budgetary considerations must be given not only for what is available in the particular vote at this time, but for what may be required in future years. That's good administration, and it's only through good, sound administration that we can continue to have a healthy ministry that will provide for the needy on an ongoing basis.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, just starting back through these three subjects, in reverse order,

[ Page 1886 ]

the minister seemed to me to be saying that he didn't impose the test. Yet the letter from the managing director, Mrs. Cox, of the area homemakers service says this:

"Dear Messrs. X and Y:

"We have been advised by the director of Human Resources, Victoria, that after April 1, 1977, all clients must pay for service according to the means test." It says, "means, " not "needs, " test.

And then, of course, the form is there. It has been taken around and filled out by people. You say you're treating people equally, but you give equal treatment to people of unequal means and unequal state of health. Anatole France said: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges." That's not equality, it's a means test. I'm not at all satisfied, Mr. Chairman, with the minister's answer.

Here he is supposedly the smart business administrator, and you pay some girl $3.50 an hour to go into a home, and your department has imposed, as of April I a provision for $6.75 an hour, which is $3.25 too much. That's going on under your administration. It's gone on since the beginning of January. I say that's a most inequitous means test to be applied to people who are semi-invalid.

I just want to finish the other two subjects. You know, you can employ this kind of a test on people who need the help, and they're going to end up with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and the other departments of government in some kind of a nursing or convalescent home. That's the economy that you're practising while the rest of the economy lets it rip.

In answer to the other part about the police powers, the minister either doesn't know what's happening in his department, Mr. Chairman, or he does not care to know. But surely Mr. David Schreck, who's the manager of the Vancouver Resource Board, knew what he was saying on September 9,1976, when he said this about the fraud investigators: "Schreck said the 14 fraud investigators located outside Vancouver currently are becoming police officers." Now that was the intention and it must have been known to the minister. "Becoming police officers" is to have police powers, bypassing entirely the department of the Attorney-General. He went on to say: "Buchanan told them that it will make the service more efficient by eliminating the need for a redundant police investigation."

That's the anti-democratic bias of this government which the minister pursued and is still pursuing and to which the Attorney-General says nothing. It should be known by all ministers of that government that only he, as the chief law enforcement of the Crown, can endow police officers with police powers. That should only be done according to law.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

If the stories I get are correct, these investigators or inspectors are carrying on as if they are policemen. The Attorney-General should be doing something about it beyond giving a kind of a rebuff to this suggestion through the police commission. With all respect, Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General should step in and find out just how these people are carrying on this activity. They seem to think they can roll up into one ball of wax the investigation through the Ministry of Human Resources, which there should be, of course, and the police forces of the Attorney-General. I say it can't be done, because then you've stepped over the line.

What Gaglardi tried to do with a political police force, you're trying to do with these investigators. You don't understand the line or distinction between the two whatsoever.

MR. LEA: You might get some of your portfolio back, Garde.

MR. MACDONALD: Now the third thing is that with all respect to the minister, Mr. Chairman, the people that VCLAS was helping to get divorces first had a test as to their means and as to whether they could get it privately, But always, when they go into the supreme court or the county court of British Columbia to get a divorce, the first inquiry the judge makes is: is there any possibility of reconciliation? That's the judicial function and it should be known to the minister. So we're dealing with people who have to show to a court that the possibility of holding together that old family life has long disappeared.

Of course, 90 per cent of the people whom the VCLAS was helping were mothers and wives who had long been deserted by their husbands, usually without support. If they had sufficient support, I suppose they'd be able to pay for their own divorce. You're not helping to prevent breakups of marriages by denying the relief to those marriages that have already broken up, so that these mothers and wives can re-establish a home of their own - a shelter and a father for their children. That's what VCLAS is doing. If the minister took the attitude that he expressed - that this was a dangerous thing in encouraging breakups - I say these were long broken-up homes. He should applaud the efforts of VCLAS to give them some assistance so that they could remarry, re-establish a home, find another father, and become regular citizens in the community, with a proper family life. That's what this kind of assistance was doing, and when the minister attacks it, he doesn't know his job.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Firstly, again with respect to the homemakers programme, we cannot

[ Page 1887 ]

tell the Greater Vancouver Area Homemakers Association what wages they can or must or should pay, because that would be contrary to the labour regulations as they presently exist. These are not our employees. The hon. member, from past experience, should know this and the question should not even arise on the floor of the House. I can't understand it. However, that's No. 1.

Secondly, I can appreciate that Mrs. Cox feels a little concerned because we have expressed ...

MR. MACDONALD: She says: "Write to you, "

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: . . . our dissatisfaction with the cost of the programme on several occasions. Ironically, however, Mrs. Cox was the one who originally made representation to us to seek the changes that have now been introduced. The change is not, as the member stated, a means test. The means test was always there. It's a means test, and basically it means this: you take $275 for basic support; you add to that the shelter cost experienced by the couple or the individual; to that, you add special needs, whatever these may be - medical, dental or otherwise. Then when you add that all together, if there's still money left ...

AN HON. MEMBER: You scoop it up.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: ... they contribute towards the homemakers service. When you speak of someone getting eight hours of homemakers service a week, that's costing a great deal more than $134, unfortunately. Therefore it's a contribution.

MR. MACDONALD: Eight hours at $3.50. Why should it?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's No. 1.

No. 2: 1 agree that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is the only person who can provide the police with powers. That's certainly how it is, that's how it's to be and I don't argue with that at all

AN HON. MEMBER: You did argue with it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think those were the only questions you posed, and I guess they've been answered now.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I would certainly like to bring to the minister's attention the letter that he sent around - serial letter 496-401, dated December 16,1976 - notifying the homemakers service that as of April 1,1977, everyone going on homemakers service has to be needs tested. You call it needs-tested. It's the same as a means test. I've got the form, too - both on blue and both on one.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It is not.

MS. BROWN: Here is a couple - a man and a woman - getting Mincome and old-age pension combined, for a total of $573.10. That's their combined income. One of the members has diabetes. They're both senior citizens. One member of the couple has diabetes and has a special diet allowance. There's also a special transportation allowance because the other member has a slight disability. But out of $573.10, Mr. Chairman, this couple used to pay, as the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) said, $10 a month for homemakers service - for someone to come in twice a week for four hours and do the heavy housework, because the doctor's instructions were that neither of them was to do heavy housework.

The Vancouver homemakers received this serial letter 496-401, telling them that this couple should no longer be eligible for homemakers service at the subsidized rate. That's what it was. The department was subsidizing the homemaker. There's nothing mysterious about that. That's what the department was doing.

As of April 1, the subsidy is going to be cut off and these people are going to be charged $184.50 a month. They're going to be allowed to deduct the $50 a month which covers their special diet and transportation allowances, so that $136 a month is left. Thirty-five per cent of their combined income of $573.10 is going to go to pay the homemaker for eight hours a week - twice a week the person used to come in.

This has happened because the Department of Human Resources had made a change in policy. This hasn't happened because the Greater Vancouver Area Homemakers Association has suddenly decided to up its rates. Those were always the rates. The department used to subsidize people whose income didn't make it possible for them to pay the full rates. I think it really is hypocritical for the minister to be trying to blame the Vancouver homemakers association when it's his responsibility. His department changed the rules and said that these people were no longer eligible for the homemaker subsidy. They would no longer be eligible after April 1, despite the fact that we have two elderly people, both with some kind of handicap, trying to live on $573.10 a month.

Now the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) said that no elderly person in this province should have to pay more than 30 per cent of their income for rent, for accommodation, for shelter, yet we find that the Minister of Human Resources is quite happy to have an elderly couple pay up to 35 per cent of their income on homemaker services. Now what is the alternative? The alternative is that these two people are going to have to go into either

[ Page 1888 ]

extended or intermediate care because they cannot stay home and do the housework themselves. There is a letter from their doctor saying that they cannot do the heavy cleaning themselves. What is going to happen when they go into hospital? What is it going to cost the Department of Health? This decision of the Department of Human Resources - what is it going to cost the Department of Health?

MR. LEVI: Thirty bucks a day.

MS. BROWN: The Department of Health, Mr. Chairman, is going to have to subsidize this couple when they're in hospital. This is the kind of short-sighted decision made by the Department of Human Resources to show what a great management person we have running that department, saving money, which ends up actually costing the taxpayers of the province more. All we have is a paper shuffle, as the member for Vancouver Centre said yesterday. He's shifting the burden from his department to the Department of Health.

But he's doing more than that. For a man who stands up in this House and assures us of his great love for the family, he is going to be forcing an elderly couple in their twilight years to split up. They're going to have to go to hospital What is that decision doing to that family? What about this great concern for the family that we're being told about?

MR. LEA: As long as they don't get a divorce,

MS. BROWN: As long as they don't get a divorce. Well, this is worse than getting a divorce, as he said yesterday, forcing them to leave their home with their little bit of garden and their pet. This was his dream for everyone in the province - all senior citizens should be in their homes with their little garden and their pet. Do you care that this particular couple, as a result of your serial letter No. 496-401, is going to be forced to give up their home, their little bit of garden and their pet, because of a short-sighted decision to cut off their subsidy for a homemaker who used to go in twice a week and do the heavy work and make it possible for this family to stay together?

The other point I wanted to raise, Mr. Chairman, also has to do with that member's statement about his great love for the family. It was his great love for the family, of course, which forced him to cut off the funding for the Conference On the Family - $60,000 was all that conference was asking for. It was to sponsor a conference which, as he himself has said on more occasions, has done great work, magnificent work, in terms of keeping the family together and exploring ways and means of supporting the family. What does he mean? Either he supports the family or he doesn't. When for $60,000 a conference could have been sponsored that makes very positive - by the minister's own words - contributions to the quality of the life of the family in this province, he terminates their funding so that once again he can stand up in this House and brag about what a great administrator he is.

MR. LEA: At least they can't get divorced now.

MS. BROWN: No, they can't get divorced - not on his $60,000 anyway. He piles it all up in his department over there, and he says: "Look what a good boy am I - $110 million saved!"

The minister says that he is concerned about the breakup of the family. I wonder if the minister is concerned about some of the reasons for the breakup of the family. Mr. Chairman, do you think the minister is concerned about some of the reasons for the breakup of the family?

I want to talk about one of the reasons. I want to talk about violence in the family and about one of the reasons why a couple decides to separate. There are all kinds of reasons leading to violence in the family but once it exists - once it is there and the decision has been made to separate - what is this department doing? Let me tell you what the department is doing.

A directive was sent out by the regional director for Victoria pertaining to women who, as the result of being beaten over and over and over again, have decided to leave their husbands. The directive requires that prior to a woman being given welfare assistance, a community worker from the area had to go and interview the husband. The bruises weren't evidence enough. The black eyes weren't evidence enough. A community worker has to go in and interview the husband before she gets any welfare whatsoever or any assistance for herself and the kids.

Two things happen when the community worker goes in. First of all, the community worker has to identify the area from which he or she will be coming. This woman has been running and hiding for her life from this man who has been battering here, and now her husband finds out where she is living. That's great, isn't it, Mr. Chairman? That's really good stuff. As a result of this minister's great love for the family and marvelous desire to keep the family together, this directive now means that that husband can immediately locate that frightened, seared and battered woman and her children who have been hiding from him. That's the first thing.

The second thing that happens is that the husband says: "I want her back. I need her. My family is important to me." So the community worker says: "He wants you back. You are not eligible for any welfare assistance." And she says: "But he beats me. Here are the bruises; here is the black eye. The kids are scared of him. I am frightened of him. I don't

[ Page 1889 ]

want to go back to him. I want to start a life of my own with my children, and in order to do that I need some kind of financial assistance from the Department of Human Resources."

"Sorry, " says the community worker. "As long as your husband is willing to have you back, you are not eligible for any assistance from the Department of Human Resources."

So back she goes into the home, and the whole vicious cycle of violence in the family starts over again. Do you know how that ends? Do you know how it ended in the case, Mr. Chairman, of Jamila Dean? Her husband finally killed her. That's how that ended. Then she didn't need any assistance from the Department of Human Resources any more.

MR. LEVI: The children did.

MS. BROWN: The children did. In more ways than one, the children do. But that's the result of this kind of policy from a minister who tells us that he is concerned about the family. There's a difference, of course, Mr. Chairman, between being concerned about the family and being concerned about the members of the family. There is a very great difference, isn't there?

One of the things that we know, Mr. Chairman, is that when there is violence in the family, that is probably as good a time as any for the family members to separate. The statistics tell us that 30 per cent to 40 per cent of all homicides - or murders, to translate - committed in North America happen in the family between husband and wife, between mother and child, between father and child and between child and child. Violence in the family, Mr. Chairman, is a really serious state of affairs.

That minister, Mr. Chairman, castigates a community legal service that helps poor people - not rich people, because rich people can go out and hire a Philadelphia lawyer to protect them. The poor people, who are unable to do that and go to the Community Legal Assistance Society (VCLAS) for that kind of assistance, are told: "I am concerned about the family. I will not tolerate your separating, no matter what. You will not be funded to continue your service to poor people." If it happens that it ends, as in the case of Terrace, where we have the tragedy of child beating, or as it happened in this case in Richmond where that woman was found beaten to death, it's all because of the minister's great concern for the family.

The other really horrendous statistic, of course, is that one-fifth of all policemen killed on the job are killed as a result of intervening in a family dispute. That's how serious it is.

Let me tell you something else about the minister's decisions concerning this. Other people became aware of the seriousness of violence in the family. The first people who became aware of this, of course, were the women who were being beaten. It was drawn to their attention first, and out of this awareness developed an alternative resource to the Ministry of Human Resources. Women came together and established something called "transition houses."

Now a transition house is a place of refuge. It's somewhere where a woman can grab her kids in the middle of the night and run to - for her life. But as happens with most Alternative services, and certainly those pertaining to women, they have no money, so they go to the Ministry of Human Resources and request funding.

