[ Page 1917 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Human Resources estimates.

On vote 184.

Ms. Brown –– 1917

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1920

Mr. Barnes –– 1920

Mr. Lauk –– 1925

Mr. Lea –– 1928

Mr. Mussallem –– 1931

Mr. Cocke –– 1934

Mr. Nicolson –– 1935

Mr. Barrett –– 1938

Mr. Levi –– 1942

The House met at 8 p.m.

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, 5 16.

M S. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, just before we had the supper break, the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) , in speaking on this minister's estimates, told the House that on a trip into Victoria this morning, she saw a man begging. The response of the Minister of Human Resources to that observation was that that showed initiative. That's what he said, that begging, Mr. Chairman, showed initiative.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame on him.

MS. BROWN: Now when I was speaking yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I mentioned that one of the real problems with the ministry, as it was currently being run by the Minister of Human Resources, was the philosophy and the attitude that this minister brought to this department - the attitude about people being deserving or undeserving and the attitude about the importance of initiative. I ran out of time before I could really deal with my notes on this whole area of initiative. I really think it's interesting that before we're even half-way through this minister's votes, he gives us his definition of initiative.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: It was your definition of initiative.

As a result of that government's policies, there are people in this province unemployed. As a result of that minister's policies, these unemployed people are not eligible for welfare. It was brought to that minister's attention that there was one person who was unemployed and who, because of that minister's policies, was not eligible for welfare and was on the street begging. Not in an underdeveloped country and not in India, but in one of the wealthiest and most opulent provinces in one of the wealthiest and richest countries in the world, there was someone on the street begging; and the response of the Minister of Human Resources was that that is initiative.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines): What a bunch of garbage she peddles.

MS. BROWN: It is garbage. That's the whole point. For the first time in all the years I've been sitting here, the Minister of Mines is making some sense. It is garbage that we have a minister, responsible for people in need in this province, telling us that for a poor person to be begging on the streets of the capital city of one of the wealthiest provinces in one of the wealthiest countries in this world shows initiative. It is garbage, and you are right. As one of the members of this House and of that government, you are right and I want the record to show that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor and I must insist that she address the Chair. But in order to assist me to insist on this, would the other members not interrupt her, please?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I actually appreciate your rushing to my defence. It certainly is a very gallant thing for you to do. But in this particular instance, the kind of heckling that's coming from the government benches is really very interesting because it certainly tells a lot about the attitude of that entire government to people in need in this province.

Now when I was speaking yesterday about the attitudes and philosophy of the Ministry of Human Resources, the minister got up and said that those had been observations, so he didn't want to respond to it. But in fact, they weren't observations. What I tried to do was involve the minister in a dialogue, because it is my firm belief that the attitude of the minister decides what kind of ministry it is. It decides the direction that a ministry takes. It decides things like what kinds of programmes are supported and which ones are cut off.

He refused at that time to enter into a dialogue, but today he did, and he told us a lot about the direction of that ministry and about his philosophy to people in need. Beggars are people with initiative. What does that say about a government that forces people to beg? What does that say about them?

Incentive, Mr. Chairman, is another key word in an acquisitive society which is used to erode and corrode the meaning of social welfare. I'm really glad I have the opportunity to discuss incentive with that minister. If the definition of the deserving and the undeserving poor are throwbacks to the bitter days of Elizabeth 1, then surely the reliance on incentive also supports this concept.

Mr. Chairman, the positive incentives with which society overwhelms us Even the poorest people in our society are victims of the whole business of the promise, the consumer society. The crime in an

[ Page 1918 ]

acquisitive society is to be unable to purchase the kinds of things on the grounds that we lack incentive. They are told by this minister either to go out and beg for them or to work for them, and the poor and the handicapped are not discriminated against but they're actually tempted. Their crime is that they cannot consume, and they prove the weakness of the incentive theory. For the poor the negative incentive is thus applied. For them a bit of sweet today can mean an empty stomach tomorrow. For the poor, childbirth is not a joy but a nightmare. For them, unemployment is to be outcast, to be ostracized, to be placed under scrutiny by the minister's peepers and probers, to beg, to stand on the street of the wealthiest city of one of the wealthiest provinces in one of the wealthiest countries in the entire world ...

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MS. BROWN: ... and beg. That's what incentive is. The minister said that that's incentive. That's not what I said. The minister said that that's incentive.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Business thinking.

MS. BROWN: That's right. For them, sharing and receiving a share is preceded by the presumption of guilt. For them, the procedure of sharing boils down to cold and disorienting offices, to line-ups first thing in the morning at the Manpower office - sleeping there overnight, if necessary, to be first in line for the one or two jobs that may exist. It's the shuffle and the mystery of inscrutable paperwork.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Chairman, in a society in which so much emphasis is placed on profit and consumption, the negative incentives are confusing and irritating. The real fact is that our much-vaunted social services are viewed by the recipients neither as a right nor as a privilege but as a lottery, as the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) said, in which some may win but in which most people lose. The whole psychology behind incentives is, of course, mechanistic and shaky, because while psychologists have long since broadened their horizons, public officials such as the Minister of Human Resources are still stuck on that idea. The complexities of our society, Mr. Chairman, make the incentive angle virtually ridiculous. We saw that today when the Minister of Human Resources sat in this House and told us that for a person to beg in a society of plenty showed initiative.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Would you like to repeat that, Mr. Member?

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): The Cadillac socialist.

MS. BROWN: The Cadillac socialist. That's right.

MR. BARNES: Who is that member who said that?

MS. BROWN: The member for Esquimalt.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): That real heavyweight from Esquimalt.

MS. BROWN: That's right. The member in whose city, if not in his riding, there are people on the streets begging. Instead of hanging his head in shame, Mr. Chairman, he sits there sipping water and making comments about Cadillac socialists.

In our society, Mr. Chairman, where the gap between the rich and the poor is widening, incentives just don't work very well. For every 10 Social Credit backbenchers like the member for Esquimalt, who dream about Mercedes and white-buck shoes, Mr. Chairman, (laughter) there are 10 dozen who realize that their dreams will never be fulfilled. I've seen the white-buck shoes over there,

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: There are 10 dozen people, Mr. Chairman, who know - and I'm under the vote ...

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

MS. BROWN: ... that their dreams will never be realized. For every used-car salesman over there, Mr. Chairman; for every millionaire or millionaire's wife over there, Mr. Chairman; for every corporation president over there ...

Interjections.

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

MS. BROWN: ... who finds that he or she can hide a little something here through income tax shelter and tuck a little bit of money there to leave for the children and the grandchildren, there are tens of thousands of people in this province who not only can't do that, but who are on the street begging.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's in Jamaica.

MS. BROWN: Here! Here! The member for Cowichan-Malahat told us today, "not in Jamaica, but here." If this were an emerging nation, if this were a developing country or if this country were even poor, it would be understandable. But we have

[ Page 1919 ]

no such excuses here and it is to our shame that we have beggars. But it is disgraceful that we have a minister responsible for services to people in need in this province who refers to begging as a sign of initiative. The whole idea of combining incentives with the deserving poor, which is what the minister does, is a contradiction.

Is a single-parent mother to consider herself, for example, a deserving poor? Or is she to be incited to part with her family to seek socially approved work? Is the handicapped person supposed to be considered a deserving poor or is the handicapped person to be coerced? And what of the unemployed male of 54 in a society that considers that a worker has outlived his usefulness soon after he passes the age of 40?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: That's right. You've over the hill, old boy. It's as simple as that. You might be able to get the voters to vote for you, but get out there in the real world and find a job when you're over 40 and you'll find that you are considered to have outlived your usefulness.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the chair, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman ... outlived his usefulness.

AN HON. MEMBER: He discovered that months ago.

MS. BROWN: That's what happens, Mr. Chairman. I will never outlive my usefulness as long as there are people in this province being ripped off by that government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you running for leadership?

MS. BROWN: Ha! He's running for the leadership. That's what the whole problem is all about. He's decided to make it to the top on the backs of the poor.

lnterjection.

MS. BROWN: That's right. You're so busy wandering around in the Grizzly Valley, you don't know what's going on over there. What happens, Mr. Chairman ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: -Order, please. Hon. members let's not interrupt the member who has the floor. The first member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MS. BROWN: What happens, Mr. Chairman, when we lose sight of welfare as sharing, when we forget that we're a society and not just an aggregate of competing animals, when we forget that people's behaviour - their feelings, their fears and their hopes - is not simply the consequence of so many measurable enticements and quantifiable threats, we end up with the kind of person running the Ministry of Human Resources such as we have today. Now that minister says that he is not going to deal with observations. He wants to answer straight questions and so I want to put a straight question to him: does he, Mr. Chairman, have any shame, any sense of guilt or any concern for the fact that in this, the capital city of one of the wealthiest provinces in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, there are people on the street begging?

Mr. Chairman, that there could be a minister responsible for services to people who would sit in his place with a smile and chuckle and refer to a beggar as someone with incentive and initiative leaves me no option but to move a motion.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to move an amendment to the motion. I move that the salary of the Minister of Human Resources - that callous Minister of Human Resources....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the hon. member please withdraw the word "callous"?

MS. BROWN: Okay, Mr. Chairman. I'll take your word for it that he's not callous, even though the evidence to the contrary is very substantial.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MS. BROWN: I will withdraw it. I'll take the Chairman's word for it.

Mr. Chairman, again I'll start with my amendment to the motion.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. We are trying to hear the amendment.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) would like to buy his dresses from Madam Rung~, I have no objections to that.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Okay. I thought he bought his

[ Page 1920 ]

dresses in Calgary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now to the business at hand.

MS. BROWN: I had no idea that the Minister of Mines wanted to buy his dresses at Madam Rung&, but if that's what he wants to do, Mr. Chairman, the minister has my permission to buy his dresses wherever he pleases.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: I am trying to move an amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members! Now proceed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where does he buy his unmentionables?

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: I'm sure he's not referring to pounds, Mr. Chairman, when he refers to me as being a fat cat.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, let's move on to the business at hand.

MS. BROWN: Moved that the salary of the Minister of Human Resources in vote 184 be reduced by $1 to read: $23,999. May I say, Mr. Chairman, that the only reason I'm reducing it by $1 is to ensure that it's in order. In fact it should be reduced to $1 so that he could show us some of his initiative and drive by getting out there and playing a mouth organ and begging.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I wish to remind the members before we move into this debate that the debate is now much narrower in scope than it was originally. It must be to the terms of the amendment that the salary of the Minister of Human Resources in vote 184 be reduced by $ 1.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Chairman, I only wish to say that if I walk down Douglas Street in Victoria tomorrow, should I have the opportunity, I will apologize for the member who spoke earlier. She referred to someone playing the mouth organ as a beggar.

I frankly believe that this particular person may be doing his particular thing, and I think it's wrong to refer to that person as a beggar. Over the last many years I've seen people here and in Vancouver playing guitars on the street. If that's their thing, why should we deny them? Why should we criticize them for doing this particular thing? I think it's wrong, and I'll certainly apologize on behalf of the member.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I've been trying to find out just what it was that made me hesitate to stand on this minister's estimates, and express some very concerned....

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are on the amendment.

MR. BARNES: Yes, that's right, of course. I'm on the amendment.

This is a matter of profound proportions. It hasn't been easy for me, because I listened to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) this afternoon speak about some of the problems that he's faced over the years in dealing with people in this province in an unjust society with an unjust government. He reminded the people that he had practised as a social worker for many years.

As I sat here, I recalled myself that 10 years ago I used to also practise as a social worker in the city of Vancouver. I couldn't understand why I wasn't on my feet expressing some of the concerns of the many constituents that I have who are presently experiencing difficulties due to the system they find themselves having to compete in by no fault of their own.

I suppose I'm still wondering how to approach a minister who is so seemingly sincere and concerned but who just seems to be, maybe by no fault of his own, also suffering from some misfortune someplace along the line. And I'm not just quite sure what it is, Mr. Chairman, because it just doesn't seem feasible even that a Minister of Human Resources would be so insensitive and apparently incapable of understanding what not only the opposition is saying to him, but what people are trying to say to him throughout the province. He tries to give the impression that he is concerned, but I feel that there is something that he has to learn.

I'm not going to suggest that he doesn't have good intentions. I think that to do that on my part would be irresponsible because I don't know what's inside the man. I don't know what makes him tick. But I'm concerned, just as he should be concerned about the people for whom he has been given a responsibility to try to administer services. He should be concerned, not with the successes that he has had himself as an individual, but his responsibilities to rise above his own personal benefits and good fortune, to be objective and to look with a sense of imagination and concern for individuals who have not been as fortunate as he has been. I think that that's quite a big order for anyone in this competitive society that

[ Page 1921 ]

we all have to live and cope with.

I say that in all respect, because I'm not perfect. I realize as I speak now that it could be pointed out to me where I've had my own faults and shortcomings. But be that as it may, the Minister of Human Resources should be a very special and unique individual. He should be a person who is able to employ the skills and benefits of those of expertise within his department. Utilizing those, coupled with his own common sense, compassion for humanity, sincere dedication and commitment to the assurance that everybody in this province gets an understanding kind of assistance, one that shows some flexibility and capacity to deal with individual differences and the problems that all of us have.

This is one of the things that I feel most people are wondering. We have a government which has said that it is businesslike, that it has expertise and the knowledge to operate efficiently. Perhaps it has these abilities. Perhaps each and every member over there has had considerable experience running their own business, operating and making decisions regardless of the views of those people who have been charged with working under their authority.

So they are having to realize and learn that in a democratic society they are charged with the responsibility of having to co-operate and go through certain processes that they didn't have to practise in their own private enterprises and their own private businesses. The Legislature is not a business. It is a place consisting of elected members of various parts of this province who are charged with the responsibility of expressing the views and concerns of those people whom they represent. In order to do that successfully, we're going to have to have an opportunity to participate. That should be the primary concern of the government - to ensure that nothing deviates, that there is no way that any of these processes will be circumvented. So when the minister stands and says that he is carrying out programmes that will aid and improve the condition of those unfortunate individuals in the society. I wonder if he really has taken the time to listen to a few.

I have several pieces ~of correspondence, for instance, that indicate that the minister is being very bureaucratic, very removed and perhaps very officious in his busy schedule in making decisions, and that he doesn't have time - or perhaps he doesn't think it's important - to take the time to listen to individuals and to demonstrate that he can be flexible without fear of perhaps permitting someone who hasn't in every respect qualified under the regulations of his department in order to receive a certain benefit.

Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I'm being over-idealistic. Perhaps it is totally unreal that such a department as huge, unwieldy and as difficult to nail down as the Department of Human Resources. It is not possible.... But I think many social workers and people in your own department who are concerned realize that you aren't going to be able to succeed in every respect regardless of what you do. But they would like to feel that you have something above and beyond the hard-line position that business people often take in dealing with human beings. Because when you and I are gone, Mr. Minister, the problems that people have will still be humanistic. We'll all be faced with them; people will still be trying to solve them.

But you live one life. Many of those recipients about whom you are concerned have but one life, and it's not all that encouraging for them to feel that some day - tomorrow maybe - if they struggle, if they show initiative, and if they just keep hanging in a little longer, somehow they are going to win one of those battles out there on that very difficult competitive field that you call free enterprise. It's a field that is really a very callous, cold, insensitive and indifferent kind of system. It's a system that doesn't find it to be very efficient to concern itself with individual differences or with humanistic factors and variables and values. These things cost money. They take time. If you involve yourself too much in individual concerns and differences, then you can't get on with making the major decisions.

So I'm wondering in what direction we're going. Are we suggesting that in the future the only way that those people are going to be able to communicate with the minister will be through a kind of computerized system, where you make a request for an interview and the minister has programmed certain answers for certain inquiries and you'll get back in a printout by mail - maybe - some kind of a reply? I don't think that's too far-fetched a concept, because I think that as you become more bureaucratic, as you begin to disenfranchise individuals who have worked hard to gain some sense of participation or some opportunity to be represented in the society, and as you remove these opportunities, you're suggesting to them that Big Daddy or Big Government knows best what's good for you. If it doesn't work go back to our core curriculum school and we will tell you step-by-step how to participate - up to a point. It seems as though there is a master plan to destroy humanism among not just those people who unfortunately are requiring assistance now, but all of the people of this province. If one carefully looks at the policies that this government is bringing down and the kind of leadership and the kind of attitude that is being expressed by many of those ministers, I don't think it takes very much deduction to realize that there is very little concern for humanistic values or for individuals who are concerned about their own opportunities and their own lifestyles. The ultimate

[ Page 1922 ]

aim of this government is to put people in their place. Those who don't fit into the place that they have will have to leave the province.

I notice recently that the national average of unemployment is going up. In this province they suggest that it is going down - something like 8.8 per cent. But perhaps you should give us some idea of the total count of the people who were in this province since you should took office. What is the exodus like? How many of them have taken off because they can't fit in? How many people have given up? How many of the ethnic people who can't speak the language, who don't write very well and who haven't taken the time to go down and sign up to get unemployment insurance or assistance, are afraid? Because you can believe one thing: you have given the people the idea that to participate - to come to you for assistance -is a dangerous thing. There's no point in going to that government because they don't care anyway. They're going to do what they're going to do.

So there are some of the attitudes that I think you have very successfully spread in the community. And even though I am in the opposition, I don't take pride in making these remarks because I think the most important thing is service to the people of British Columbia. If you can do that, I'm all for you. I'm with you all the way if you can successfully provide the services that are needed, if you can give the leadership that is needed and if you can set the kind of example that is needed to give people some sense of importance. Give them an opportunity to feel that they have some value and that their words mean something to you. Say that you'll listen and that you'll implement suggestions that are sound and that make sense, that you have not taken the position that you are not flexible. How could I be opposed to that?

But I see the minister talking about efficiency and tightening up and suggesting that everyone begin to restrain themselves. And we get eloquent speeches, not only from the First Minister but from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) when he joined the federal Anti-Inflation Board's programme. He suggested that we are going to tighten up our belts and the government proceeded to bring down legislation that literally destroyed the disposable incomes of most people in this province, forcing them to struggle and fight and demand that they get that money back at the bargaining table. That's a fact.

The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) seems to be nodding his head in disbelief, as though he doesn't believe it. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you were nodding your head about something else.

But I'll tell you right now that the fiscal policies of this government have forced most of the people in this province to tighten up their belts and stop participating in the economy, which is a count reproductive effect of a fiscal policy that was supposed to encourage private investment and to encourage the industry to start growing and to start various programmes to begin to grow. This is not happening. So, naturally, what you have done, in effect, is either forced people to leave the province or go on some kind of assistance, while the only alternative is to take measures into their own hands. What that could mean I don't know, but they certainly can't stay unless they have some means of surviving.

Now you've come up with all kinds of means tests. You've eliminated a lot of programmes. We've had many, many people stand up - not just this session, but last session - talking about the social programmes that you've eliminated. The community resources boards were discussed this afternoon by the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) . Although those resources boards were constitutionally instituted, Mr. Chairman, and members were duly elected throughout the province to represent the people in local areas in dealing with their social welfare needs and other needs, many of those people were prepared to volunteer their services, which is supposed to be encouraged by this government. These people were watching over those dollars a lot closer than this government will ever watch over them, because they're concerned. But they were wiped out - not given an opportunity to participate.