As a result of the previous minister's decision a number of transition houses were begun in the province. The first one was in Vancouver. Then Victoria decided to have a transition house. Langley, Kamloops and Prince George became interested. North Vancouver tried, and they got turned down; Vernon tried, but they got turned down. In Port Coquitlam apparently their MLA really went for it at for them and they're going to be okay, I think. I think Port Coquitlam is going to be okay. Richmond is now exploring it.

But the point is, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Human Resources has been very reluctant to work out any kind of funding. I'm not talking about the per diem, Mr. Chairman; I'm talking about start-up funding. The problem having been recognized, the need - because it is a needs-test minister we're dealing with, Mr. Chairman - having been identified, the ministry has still refused to go into the business of start-up funding for these transition houses.

Every major city in this province needs transition houses. It's no longer an alternative; in many instances it is the only alternative.

Vancouver Community Services did a study - this entire book is about wife-battering - on the needs of women who were the victims of violence in the family, and they asked these women what their priority was. Their No. 1 priority, Mr. Chairman, was shelter. Before anything else they wanted a place to which they could run and hide, not a place where the community worker comes and says, "I'm going to interview your husband, " and then tells the husband where the wife is hiding. They wanted a place where they could be secure. That was their No. I priority.

Then No. 2: they said they would be interested in counselling. This, of course, is where the minister's great concern comes in. Then No. 3 was finance. But their No. I concern in every single case was shelter.

What would a minister, Mr. Chairman, who was genuinely concerned about the family do? What would a department that was genuinely concerned about human beings do? The establishment of transition houses on a 24-hour-a-day crisis basis would become a priority with that department, especially when we take into account that most of

[ Page 1890 ]

the people who use that department - most of the people who that department has to service - are women. It's not 50-50. The Ministry of Human Resources doesn't serve 50-50. When you talk about need you're talking predominantly about the female of the species. Not that department, Mr. Chairman -nobody knows for sure at this point where their funding is.

Vancouver Transition House has been very fortunate because its funding comes through the resources board. Lo and behold, yesterday a bomb was dropped on the floor of this Legislature. The Vancouver Resources Board is about to die.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Then stand up and deny it.

MS. BROWN: Stand up and deny. I would like the minister to stand up and assure us that the Vancouver Resources Board is not about to die, because in fact the minister, by his very own words, issued a threat to the Vancouver Resources Board that if they didn't cut out funding all those little fringe services like transition houses, he was going to have to terminate them.

Vancouver Transition House, the first one and really the key, the apex from where all the others radiated, is going to go under. You wouldn't believe the dance of the dialectic, Mr. Chairman, that transition houses have to go through to get funding. Some of the transition houses, like Ishtar in Langley, right near your riding, Mr. Chairman, are actually funded as an extended-care unit. It gets its funding from Health. Yes, it comes under hospital funding as an extended-care unit.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Oh, listen. The Victoria Transition House has had so many.... What is the word when they come and study it to see if you are doing things right? What is the word?

AN HON. MEMBER: Fraud evaluation.

MS. BROWN: It's not for fraud. There is another....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No, it's not auditing. It's a quality test - that's it. It has been quality-tested so many times that they have worked out a really unique way of dealing with this crisis. When a woman gets beaten in the middle of the night and she wants somewhere to go, she can't go to Transition House in Victoria. First of all, she has to go to a hotel, I think. Is it a hotel, Mr. Chairman, that she is put up at?

MR. LEVI: A motel, but not the Empress.

MS. BROWN: A motel? Okay.

I'm going to give the department due. They fund the Victoria Transition House. There's no question about it. It comes under adult care. But what that means is that you don't just walk in there and say: "Here I am with my children. I have been beaten and I am running for my life." You have to be checked out very carefully first to see that you meet all the requirements on the blue form and the white form and the pink form and the yellow form and all those forms all the way down the line.

MR. LEA: To make sure you're not lying.

MS. BROWN: Right. And we have to check everything out because you could beat up yourself. (Laughter.) Oh, yes.

MR. LEA: Just to get a free room.

MS. BROWN: Yes. The husband has to be checked out and asked: "Now are you sure you're responsible for this bruise and this bruise and that bruise?" He identifies the whole thing and it is gone through very carefully. Then they get into the Victoria Transition House, but not before then.

MR. LEA: If they have lots of bruises they go to the Empress; a few bruises and they go to a motel.

MS. BROWN: Right. But this is really a very serious matter.

Kamloops is guaranteed; they have their seven beds on a monthly per diem. We talk about the number of cases that appear before transition houses and we look at the number of beds that this government is prepared to finance - 12 in Vancouver, 17 in Kamloops.

MR. LEVI: An NDP riding.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair. ]

MS. BROWN: Vancouver Transition House last year dealt with 678 women, and they are funded for 12 beds. Kamloops dealt with 800 women and they are allowed 17 beds. The restrictions and the begging and the pleading that one has to go through from a minister who assures us about his concern for the family!

Yesterday the minister said that he didn't answer any questions because what he heard were observations. So I am putting my questions to him. First of all, is the minister prepared to change the eligibility requirements for the homemakers services so that all senior citizens who are presently in receipt

[ Page 1891 ]

of that service will continue to get that subsidy? In other words, is he prepared to withdraw this serial letter 496-401? Mr. Chairman, is the minister listening?'

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, hon. member. I'm sure he's listening.

MS. BROWN: You're sure he's listening.

The homemakers service is really crucial in terms of the family of the senior citizen. I am appealing now for the family of the senior citizen to the minister who has expressed great concern for the family. I am also appealing to the minister on behalf of those families who cannot stay together as a result of the violence which exists in them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you have three minutes left of your time.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to be speaking very quickly.

Transition houses: I want the Department of Human Resources to make itself responsible, Mr. Chairman, for seeing that every locality in this province that demonstrates and identifies a need for a transition house will have the seed money, the funding to get it started, and for seeing that it's operated on a 24-hour-a-day crisis basis. That's my second request.

The third issue, Mr. Chairman, that I raised was that of the Vancouver Resources Board. Now the minister laughs when I say that the Vancouver Resources Board is about to die. -I would like him to stand up and state very clearly that the Vancouver Resources Board is going to be permitted to continue the very excellent work which it's doing. Those are my three points, Mr. Chairman, and I would appreciate the minister dealing with them.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the items mentioned by the hon. member, first she made reference to the Conference on the Family and the fact that they've requested, according to her, $60,000 worth of funding for a conference. That is not so. They have not requested $60,000 for another conference. As a matter of fact, the last thing I think we should be considering now is another conference.

Instead we need action. I have expressed that to members of the committee and we're meeting with them this coming week. I have suggested to them, too, that we perhaps might consider a joint effort -not only joint in the approach taken and the concerns expressed, but joint in the funding.

MR. GIBSON: As long as it doesn't cost anything.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There will be a meeting. The hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) says: "As long as it doesn't cost anything." Yes, I am concerned about cost, and I think perhaps he's been in Ottawa too often where they don't seem to have much concern about this. I don't intend to take that attitude.

The other item was transition houses. We have, in fact, expressed a concern to the people who have made presentations to us and we have said that we would encourage the establishment of transition houses. We have funded them in the last year, as the other government did in the year before that, and we have further stated that we would fund them throughout the province on a per them basis, and that has been acceptable to those who are still operating within the system. I think it's an accountable approach, which I prefer, and which appears to be working.

The hon. member said there were 800 women in Kamloops requiring service because they had been abused. I would like to see where she receives her statistics, but I would imagine her statistics for that don't vary too much from some of the other statistics she's been quoting. I can appreciate why many of the people are confused because of some of the statements that have been coming from some of these members.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to two questions raised by the minister, since it sounds as though these are my estimates rather than his.

The first one has to do with my statistics. The Coalition for Transition Houses, Mr. Chairman, sent around a questionnaire to all of the transition houses, which were asked to fill them out and send the information back. That's where I got figures of 800 for Kamloops, 1,080 for Prince George, 678 for Vancouver, 122 for Langley - Ishtar, it's called -and for Victoria, 180. So that's where I got my figures - from questionnaires which were circulated by the Coalition for Transition Houses and which were filled out by the transition houses.

The minister has missed the point. What I'm asking the minister to do is not just per them the ones that are already in existence, but to do what he says he wants to do. Let's have some action, Mr. Minister. As you say, you are ready for action. Let's have some action. Start seed-moneying - putting seed money into the starting up of the transition houses. Okay, so we now have five or six in existence. In a province of this size, we need a lot more. We know that the violence in the family is on the increase. The need has been demonstrated. There's no longer the need for a pilot project or a study. The department should be moving into other municipalities, into other towns, into other areas, and there starting from scratch. You shouldn't have the women in Vernon fighting with

[ Page 1892 ]

the Department of Human Resources for funding. You shouldn't have Coquitlam having to nag that poor little member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) to get funding for their services.

Mr. Chairman, the Department of Human Resources should itself take the responsibility for starting these things now that the need has already been demonstrated. That serial letter that was sent out, that directive by the regional director for Victoria about women applying for welfare, saying, "first of all, I have to interview your husband and find out if he wants you back before you're eligible for welfare, " should be withdrawn. That letter must be withdrawn, Mr. Chairman. That is a dangerous letter. It's destructive and I would like to hear the minister make some response to that.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): I'm not sure if the minister is....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the hon. member for Comox. Proceed, please.

MS. SANFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm always interested in matching the words of this minister with what actually happens within that department and what happens to people in the end after he introduces a programme or after he initiates some project. You know, he tells us one day that we're going to have the best programme for the handicapped imaginable. I don't think he used the word "imaginable, " but that's the impression he gave, Mr. Chairman.

Lo and behold, we see that the handicapped are going to be done in again. We remember the minister when he introduced the GAIN legislation and said what a great step forward this was going to be for the people of the province. What do we see instead? A 28 per cent loss of income for people under that GAIN programme is what it means.

Now we hear the minister talking about action as far as the Conference on the Family is concerned. He wants to get things going. But what did he do? He discontinued the funding for the excellent work that was being done by the Conference on the Family.

I would just like to read a letter which went to the Premier and which was signed by all of the delegates from the B.C. Conference on the Family. This is dated November 4,1976, and I'm going to read just one paragraph:

"Never in the history of this province has the'ie been such an effective outreach programme for citizens concerned with the family. A network of relationships has already been established, encompassing all local areas of the province. The provincial council on the family will ensure the continuance of a momentum already gained and offer lasting benefits to the families of British Columbia."

Now he cut their funding, yet at the same time he talks about how concerned he is about the family. Now he's talking about action again! But all of the momentum that was started and all of the excellent work that was begun under this Conference on the Family has now been washed down the drain.

Mr. Chairman, the people who were directly involved in working on this Conference on the Family are feeling very disillusioned. They saw the potential and they saw that the work that they were doing was accomplishing something. It's going to take a lot of people a long time to forgive the minister for his actions, and they are now listening very carefully to the words of the minister whenever he speaks. When he says something, they now begin to suspect it means something entirely different.

One of the things that the minister said yesterday, Mr. Chairman and I'm quoting from the Blues, was:

I'm sure those who have researched for today's sitting will have found that not only are the number of people requiring income assistance today down considerably from what they have been in previous years, but that the reduction is most notable in the area of single employables.

The number of single people on welfare is down, he says, and this is most notable among the single employable people.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I was thinking about that yesterday and I discussed it with some of my colleagues. We wondered, in view of the fact that there were 112,000 unemployed last month in this province, what was happening to all of those young people - the single employables. They're not on the welfare rolls, the minister tells us. There has been a reduction there. So what was happening to them? It wasn't until the figures concerning unemployment in this province were released today that we actually saw a reduction in unemployment, Mr. Chairman. But it's more significant than that that we saw a reduction of 10,000 people on the work force. Now we know what has been happening to those single employable people - they are leaving the province in droves.

It's also interesting to note, Mr. Chairman, that at the same time the work force in Alberta increased by some 11,000. Even in my own constituency, I know of five young people who have moved into Calgary, who are sharing an apartment and who are trying to find work in the Calgary area. That's what's happening to them. Now we are beginning to understand why they are not appearing on these welfare rolls. The single employable young people are deserting the province - they're fleeing, looking for work.

This one figure, Mr. Chairman, of a 10,000 decrease in the work force in this province, is the single best indicator of the economic performance of the province and it shows that we are in deep trouble.

[ Page 1893 ]

No wonder the young people are leaving.

We are waiting for replies from the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) about businesses relocating.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we're dealing with the Ministry of Human Resources, vote 184, not the Minister of Economic Development. Please proceed.

MS. SANFORD: Right. I certainly am, and I'm dealing with all of those young people who are having to leave this province. The minister is bragging that they're not on the welfare rolls, but now we're beginning to understand what's happening to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're shovelling them into Alberta.

MS. SANFORD: We're shovelling them into Alberta.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Do they publish the two lists - the Alberta rates and the B.C. rates?

MS. SANFORD: Well, I was able to determine that all these young people who are not on the rolls of the Minister of Human Resources' department anymore are instead likely to be in Alberta with an 11,000 increase in the work force in Alberta alone. Oh, they've probably gone to Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Stan Purdy of the Canada Manpower in Victoria has advised them not to stay here. He doesn't want to see them on the welfare rolls.

I assume that a lot of those young people have accepted his advice moved on to Alberta or Saskatchewan or Manitoba. These are our children who are moving on.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Not likely, says the minister.

MR. NICOLSON: You want to bet?

MS. SANFORD: What should be happening is that the people on Mincome - and this GAIN programme, as he calls it - should have that 28 per cent which has been taken away from them returned to them. The handicapped should get the full amount that's available to them, because then they will spend the money in this province. That will create a better economic situation and in turn create more work, so that our young people are not leaving this province in droves. Then the minister stands up and brags: "Oh, we're not getting them on the welfare rolls; they're all leaving."

We've discovered that now. They're fleeing ...

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): You discovered it.