That was obviously the thin end of the wedge because now we find out that the minister is thinking about eliminating the Vancouver Resources Board altogether. He said: "Well, it's a matter of policy." Why don't you open yourself up to dialogue? Perhaps it was a matter of policy. We all have policies at conventions and we are all stuck with these things at some point in time, but certainly you have to be prepared for dialogue in a democratic society. Certainly you can't be so sure that you are not prepared to make some changes and some adjustments. It is wrong to eliminate those people. It is wrong to close those programmes, Mr. Chairman.

Well, I would like, if I can find a very brief letter to a senior citizen - I can almost do it by memory.... Perhaps it would be just as well if you will allow me to fill in the points that I've missed. There was a fellow in the downtown east side who received a letter from his landlord suggesting that the premises in which he was living were going to have to be renovated and that most of the tenants would be required to either move or relocate within those premises as each floor was being renovated. In this particular case, the rents were going to go up considerably - something like $81.50 in addition to the rent that was being paid, which was $108.64. Now this is a 70-year-old person. This man wrote to the minister last September 27. He asked you what was he going to do, because at his age he felt he would like to spend the rest of his days there. He's been there for some 20-odd years and would like to

[ Page 1923 ]

remain. He wrote a very simple letter just outlining his problem. He says:

"Sir:

"I am at my wit's end and was wondering what to do when I noticed the article in The Vancouver Sun quoting you on Human Resources programmes to stress problem prevention. My problem is the building I live in has to be renovated or shut down. I know renovations must be made for fire and safety, but how am I to pay more and where will I go when I can't pay? I'm 79 years old and I have lived in this building for 27 years."

Now this particular individual's income is $275.35 per month. He was paying $108.65 at that time with the prospect of another $8 1.50 - clearly a good $200 plus living expenses. We've heard comments about people eating cat food and other things.

The minister wrote back, in answer to this fellow - Mr. Nielsen was his name. You may recall the name. You thanked him for his letter of October 20. You said:

"The situation that you outline is particularly difficult since my department has no capacity to provide you with additional funds above your Mincome payments to meet that increase.

"I've taken the liberty of forwarding your letter to Mr. David Schreck, the regional manager of the Vancouver Resources Board, and asked that he pursue, through the Red Door rental agency, to determine if we can assist you in finding alternate accommodation."

There are two interesting aspects of this letter, Mr. Chairman. One is that he made referral to the Vancouver Resources Board, which indicates that there is, on occasion, some value in it. Secondly, I have documented your suggestions that the Red Door Society is merely a duplication of a service that you are providing through the B.C. Housing Management Commission, that you intend to amalgamate that service because it would be redundant and unnecessary to continue it.

It's interesting that you made a referral to the Red Door, while I have here several letters prior to that time where you suggested that you would not be funding the Red Door, , that it was redundant and not necessary. So obviously you're not quite sure what you're saying or you are inconsistent in your philosophy. Because the city of Vancouver was trying to persist in getting you to direct funds toward that service and you and the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) have consistently said that you would not be funding the programme. I only point that out to show that you seem to be covering several philosophical viewpoints at the same time. I still don't know what you think is going to happen to that individual or whether you really care. Maybe you don't feel that in this type of society there's anything wrong with having certain people fall by the wayside. I would think, Mr. Chairman, that that should also be of concern to all of us in a society where we say that everybody can go out and make their own way, in a society where we say that when the cost of education goes up to a certain point the individuals should be responsible for paying for it themselves because they're going to benefit more than anyone else -such as with the university students.

It seems to me that free enterprise is all right as long as it's free for the ones who have the power. But it's no good when it's going to cost that power something in the way of ensuring that people get a just or due opportunity. If we're going to have competition of such a stringent design as we have in our society where obviously people who have means will get more, people who have very large estates will find that they're exempt from succession duties and gift tax, while those who are....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. member please show how this is relevant to the amendment?

MR. BARNES: Very, very definitely, because we're suggesting that this minister, who is receiving a fairly handsome salary as an MLA and a minister, is in no position to pass judgment on those people who are unfortunately of no income. What we're suggesting....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: You'll get your chance to stand up, Mr. Member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) . You stand up. I've challenged this government before, Mr. Chairman, to put up or shut up, each and every one of them, because I think that if you're going to stand in this House and make statements about what is just and unjust, you should be prepared to back it up with action. Now it's fine for a millionaire to suggest that it's okay for somebody to do their own thing if they want to blow their horn on the street corner for dimes and nickels, or sell pencils, or shine shoes, or whatever they may have to do because of some physical difficulty or handicap. That's fine to generalize that they're doing their own thing.

I remember they were saying that when I was a kid. I have to go out of the province for a few seconds. I recall when people used to suggest: "Well, you leave those guys alone. They don't have an education down there. They're having fun. They're happy as they can be. They don't want to get involved with all these politics and making all these decisions." It's ridiculous for someone to suggest that those people are happy out there standing in the rain and weather and listening to people come up and

[ Page 1924 ]

smile at them, then doing a dance. Give them a penny in their hat and say: "Well, they're doing their own thing. They're happy." It's an insult; it's very callous and irresponsible.

The thing is, everyone has a right to stand in dignity and they should have an opportunity. This government went out and campaigned during the last election that 100,000 people were out of work. They said: "100,000 people are out of work. Can we afford the Barrett way?" How far can we go? Here we have 150,000 probably out of work - can we stand the Bennett way? You know, it was good enough when they were trying to give the people a snow job. If it was good enough then, how come it's not good enough now? Because I agree with you. That wasn't tolerable even then - 100,000 people out of work. I think it's deplorable and I think that if we were more imaginative....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I must cite for you our own standing orders. No. 61 in the second subsection says: "Speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant" - not just relevant, hon. member - "strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration." I remind you again and ask you to bring your remarks within the scope of the amendment to the motion.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I certainly will do my best to try to bring this very vast and complex subject and department within the realm of the minister's salary.

I can only suggest that in using good business terminology, through supply and demand, we should be able to determine what the salary is worth, or, conversely, we should pay according to efforts expended - or something like that. If we try and draw some measure by which we can determine to what extent this minister's salary should be paid, we have to consider the effect he's having upon society. I would think that this minister has been more of a factor of diminishing returns instead of generating any benefit. I think the effect that he has had by some of his utterances have been incalculable and that many of us, over the years, will be paying for some of his indifference.

The minister spoke the other day: why don't we give him some specific questions? Not that he intends to answer them but he thought he could get away with sitting in his seat and not standing up and expressing himself on certain of these points by saying, "I want specific questions. Let's deal with specific items."

Well, there's one specific item. I know the minister is not paying attention at the moment. He seems to be having some conversation with someone else, but that's all right because I'm only talking about violence in the family, something that has been spoken about already this afternoon and yesterday by the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) . We attended a conference in Vancouver last week on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday called "Family Violence." If anybody should have been -there it should have been the minister, Mr. Chairman. Instead of that, one of the members for Vancouver South attended the conference on behalf of the province of British Columbia to bring greetings, and to express to the conference the government's concern for people, for children, and to quote some of the remarks that were read from the throne speech, suggesting that families and children were of primary concern to this government: human resources was a major resource, and these were the things we were concerned about. Yet the Minister of Human Resources was nowhere to be found.

MS. BROWN: What a laugh!

MR. BARNES: Why wasn't he there, learning something about what really happens, what's really going on, and why there's a need for transition houses and for rape houses, and why there's a need for battered mothers and children, and why they batter themselves in the first place? Try and find out something about the history behind those people and the kind of lives they live, and why it happened that way it did, and what you're to do about stopping it. You sure can't do it with a computer, sitting there and dealing only with the symptom.

There are many causes, Mr. Minister of Human Resources, that I'm sure - I'm almost sure; I'm -definitely sure of this - that you do not understand. I don't believe that you're insincere and don't care. I just think that you are ignorant, absolutely ignorant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MR. BARNES: I would challenge that minister to stand in this House and we'll start talking about human behaviour, cause and effect, and something about personality formation. We'll talk about what happens to people who live in an environment when they are told from the time they're born that you'd better stand on your own two feet, my partner, because there ain't nobody out there going to help you. It's a mean jungle. That's the kind of philosophy we live in.

I know enough about it that I can speak from personal experience. I know in my own lifetime, as an ex-football player, it took me years to unlearn some of the vicious things that my coaches were teaching me, things that could only help me to sustain and carry on traditions which have caused mental health problems in this society ever since I can remember, things that have made people feel inferior, made

[ Page 1925 ]

those feel that because they were short there was something wrong with them. Because everyone else was tall. They had all the power. You just go on naming them; there are all kinds of reasons. I'm sure that the member for the Kootenays would appreciate that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, your time ...

MR. BARNES: Is almost up?

MR. CHAIRMAN: ... has expired.

MR. BARNES: Expired? You didn't give me any warning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, I did not notice the green light.

MR. BARNES: Well, I'm not going to persist on that. I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that in the heat of debate you had no opportunity to remind me that my three minutes were up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Nor any obligation, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: On that note I hope that I will have an opportunity to ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time has expired.

MR. BARNES: ... rise again when we come back to the minister's estimates. I certainly will be supporting this amendment. With that, I hope that you've gotten some messages, Mr. Minister.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): The hon. second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) said that the minister was totally ignorant. The Chairman, not missing an opportunity, said: "Oh, no, no, please address that to the Chair." (Laughter.)

Well, you ought to know.

I support this amendment, Mr. Chairman, because the substance of what the hon. second member....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: "What can you say, dear, when I've said I'm Tory?" (Laughter.) Isn't that great?

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment because of the substance of what the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) has said.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: And the substance of what he said was that the minister....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I'm sure the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) would just love to have my time expire before I got up.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members....

MR. LAUK: He's a sensitive and intelligent member of this Legislature, and he knows full well that what I say is the truth, and he gets embarrassed by it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are having a little difficulty with the timing device. Therefore we will time you by hand - manually, or whatever it is -if that is acceptable to you.

MR. LAUK: Is that your Save the Farmland watch there?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's right.

MR. LAUK: All right then, we'll use that.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. minister has been stunned into silence. That wonderful Pollyanna grin on his face....

Ah, there it is; it's back again.

How are you, my friend? Nice to see you. Nothing's freer than free. We lost one warm smile when W.A.C. Bennett no longer sat in this chamber but we gained one from Surrey.

I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, with some degree of gravity in this matter, that the substance of what the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) was saying is that this minister does not understand. I believe that he does not. His comments on the family unit and his reaction to the various groups of people in society that he has dealt with in the last year and a half indicate not callousness so much as a lack of understanding.

I'm not going to involve myself in a personal discussion about the minister's background or anyone else's background and whether they were rich or poor or where they were raised or what circumstances made them what they are. But suffice it to say, Mr. Chairman, that this minister does not understand -for whatever reason.

When he said this afternoon that he is in favour of not breaking up the family unit, it was really self-righteous pap - to put it as charitably as I can. Who isn't? What is the very basis of our society? What is the unit upon which everything is built in this society? It is the family unit. What is the greatest protection and education for our children? It's the family.

[ Page 1926 ]

To suggest that we were attacking the proposition of the family was the tone of the minister's remarks. What was trying to be suggested to a man who does not understand was that when people go to lawyers to get a divorce or to in some other way settle their family problems, things have come to a desperate stage, a stage before which years and years of suffering, in most circumstances, have taken place, of the kind of cruelty and violence in the family that the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) spoke of this afternoon - the kind of alcoholism, the lack of support from the provider, if you like, the lack of love, the lack of caring, the lack of attention and negligence. When they come to the stage of when they are themselves impoverished - and usually they're single or deserted mothers and wives - and they cannot afford enough money to become divorced and settle their legal status, the government in its wisdom has established a legal aid clinic such as VCLAS to provide the kind of legal advice that they would not otherwise obtain.

The minister suggested that this was improper. I use it not to harangue the minister; I use it only to point out that he does not understand. He confuses the issues. Would it be unfair of some people to say that he confuses the issues for purely political reasons, to obtain attention in some way? The minister is somewhat in the habit of throwing the heat off himself by taking on other issues - the marketing boards and separatism and corn flakes boxes and what-have-you. Whenever the heat is on the minister, whose ego tells him that he's got to be perfect, with that dark hair and that smile.... He's perfect! He runs to the Premier for his gold star every week. When anybody is throwing the heat on him, well, he can always attack the marketing boards or he can talk about separatism or French -Canadians or something like that. All right, that's a little bit of his style. He doesn't care how many of his colleagues he throws to the wolves as long as the heat gets off of his back.

The difficulty that I'm having with the minister is that he really doesn't understand. This was graphically pointed out to me, Mr. Chairman, when the disabled came over to visit him. There were people in wheelchairs and on crutches. There were people who had cerebral palsy and other diseases or problems. The description I was given of the minister's face when he was face-to-face with these people gave me a cold shock wave. Because it occurred to me at that point that the minister for the first time came face-to-face with people who were disabled in a situation where he was challenged to do something about it. In other words he himself for the first time in his life apparently saw that although a person spoke with deliberate slurred speech because of palsy, there was a mind in that person, there was a real human being of flesh and blood, and that somewhat shocked the minister.

Now he wasn't moved to do too much about it by some preconditioning, but the point was this: the argument that the minister makes to the disabled, for example, is "employability." If you're employable, you're not on the disabled pension - that's putting it in a nutshell. If you are unemployable, then you'll get the pension, whatever that may be.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair. ]

The disabled persons say, Mr. Chairman: "We agree with you. Employability is the criterion. Here is the list of disabled persons that we represent and here are their skills." There must be jobs. If employability is the criterion, Mr. Chairman, the minister has the jobs. Fill them; find people these jobs. Don't give them a Catch-22 situation, an impossible situation, where on the one hand you say employability is the criterion but on the other hand there are no jobs. There are no jobs for able-bodied persons and there are no jobs in this province for the disabled. If you want to move in that direction, then move, don't talk! But the minister does not understand. The minister gets caught up, Mr. Chairman, in his own rhetoric and starts to believe his own balderdash: employability is the answer.

Well, I am also disappointed with the minister's lack of response to the question that I raised yesterday. (Laughter.) Maybe I should repeat that again. That's the first I've heard from the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) since his estimate.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): I didn't hear you say too much about the unemployment figures today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. members. The first member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

MR. LAUK: The hon. Mr. Phillips says I'm not saying too much about the unemployment figures. Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, all of the reduction of that unemployment has now moved to Calgary and Edmonton.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member. We're dealing with the amendment. Would you kindly proceed?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: How come we employed 10,000 more?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: You didn't.

[ Page 1927 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We sure did.

MR. LAUK: You sure didn't.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We certainly did.

MR. LAUK: You certainly didn't.

MS. BROWN: No, you did not!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Can we return to the amendment?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: They're all in caravans going to Washington and Alberta, saying: "Goodbye! We voted Socred."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I know that was the way when you were in government.

MR. LAUK: "We voted Socred." They kept their promise. They promised to get British Columbia moving and so we're moving. We're moving to Alberta, Washington, the Yukon ...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, could we get back to the amendment, please?

MR. LAUK: ... Japan. You've got them moving all right. I hear the Minister of Economic Development was up-Island last night, promising them a steel mill in Nanaimo.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, could we now get back to the amendment, please?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, he was kind enough to use his own script this time.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I know what you were in favour of, Gary. I read the minutes.

MR. LAUK: You read the minutes?

Mr. Chairman, dealing with this minister's estimates and his salary and the amendment to the salary vote, I pointed out to the minister yesterday a very grave situation in my constituency. I asked him very, very sincerely whether or not he will not exercise his power. Perhaps the minister can comment on this. As I explained yesterday, people who live in the downtown eastside area of Vancouver Centre are housed in residential premises. Part of the reason I'm supporting this amendment is because he's not indicating to us his commitment to designate these premises as residential premises so that the rent control officers can act to stop the ripoff of these people. The ripoff, you know, is mostly welfare funds out of your pocket and my pocket and the taxpayer's pocket. Are you going to comment on this tonight?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, wait until I'm just finished. If you comment on it I'll be much obliged. Because you didn't yesterday and you....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, would you kindly address the Chair and address your speech to the amendment?

MR. LAUK: I see the Chair has taken on vastly different proportions. I will certainly....

MR. CHAIRMAN: And a new watch, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: I'm delighted to address the Chair. Well, the minister has indicated he'll reply.

Two short points should be made. I received a letter recently, Mr. Chairman, and the minister should hear about this. Can he not propose some relief to people on pensions and disabled pensions, but also on welfare - particularly old-age pensioners on Mincome - for eyeglasses? A lot of them have cataract problems and they spend $150 and upwards on spectacles. This is the fourth letter I've received from people who are concerned in the optical industry about the cost to these people. They can't afford it. They go around without these spectacles on. Now I understand that some of these letters reached your office as long ago as six or seven months.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Am I wrong? Well, I'm instructed that they were.

The letter that really concerns me is a letter from a man by the name of Bernie Clinch. Bernie Clinch wrote a letter to the Sun about the handicapped allowance, and if there is ever any reason why this minister should have a vote of non-confidence from this committee, Mr. Chairman, it's the letter that Mr. Clinch sent where he indicated he was losing a substantial - to him - increment to his pension. The minister replied, but I'll give you Mr. Clinch's reply to the minister's reply. He said:

"Dear Sir:

"Sometime ago I wrote the Sun complaining about a financial loss in my handicapped allowance. You were kind enough to publish my letter. It got results. Incidentally, a copy went to Big Brother Vander Zalm . . ."

[ Page 1928 ]

1 don't associate myself with those kinds of epitaphs. ". . . who was kind enough to reply. He put me right. Now I know that the reduction in my provincial cheque was according to the terms of the Social Credit Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act and only came about because my war veteran's allowance is indexed to the cost of living and shows an apparent increase quarterly when the cost of living goes up. Mr. Vander Zalm assures me that the provincial reduction is only apparent but the federal increase is real.

"I have now learned, so to speak, and know in my heart, that east is west, war is peace, poverty is riches, sickness is health, misery is happiness and loss is GAIN. I shall never be so stupid as to doubt my Big Brother again.

Yours sincerely,

Bernard Clinch",

Well, the minister doesn't understand. Before when I raised these questions to him, when I made speeches about economics - because his portfolio is directly linked to economics, Mr. Chairman - he said prove....

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): The old Minister of Economic Destruction.

MR. LAUK: Tom, the water-baby. They put him in the corner.

AN HON. MEMBER: At least he's awake tonight.

MR. BARRETT: He's been practising that spontaneous comment for a week. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: In all seriousness, I'll draw my remarks on the minister to a close. I support this amendment, Mr. Chairman, because as I said, the minister does not understand those who are disabled in this province, those who are cut off from the mainstream of society. I think of the New Democratic Party as a party of caring. In one sense, I don't like the constant reference to the NDP as being a party that's always for the downtrodden but, in another sense, Mr. Chairman, I'm proud of that. I'm very proud that we provide, in our own way, power to the powerless, a voice to the voiceless, relief to those oppressed, dignity to the ridiculed and care to the sick, and so on, because each man's death diminishes me. If that's true, every time a person is treated unjustly in society it's an injustice to me. If one person, because of some financial or cultural barrier, is barred from a good life or a reasonable life with dignity, then so am 1,

That's the philosophy of this party. It should be the philosophy of the minister. But his philosophy, I fear, Mr. Chairman, is what is politic and what the majority will support, no matter what minority groups suffer. "That's my course of action: expediency and what is politic." That's why I feel that the minister does not understand, because what price is power? What price is political success? Oh, sure, he's popular. Sure you'll get most of the votes out there.