MS. SANFORD: . just as businesses are. Either that or they're going bankrupt. That again is creating more unemployment and people are fleeing the province.

I would like to compliment the first member for Burrard (Ms. Brown) on her very lucid explanation as to the need for transition houses in this province. I would like to ask the minister this afternoon whether or not the Campbell River women who have done an excellent job in terms of outlining and detailing the need for a transition house to be located in Campbell River will in fact get funding this year. They've put in their proposal; they are awaiting an answer. I hope that I will be able to leave this chamber and let them know that yes, the very carefully documented need that they have shown will in fact be met by this Minister of Human Resources.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I think the theme that we should be trying to develop in all these different subjects is prevention. I'd like to make a comment on the minister's statement back in October last year which left the clear impression in the province that a great many, if not all, of the elderly citizens in our nursing homes were heavily over-sedated and given drugs just to keep them quiet. That was one of the phrases which appeared in a press report.

I think that was a most unfortunate statement, Mr. Chairman. But like most of the minister's statements, it had an element of truth to it. There are cases where sedation is overused in the treatment of elderly people. But once again, the overall statement gave the impression that this was a widespread abuse and that if it were brought under control there would, "as usual, " in the minister's words, "be savings of millions of dollars."

I would just like to inform the House, Mr. Chairman, that we're looking at the problem from the wrong end when we simply try to control the use of medication in nursing homes. The real problem is low wages, under trained staff, old facilities and rising costs that are not being met by payments for social assistance patients. The result is the sometimes inadequate management of the patient simply because of these very difficult circumstances under which the staff are working in nursing homes.

It's all very easy for the minister, and perhaps myself on past occasions, to have criticized nursing homes, but the problem lies not per se in the nursing home itself, but in the circumstances surrounding the way in which that institution has to function. One of the reasons it has to function that way is that this government is taking no action to provide the kind

[ Page 1894 ]

of care and facilities that in any way compare with other levels of care in other hospitals in this province. To turn around and castigate those people who are trying to provide a desperately needed....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. There is unusually loud chatter in the House. The hon. member for Oak Bay has the floor.

MR. WALLACE: I wish to stress, Mr. Chairman, that while there may be some abuse of medications on our elderly citizens in the nursing homes, if it happens, and the degree to which it happens, is related to the fact that this government, and the preceding government, and the government before that, have been abysmally negligent in tackling the real problem, which is to provide top-quality care and adequate and modern facilities, and not have these other old facilities understaffed and the staff underpaid, completely unable to give good care, and then turn around and blame them because some elderly citizens are receiving too much medication. That is the grossest travesty of justice in castigating these people. The challenge to this government - and to the last two governments - is to deal with the problem at first hand, to see what the need is, and to provide the facilities and the trained staff and treat these elderly citizens exactly the same as any citizen who has to be in any other kind of hospital in this province.

We've got two classes of patients in British Columbia. We've got the ones who are lucky enough - if I can use the word - to be in an acute hospital, and we've got the ones who are unlucky enough to be in nursing homes. When they get substandard care, who do you blame? You blame the people who are trying to provide the care under the most difficult of circumstances. It's completely unfair. Not only is it unfair because we're not attacking the reason, it's unfair because many of these nursing homes are providing a very excellent and first-class standard of supervision as far as medications are concerned.

I wonder if the minister has heard of the unit-dosage system, which is the programme that he was talking about. I think the minister even claims to have instituted it. If you'll do some inquiring, Mr. Minister, you'll find this has been in use in some areas for about five years. I checked it out today. Surrey, the area you live in, has been using this for five years. So let's not add insult to injury by suggesting that the minister has discovered some very efficient and safe way of administering drugs in the nursing home. The unit-dosage system is being used in the greater Victoria area, and has been for at least two years. I'm sure it will please the minister that my research - and he's always asking the opposition members about their research - as recently as today, shows that the druggists who are using this system to provide medications to nursing homes tell me that they are prescribing fewer individual prescriptions because they can provide a larger number at the same time. It's also saving money, which I'm sure would make the minister extremely happy.

I just feel that it's only right that this whole argument or issue of medications for the elderly citizens in nursing homes be put in context. I think many of the people working very hard to provide care in nursing homes under difficult circumstances have been made to look as though they are completely indifferent to the real plight of their patients. In point of fact, the people who are indifferent are sitting over there in that government, just the same as the two governments before them.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: That's right. You guys didn't do any better than these guys - a plague on both your houses!

MR. NICOLSON: You'd better get out of Victoria and go and look in Kimberley.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member for Oak Bay has the floor.

MR, WALLACE: They're very provocative today - both sides, Mr. Chairman. It's very difficult for a lonely little soul like me.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): This is an attack on lonely little souls.

MR, WALLACE: One of the other interesting elements in this argument - and I'll be non-partisan for a moment, which is fatal for a politician - is one of the comments that appeared in the press. It said that 10 per cent of the patients are using 3 3 per cent of Pharmacare medications, and that 10 per cent of patients are the ones in the nursing homes. I can't imagine how anyone would be puzzled at that statistic. Why are they in the nursing homes in the first place? Because they've got all kinds of disabilities that need medications. Of course the people in the nursing homes are bound to use far more medication than the people outside. The ones outside who are over 65 are just too happy to be independent or semi independent. Nobody but nobody goes into a nursing home until that is the very last choice they face. Anybody who works with elderly citizens will know that the kind of pathetic comment an older citizen will make, time and time again, particularly to their relatives and the family doctor, is the plaintive plea: "I hope to God I never finish up in a nursing home." When you get that cry

[ Page 1895 ]

from the heart of an elderly citizen, don't tell me that we've got people in nursing homes who could manage to live elsewhere with or without families or assistance. It stands to reason that the elderly citizens who have to end up in a nursing home have a much greater legitimate requirement for medications than all of these other citizens over 65.

1 researched some of these statistics. The statement was made that there are about 17,000 citizens over the age of 65 in nursing homes, and the average drug cost per year is $278. The average cost for patients who are over 65 outside of nursing homes - there's reputed to be 226,000 of them - is $48 a year. Apparently this causes some great concern to our administrators in the Department of Human Resources. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the answer is obvious: those patients in the nursing homes quite legitimately need a far wider range of medications than the ones who are lucky enough to be at home or elsewhere. That's just a completely misleading comparison.

On that same subject, could I ask the minister a specific question, since he likes to be asked clear, specific questions? When he was discussing medication in the nursing homes, he stated that a consultant would be appointed to oversee the administration of medications. I wonder if he could tell us who that consultant is. Could he tell us at what salary that consultant was appointed? Can he tell us the terms of reference? Was it one year, six months, or was it like Mr. Schmidt, a six-year appointment to be terminated by resolution of this House, or what? Last but by no means least on that subject, can he tell us what progress the consultant has to this date reported or what is the consultant doing specifically to bring about more efficient administration of medications at the much-desired goal of cheaper cost?

I think we should also recognize that medications of any kind for elderly citizens present a much greater problem for nurses and doctors alike for the very simple reason that the ageing process means that the effects of medication are much less predictable, much more variable. And, with many of the failing functions in the elderly citizen such as kidney and liver functions, there's a much greater possibility of complications.

So let's not turn around time and time again and castigate the nursing homes in British Columbia. They're attempting to provide a very legitimate and urgently needed service under very difficult circumstances. I might say that in talking to some of them lately, they've told me they would be very happy to have a visit from the minister because they feel that he's got a lot to learn. He might be a little less critical and a little better informed if he would visit the nursing homes before he speaks in public about them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: I would like to just touch briefly on the needs of the senior citizens that have been touched upon but not in any great detail, Mr. Chairman. I think it's time we made it plain that the elderly women in our society are the ones who, again, are perhaps suffering the greatest discrimination as far as service is concerned. The statistics show that the average wife lives seven years longer than her husband and spends the last years of her life alone in declining health with declining dollars. Although the figures would need to be updated for inflationary effects, Mr. Chairman, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women reported that of all women over 65, 74.4 per cent at that time received less than $ 1, 5 00 a year, and 90 per cent at that time received less than $3,000 a year. From that kind of statistic, it shows that there are an enormous number of elderly women living on very limited incomes. It raises again the question of their being unable to participate in the Canada Pension Plan.

My next specific question, Mr. Chairman, since the minister likes specific, clear questions, is: what action has he taken or is he taking with the federal government to hasten the day when housewives can participate in the Canada Pension Plan? I'm quoting from a census which is several years old, unfortunately, but which gives the proportions quite accurately. The 1971 census showed that there are 750,000 widows in Canada, and 55 per cent of them received the guaranteed income supplement. Over half of them were at a level of income that merited being given the GIS. The incredible thing, of course, Mr. Chairman, is that the GIS - the guaranteed income supplement - is not a right, it's a privilege. They have to go through this business of means-testing to qualify for that relatively small payment on top of the old-age pension.

I just wonder if the minister is actively engaged in at least trying this preventive approach from this year onward that housewives who will one day become senior citizens can at least start contributing to the Canada Pension Plan with the result that when they get to be over 65 there is something extra by right, not by privilege, that they've had an opportunity to contribute to. I raised this matter with the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and she mentioned that some discussions have taken place. Could I ask a specific question, Mr. Chairman? Where are we in discussions with the Ottawa government on this very specific and very crucial point if we mean to have any long-term planning for senior citizens?

I wasn't quite clear on the minister's comment earlier on about how he differs with me in regard to keeping elderly citizens in the home. I read an interesting article the other day from Alberta where they have a council on ageing. Incidentally, Mr.

[ Page 1896 ]

Chairman, I think it would be an excellent idea for British Columbia to have a council on ageing which would, on an ongoing basis, be very much aware of the problems of the elderly and try to put forward in an objective way recommendations to the government of the day as to how some of these measures could be implemented to minimize the need for institutionalized care, to minimize problems which, with earlier treatment or earlier assistance, might never happen.

I'm rather pleased to note that the people in Alberta seem to be very progressive in the kind of resource persons they enlist, Mr. Chairman, because the Alberta council on ageing called in Professor Williamson from the Department of Paediatrics at Edinburgh University.

Dr. Williamson is a professor of geriatrics at Edinburgh University. He, I gather, has caused some controversy in the job he was asked to do because he believes that there are many ways we should spend the money in trying to keep people in the home, whereas the Alberta programme, which was embarked upon quite a few years ago, has ended up by Alberta having the highest percentage of people in institutions of practically any industrialized country. Alberta would appear to have gone overboard in the other direction. The statistics show that at all levels of care, Mr. Chairman, they have a higher incidence of citizens in such institutions than anywhere else.

I think there has to be some middle-of-the-road concept here. I realize that if you followed the idea of keeping the citizens in their homes to the ultimate, you would finish up spending more money than you would on institutional care. There has to be some middle of the road. But the discussions we've had on the homemakers service today I think are crucial.

Regardless of the two sides of the House arguing about definitions and means tests and needs tests and all the semantics that go with that, I would like to ask the minister if, at least in principle, he is committed to the idea that we should attempt to provide help in the home - without getting into all the regulations and guidelines - and committed to the principle from a human point of view as well as a dollars point of view. With institutional care at $30, $40 or $50 a day, to give an elderly couple two hours, twice a week, of homemaking services surely makes a tremendous amount of sense. If we all had time I'm sure every member over here could stand up and quote examples that demonstrate that principle. Earlier on the minister made some statement about his view on this and I wonder if he would mind repeating it.

The other area I want to ask specific questions about.... This is, I think, vital, Mr. Chairman, because we've all talked in general terms but we haven't had any specifics, and the minister likes specifics.

AN HON. MEMBER: He just doesn't give any.

MR. WALLACE: I'm talking about money. The interim financial statement shows that his department, by the end of December, 1976, had spent $358.5 million. The estimate for the 12 months of the fiscal year ending March 31,1977, was to have been $589.6 million. Assuming that he does not anticipate any particular increase in spending in the fourth quarter, the arithmetic suggests underspending of about $111 million, according to the figures in the interim financial statement and in the estimates.

We have heard, Mr. Chairman, that much has been saved by employing the person who is capable of employment but who was presently on welfare. I wonder if the minister could give us a precise breakdown of the various votes within which the underspending of $111 million has been compiled. Now I am not suggesting that that $ 111 million figure is absolutely accurate. If you want to make it very easy with round figures, I am willing to talk in terms of $100 million underspending. But if you apply strict arithmetic to the figures available, you will find that there will be an underspending of approximately $111 million below the $589 million, which was the estimated figure that we were given at this time last year.

So could we have from the minister the breakdown as to which votes in his total jurisdiction the underspending has occurred. That's the first question. For example, the votes run from 184 to 194, and the key areas about which we are all concerned on this side of the House are the areas such as community grants, aids to the handicapped, various community programmes, income assistance programmes and so on. I would assume from what the minister has said in general terms that all the underspending has been pretty well in one area - the area of removing employable single persons from the welfare roll.

If I could ask a very specific question: what amount of money was budgeted in that area in the estimates we received - in the left-hand column of our estimate book? Out of the estimated figure, what has actually been spent? From listening to the opposition members' debate and from my own point of view, I don't feel we can intelligently or responsibly debate this minister's performance at all, Mr. Chairman, unless we have that breakdown. I don't think that talking about an underspending of $ 100 million, which is spread over a very wide area of community responsibility, in such a general way is what would serve the interests of the public very well. It certainly wouldn't help us to do our job very well as opposition members. So I think that's the next specific figure I'd like the minister to answer.