MR. BARRETT: No.

MR. LAUK: Sure he will.

MR. BARRETT: No.

MR. LAUK: Okay. Well, the leader says no.

AN HON. MEMBER: A leadership contest here.

MR. LAUK: But I think, Mr. Chairman, that he's taking the ...

Interjections.

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

MR. LAUK: ... politically expedient road. I think that he has mistaken what his job is in life. It's not political success. It's to make some change, however slight, that is not selfish and is devoted to your fellow man, particularly those who are weaker than you and who are cut off from the mainstream of life, who haven't got the power of their voice.

That's why I must support this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Well, Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment and, as the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) said: "What makes the man tick?"

Earlier, the Liberal leader got up in this Legislature and expressed concern for the handicapped, concern for the poor - those not able to help themselves. We all know that that Liberal leader is a sincere man, who does feel compassion for people who are not as fortunate as himself or most of us in society. From the other side of the Legislature, Mr. Chairman, came the remark: "Why don't you join them?" - join us. Because the Liberal leader said that he had concern for the handicapped and concern for people who are not as fortunate as most of us, a remark from the other side - and not from the minister - said: "Why don't you join the NDP?' Well, I'll tell you, if someone expresses concern and compassion, and that other side says "why don't you join the NDP?', then I feel proud tonight to belong to this party. I feel proud.

There are two McCarthys in this House - there's

[ Page 1929 ]

Grace and Joe.

Mr. Chairman, why this amendment is in front of this House is because of the statements that have been made by the minister - not only the statements he's made in the last few days, but the statements he's made over the course of his political career since being a Crown minister.

One of the remarks that he made - one remark that the Premier said was unfortunate - was that now he's a minister and not a mayor, maybe what he has to say is listened to more closely by more people, and that's true. I think it should have been something he knew when he undertook the job. But yes, when a Crown minister says something, it is important to the people of this province. They look towards Crown ministers to be leaders in a community.

This minister has made statement after statement with no substance, only the statement - like the one he made about Quebec that he won't lose any sleep if they leave. Then the Premier said that was a colourful. remark and wouldn't chastise him. He talked about people from Quebec coming here to draw welfare. The way the minister put it, Mr. Chairman, was that there was an army of young people coming out from Quebec - not even voluntarily, being told by Quebec officials to get out to B.C. That's what the minister said. When the reporters checked they found that that was not the case, that the welfare rates here weren't enormously bigger than they were in Quebec at that time. They surely weren't telling people to come out here to get welfare at higher rates out here. The shovel remark.... Quite frankly, I don't understand it, because I've witnessed the minister under other circumstances where, in my opinion, I've seen a warm man. I just can't understand why that minister would say some of the things he says. Sometimes I have my doubts as to whether he even believes them himself, except that they're politically opportune. But what does it call upon? When you talk about people from Quebec coming out here, are you trying to call on the bigotry that we have in western Canada, in some sections, against French-Canadians? When you talk about people beating the welfare system, are you trying to get at the bigotry in other sections of society and bring that bigotry to get political points?

MR. BARRETT: He said "certain ethnic groups."

MR. LEA: Now, Mr. Chairman, what the minister or his government can't seem to understand is that we're not for handouts. We believe that people should put an effort into the society in which they live and draw back something for putting in that effort and time. We believe that.

MR. BARRETT: Certain ethnic groups. i

MR. LEA: Certain ethnic groups. The minister has made a lot of statements that, in my opinion, bring out the bigotry in people, and pit one group and one individual against another. Oftentimes I think maybe it's because English is not the first language he learned. I understand that that minister speaks English very well. I know that, but I just ' cannot believe that any minister of the Crown would knowingly go out and try to get one group going against another group. Why?

Does the minister think, Mr. Chairman, that we find it desirable that young people - male and female - who are able to work won't go to work, and that some of these people have found their way onto the welfare rolls? It's true; they have. Everybody knows that. But is that any reason to make every neighbour hate everybody who happens to be on welfare, whether they deserve it or not? Is that any reason to bring that wrath, that a Crown minister would say that almost everybody on welfare is a welfare bum and has no initiative, has no pride and doesn't want to work? I don't think it's right. I find it hard to believe that the minister thinks it's right to do that. But as we saw in the United States, you don't have to have substance to make speeches. All you have to do is act like Joe McCarthy and shoot your mouth-off and you'll get coverage. You'll get a lot of coverage. You'll do a lot of damage.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): You should know.

MR. LEA: In the long run, Mr. Chairman, probably the kind of statements that Joe McCarthy made....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I do not believe this is relevant to the....

MR. LEA: I do, and if you can show me how it isn't.... It's relevant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not up to me to show you, hon. member. It's up to you to prove that it is relevant.

MR. LEA: That's the kind of court you believe in, I suppose.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member?

MR. LEA: I withdraw that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. LEA: It's a very dangerous thing, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, for the minister to go around n what appears to be a manner that calls upon the bigotry in a society for personal political gain for

[ Page 1930 ]

himself or for a party which he belongs to. In my opinion, that has been happening with that minister. I don't really believe that the people in this province feel that way. I believe that most people are basically good. Most people are basically good neighbours, no matter what political party they belong to. That's one of the things in a democracy. We can belong to different persuasions - ideologically, philosophically, politically - and still get along as a unit and as a society for the common good. I believe for that one reason and that reason alone that this amendment should be supported by this House, just to make sure that the minister, when he speaks again, will guard himself and will think before he speaks, and understand that when he speaks as a Crown minister, those words are listened to, most often with belief. They believe what Crown ministers say, and they should be able to believe what Crown ministers say. Yes, he's not the mayor of Surrey. He's a Crown minister in the province of British Columbia. People look up to a Crown minister. They listen to him and they want to believe in him.

For that minister or any minister to accuse people without proof, without fact and without substance, is wrong. Mr. Chairman, how would you feel if you were a civil servant working here, about going home to your family and having your son or daughter or husband or wife - maybe not even asking the question - just believing the minister and knowing that you're a lazy bum and that you're not working for your money? But how does that child or that wife or that husband know that it isn't that person whom the minister is referring to? It just isn't good enough for a minister of the Crown to stand up and say that the majority of a 30,000 work force are only working two or three days a week for their money. My experience in government was that the vast majority of civil servants worked hard for their money. That was my experience. I found some how didn't, and I found some who didn't no matter where I've worked in my life, whether in private industry or for the civil service or working with the civil service. I don't think the general makeup of people changes that much with the job. I believe you have your basic values that you take with you when you go from job to job. But for some civil servants to have to go home and face their families with the knowledge that a Crown minister has said that they don't work at all or very little -I believe that is a wrong thing for a minister to say.

I believe it's wrong for a person, who, for no reason of their own, has to go on welfare, to go home and face children who have heard on the radio that day that their parents are welfare bums, just because they're on it - not for any factual reason. I'm not saying that some children don't have parents who shouldn't be on welfare who are. We know that to be the case, too. But it seems to me incumbent upon the minister, if he is going to make that statement, to come up with the figures. I don't think there are that many employable people on welfare - or ever has been - although there have always been some.

Wouldn't it be much nicer if the minister could tell us how many employable people he found on the welfare rolls when he assumed office? We know the number is small. Then we know that the people who are on welfare, through no fault of their own, can go home and face their family with pride.

All this history shows us that you can split and divide and conquer people by getting them to attack themselves out of fear, out of insecurity. When people are insecure and fearful about their own future and the future of society generally, at that time they're more apt to act in a way that they wouldn't normally act because of that fear. For a minister of the Crown to prey on that fear and insecurity within our society.... Because there's no doubt that we're in an economic recession, specifically in British Columbia, at this time. I think there's a lot of fear and insecurity about the world in general and about what the future has in store for us. It's easy for a minister of the Crown to make that fear more real. It's quite easy, and I think the minister has done it. That is the main reason, as I said, why I support this amendment.

I remember, Mr. Chairman, when I was a young boy and I'd lied to my father. My father said: "You think you're really smart, don't you? You've lied to me and you made me believe it. But, " he said, "did you ever figure out why?" He said: "It's because I love you and it's easy to lie to those you love because they want to believe you." That same analogy could be made with a Crown minister, Mr. Chairman. People tend to believe Crown ministers, and for Crown ministers to talk without fact and to bring bigotry around in our society without having the goods to prove it I think is shameful. It's absolutely shameful.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you're not alleging that the minister is lying in any way?

MR. LEA: I didn't say the minister is lying. What I'm saying....

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're not alleging this?

MR. LEA: I'm not alleging that he's lying, Mr. Chairman. What I'm saying is that he's making statements without the facts to back them up. He could be telling the truth, but who in the world would know it because there are no facts, no facts ever, just statements with no facts. That has been the history of that minister since he's held that portfolio from the beginning of this government.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): Where are your

[ Page 1931 ]

facts?

MR. LEA: I still find it hard, Mr. Chairman, to believe that that minister would do it deliberately, but he appears to be doing it deliberately. He appears to be making statements for political gain with no validity to the statements when they're checked out. That's the way it appears, because never once does he come along and say: "I made that statement a week ago and here's the proof of what I had to say." Later on he says, "Well, I don't have the facts; I don't have the goods."

Even in this debate, Mr. Chairman, he says that his programme has hired 6,000 people. Who was hired? To do what job? For a week? A month? A day? Were they on welfare rolls before? Nobody knows. It just isn't good enough for the minister to say, "I have been successful, " without having some facts to back it up. It just isn't good enough for the minister to say armies of people are coming out here from Quebec to collect welfare when he doesn't have the goods to back it up.