On the Conference Of the Family - and I think the word "conference" has been grossly

[ Page 1897 ]

misunderstood this afternoon; the initial project was to hold a conference - what we want to do from this point onwards is to ensure that all the voluntary people who turned up at the conference last November or October don't just disappear into their various communities, thinking they had a commitment, both on the part of the churches and this government, to put together an ongoing volunteer organization that would have enormous potential to do some of the preventive things which resolution after resolution at the conference stressed and which the minister himself acknowledged. He acknowledged that it's not much use trying to put more and more money up to solve marriage breakdown. It makes a great deal more sense to find what preventive ways we can to ensure that marriage is more successful; and even when marriages get into trouble, to provide personnel and assistance of various kinds to try and save the marriage. The overwhelming, repetitive theme which came from the Conference on the Family was that these 200 or more delegates were most conscious of the way in which they could act within their own communities provided there was some organized structure through which they could all function and provided there was at least some basic kind of funding and leadership from the government itself.

Now this could occupy a whole debate for a very long time, Mr. Chairman, but as the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) quoted: "There never has been such a concerted outreach programme by so many individuals." Surely their enthusiasm had to come from the point that the minister has mentioned many times - that the family in British Columbia and in Canada and in North America is in deep, deep trouble. Nobody disputes that there are more family breakdowns, more trouble with teenagers, more social problems of wife beating and child abuse and juvenile delinquency and so on. The place at which this is most likely to be tackled is at the start of the problems - within the family, from day I when a child is born into a family, from the circumstances under which that child is raised and the circumstances within which husband and wife respect or don't respect each other. I just think that the delegates to that conference constitute a very exciting potential of human resources, and that's the department we're talking about - human resources of a positive kind.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm in a hurry. I'll finish soon.

We talk so much about human resources in the negative sense - all the things that are going wrong with society. I'm trying to talk about some of the positive ways in which the people at the Conference on the Family can start doing preventive work within

British Columbia. While I've got much more to say about this, Mr. Chairman, I'll take my place since my time is up. I do hope the minister would answer these specific questions.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, first, with respect to the Conference on the Family: yes, I attended the conference in October, I believe it was, in Richmond. I addressed the conference then, and I suggested to those present that they provide the bodies and we'll provide the bucks, in keeping with the theme that I attempted to get across: involvement, volunteerism, people participating and being a part of.

Unfortunately, I must say, we've only had two proposals come forth. One was locally for TV ads which were certainly not in keeping with what I considered to be the type of project we wanted; the second was for an involvement programme from the lower mainland which is still being considered and which might be proceeded with.

I would very much like to see the churches take a far more active part in providing many of the services which government only is now involved with or which perhaps are being left undone or done not as well as they might be done. I've said this many a time. I've said it to various church groups, and I will continue to say it because I think we can go back some years and find that at one time all of the services were being provided by the churches. While perhaps that wasn't the best approach, certainly a combination might be ideal.

I'm hoping that our meeting this coming week with the people that are involved will be fruitful. Incidentally, I should mention also that on the family conference we never cut back on any of the commitments made with respect to funding. There was a commitment made and we certainly saw it through. I only received last Friday the recommendations from the conference. Certainly I think it's fair to say that the minister who is requested to recommend on where we should go from here or how we might participate should be entitled to view their recommendations before being asked to make a recommendation with respect to the future of the conference or the matters proposed through the conference.

The hon. member asked where the savings were, in what votes, and how much. Unfortunately, I can't give that information in detail because much is within the offices. For example, the child-care programmes are administered through the various regions. They have the budgets, and when the final figures are in certainly I can give it in detail. In the meantime, however the one vote that I can give a fairly accurate figure on is the income assistance vote, and the saving in that particular vote appears to be in the area of $54 million.

[ Page 1898 ]

The other question was with respect to nursing homes, private hospitals and the statement which I had made sometime last fall with regard to people being over-drugged or having too many drugs made available to them and suffering because of this. I think perhaps the hon. member, more than anyone, will be aware that there is a problem with illnesses resulting from over usage of drugs. It has been a problem, and it's a problem which is recognized by the doctors, by the medical association and by the pharmacists. Both of these associations have made various representations to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and myself expressing their concerns. In our review of the Pharmacare programme, this problem came up again and again and again from these very same associations - the fact that there was a tendency towards the use of too many drugs.

As a matter of fact, after we went into the monitored-drug system which we financed, and which we proceeded with following the recommendation of the director of the programme, we have found now from the experiments or from the programmes which are presently in place - and Mr. Frank Lowe, the consultant, is attempting to expand the programme into all of these facilities - that the drug usage, because of our switching to the monitored-dose system, will probably be reduced by 50 per cent in the institutions.

So it is a real concern in the institutions. It's one to which Mr. Lowe is addressing himself as our consultant, and I did have the figures here. Mr. Lowe has a $20,000 order-in-council contract. It's a consulting fee, and it's approximately one-third completed. I believe it's to last about eight months. The total study will last about eight months, and it's about one-third complete now.

But we are concerned about the over utilization of drugs in the institutions and the over utilization by people who are receiving benefits from the Pharmacare programme. It's been brought to our attention in a number of ways, particularly - and I'm very grateful for this - by the B.C. Medical Association and the B.C. Pharmacists Society. They have repeatedly brought back this point again and again,

But it's been brought to our attention by our social workers and I have these here. These are the drugs right there which were prescribed to one lady in a period of about three months. As a matter of fact, she had 1,200 pills prescribed to her in a period of six weeks. This lady died from an overdose of drugs and the social worker brought all of these pills into our office. As a matter of fact, the prescriptions are here and we have evidence of two and three prescriptions in the matter of a day or two days; three and four prescriptions in the matter of two days. This was, of course, a person who was receiving the benefits of the Pharmacare programme. Our programme perhaps, partly through our doing, allowed this sort of thing to occur, and it's unfortunate. I think it's a matter that we should all be concerned about.

But we're tackling it; we're attempting to get at it. We're attempting to resolve not only the over utilization of drugs in the institutions and in the nursing homes, but also over utilization by individuals who are receiving the benefits through the programmes that we have available to them. Programmes that are necessary, if properly in place and properly administered, can be of tremendous benefit to the people in need. But evidence like this is terribly upsetting.

MR. WALLACE: I have just a quick follow up on two of the points.

First of all, let me make it plain. I agree with the minister that at all levels of our society there's an over utilization of medications. Nobody needs to wonder about that. The non-prescription drug business is one of the most flourishing elements in our whole economy. People believe greatly these days, it would seem, in everything from Alka-Seltzer to Ex-Lax to dandruff treatment to whatever. There's no question that there's an ever-increasing tendency by all people in our modern society to depend on medications, and the minister has given us a dramatic example of one case. Again, I just say let's not take the extreme example, such as the one that the minister has just demonstrated, and leave any assumption that this is a widespread abuse. I think that it would be very unkind if we, in a well intended effort to cut down on medication overuse, were to penalize some of these elderly citizens in nursing homes who very much require pain killers and vitamins and medications and anti-biotics off and on because of recurrent infections. There are a whole lot of reasons that I could go into but I won't take the time of the House. So let's not go overboard, Mr. Chairman, and run the risk of saying that because some people take too many medications, we've got to have some overall drastic restriction. We have to keep some sense of balance in this whole area.

The other point I just want to comment on briefly. . . . I think I can set the record straight, Mr. Chairman. The minister stated that he had only received proposals from the Conference on the Family a few days ago. He may be referring to the final, finished, bound, complete copy. But I have to say with the greatest respect that the minister knows very well that he has had preliminary information -perhaps not in complete form like the nice blue-bound book that he got the other day. But some weeks ago, the minister knows that I attended at his office to discuss the matter of the Conference on the Family. That was several weeks ago, and within a day

[ Page 1899 ]

or two I arranged for the chairman of the conference, Canon Hilary Butler, to deliver an outline of the material involving the basic proposals to the minister's office. Now I know that was not the complete story of the conference or the complete outline of all the proposals, but it certainly embodied the basic idea that we should. have an ongoing council of some sort and that we should invoke - if that's the word - family month in the month of May. I'm pleased that the government has done that and I commend them for it.

But I think it is important to set the record straight that people such as Canon Butler, who has done a simply magnificent job as chairman of that conference, have gone overboard in trying to provide as much information as possible - within the limits of the staff, which is only one in number, I understand - and to provide a lot of the documented reports from a conference that lasted three days. I wouldn't want the impression to be left that somehow or other those organizing the conference did not attempt very shortly thereafter to provide the minister with very adequate detail on what was decided and what the members of the conference would like to see in the immediate future. I think it would be fair for the minister to acknowledge that because I know the churches are trying. I've had discussions unofficially with the churches and they acknowledge that there's nothing but common sense in a 50-50 or co-operative effort by the churches and the minister's department.

Perhaps, as he says, there was a day when the churches were looked upon to do all of this work, and perhaps times have changed to the extent that they're not doing enough. Surely we've never had a more golden opportunity to try and get together and see if we can't blend the voluntary element very much at the local level with government assistance from a centralized source of personnel and money.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I was impressed with the minister's rather dramatic revelation about the drugs, and this is about the only thing I'm going to agree with him on this afternoon. I don't agree with the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) . The people who write the prescriptions are doctors. Most of the attack in terms of the over-prescribing seems to have been levelled at the old people. Well, it's doctors who write prescriptions, and the only way we're going to get less prescriptions written is when doctors decide to write less prescriptions when there is no longer an acceptance that the only way to deal with old people in homes is to drug them. We've got to get away from that one, but I can't express too strongly that prescriptions relate to the power of doctors to write them.

The first step that we make in terms of this particular problem is that we've got to get them to write less prescriptions. That's important. I think there has to be that understanding. When the Pharmacare programme first came in and we met with the medical association they were worried about this, and we were worried about this. That's why there is a monitoring system where they can tell who is prescribing, the high prescribers, the high users, the high pharmacist charges - that's all there. I recall last summer I was completely surprised when the chairman of the medical association, Dr. Jory, came out and attacked the seniors for abusing the programme. Then we had the minister having a little bit of that as well. Well, it's not the seniors who abuse the programme. They ask for the prescriptions. There's got to be more responsibility taken in terms of the doctors since they're the people who write prescriptions.

I understand that the minister said yesterday he only wanted to deal with specific questions. He wants to deal with fact. Well, I'd like to deal with a couple of facts and see whether I can get the minister to pay attention long enough to indicate whether the things I'm going to say are the things that he actually said. Yesterday in his opening remarks he said, and I'll quote from Hansard, Mr, Chairman: "For the first time in several years we provided increases to the denturists, to the optometrists and to the pharmacists." Now what he was presumably saying by that is that for years all of the people who worked in these three areas were not getting any increases.

Now I don't know whether the minister has a particularly good memory or not, but last year I asked him a question particularly related to the pharmacists, and in the Journals of the House for 1976, question 36, it says that I did ask him a question. It was on May 13. 1 asked him, Mr. Chairman: "With reference to the prescriptions paid to pharmacists by the department: (1) what was the amount of fee paid in 1972,1973,1974,1975 and 1976?" The second part of the question was: "On what date in they years mentioned in No. I was the fee agreement made between the department and the pharmacists?"

Let's remember, I'm raising this because yesterday he said: "For the first time in several years we provided increases to the denturists, to the optometrists and to the pharmacists." His answer to the question was: "In 1972, the fee was 50 cents; in 1973, the fee was 50 cents; for a prescription in 1974, it was $2.20; in 1975, it was $2.55; and in 1976, it was $2.75." He made a little mistake. He's leaning back and he's laughing.

Okay. Now you might ask your deputy minister and your comptroller, who are sitting on either side of you: " When did we make the increase to the denturists?" There was an increase to the denturists in 1975 - a fairly substantial increase to the denturists. The optometrists we were still negotiating

[ Page 1900 ]

with, but agreements were made with the dentists and with the pharmacists. Settlements were made. Certainly the denturists were quite satisfied with the settlement we made. So it's important that if the minister is going to make statements in the House, he makes them factual.

Over the last few weeks he's been bombarded by questions relating to the issue raised by the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) in relation to the $22.50 and the $35. He indicated at that time, Mr. Chairman, that somehow the previous government was lax in not picking up all the sharing. What I want to say first is this: the difference between that government over there and the previous government is that they're completely wedded to the idea that the only programmes that can take place in this province are those that can be cost-shared. You've got to conform to an asset test - to the needs test, as the minister is fond of saying. Okay, that's one philosophy. That was the philosophy of the previous Social Credit government; it is now the philosophy of the existing Social Credit government. But it was not, Mr. Chairman, the philosophy of the previous government. It was not. We did not base our programmes on whether we could get cost-sharing or not. What we did was to introduce programmes and then go after Ottawa for the cost-sharing. We complied with one basic requirement on the part of the cost-sharing agreements.

We got our accounting in right at the beginning. We started to bill the same day as we introduced the programme, hoping to negotiate cost-sharing with Ottawa on a daily or a weekly basis. We did that with a day-care programme. It took us almost two years, but we got the cost-sharing. We introduced the special services for children programme, and we got cost-sharing. It is now a cost-shared programme. He shakes his head. The minister doesn't know whether it is or it isn't. Let me show you something.

I want to go now to the report that was tabled in this House last year by the present Minister of Human Resources, signed by him - Hon. William N. Vander Zalm, 1975. There's a section on page 24 which deals with other programmes. I just want to quote from it and comment on it.

"The Department of Human Resources is providing a wide range of needed services to children and families, to senior citizens and to the handicapped in the province. Government expenditures for the calendar year" - they make reference to a calendar expenditure -"were $460 million. The federal government contribution to the departmental costs came to 37 per cent of the total expenditure in 1975." It should be understood that under the Mincome programme, the only cost-sharing we were getting from the federal government at one point was 19 per cent. I'm not talking about 19 per cent of the old-age security or the guaranteed income; I'm talking about the third decking of pension - the Mincome. That's all we got - 19 per cent. But we were constantly negotiating with them for a bigger amount of the sharing.

"The federal government contribution to the departmental costs came to 37 per cent of the total expenditure in 1975. This is an increase of 4 per cent in the federal government's share as compared to 1974. Federal government sharing in the cost of social services is provided for in the Canada Assistance Plan, signed by nine provinces. Quebeckers have a different arrangement.

"Under the terms of the Canada Assistance Plan, provinces can recoup 50 per cent of the cost of expenditures on income maintenance and welfare benefits if the expenditures are in line with the regulations by both governments and are agreed to."

Okay, that's the principle. If you're going to introduce a plan and you want it cost-shared, then you have to conform with the standards of requirements that are set by the federal government. As I said, the philosophy of the previous government was to meet need first and then attempt to get the cost-sharing.

"The substantial increase in services offered by the Department of Human Resources in the last few years has meant that far more social-service dollars have been contributed to the province by the federal government. But the negotiations of federal agreements to cost-share new programmes has been a lengthy business and still continues."

Now I don't want that minister to come into this House, Mr. Chairman, and somehow advance himself as a shining knight in white armour and as the only individual who has ever done any negotiating with the federal government. I practically bought a third home in Ottawa, I was down there so often.

The important thing is that in terms of the taxpayer, of course, you negotiate the business of cost-shared programmes. Of course you try to get the maximum amount of money from Ottawa. But you also have to look at your own basic philosophy on how you're going to deal with people. If you're going to say that you can't introduce that programme because you can't get cost-sharing, you're never going to get any change at all.

The minister, in his estimates, indicates that he's going to cut over $2 million from the special services for children programme. Why? He's concerned about the family, he's concerned about children, and he's going to cut $2 million from that budget. That's a cost-shared programme. Right at the end of the annual report: " (3) Federal cost-sharing for special services for children was agreed to in 1975." It states

[ Page 1901 ]

it right there in the book, signed by the minister. Why is he cutting it? Because we've got no family problems? Why? He's cutting it. It's simple. It's just being cut.

I just want to carry on, Mr. Chairman.

"The substantial increase in services offered by the Department of Human Resources in the last few years has meant that far more social-service dollars have been coming to the province." You can look and see the amount of cost-sharing that has increased quite dramatically in terms of what's returned to the province.

"Some programmes have been offered on a universal basis, such as the Mincome guarantee to persons over the age of 60 regardless of assets, and are not eligible for sharing on a 50-50 basis."

We knew that. We were negotiating. The federal government did not share at all on the provincial Mincome payments to persons in receipt of old-age security. Pharmacare expenditures for persons over the age of 65 were also not shared by the federal government. But that was not a programme that we were not going to introduce simply because we couldn't get the cost-sharing. We attempted, at every meeting I attended, to see whether we could negotiate some kind of cost-sharing out of them.

"The increased federal contribution in 1975 is best explained by three factors." This is from the annual report last year. "Some agreements made with the federal government in 1975 on cost-sharing were allowed to apply retroactively to 1974." Of course it was, because we started billing in late 1973 with the hope that once we had reached some agreement with the federal government, they would go back and cost-share the programme almost from the beginning. That's the basis on which you negotiate. So it was achieved not, as the minister indicated, by the fact that somehow he came in and suddenly got cost-sharing. This is a business of constant negotiation.

The federal cost-sharing on Mincome payments was increased in 1975, and in 1976, as part of the continuing negotiation, the federal government agreed to increased sharing. The increase can be seen by comparing the agreements in 1974 and 1975. In the 1974 agreement Mincome payments to persons aged 60 to 64 and to handicapped persons were cost-shared on a 50-50 basis, up - for persons with asset levels no higher than $1,000 single and $1,500 married couple - to $160 for persons 60 to 64, and up to $200 for handicapped persons per month. In 1975 there was a change in the agreement: Mincome payments to persons age 60 to 64 and to handicapped persons are cost-shared on a 50-50 basis for persons with asset levels no higher than $1,500 for single and $2,500 for married couples, up to $160 for persons 60 to 64 and up to $215 for handicapped persons. At that time Mincome payments were $249.

At all times, the philosophy of the previous government was to meet need and to constantly negotiate for a greater part of the sharing. The great tragedy today, Mr. Chairman, that we have is that we have a government that is grossly underspending in many areas, and yet we still have a situation where they've gone against their promise: they have not indexed pensions for seniors, they've not indexed for the handicapped - in fact, they haven't indexed it according to one of their big programmes. That was what the Premier ran up and down this province saying. I've got to keep saying this because that's what they said they would do and they didn't do it.

So what I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that the whole business of dealing with Ottawa is an ongoing, difficult question. It's very ongoing, but there's an easy way out of it. I'm not a subscriber to the easy way out, which is the whole issue of taking tax points. I don't want to get into the financial area, but if we take tax points in terms of social programmes, that may be to our advantage in this province, but it's going to be a very bad scene for people in the Atlantic provinces. We used to discuss social programmes across Canada on the income security review that lasted over three years in this country. We would attend the meetings. We, as a government, advocated that what should really happen to the Canada Assistance Plan was that it should be continued but it needed to be rewritten and, as I understand, it probably is being rewritten. There should be a greater degree of sharing on a sliding scale, with provinces like B.C. and Alberta and Ontario at 50 per cent, but the other provinces at a higher level - 70 or 80 per cent, depending on the index of unemployment, how much social assistance they're paying - because that was part of the federalist approach that we took.

Now I just want to make one other observation in relation to the guaranteed annual income. We evidently have a split opinion on the other side about whether we should or should not have guaranteed annual income. In this country, as I said, we spent the better part of three years debating in essence whether we would go the guaranteed annual income route, and we went around. We were not convinced -certainly as a delegation - at any time that the federal government was really serious about this, and those talks went on for three years. The important thing is that sooner or later we're going to have to get around to the business of a guaranteed income because we're going to have to stop trying to pander to the nine different income security plans that exist in the country, including the business of old-age pension and family allowances, and the veterans' pensions, and unemployment insurance - all of these programmes. They are very costly to administer. But

[ Page 1902 ]

we're a long way from that.

There are some very serious political considerations for political parties in power. Who wants to interfere with a veteran's pension? It's almost like committing political suicide. But there's a reality about it, because in 1975, in all of Canada, we spent over $12 billion on income security programmes, and that, frankly, is enough for three guaranteed annual income programmes.

The minister indicated in his remarks that he was not really interested in guaranteed incomes. Well, I am interested in guaranteed income, but basically among the people we've got to interest in the federal government who are interested in guaranteed incomes we've somehow got to interest, at some stage, the Finance minister, because in the nine conferences that I attended in which we discussed guaranteed income - supplementation of income to the poor and to the handicapped - at no time was the Minister of Finance represented, although we did catch, at one meeting, Mr. Chairman, two observers who sat at the back. We were able to identify them, but there was no mandate from the Minister of Finance at that time. Consequently, one could not take those discussions very seriously.

Well, we all know what happened. Marc Lalonde, the minister, came along on a white horse, and unfortunately somebody shot his horse and this programme didn't get off the ground. It is important, and I would hope that that minister and his staff and his office are continuing to look at the needed kind of research that has to go into the preparation of position papers in respect to the question of the guaranteed income. It's an inevitability. It's down the road. It's as inevitable as housewives' pensions.

This province has been on record for three or four years that pensions for housewives are desirable. We submitted in 1973 the first proposal for such a pension - not a split pension. We weren't talking, as the federal government was talking, about a split pension. We gave them an indication, based on a research model, that it was possible to have housewives' pensions, not immediately, as it would take the funding up to 15 to 20 years, but it could be done. It would require, of course, a significant increase at the contribution level, but the contribution levels are going to be needed anyway because if we don't come to grips with the Canada Pension fund we're really going to be in trouble. We don't see the federal government moving yet on that question.

It's going to be a very serious problem by 1985 if we're not careful. They're going to be eating up most of the interest situation and they are going to get into a very difficult problem. This was pointed out to them not only by British Columbia in 1973 but also by Ontario and Quebec. But so far we have had no indication from the federal government that they are prepared to come to grips with the whole question of the contribution levels.

If they open up the Act again, in terms of contribution levels, I would hope that British Columbia would take a position vis-~-vis the housewives' pension. Once the Act is open there's an opportunity. There's information available in the department on the research. There are still, I am sure, remnants of the 700 position papers that were completed by the backup team that did the income security review. There is a great deal of information; it's purely a question of some kind of action.

Just before I sit down I would again like to see whether we can get some answers out of the minister. There are on the order paper 12 questions. I think it might be in order, Mr. Chairman, it I ask the minister - after all, he's here, and he's evidently not going to put them on the order paper - if perhaps he would like to answer the question with reference to the cost-sharing formula between the provincial government and the municipalities. You touched on the municipalities yesterday. You talked about the grand gesture that they made - and I applaud the moving towards the business of taking the cost of welfare off the municipalities. We did that in 1973 and 1974. Yes, you can shake your head. You were at the meetings in Victoria, in Chilliwack, in Kamloops and Vancouver. We did it to the tune of some $4 million, which was a saving to the taxpayers in Vancouver.

Will the minister tell us? Maybe he might indicate that he is going to write some questions down on the order paper. What was the total amount paid by the government in 1975-1976 and to date to the municipalities on the cost-sharing? It is my suggestion that we're going to find that the cost-sharing, in terms of the municipalities, is way up because he has the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) giving it with one hand and this guy taking it away with the other, Mr. Chairman. So give us the facts. I have the impression that the load on the municipalities is greater now than it was a year ago and certainly greater than it was two years ago.

So, Mr. Minister, come clean and tell us exactly what those figures are. Don't stand up in the House and tell us about the great gesture you made by taking up the 60 cents per capita, because that's all it was, 60 cents per capita, based on about $2 million. So you were leaving the municipalities with $1 million or $1.2 million. They're up to incredible costs, something probably in the order of $36 million to $38 million is the burden that they are sharing. But we have to have a look at it and we have no facts.

There's another question that we would like him to answer. With reference to the social assistance recipients, we would like to know how many people who were recipients in 1976 were placed in employment. I'm not talking about the PREP

[ Page 1903 ]

programme; he doesn't have any figures on the PREP programme. It should be recognized by all the taxpayers that between 23,000 and 27,000 people on an average go off welfare into employment every year in this province based on referrals to Manpower and the Job finders programmes that have been in position for some years. There is a continuing movement. The minister is indicating to the province all the time that we needed a PREP programme to move people off welfare. People were moving off welfare at a fairly rapid rate and have been doing so for a number of years in this province. Contrary to his belief, very few people opt to stay on welfare. I don't know of people who go from work to welfare as an option. I don't know many people who do that. So we would like to have answers on those questions.

Mr. Chairman, if you have any influence with the minister, perhaps you could get him to answer the rest of the questions that are on the order paper.

I have one final comment. It is extremely difficult in this House to debate that minister's estimates without an annual report. We took the trouble when we were government to design that report in such a way that there would be a report in this House by February or the beginning of March at the latest giving facts right up to December 31 of the previous calendar year.

It's important that you have that kind of report and we haven't got it. Last year the minister came rushing into the House with the report on the last day of the estimates. He's on record as tabling his report, but unfortunately it came on the last day. It's absolutely essential that if we're going to debate these estimates intelligently, especially for the rest of the members who aren't as involved as some of us are in this business, we have an annual report.

Now when are we going to get the annual report? That's a direct question to the minister. Take a pencil in your hand and write it down: Levi wants to know when you are going to table the annual report.

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The answer is yes!

MR. LEVI: The descendant of this report - when are you going to table it?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: When are you going to react? Yes or no,

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Burrard has the floor.

MR. LEVI: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Stand up!

MR. LEVI: If anybody has any doubts, I am standing up. (Laughter.)

All right then, perhaps we can go to some specific questions for the minister. One is: when is he going to table his annual report? Two: does he accept, because he's an hon. member of this House, that he wasn't the one who initiated the payments to the pharmacists -not even to the dentists? Because I practically lived with the dentists in this province in 1975 when they started to refuse service to the welfare recipients, as I recall.

The other thing is that we've had no indication from the minister about new programmes that directly affect people. Now we've heard about the fraud squad or the audit squad or, as my colleague for Burrard (Ms. Brown) says, the peepers and the lookers and the seekers. I can't remember all of the other very interesting adjectives that she used, but....

MR. BARRETT: Peeping Bill!

MR. LEVI: What else have you done?

AN HON. MEMBER: No divorces.

MR. LEVI: I don't want to go into all of the facts about the homemakers programme, other than this. . . ..

MR. BARRETT: Peeping Bill.

MR. LEVI: Peeping Bill. For instance, when he first set up his auditing team or his fraud hunters, and we had that spectacular cartoon in the paper, very quickly a number of the staff, including Mr. Buchanan who, I understand, was the head of that squad, resigned or were dismissed. I might indicate to the minister that when we meet tonight we are going to ask you a number of questions about some of these people who you hired, fired, dismissed or who resigned. Where did they go?

One of the things that interests us, for instance, is in relation to Mr. Buchanan. What qualifications did he have to do the job that you hired him for? I understand he was being paid $20,000 to be the head of the fraud squad - the fraud hunters.

MR. BARRETT: Maybe he's a crook!

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: I'm sorry, the departmental inspector, yes. So the important thing is, what kind of

[ Page 1904 ]

qualifications did they have? But I don't want to deal with that now; I want to deal with that tonight.

I'd like to deal just with the homemakers service, in terms of the homemaker programme, which in the space of three years.... We have no facts. But I do know that in December, 1975, the number of families receiving service under the homemakers programme was 31,000. Now there are 31,000 families. I understand that just over half of them were people who were seniors, couples and single people in their homes, and the other 45 or 46 per cent were families with children. They were used in that particular situation to maintain the family together - where the mother might have been in hospital or was sick or needed some kind of help. That was the situation in 1975.

There is an indication in the budget and in the budget for next year that that programme is going to be increased. Yet at the same time, the level of service appears to be decreasing in terms of the numbers. Again, we don't have any facts to go on. Even in the 1975 annual report we have no facts. So it's very difficult, Mr. Chairman, for us to assess whether in fact that programme is increasing its service base or decreasing its service base.