Time after time after time, that minister has made statements that I believe cause disunity in the community because it turns neighbour against neighbour, family member against family member. If that is what the minister wants, then yes, I think he's a fairly successful minister, because I believe, Mr. Chairman, he's doing that. I find it hard to believe that he wants to. I find that very hard, but I believe it's happening.

I think the minister knows what I'm talking about, Mr. Chairman. I think he does. I think he knows, because if there's one thing the minister isn't, it's stupid. I don't believe he is. I think he knows what I'm talking about. I just wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether he's learned his lesson. He's been chastized by the Premier, he's been chastized by the media, he's been chastized by all of the opposition, and, for all I know, maybe even people in his own caucus besides the Premier.

But I say, Mr. Chairman, it's time that minister stopped. It's time he stopped because, as other people have done who make those sort of irrational statements that bring out the worst in our society, they always go too far. In order to remain popular, they have to make statements that are more absurd.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: More extremist, that's true. They have to do that, but finally they're caught. But what about the damage that's done in the meantime? Maybe even damage, Mr. Chairman, that can't be measured because we don't know what's happening in the homes in this province. We don't know.

I wouldn't want to be a civil servant in this province with the minister making those kinds of remarks. I wouldn't want to be a person on welfare, through no fault of my own. The handicapped were over here, and they were politically motivated, it was said. I wouldn't want to be a handicapped person in this province with the minister making those remarks. I wouldn't want to be unfortunate in any way while that minister is in office, because it wouldn't be the minister I'm afraid of, but the kind of feelings that probably would be stirred in my neighbours and in my friends by the kind of remarks that the minister makes. I wouldn't be afraid of the minister. I'd be afraid of the consequence of the minister's remarks and what those kinds of consequences could do to you.

I believe the minister does know, Mr. Chairman, what we're talking about. We know that this amendment won't go through, because the government will vote it down. But I hope the minister has listened and will stop making statements that in my opinion bring nothing but disharmony into the society in which we live. .

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair. ]

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Chairman, I oppose this motion. I consider it both irregular and irresponsible.

MR. BARRETT: But it's in order.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I do not know why it is on the floor of this House in the first place, because it has not changed the tone or tenor of the debate. It's gone on the same wide-ranging purpose that the main debate has, and I think it is a motion that just was designed to occupy the time of this chamber and to achieve no purpose whatever.

Tonight we heard some talk about begging. I think that these icy tears that are falling from those who would like to suggest that they are so noble they do not tolerate begging, so great that they're the champions of the poor, when during their day of office they did nothing but hamper, destroy and throw away the wealth of this country ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. MUSSALLEM: ... until today we find ourselves in the position ....

MR. BARRETT: The Columbia River.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I hear an hon. member intoning. I believe I hear the sound of the parachutist for Coquitlam.

MR. BARRETT: We love you too, George.

[ Page 1932 ]

MR. MUSSALLEM: I wonder how he, of all people, can stand within this chamber ...

MR. BARRETT: We love you, George.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Listen. I hear these intonings. I rather enjoy them, for the simple reason that I didn't have to buy my seat in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MUSSALLEM: I was elected by the people of Dewdney, not rejected. I didn't have to buy it for $80,000. 1 am in this House because I am wanted.

MR. BARRETT: We love you. I told you.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Not because you love me -no, not you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the amendment says that the salary of the Minister of Human Resources in vote 184 be reduced by $ 1.

MR. BARRETT: It's the minister we don't love, George.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, I have the honour to debate the issue on the vote you mentioned, but if I'm to do so, I'll have to ask you to restrain the parachutist from Coquitlam. Otherwise I will not be able to continue.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): They're killing you with love, George.

MR. MUSSALLEM: This debate has gone far away from the purpose that was intended. It's gone far away from the people whom it serves. People in our country and in our province who are receiving welfare because they need it are the ones who should have it. And that is what this government, our government, is giving - more to those in need, but less to those who do not require it. We are taking off the rolls people who do not need welfare.

During the day of the previous minister, of the previous government, when we had a $100 million overrun, when money was given to anyone who asked for it, when money was squandered on every pretext whatever.... That was what I consider unfeeling and nonsense, because the people who deserved the welfare did not get it.

MR. BARRETT: Now the millionaires are going to get it.

MR. WALLACE: Now it's a $100 million underrun.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, I must reply to these asides. Who are these millionaires we hear of so often in this House?

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Name them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Point Grey.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nanaimo.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I'd like to know who they are.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, will you put the members in order, please?

I would like to see us debating the issues here. I would like to see if we have a motion today before this House to reduce the minister's salary, which is technically a motion of non-confidence. I would like to see us debating the point of why is the minister not worth his salary.

MR. BARRETT: Well, it's obvious.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I haven't heard one word of that, Mr. Chairman. I say this minister is worth his salary many times over for the money he has saved the people of British Columbia, for the large sums he's given to those in need and for the sums he has taken from those who need it not. That's why I respect this minister. I know him well as a man of compassion, and understanding and honesty.

I'll tell you a little story.

AN HON. MEMBER: He'll tell you the truth.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Just yesterday, I went to the same minister with a problem regarding a young girl in my constituency. I felt that it was a very serious matter. I was quite disturbed. The minister immediately - within an hour or two - had me a proper answer.

Now I believe that the hon. opposition listens to stories, seeing things through rose-coloured glasses one minute and dark glasses the next - watching a beggar on the street, they say, who's enjoying himself, perhaps, doing his thing. How many here have not begged?

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: How many? How many of

[ Page 1933 ]

you have not begged? It was only last week that I missed my bus, and I was trying to thumb a ride to this Legislature.

MR. BARRETT: I took you home!

MR. MUSSALLEM: But no one stopped for me -no one.

MR. BARRETT: I took you home!

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

MR. BARRETT: I took you home!

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, would you kindly put that man in his place?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Dewdney has the floor.

MR. BARRETT: Is that not true? Did I not take you home?

MR. MUSSALLEM: That unruly member....

MR. BARRETT: Did I not take you home?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MUSSALLEM: We are debating, Mr. Chairman ...

MR. BARRETT: You'll never get another ride! (Laughter.)

MR. MUSSALLEM: ... the minister's value to the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the hon. Leader of the Opposition please try to contain himself?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I took him home, and then he talks that way about me!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: You'll never get another ride home, George. That's it! (Laughter.) Five miles out of my way and he treats me that way!

MR. MUSSALLEM: The hon. leader rises, I presume, to a point of order. He's trying to suggest that he took me home one day.

MR. BARRETT: I did, too - you ingrate!

MR. MUSSALLEM: He's suggesting he did, and it's true....

MR. BARRETT: It's true! It's true I took you home.

MR. MUSSALLEM: It's true he did. I'm sure he did.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I ask the second time....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Hon. members....

MR. MUSSALLEM: Did you hear that? He not only took me for a ride, but he took the whole province for a ride. Did you hear that? He took the whole province for a ride.

MR. BARRETT: He could've at least paid for the gas.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition the third and final time.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Throw him out! (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

MR. MUSSALLEM: The question before us tonight is: is the minister worthy of his hire? I say he is very worthy of his hire and more. If he was paid even a small commission on what he's saved this province from what was thrown away by the previous government, he'd be a wealthy man within an hour. Can anyone in their right mind say that $572 million that was paid out in this department this year is not a lot of money? How much more could it be?

That sum of $572 million is more than the entire budget of this government 10 years ago. Here we're paying out $572 million. It requires a man of judgment, of consideration, of care, of understanding and compassion, and that's what our minister has. And some people in this House would say that we should reduce his salary by a dollar.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Chairman, he's got to be out of order.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Facetious, irregular and irresponsible.

MR. BARRETT: No, George!

[ Page 1934 ]

MR. MUSSALLEM: Nothing more than that.

MR. BARRETT: Shame! Get one of them to give you a ride home.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I could go and talk at great length in detail why I think he is worth what he is receiving.

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I hear snickers and laughs. Sure, that's all right. You can laugh at anything, but in seriousness, when you're in this chamber, considering what it's costing to operate this chamber every minute of the day, it is time we threw away the nonsense and got down to business.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I say to you that what we are doing here tonight, what we did here yesterday, was not a debate in fact, in judgment, but simply the wasting of time, dancing up and down without regard to the issues at hand. Show us cases, show us places -not generalities....

AN HON. MEMBER: All right.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Give us constructive suggestions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Resign.

MR. MUSSALLEM: We have not heard one. I say to you the shallow remarks of the opposition do this House a great injustice. We are paid a large sum of money to be here debating the issues before the province of British Columbia. I say to you that this House tonight and yesterday have acted in the most irresponsible manner. I call on the members of the opposition ... not our members; we've not said a word.

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Put that up, put it down, it makes no difference, but be responsible.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. MUSSALLEM: Let us have constructive suggestions. Let us have understanding. Show us some way where people can be served better. Don't tell us how to give away money - everybody knows that. But how can you save money?

MR. BARRETT: Cut them all off welfare.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Do you realize that when you spend the money of the province of British Columbia, you are taking the money off the backs of the people?

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: It's not your money. It's not our money. It belongs to the people of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: But yet you'll say: "Pay more. Give out more. We're not giving out enough. Throw it around."

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, George!

MR. MUSSALLEM: That was your philosophy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Punish the cripples.

MR. MUSSALLEM: That was your philosophy, but this is not the philosophy that is required in this country. This is not the philosophy on which the decision was made on December 11, a year and a half ago. We are of the philosophy that you must spend the hard-earned money of the public where it belongs and not carelessly and not wantonly but with understanding and judgment.