Now I don't know whether he's prepared to discuss the number of cases that are being served by the homemakers service today. How many families are being served? How many old people are being served? That's the kind of question to which we need an answer. Then we can relate it to the kind of expenditure. The minister was not able to tell us tonight, Mr. Chairman, just what portion of the savings that he has relates to particular programmes. We don't know, because of the underexpenditures, whether this is in the homemakers area. We have some idea that it relates to the day-care programme for children because day-care spaces are empty. There has been a removal of the subsidy programme, and consequently people are not sending their children to day care.

But what we don't know specifically is: is the homemakers budget underspent, and how many people are being served by that programme? Even the figures up to December, 1976, would be a satisfactory amount of information for us.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Very quickly, Mr., Chairman, firstly, I do not have the annual report available now. I'll try to get is as quickly as possible to the House. I believe it's almost in the printing stage, so it shouldn't be too long.

Secondly, I don't have the specifics on the rates with respect to the denturists or the optometrists.

Regarding the qualifications for Mr. Buchanan: I don't think I should give you those details now, and I don't believe you really asked for them. I can, however, assure you that Mr. Buchanan is the same gentleman who was hired in the Surrey office during the time that the member who just spoke was minister of that particular ministry.

Finally, yes, I'm very pleased with the homemakers programme. I hope, as I said earlier, that we might expand on this programme in a number of ways.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): You've cut it to shreds.

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

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The hon. member for New Westminster says: "You've cut it to shreds." Unfortunately, we get so much of this that is not backed by fact.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Let me give you the facts.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The 1975 estimate for the homemakers programme was $7.6 million. The 1976-77 estimate for the homemakers programme was $8.4 million.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): How much did you spend?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The estimate for 1977-78 is $12 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: How much did you spend?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's about the amount spent. I can't tell you what will be spent in this fiscal year but I can assure you that the programme will be expanded considerably.

MR. BARRETT: King Bill the Gentle.

MR. LEVI: The minister, in answering a question regarding Mr. Buchanan, indicated that Mr. Buchanan was the same Mr. Buchanan who was hired by the department of social welfare in Surrey. I wish to make it very clear to the House that that was an operation that was separate and distinct from the Department of Human Resources. That individual was hired by the then mayor of the municipality who is now the minister.

[ Page 1905 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEVI I don't want to leave the impression in this House that somehow I approved the hiring of Mr. Buchanan, because we didn't. He went out and he hired him. He's his boy, and you're the one who fired him when you hired him when you were minister.

Now what we want to know from him, Mr. Chairman, is: why did he fire him? It's not good enough for him to stand up in this House and say: "I don't want to give the details of his qualifications." He was being paid by public money and we have a right to know what his qualifications were. We also have a right to know why he was dismissed. Why was he dismissed? He worked for you for three years. He worked for the minister a hot four months and suddenly he was gone,

I have one other question to the minister regarding Mr. Buchanan before I sit down. Is Mr. Buchanan being employed by the minister's department as of today? Is he still employed? Was he rehired? Is he in receipt of a salary from the minister's department? That's what I want to know. Did you rehire him? Is he working for Surrey? Is he receiving any public money at this time?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The answer is no.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: I want to quote a member of this House saying the following words. This is from The Vancouver Province a couple of years ago: "I guess I'm a bit of an egotist and maybe I'm a little power hungry." The same author of these words said: ' I probably will eventually seek to replace Bill Bennett as head of the party. But until then, he's got my support."

AN HON. MEMBER: Until then!

AN. HON. MEMBER: Everyone has until then.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. members.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it certainly is in order.

MR. WALLACE: Bye bye, Bill!

interjections.

MR. BARRETT: I beg your pardon?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Not anymore.

MR. BARRETT: Not anymore. How do you know I was talking about you?

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Who's the author?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, will you address the Chair, please?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, how does he know I was talking about him? Are you sure it isn't the member for West Vancouver? It's not the member for West Vancouver.

"He says his challenge of the leader would stem from his ambition, not his dissatisfaction with Bennett's performance as party leader. He said that he would like to be a cabinet minister in Human Resources and after that would probably seek the leadership."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: That's what he said! That's kind of an amusing article. "He said he will not run for another term as mayor in the fall but instead run as a Social Credit candidate in the next provincial election."

Was he still a Liberal then?

"Vander Zalm had been a mayor six years and was an alderman for four years. He switched from the provincial Liberal Party to Social Credit last May. He failed in a bid for the Liberal leadership in May, 1972, then joined Social Credit.

"He agreed that his right-of-centre stand on welfare might cause some to be surprised that he would be interested in the Human Resources portfolio."

The question that some people are asking, after your statements about egotism and ambition and power, is if you're trying to ride to some right-wing populism on the backs of the poor. What we see here is the extension of a carefully planned political campaign.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: In a slip to the press he revealed what his master plan was. The master plan was to go out on a right-of-centre approach to kick people on welfare, because they know they're the downtrodden parts of the community, establish himself as a right-of-centre leader and then let Bill Bennett have it. Until that moment, Bill has his support.

Now what kind of atmosphere is that to develop policy? I want to tell you, it's certainly not fair to the Premier who is already under enough attack for trying to be rational ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Back to 184, hon. member,

[ Page 1906 ]

MR. BARRETT: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.

... in the face of that minister's wild statements, hostile attitude, supreme egotism and a little bit of power hunger. He's using the poor, the unfortunate and the handicapped as a step up the ladder to his own political ambition. I want to tell you that in that populist appeal, even the Premier has failed to stop that minister's onslaught. The Premier must feel like King Canute trying to stop the tide from coming in. Those grandiose statements from that minister, who says he's saving money that will eventually cost this province untold tens of millions of dollars to repair the damage that he's caused....

My good friend, the first member for Vancouver-East, raised the situation where the homemaker-service costs, now going up dramatically, may force people out of their homes into nursing homes and chronic-care facilities that will cost this province tens of thousands of dollars per case, simply because that minister won't make an effort to see that these senior citizens spend their last years together. The millionaires will be able to provide homemaker service, but not the poor.

I want to tell you this, Mr. Chairman: this minister has laid out a clear-cut blueprint of ambition that will see no barriers to his goal. If people get in the way of his naked desire for power, then he'll change policies, he'll make statements, and approach the community on that basis.

We all laughed when we heard some of his first statements. We thought this minister was an attempt to bring some sense of humour to an all-too-somber government that has one goal in mind - self-preservation, i.e. millionaires saved from taxation. But we find that it's a calculated plan for this minister to appear in this House and sit quietly through his estimates while he runs around this province making statements about civil servants, threatening civil servants. Ah, yes, he's threatening civil servants. Then having been quoted in the Victoria Times in a way that he doesn't like, he writes a letter saying that the Victoria Times didn't treat him nicely.

Don't apologize to him now. Have the decency to wait in the corridor to patch up your marriage of necessity through political power. Here we see an attempt right on the floor of this House to strengthen the bonds that are weak between those two members t - those weak smiles when egos arc pricked here in this chamber where the truth comes out - and a relationship that is strained. The two of them try to smile at each other, but we see the daggers flashing back and forth between those two members. It's tragic.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: Even Mr. Chips is concerned. I

He's talking to himself.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is a calculated plan by that member who has unbridled ambition to take over the top post. And what is the route? It is over the backs of the poor, the handicapped, and then the classic cliche of all -attack the civil servants. It is a stand that bears no responsibility, a stand that allows one to stand outside of any arena of being accountable for remarks. Pick on the weak, the disadvantaged or those who do not have a power base to stem back the tide of vilification from that minister.

We've seen it all. It's a classic march to power. Very few people that I know of could go to one party convention, stand up for leadership at that party convention, lose, and within a matter of weeks join another party, and before even being named as a candidate, announce that they want to be Premier and leader, in that order. Or it doesn't necessarily follow that order. AN HON. MEMBER: You mean

AN HON. MEMBER: You mean Paul Hellyer?

MR. BARRETT: Paul Hellyer of the west coast, Mr. Member.

But I find it incredible. Then the performance we've had from....

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Paul Hellyer in a hurry.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tiptoeing through the tulips.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I find it incredible. I find overtones of sadness in the whole thing, an obstruction of one's ego over his terms of responsibility and reality of the post that that minister holds. We have countless numbers of letters from ordinary people who view his attempts at humour as threats. It creates fear and insecurity in a vast number of citizens in this province, robbing them of a sense of dignity and purpose, with the stated goal, through these statements, through this minister, of becoming the Premier and the leader.

I don't wish the present Premier any ill will. With hat kind of member after him, Mr. Chairman, he needs the understanding and appreciation of all citizens of this province. Even though we're political opponents, my heart goes out to the Premier who's under that kind of pressure, under that kind of attack and under that kind of naked access to power that knows no bounds and that would ride over the imitations of the poor and the handicapped just to become the leader of a political party. The Premier of his province deserves more sympathy than we've been able to muster, considering the atmosphere

[ Page 1907 ]

under which he labours in his job.

He has a relentless, ceaseless, smiling attempt to go to power when we know behind that facile smile is a desire that only Brutus shared in our memory of history. Yes, yes - Brutus Vander Zalm. We don't mind this attempt at power. The thing that upsets us is not only some sympathy for the Premier, but the method.

MR. KING: Brutish!

MR. NICOLSON: Where's Cassius?

MR. BARRETT: Cassius was Arthur Weeks. (Laughter.) Or maybe it's the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) , who was a loser in that convention.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEA: He doesn't have that lean and hungry look.

MR. BARRETT: He sure has lost the lean and hungry look since he's become a minister. Nonetheless, as we go through this scenario of nothing new in history, rarely have we seen such a statement of naked ambition for power.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong!

MR. BARRETT: Wrong? He certainly is wrong; he's using the wrong method.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Gone!

MR. BARRETT: Gone? Going, going, gone. That's right, Mr. Premier. You've had enough problems without having this to carry as a burden. I don't think it's fair to you. After all, you had the hard struggle to become leader of that party and it had absolutely nothing to do with inheritance or name - not at all!

MR. LEA: It took him more than six months to get that job.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members -to vote 184.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the minister said: "I guess I'm a bit of an egotist and maybe a little power hungry." My appeal to you is: don't confuse your ambitions with the high office that you hold in terms of upholding the handicapped, the poor and the aged in this province. They should not be used as a political football, as you've done, in my opinion, to forward your own ambitions and your power-hungry demands as you see them yourself. Take another department; find another avenue. There's nothing wrong in your naked philosophy of the acquisition of power as being a measure of success. If that's what you believe in, become the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, become the Minister of Education . . .

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

MR. BARRETT: become the Minister of the Environment ...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: ... become the Minister of Labour ...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. BARRETT: ... become the Minister of Health ...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. BARRETT: ... become the Minister of Agriculture . . .

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. BARRETT: . . . become the ex-minister!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes!

MR. BARRETT: But I want to tell you, Mr. Minister, in all seriousness: your performance to date has not created a good milieu for the people who are unfortunate in this province. I think it needs more sympathy, more understanding and more appreciation of, frankly, the helpless situation that a lot of these people find themselves in. These people who have been born handicapped can't understand the need for such statements as: "Give them a shovel." These people don't have the opportunity of pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps, as the clichés would have it appear. Those people who find themselves in their senior years and who are handicapped because of physical disability would like the option of spending more time at home with each other as husband and wife, rather than being forced out by economics from their own homes.

As for the young people of this province, there are serious problems here of providing alternate work sources for young people and of providing these people with the option to become parts of society, rather than being isolated and attacked as being the chronic unemployed and the transient welfare recipients. Receiving welfare can be insidious enough

[ Page 1908 ]

without the stigma of a minister making generalized statements and leaving the impression somehow that because you're on welfare, you're a bum. A young boy or a young girl in their early 20s who are forced temporarily to seek social assistance should expect exactly that - social assistance, a temporary help, a reaching out, some sense of security in a time when their own security is threatened and they can't find employment and need to have an option as a bridge before they find work. But to label these people and to make generalized statements does the total community of British Columbia a disservice. It allows the people of this province to somehow think that you're pandering to the lowest common denominator of hostility to unfortunates.

Most of the people who arrive here are in great shape physically - not politically, but physically. Fortunately we've never personally had the ravages of the need to go to a social worker. I'm a social worker. Just the very fact that you have to go through the bureaucratic structures without the burden of a political atmosphere created by a minister's foolish statements is difficult enough. Honest, decent people never go to a welfare office with the idea of ripping off the system. Do you know what price it is in dignity and self-respect to submit oneself to an interview to a social worker because you can't find a job or because there's a health problem in the family?

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Do you know?

MR. BARRETT: Yes. Do I know? I have seen fine, educated people come in to me as a social worker. Because of the very distinct relationship of being a social worker, you place those people in a position of almost second-class citizens, psychologically. It's not easy to help people in a nation that believes in pride of the individual. People don't like to admit at any time that they need help. Everybody deep down wants to feel they can make their own way in life. When they do meet these unfortunate circumstances and we do provide assistance, whether it be temporary or permanent, there should never be a stigma attached to it, especially when that stigma may be built out of political motivation.

Mr. Minister, the appeal is given to you by members of the opposition and, yes, some of your own colleagues, who must by now, after 16 months of being MLAs, get letters from citizens in their constituencies who need to go to human services. Most of the people who are at the scale of receiving social assistance don't know anything about politics. They're generally excluded from that kind of activity in the community. They look to the MLAs and to the politicians as figures of hope, with a sense of security and with, more than anything else, a sense of fairness that somebody up there at the top cares. That's what they want to feel. Since you've been in office in 16 months you haven't given anybody the attitude that you care. You may be very sincere and full of goodness in your heart. I don't care to judge whether that is the case, but your statements leave the impression that you're not a very likeable person. As a consequence, there is a lack of hope, a lack of confidence and a lack of faith that ultimate justice will be created in this system. Justice is what people want. They don't want politics; they want justice. They want fairness. They want to count as individuals. They want to feel that somebody there can understand them against the bureaucracy. They don't want blandishments or foolish statements that filter down - perhaps through misinterpretation - to the local level.