I say to you that I think the motion was irregular and irresponsible because this minister we have here is one of the most responsible ministers this government has ever had. I give him my entire support.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we've had a few minutes of comic relief. I hope that now we can get serious again. I hope that the Whip of the government side will think over very carefully what he said tonight in this House - that the responsibility of the government is to do nothing but save money, that the responsibility of the government is to really overlook the needs. That's in effect what he said.

Mr. Chairman, we do have welfare in this province. We've got welfare for the millionaires. It's the only sign of welfare that I've seen in terms of expansion since this government has been in power.

This isn't irregular. It's not irresponsible to move a resolution to reduce the minister's salary. What does that resolution say? The resolution says, in effect, that we have no confidence in that minister. That's what the resolution says. Mr. Chairman, that resolution was not moved until this afternoon as a result of a speech made in the dying minutes of this afternoon's sitting. What was that speech about? It was the speech of the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) when she was noting that there were

[ Page 1935 ]

people begging on the streets of Victoria. That was called initiative by the Minister of Human Resources.

There's a film that was taken across Canada, and that film reveals the frustrations of Canadians caught in the trap of unemployment, caught in the trap of poverty, caught in the trap of semi-literacy. What that film shows is the disgraceful cancer that abides in this rich economy in this country that's one of the richest in the world.

We are fed the line of initiative. We've heard the minister indicate that there must be incentive for those who can't walk. To do what? To walk? There must be incentive for those who are totally beyond the opportunity of working to somehow work, when his own criteria for the disabled indicates very clearly that they can't work in any event. So what are we talking about when we talk about incentive?

Mr. Chairman, today we are seeing the reincarnation of the old Dunsmuir regime in the province of British Columbia. Now I've seen a great deal of praise of the Dunsmuirs - Robert Dunsmuir, particularly - in recent issues of the paper, and his real initiative. That's the kind of initiative that the millionaires understand. It's the kind of initiative that, at the turn of the century, cost us 470-odd miners. I can recount every one of those mining disasters. That was initiative. I presume that we can say that those people in the mines were showing their initiative as well. That was initiative. Are we going back to those times in British Columbia? Are we going back to the days of the abuse of our fellow man for our own riches.

Mr. Chairman, many don't understand over there. I can understand why they don't. Greed prevails, and it's very unfortunate. Whether that greed is for power, whether that greed is for personal riches, in my view it makes no difference.

I suggest that this lack of confidence motion is around a remark that, in our view, capsulized everything that this minister has stood for since he has been Minister of Human Resources. Oh, they've thrown a lot of mud and called our old minister far too generous. I'd like you to go out and show me those situations where you can prove that abundance of generosity. We had people, in the days when people felt they could talk to the government in this building, demanding more and not getting it.

MR. L. BAWTREE (Shuswap): The taxpayers sure do.

MR. COCKE: The member raising pheasants for the government up there in the Shuswap says: "The taxpayers sure do." Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, what do you know about it? If you know something, stand up and talk in this debate. Stand up and defend that minister who is now under attack. He's under attack justly. He proved it just by that one statement late this afternoon. It capsulized everything that he appears to stand for.

Well, Mr. Chairman, soon we'll see a plague in the castle up on the hill commemorating Robert Dunsmuir, a great man with a great initiative. Sometimes I wish that history would show both sides of every situation. I know the history. If anybody would like to read it, I can certainly point out the other side of the story. Initiative is often something that we tend to respect without really looking into it. This minister is showing initiative in saving money. But I pointed out yesterday that that is short-term saving. It is ruining lives, which will ultimately cost us more if we don't do the preventive job. The places you should do the preventive jobs are in the Ministry of Human Resources, in the Ministry of Health, in the Ministry of Recreation and Conservation. These are the areas that will save us so much in the long run in the Ministry of Health and in the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Gardom's) department. I talked recently to a probation worker. He told me: "Do you know what you're doing over there?"

I said: "Do you realize what side of the House I am on?"

"Well, I don't care, " this frustrated probation officer said. "We're driving people in this province to steal."

We're driving people to behaviour that we don't accept, to the point where the Attorney-General will have to pick them up.

The preventive work must be done. Let's not go around mouthing phrases about shovels, initiative and all the rest of it. Let's do some positive work in this province. We haven't showed signs of it. The positive work that I can see today is save a nickel today and spend a dollar tomorrow. Is that initiative? No, Mr. Chairman, it's the Robert Dunsmuir syndrome.

I hope we can hear somebody other than the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) , who seemed to not have any defence and who seemed to agree totally with the minister. I'm sorry for that member for Dewdney. I'm going to have to go out there to Maple Ridge and tell the people just what he said in this House tonight. I know that, after rethinking it, he is going to get up tomorrow and he's going to apologize for many of the things he said.

MR. BARRETT: He took a free ride and then bites the hand that feeds him.

MR. COCKE: That's right. I support this amendment, and every thinking person in this House, when we come to a vote, will support this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): I also rise in support of this amendment. This minister has shown an absolute disregard for people's feelings. Perhaps

[ Page 1936 ]

he just had an incapacity for an empathy or an understanding with the feelings of ordinary, everyday people.

I would like to bring to this minister's attention what he has done to the programme of financial assistance to senior citizens and to handicapped persons. Is this minister even aware of how many different categories he has created in this programme of his called GAIN? What an absolutely inappropriate title that is.

He now has senior citizens between the ages of 60 and 64, with a spouse under the age of eligibility for that programme, receiving $425, 1 believe, if they were on the programme before October 1,1976. If they came on the programme after October 1,1976, they would be getting $389. But if one of the spouses was handicapped with a spouse not eligible for the programme, they would get $385. They should be getting at least $439, which is what they would be getting with the sum of $279 plus $160.

The minister nods his head and he says: "Not true. Not true." I suppose he's going to stand up and tell us about the new wrinkle in the programme in which he's categorized things even further. That is now with the housing allowance. Well, yes, I guess we have another category. We have people who live in Batten Fielding out here in Saanich, handicapped persons who are in subsidized government housing in another category again. He's building category upon category upon category, but he's building disaster upon disaster upon disaster. That is really what is happening in this department. He is splitting up, he is dividing, and he is trying to make each person feel grateful that they might be just a little bit better off than the person who is a little bit lower in the pecking order. He's setting up a pecking order, Mr. Chairman, in order to keep people divided, in order to defuse any sort of a unified voice.

We had the handicapped come over here one time and he tried to buy them off with a little bit of patchwork in this very leaky ship. Mr. Chairman, the senior citizens have been over here too, and other groups, and he's trying to keep them all as separate, disorganized groups rather than one voice. But I tell you, Mr. Chairman, they will come together as one voice in this province and that minister is going to be the ruination of this party. Let there be no mistake about that. -

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Your party!

MR. NICOLSON: Well, you're going to do your bit too, Mr. Minister of Economic Development and Unemployment. You're doing a great job of unemployment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. NICOLSON: You're setting unprecedented records. I'm sure he'll join in this debate later, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad that you brought him to order.

Mr. Chairman, this minister has again set up more confusion and little favours to one group as opposed to another. What is this minister's policy as to medical coverage? Some persons getting what we call welfare - the people not getting the higher levels -can apply for full medical coverage. If they go into the hospital, their $4 a day - which used to be $1 a day under the NDP but is now $4 a day charged for going to hospital - will be paid if they're covered by full medical coverage. But how do you get on to full medical coverage under this minister?

Well, one way you can do it is if you just have to go on the normal minimal welfare programme. If you're a senior citizen nearing the age of 60, and say that you had been getting social assistance when you were 59, you would have been covered with full medical coverage under the department. If you come under the GAIN programme you now get $265 a month. I understand it's the policy of that department that persons in that category continue to get full medical coverage. But if a person was to discontinue employment, go on to GAIN at age 60 or anywhere between 60 and 64, what would happen? They would not get full medical coverage. In fact, people on Mincome - 80-some-odd years of age - if they have to go into hospital frequently, if they have to travel from the interior down to Vancouver, have to pay hundreds of dollars in terms of plane transportation, have to pay $4 a day while they're in hospital, and they don't even get their medical premiums paid.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite in order for the Minister of Human Resources, through his department, to be paying the medical premiums for persons under his department. He has built up a fantastic number of categorizations so that some people can say: "Well, things are pretty bad but I guess it could be worse." They can always look to somebody else. I suppose they can look to the people begging on the street who the minister admires as showing initiative.

I would like to know from this minister, before I see fit to give him his full salary, what his policy is on the continuation of full medical coverage of a person who goes on GAIN at the age of 60. How does a person get full medical coverage? I'd like this minister, maybe in closing this debate, if he would express what the policy is in terms of who does and who does not get full medical coverage. To my way of thinking, Mr. Chairman, it's absolutely ridiculous the way this is coming about now in view of the fact that this minister has set up so many different categorizations for Mincome. It's now called GAIN, and we've got people getting $230 a month, others getting $265, others getting $160, others getting $279. It also depends on the age of the spouse and

[ Page 1937 ]

whether they were on the programme before October 1 or after October 1,1976.

A minister like this isn't worthy of a full salary. These are just a couple of the concerns that I have.

I would also like to express some of my concern about the matter of overages. The minister has said that he would like to see senior citizens stay in their home. I could cite cases and I could name names of persons, except that I don't know that I would want to draw the attention and publicity to these people. But I'm thinking of three people in particular.

I'm thinking of one lady who lives in the Thrums area. She's trying to stay in her home and she needs home repairs. She has a creek running through her property; they need some rip rapping down in that creek which runs through their property. It's not an elegant, landscaped residence. It's a very poor family; they're on social assistance. She is getting $420 a month for herself and her three children, or was at the time that it was first brought to my attention. They need home repairs. They've had estimates done by two different carpenters, builders or workers who would do the work for them: one estimate of $480, one of $550. She was allowed $200. Is there an absolute limit to overages? Is there any consideration of the extent to which these things should be done?