The Premier on occasion has been forced to say that you're a colourful person. Perhaps that excuses some of the statements you've made. But the major blunder was the "give them a shovel" thing. That has been interpreted by aged and handicapped people that somehow they should be guilty because of a misfortune not of their own making, and that they needed assistance.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the corn flakes?

MR. BARRETT: The corn flakes is a separate one that really panders to a different kind of political level, and that remark must remain and be justified in a separate arena. But I'm making a direct appeal to you to understand that when you make statements about people, their understanding of this system, of politics and decision-making is very minimal. When they read in the paper that a cabinet minister has made an attack on welfare recipients, 90 per cent of those people take it personally and somehow it creates guilt in them that they're doing something wrong by being handicapped or by being concerned about their husband or their wife. It's no fault of their own and I hope that fortune forbids any of us from sharing that experience.

But, Mr. Minister, be careful with your statements. You affect a lot of people who really don't understand how this system works, who don't understand politics and who don't even understand what's happening here today. But one word, one phrase or one action from a minister in your position can do more psychological damage than perhaps all the good work that you may be doing in the future can ever repair.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I very much enjoyed the brief remarks (laughter) by the Leader of the Opposition.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He's very colourful.

MR. GIBSON: I particularly liked his excursion

[ Page 1909 ]

into history with Cassius and Brutus; I thought he was going to say: "Friends, countrymen, I come to bury Billy, not to praise him!" (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Now to vote 184.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but as long as we are in history, there was a small mention of the 1972 Liberal leadership convention and I have to recall this a little bit because I remember the minister opposite making a speech there. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Bring back the lash!

MR. GIBSON: It was all going very well until that phrase came: "Bring back the lash!"

MR. WALLACE: Bring back the lash!

MR. GIBSON: That was a lash on the back of everyone in that room, I can tell you, and the whole , atmosphere changed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he win?

MR. GIBSON: He didn't win. No, Mr. Member, nor would you expect him to.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: That kind of statement is the way in which he's been producing a change in the attitude with which people in this province have received the concept of human resources. It's been an attempt to polarize the thing and end that concept of sharing and to bring in the concept of charity. It's wrong.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: You know, he stood up after a good speech by the second member for Burrard (Mr. Levi) , who asked a lot of sensible questions. He asked questions at some length about the concept of the guaranteed annual income which the Premier, in a fuzzy, vague way, has been putting forward. This minister stood up and didn't answer a single question about guaranteed annual income. It's one of the most important initiatives that this government may be taking. Then he stood up and told us he couldn't tell us about Mr. Buchanan's qualifications, as if there was some rule in the House to prevent that. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, it doesn't. He has a duty to tell us about Mr. Buchanan's qualifications - why he was hired and then why he was fired. And then he tells us he can't advise us as to the total amount of the underrun in his department.

Mr. Chairman, we are two weeks until the end of the fiscal year and he can't tell us? The bottom-line boys don't have any better control over their budget than that? I'm going to bet you that he knows the underrun in his department within $2 million or $3 million right now. Let's see, what did I calculate the other day? He told us it was $54 million underrun on social assistance. I'm going to give you my forecast, on that same basis, as to what it's going to be on services for seniors and handicapped: it's going to be between a $37 million and a $39 million underrun. And I'll tell you how much it's going to be on services for families and children: it's going to be around $17 million underrun. Mr. Chairman, that minister can't tell us for one minute that any of that underrun is caused by the fact that he's been able to take single employable people off welfare.

He's never given us a number as to how much money he saved on that, you know. He's never given us a number. I ask him to stand up when I sit down and tell us how many people at the beginning of his term of office were single employable people on welfare and how many people now are single employable people on welfare. How much of a saving has. that effected and therefore, by subtraction, how much of that came out of social assistance which would otherwise have been going to other people in this province?

People have been speaking in this debate about the minor amounts of money that the minister holds back, thereby destroying considerable services. The whole question of support for organizations helping the cause of the family in this province is one of them, and I'll get to that later.

Another one is the question of the child-abuse team at the Vancouver General Hospital. Mr. Chairman, there are cases in this province - sad cases - every year where children are brought into medical facilities and they have been beaten and they have been hurt. Their parents are not well, but for their parents to be treated, and for that situation to be remedied, the first thing that must be identified is the fact that there is a battered child here in the hospital or in the medical facility. Like most of the other great hospitals of Canada, Vancouver General Hospital, a couple of years ago, set up a child-abuse team. That sounds like a lot of people; in fact, it's a social worker working with a doctor. That team was set up on the basis of a grant from the Vancouver Foundation on an experimental basis, and you wouldn't expect a foundation to carry this kind of programme indefinitely.

That grant ended as of this March. Great concern was aroused, and one private individual personally stepped in and said: "I myself will pay the salary of the social worker concerned for one month while you keep things going." There's no problem about the salary of the doctor, who's funded by the hospital. Then the Vancouver Foundation stepped in again and

[ Page 1910 ]

said: "We will carry things until the end of June." There is a cause now for the Minister of Human Resources to take over the cost of that social worker from the end of June on, and ensure the continuation of that child-abuse team at the Vancouver General Hospital. It's perhaps a question of $35,000 a year.

I'm advised that Messrs. Bingham and Belknap of the minister's department have looked at the concept and found it good. I'm advised that where the Vancouver General Hospital had been able to identify four cases of child abuse the year before it started, the next year, when the team was instituted, it went up to an identification of 48, and this year after that it went up to 96. This isn't just a one-hospital team, Mr. Chairman. It's a resource that is available to hospitals all around the lower mainland and, indeed, around the province, both as to an examination role in terms of suspected cases of child abuse, and in terms of an education role for nurses and for local medical staff in various parts of the province.

These cases don't always get recognized by medical personnel who don't have expertise in recognizing them. It's essential that they should because every case that is not recognized is a child who is suffering. Society owes that child the duty to identify that kind of disorder as quickly as possible. I say to the minister that he should relieve this situation right now. He should advise those responsible that the social worker half of that child-abuse team will be continued and funded by his department from June on.

Now what about the future of Pharmacare? I had a delegation of some people in my office today who were very worried about their future because they are eligible for Pharmacare and they have heard the stories about deductibles and the necessity that they're going to have to save receipts.

We had a promise from this minister two months ago - and I asked this question in the House - that after the budget he would reveal the details of this great new Pharmacare plan that somehow is going to be made universal and, at the same time, will cost only $1.5 million more.

It's clear that if they're going to go that route, Mr. Chairman, there's going to be a high deductible, and the seniors in our society are going to have something taken away from them. There's going to be more bureaucratic paperwork around this province of saving receipts until they get $25 or $50 or whatever it is, and perhaps then, after that, paying a portion of any bills thereafter.

I just hope that the government, with the criticism that has come to them on this possibility, will back off and that they'll take the opposition's advice and not reduce by one tiny bit the current Pharmacare privileges of seniors in this province. I would like the minister to stand up and give that reassurance, because I can tell you that there are some people who are losing a lot of sleep over it. This minister doesn't lose sleep about the separation of Quebec, as he said to the newspapers, but I'll tell you, there are seniors who are losing sleep about Pharmacare.

I want to come back a minute to the community resource boards. Is the biblical quotation, "Am I my brother's keeper?" Should I help my neighbour if he needs it? Mr. Chairman, if the answer to those questions is not yes, then we are in a different kind of society than we used to be. We are in a society that is not a community, because a community to me, above all other things, means that people who live there care about each other in a personal way. Our society, I fear, Mr. Chairman, is getting less and less personal. It's more a question of "Leave it all to the professionals."

If there are juveniles loitering in the area and breaking windows in schools and making unkind remarks to people as they walk past on the sidewalk, you say: "Well, get more police to look after them. Lock them up." If there is a suspected case of wife or child battering in the neighbourhood, well, it's a question of either ignoring it or calling a social worker or something. If there's a community recreational need, people say: "Well, I'll go join a tennis club or something myself. I'm all right, Jack." If there are older people in the neighbourhood who are lonely and sick, people figure maybe Meals on Wheels or the Victorian Order of Nurses will look after them, or else they should go to a nursing home. Kids are growing up with alcoholic parents with no love or family life. People say: "Well, that's kind of tough, but that's the way the world is."

That's what it's like when there's not a sense of community. There can only be community organization if there is some kind of focal point. One of the potential focal points was the community resource board organization which would have had in the local area a means of local people getting involved with each other and controlling locally the delivery of the social services that we are concerned about in this debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what it's all about.

MR. GIBSON: That's what it's all about, indeed, Mr. Member. The minister pulled the rug out from underneath those community resource boards.

We've got to enhance the sense of community in our society. We are all our brothers' keepers to the extent that they need help or want it. My God, Mr. Chairman, CRBs are locally controlled; they're not Victoria controlled. This minister is going in the opposite direction. He's going for Victoria control. Even in the Vancouver Resources Board that's what I fear.

This has been said so many times in this debate that it now has credibility. Will the minister not stand

[ Page 1911 ]

up and say the Vancouver Resources Board is going to be allowed to continue as at least the one decentralized Human Resources' administration in this province?

MR. BARRETT: Did you vote for the resource boards?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Leader of the Opposition, I have said this often in debate. I did not vote for the resource boards. Today I would.

MR. BARRETT: Good for you!

MR. GIBSON: Because I saw how that experiment was working out, and it was looking good. Mr. Minister, you saw how it was working out in some areas too. But you know what that whole bunch opposite thought, Mr. Chairman - they thought it was an NDP plot to take over local political action groups.,

MR. BARRETT: Paranoia.

MR. GIBSON: The CRBs that I saw weren't a nest of NDPers; they were concerned local people worried about their communities. They were not political cells, and it was a despicable motive for disbanding them. It was incorrect as well.

So let's hear something now about the VRB. Is at least that going to be kept in operation? Can this House have that commitment?

Transition houses. I want to support very much what the hon. first member for Burrard (Ms. Brown) said about the transition houses. The minister should encourage the establishment of more, wherever the need is demonstrated, and not just provide a certain amount of funding to the current ones. There is a genuine middle-of-the-night kind of need that the hon. first member for Burrard described.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to talk a little bit about the Conference on the Family, and the results of the Conference on the Family. I couldn't believe my ears when the minister said he hadn't had firm proposals. Will the minister resign if that statement is proven false? He should, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARRETT: What's his answer?

MR. GIBSON: He didn't give an answer to that. I don't understand that. Maybe he would nod his head up and down or sideways or maybe transversely for "maybe" or shrug his shoulders for "I don't know."

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, will the minister resign if he's proven wrong on that statement?

MR. BARRETT: No.

MR. GIBSON: Does he want to answer? I'll sit down. I want to hear the answer to that. Will the minister resign if he's proven wrong?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. GIBSON: He told this House that he hadn't had any firm request for funds.

MR. KAHL: Get on with your speech.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Listen to the Munchkins, Mr. Chairman. Munch, munch. They're too munch, aren't they? (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. KAHL: Quit while you're ahead!

MR. LEA: Why don't you quit while you're behind?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The member for North Vancouver-Capilano has the floor.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On November 4, there was delivered to the Premier of this province a recommendation....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the members in the far corner please stick to order?

MR. GIBSON: That's what I mean by Munchkins.

On November 4 there was forwarded to the Premier from the B.C. Conference on the Family a recommendation that, among other things, a British Columbia Council for the Family be established forthwith, and sets out aims and objectives. It says in particular: "The initial paid staff for the council should be one full-time co-ordinator, who should be a member of the council, and one full-time secretary." It talks about "the need to capture the momentum" that that Conference on the Family built up.

Then a telegram was sent to the Premier on December 8,1976:

DEAR MR. PREMIER: THIRTY MEMBERS OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE OF THE BRITISH COLUMBIA CONFERENCE ON THE FAMILY FROM ALL OVER THE PROVINCE ARE MEETING TODAY AT THE RICHMOND INN. WE REQUEST THAT SEVERAL OF US MEET WITH YOU

[ Page 1912 ]

IMMEDIATELY TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSAL FORWARDED TO YOU NOVEMBER 4 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A B.C. COUNCIL FOR THE FAMILY. WE REALIZE THAT AS OF DECEMBER 31 AN ORDER-IN-COUNCIL SIGNED NOVEMBER 4 TERMINATES THE EMPLOYMENT OF MRS. CONSTANCE HAWLEY AS OUR CO-ORDINATOR, AND WE SEE A YEAR AND A HALF OF TREMENDOUSLY SIGNIFICANT ACTIVITY BEING JEOPARDIZED. WE THEREFORE NEED A MEETING IMMEDIATELY. CANON HILARY BUTLER.

MR. LEA: Did they get the meeting?

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, maybe the Premier is going to blame his correspondence secretary. Maybe his correspondence secretary was just ineffective and didn't send this kind of material on to the ministers concerned.

Well now, how about the correspondence secretary to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , who got a letter from Canon Butler dated December 7, who pleaded with the Provincial Secretary for the continuation of the order-in-council of Mrs. Hawley as the needed co-ordinator to make sure that the momentum of this conference was maintained? Don't tell me the Provincial Secretary didn't take some action on that. Could it be?

And could it be that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) was not knowledgeable in all these things? I don't think so, because here's a letter of December 15,1976, to Canon Butler, signed by William N. Vander Zalm, minister. He says among other things: "In light of this, I regret that no further financial assistance from this ministry will be considered." I say shame! He goes on: "In addition, I must reiterate that the position of co-ordinator of the conference will be terminated effective December 31,1976, as earlier indicated."

Here's a minister who was telling us that he did not receive any concrete request for financial assistance from this organization. The hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) made a representation on their behalf, and she made a slip of the tongue and talked about further funding for a further conference. He stood up and tried to turn that around and make a joke of the whole thing. He should just be ashamed of himself.

This is a group that has been clearly and obviously asking for the continuation of a co-ordinator since November 4 of last year. Isn't that a request for further funding? Of course it is.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: You stood up in the House and said you hadn't had any firm proposals. When was it? Last Friday, I think he said, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Haven't received a recommendation from whom?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister just mumbled across the floor that he hadn't received a recommendation from the conference. I just read him the recommendation from the conference that was forwarded to the Premier on November 4. Let me read the title again. Oh, that's a nice blue book. That's not the question. The recommendation came in the fall. It took a little while to prepare the final reports, you know. Here's what the recommendation said in the fall. Let me read it: "The recommendation from the B.C. Conference on the Family to the Premier concerning establishment of a B.C. council for the family." It's a recommendation.

"We recommend to the Premier and to the executive council of the province of B.C. that:

" (1) A B.C. council for the family be established forthwith by the provincial government in co-operation with such religious bodies and community agencies as may wish to be involved."

Specific enough for you?

" (2) The aims, objects, constitution, membership and terms of reference of the council be negotiated between the provincial government and the steering committee, membership to include a fair representation of the geographical areas of the province.

" (3) Terms of reference of the council include at least: (a) facilitation of communities' self-help projects to support and strengthen families; (b) an association with appropriate bodies - local, provincial, national, international - furthering public knowledge and promoting public concern about the well-being of the family; (c) the followup and the implementation as far as possible of the recommendations of this conference, and in particular; (d) the execution of the recommendations for a B.C. family month; (e) the reporting, through a newsletter, of the council's activities.

" (4) The initial paid staff for the council be one full-time co-ordinator who should be a member of the council, and one full-time secretary.

" (5) Other expenses of the council act in a volunteer capacity with expenses paid.

[ Page 1913 ]

" (6) Cost to be shared between the provincial government and the participating religious bodies and agencies on a basis to be agreed between them."

Isn't that a good enough recommendation? It was November 4,1976, and you say you haven't had a recommendation until last Friday? That's a recommendation. You got it on November 4.

MR. LEA: It's pretty weak, Bill.

MR. GIBSON: I just can't believe that man, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LEA: No one else can either.

MR. GIBSON: He's standing in this House. He's talking about his devotion to the family. You know what he thinks a family is. He thinks a family is. . . . Where's that report here? This is a report done by the National Council on Welfare. It starts out like this:

"The average Canadian family - everyone knows what it is. Ask anyone and they'll tell you. It's a working father, a mother in the home and two or three children. It's a comfortable and secure image, an image we have all accepted as the norm."

Well, Mr. Chairman, that may be some families. It's a lot of families, I hope. But there are a lot of families around this province, too, which have trouble. The B.C. Conference on the Family was trying to help. A tremendous number of concerned British Columbians of all religions and of all walks in our society have been doing their best since this recommendation was forwarded to the Premier on November 4. The~ just can't believe that a government that says it's concerned about the family hasn't been able to get some kind of action going.

Now the minister stands behind his concept of when he gets a recommendation. He got that recommendation last November 4, Mr. Chairman. The fact that he hasn't acted on it until now just makes me feel a little bit ill.

Now he's going to have that meeting with this group. It's tomorrow morning is that right, Mr. Minister? That was the original schedule. Is that meeting still tomorrow morning?

MS. BROWN: He doesn't know.

MR. GIBSON: He apparently doesn't know, Mr. Chairman. But whenever that meeting is. . . . It's tomorrow morning. Well, I'll tell you something. I don't see why this minister should get his salary vote before that meeting's over.

MS. BROWN: He won't.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): It's interesting to note that this is the Ides of March. I'm wondering if history is going to repeat itself. I would suggest that the Premier should beware. Certainly this minister, like no other minister, has indicated by work and by deed that he is very interested in moving ahead of his present post and moving" into the position of Premier of this province. I think that that ambition, perhaps, is one of the things that has caused him to drive so hard to make a name for himself. I think that he was striving to do in reverse what the former Minister of Human Resources has been accused of doing.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): That's why it's an underrun instead of an overrun - it's in reverse.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is in reverse. The former Minister of Human Resources was committed to doing something for the needy of this province. He did it at a cost that was more than had been budgeted - that's true. There were new programmes, Mr. Chairman, and I think that the crux of the situation was that even the New Democrats didn't realize how many people were suffering under the old regime.

But this minister, Mr. Chairman, is now going to come in with a $100 million underrun. I suggest that is a disgrace when the suffering is going on out there that is going on. I wish that minister would walk down the main street of Victoria. I wish he would have occasion to do that as I have just done. I thought the time had passed when we had beggars on the streets, but that's what I saw today when I walked down Government Street - a young man standing against the wall, playing a mouth organ with his hat at his feet, hoping to get a few pennies or quarters dropped into it.

You laugh, Mr. Minister, but that's what's happening out there. I saw it today. I saw a young woman sitting on the curb with a pan.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: You say: "That's initiative." Let the record show that the minister replied: "That's initiative." Disgraceful, Mr. Chairman! Disgraceful! "That's initiative." He wants beggars on the streets of Victoria. That's his answer to the human problems of this province. Disgraceful!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

MRS. WALLACE: Disgraceful! That's what we're coming to, Mr. Chairman; that's where that minister is taking us. I am ashamed of a government and a

[ Page 1914 ]

minister who would stand up and brag about bringing us to that situation.

We had before the election, Mr. Chairman, promises, promises, promises. They wouldn't touch Mincome; they'd tie it to the cost of living. They'd make it the best in Canada. And then along came GAIN. The minister stood in his place last year and told us that it was an improvement. But we know now by his own words and his own regulations.... He says that what had gone before would not be eroded by the new legislation. He said that it was a disincentive, the amount of money people were getting under the old legislation.

Then he came up with a new definition of handicapped, Mr. Chairman - a definition so stringent as to make anyone eligible for the handicapped pension a potential hospital case. Yet he said that the rates they were getting was a disincentive. What he has done, Mr. Chairman, is create a degree of chaos among his own workers and a great division between the people in receipt of assistance.

We have a pre-GAIN group and a post-GAIN group. He talked a lot, Mr. Chairman, about the great improvement, how all the people between 55 and 59 who were in receipt of assistance were going to receive a $70 increase. I submit the number of people in that category actually getting an increase is minimal. I'd like the minister to tell us just how many have received what in that category.

The cases that come to my mind, Mr. Chairman, are very, very few - the ones that are drawn to my attention. In fact, many of the people who would be eligible and were looking forward to that extra $70 are excluded from ever receiving it, because many of the people are widows between 55 and 59 in receipt of a small pension. If that pension is in excess of $160, Mr. Chairman, they are never going to be eligible for that GAIN benefit, because under that legislation there is a four-month waiting period and those people on those small pensions in excess of $160 have to first be in receipt of the $160 welfare for four months. Now if you have a pension of $160 there's no way you're going to get welfare. So they are precluded. The only way they're ever going to be eligible is to reach the age of 60.

That's just a farce, Mr. Chairman - that whole legislation - in relation to a great many of the people who really thought they were going to get some help. It costs just as much to live if you're 55 to 59 as it does if you're 59 to 60. And it costs just as much to live if you're 60 as if you were over 60 and over 65.

But we are drawing classes and we're saying that the ones who are 55 to 59 have to live on less than the ones who are 55 to 60, and the ones who are 60 have to live on less than the ones who are over 60. Again, once they get to be 65 then they are entitled to more. That's what we are saying, Mr. Chairman, and it's very unfair because it's creating groups of people who are vying against each other. It's the old divide-and-rule. You get them vying against each other, because one is getting more than the other and it's very unfair, Mr. Chairman.

In the case of the handicapped, there has been no increase, in effect, Mr. Chairman, since this government was elected - not one cent in the support portion. But I ask you what has happened to the cost of living, Mr. Chairman. It has continually gone up, and the cost-of-living index affects those people the same as it affects everyone else. But there has not been one red cent increase for that group.

I think to make this particular point clear I'd like to cite an example. This is the case of one of my constituents who had an accident in the home when he was just past 60. There was no compensation and he was not able to return to work. He went on GAIN at $265. Because there was no other income, his wife received welfare. This gave them a total income of $425. That was pre-GAIN. Had it happened after the GAIN legislation, they would have received only $375.

But what has happened now, Mr. Chairman? The husband has now reached the age of 65 and he is entitled to old-age pension and support allowance. He gets $240.47. He has a Canada pension of $130.78.

Now the wife was concerned about what was going to happen and she went and talked to the social worker, and the social worker assured her that there would be no change. Her assumption, when she was assured there was going to be no change was that she would still receive the $160. But that's not so. The no change relates to the $425. Her cheque was reduced to $14.87 because her husband reached age 65.

Her concern is very real. There's going to be a cost-of-living bonus come. Her cheque will then be reduced to $10. Her concern is that in the event, which could well happen very shortly, that her husband's Canada pension and old-age pension equal $425, then her cheque will be reduced to nil. Do you know what happens in addition to a nil cheque? She will, in all probability, lose her Pharmacare and her medical coverage. She's concerned and so am 1, Mr. Chairman. That's the kind of thing, that's the kind of result from this minister's policies. That's what he's doing to people out there.

While I'm mentioning Pharmacare, I want to talk a little bit about Pharmacare. We don't know what's going to happen, but we do know what money is in the budget. As a person who has drug coverage on one of these contributory schemes where I have a $25 deductible, I have to submit my prescriptions and claim back a portion of the balance. That becomes a fairly involved or lengthy procedure. I would suggest that to ask our senior citizens to undertake that kind of procedure is most unfair to them. Not only that,

[ Page 1915 ]

the worst feature of it is that we're going to ask them in all probability to put out the cash and then claim it back. I tell that minister that there is no way that our senior citizens have that kind of cash to put out. If that minister does that to them, it's going to take us right back to where we were before the days of Pharmacare. Those prescriptions are going to wind up in the wastebasket rather than on the druggist's counter.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Phillips files an answer to question 46. (See appendix.)

Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

APPENDIX

46 Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Economic Development, as Minister responsible for the British Columbia Railway, the following questions:

In regard to the Box Car Manufacturing Company of Squamish-

1. Has the Minister spoken to the appropriate Minister in Ottawa about the exceptionally short time of two or three days allowed to submit bids on the most recent Federal Government call for tenders for the manufacture of box cars?

2. Was the Squamish plant able to complete and submit a bid in time to meet the Federal deadline?

3. Has the Minister ascertained whether or not manufacturers such as Hawker-Siddley and M.L.W.-Bombadier also had only two days to submit bids?

4. How many employees does the Squamish plant now have?

5. Is it operating at a profit or a loss at the present time?

6. What was the profit or loss for the last fiscal year?

7. Are there any plans for expansion of the plant at Squamish?

8. What is the plant's present yearly manufacturing capacity?

9. How many bids has the plant submitted in the last calendar year?

10. Has the plant received any orders in the preceding calendar year?

11. Does the Government have a policy of actively pursuing orders for the plant and, if so, what efforts have been made to obtain orders?

12. Does the Government plan to continue operation of the plant?

The Hon. D. M. Phillips replied as follows:

" 1. Yes.

"2. Yes, but was able only to respond to a portion of the invitation which was in four parts. The plant concentrated their efforts on the 100-ton steel version of the car, as recommended by Mr. Burgess and Mr. Churchor, at a meeting in Ottawa with L. L. Bingham, General Manager, Railwest Manufacturing Co., on Monday, January 10,1977.

"3. It is my understanding the other manufacturers invited to tender were Hawker-Siddley Co., Trenton, Nova Scotia; Marine Industries, Sorel, Quebec; National Steel Car, and Procor Ltd., both of Hamilton, Ontario; and that the formal invitation to tender was sent to these companies January 5,1977, as was that received by the British Columbia Railway.

"It is also my understanding, however, that while Procor Ltd. is not expected to submit a proposal, the other companies were probably aware of the specifications at a much earlier date than we were.

[ Page 1916 ]

APPENDIX

"In addition, all three builders had manufactured virtually identical vehicles during the past year and were therefore in possession of most construction engineering details.

"4, As of January 14,1977, there were a total of 236 employees---comprised of 179 hourly and 57 nonscheduled, supervisory, and management employees.

"5. Railwest during 1976 manufactured exclusively for British Columbia Railway at cost. With all costs recovered, Railwest manufactured both chip cars and bulkhead flat cars at a cost to the railway approximately equal to what they would have paid eastern builders.

"6. As per No. 5.

"7. While the Railwest plant was designed and constructed with an expansion capability of 100 per cent, present plans do not call for the immediate expansion of the facility in as much as our productive capacity equals current demands of the British Columbia Railway.

"8. Depending upon vehicle type and the number of vehicles to be constructed in any one order, productive capacity ranges generally between 600 and 1,200 vehicles per year.

"9. Bids submitted were as follows:

"1976-White Pass & Yukon, 10 40-ton flat cars; Loram International Ltd., 100 100-ton ballast cars, 100 100-ton 60-ft. flat cars, 10 100-ton gondolas; Kimberley-Clark, 150 70-ton wraparound bulkhead flat cars;. CP Rail, 45 cabooses; FMC of Canada, 48 chlorine tank cars (repainting) ; CP Rail, 353 100-ton covered hopper cars; and British Columbia Railway, 100 100-ton ballast cars.

" 1977-CNR (on behalf of Ontario Hydro) , 432 100-ton rotary dump coal gondolas; CP Rail (on behalf of Ontario Hydro) , 368 100-ton rotary dump coal cars; CP-CN (on behalf of Government of Canada) , 500, 1,000, 1,500, and 2,000 100-ton covered hopper cars; and Dominion Bridge, 18 100-ft. steel girders."

"10. None to date.

"ll. All marketing efforts have to date been handled exclusively by Railwest personally; however, we have requested marketing assistance from time to time from both the Provincial and Federal Industry, Trade and Commerce Branches.

"12. We are well aware of social and economic impact of the plant in Squamish and will do everything reasonable to see its continuing operation."