I know of another lady. This couple is on Mincome. Their floor is rotting out. It will certainly cost more than $200 to have it repaired. They went to the Department of Human Resources. The Department of Human Resources says: "You better go and see your MLA. Maybe he can speak to Mr. Vander Zalm." That's a quotation, Mr. Chairman. The minister has said how pleased his department is, and yet so many people are being referred to me because of the shortcomings of this minister.

I can think of another one and, in fact, it's over in my colleague from Cranbrook's riding - a lady in a very similar situation, a single lady in this instance, living in her own home. She writes in her letter: "I'm writing to you as my last hope." She wrote to the former member, Mr. Leo Nirnsick. "Many people have told me that you've helped them with their problems. . . ." and so on.

"I've received the GAIN pension, but with taxes, fire insurance of $ 15 1, and a big fuel bill, as this is an old, cold house for which I pay monthly on a mortgage, things are really tough.

I've tried getting permission to work an extra $100 as the disability pension and others are allowed with no success. Those in charge at Cranbrook see how unfair it is but the office in Victoria doesn't."

She lives in a rural area. She needs to drill a well; her water supply is not proper. This is one of these people whom you referred to that you would like to see remain in their home.

Mr. Chairman, the thing that I find most galling about this minister is a matter which affects a programme, and that was grants which were given to the children of veterans of earlier wars and those who also served either at home or abroad. There was an Act called the Education for Soldiers' Dependent Children Act. Mr. Chairman, there was allowance in that Act for grants of up to $250 per child under the terms of that Act which was originally under the Minister of Education. During our administration we transferred this to the Department of Human Resources for administrative ease.

. I've gone to the trouble of researching the debate which took place on the Statute Law Amendment Act in 1973 and I have it here. I know that the present Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) asked some questions pertaining to that. I know also that the present Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) was interested.

Mr. Chairman, the Act was proclaimed by an order-in-council repealing that Act, and in 1974 grants went forth in the Department of Human Resources. Grants went forth in the Department of Human Resources. Grants went forth in 1975 as well.

I might say that there was more money that went out because it was no longer a fixed vote in the Department of Education in which a three-member panel had to meet, which, I might point out, had representatives on it from the Royal Canadian Legion Pacific command, as well as the army and navy veterans' association. Mr. Chairman, this three-person committee made recommendations, and they had to dole out amounts that were not sufficient. Not every deserving child of a veteran could get the $250 grant which was really their due.

This was an Act which was brought in, I believe, originally in 1936 in order to assist veterans of the first great war. It was later amended and improved in 1948, and it was administered with fixed amounts in the budget. I have talked to executives in the Royal Canadian Legion and they tell me that the administration of this through the Ministry of Human Resources, which was much better in terms of promptness ... Also, there was a greater amount going and more children able to be given $250 for their education.

I had to make inquiries in two different departments to find out the history of this Act. I had to search Hansard. I also talked to colleagues of mine. When I approached people in the Ministry of Human Resources, I was given, frankly, wrong information. I was told, for instance, that it pertained only to veterans who had served in the theatre of war. When I did find the Act, I found that the terms of reference related to those who served both at home and abroad.

Mr. Chairman, what we're talking about here is only about 100 children who remain and qualify, 100 children of people who were willing to go over and lay down their lives for this country and that

[ Page 1938 ]

minister. Because when he brought in GAIN he wiped out the provisions that were in the earlier legislation, under the earlier Social Assistance Act. Through that oversight, rather than saying, "we made a mistake. . . .- It isn't hard to overlook a small group of 100 people and make a mistake, but rather than say, "we made a mistake, " they said, "we're phasing this thing out, and yes, we might be able to take a few very worthy, very deserving. . . " Again, very deserving - that word comes through again. My god, what do you have to do to be deserving in this country? Isn't risking your life or giving up your life enough, Mr. Chairman?

So I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, that minister is not, unless he's willing to admit that there was an oversight.... I don't expect that he should have been responsible. I don't expect that he should have been aware of that little administrative detail that was going on when he brought in the GAIN legislation. But after it's been brought to his attention, Mr. Chairman - after that - I should think that particularly that member should know that those Canadian people who were willing to serve overseas, particularly in the Second World War, are deserving of a little bit more than just a casual consideration of who is going to be deserving and who is going to be this.... All 100 of those children have the right to that $250-per-year grant toward their education.

MR. BARRETT: I'll be brief, Mr. Chairman. I have specific examples, perhaps under separate votes that will wait till tomorrow. I just have to respond to two things.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, it may seem humorous - and I think it is kind of humorous - but I have to respond in the debate to the point which the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) attempted to make. He is, as everybody knows, a very good personal friend of mine. I value that friendship and cherish it. However, after tonight....

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is on the amendment, is it?

MR. BARRETT: Yes. In response to his remarks, after tonight our friendship has to remain at a distance, because, Mr. Chairman, what we're talking about under this particular amendment is having a heart and understanding people in plights and situations.

The member got up and said he was in a plight. He was in a situation; he needed a ride. That was what he used as an example. Well, the fact is, Mr. Chairman, I knew he needed a ride. I offered him the comfort of my car. I went five miles out of my way. I took him home. I've never made a public issue out of it. He comes into this House and typifies the Social Credit attitude. He got something for nothing and he bites the hand that gave it to him and then kicks around other people who ask for a helping hand too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame, shame!

MR. BARRETT: There it is - a classic example of what's wrong with you fellows. You're going to have to walk from now on to teach you a lesson.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And now to the amendment.

MR. BARRETT: But fortunately he can walk; fortunately he doesn't have to go to a social worker. I don't like to have a hard heart. I'll probably break down and give you a ride too; I'll forgive you. But gee whiz, Mr. Chairman, I really think it's such a short memory in terms of charity and an act of love given compassionately to him. Then he comes in here with that kind of nonsense. It's a good thing my wife isn't in the gallery. It certainly is, because even Shirley, who likes that member a great deal too, would be disappointed. I'm not going to tell her till I get home. As soon as I get home, I'm going to tell her.

Shoveling money out! A $100 million overrun! Mr. Chairman, the people of this province are going to have to pay $100 million a year and infinite because of the stupidity of the Columbia River Treaty. Ten per cent interest on a $1 billion deficit is $100 million a year that this government blew because of a stupid treaty. That money is going to the Americans, and if that's shoveling money out of a truck, you know how to do it!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I don't have any confidence in this minister because he supports a party that put this province into bondage ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member!

MR. BARRETT: ... into usurious bondage because of a stupid decision of the Columbia River Treaty.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your stopping the interruptions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Back to Hollywood.

MR. BARRETT: Now you talk about money to people. There are two things that have gone on in this session, which he's not said a single word about, that relate to a lack of confidence in him. There's an $11 million gift of welfare money being given to the coal companies, because the royalty that was supposed to

[ Page 1939 ]

go up never went up.

MR. KAHL: Order, order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Did they go in front of that minister? Did they go through a social worker? They're given $11 million and that minister has never said a single word about it. But he has cut people off of every kind of service and that's why I don't have any confidence in him.

In this very same session, that minister is sitting there and he talks about relief to people. He talks about people deserving assistance. He'll talk about assistance to people. The millionaires of this province are being relieved of $30 million a year in taxes by that government - the millionaires who sit in comfort and security. Have I heard a single word out of that minister saying that everybody must pay their fair share, including the millionaires? No! That minister says, "Squeeze the poor. Take it out of their hides. Cut them back! But let the millionaires go and the coal companies go." That's what this debate is all about, because you have no sense of proportion and no sense of responsibility.

You talk about giving specific examples and my heart is full of love for you. It is! Even though you err. I forgive you brother - through you, Mr. Chairman. But not the minister tonight because I'm going to vote against him. This is a letter I got. If you want specifics, you listen to this. I'm going to love him right to a defeat. Mr. Chairman, this is a letter I got on February 22, related to that minister and why this motion is here. I'll read it to you, and if you want the names I'll give them to you out of the record, because I think that's only fair.

"Enclosed is a letter I received February 21 which I am sure you will be interested in. I called at your local headquarters and they suggested that I write you at once and enclose the letter along with my current income and expenses. This action on the part of the Human Resources department will affect thousands of senior citizens in the lower mainland.

"My wife and I are both invalids." - he hardly can make use of a shovel - "She is in a wheelchair, a permanent colostomy. I have had open-heart surgery. She is left with a damaged valve. I am on crutches since 1965. They have put in an artificial hip three times. It has now broken down and they will not do it a fourth time for they say I'll be a bed patient if they do.

"I am a veteran of the Second World War, five years, " - probably fought in Holland -"and I am on the WVA."

This is what they're writing about - their homemaker. They're both invalids and have a homemaker. They are saving this province and its taxpayers thousands of dollars a year by attempting to cope in their own home. They're staying together as man and wife. They're not asking for any separation, going into residence or 24-hour-a-day care. They're trying to stay together as a family. He gave five years of service to this country, and to other countries of the world. She's in a wheelchair, and this is what has happened.

Under the former government, a homemaker came in three days a week and helped this family stay together.

I ask you - through you, Mr. Chairman - to think of this purely in dollars if you can't think of it in terms of human beings. Yes, you, Mr. Minister, because I'll read your answer back to you. Let me finish. Sit down! You've sat all day and now when the heat's on you want to rise. You just sit there and boil a while. You just want to boil a while. I was incensed with the remark you made about begging, but this letter here is a heck of a lot worse, in my opinion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I certainly will.

"We need this service badly. We can't bend over to make beds, floors, etc. At the present, rate for this service is $27.60 a month, which we can manage without difficulty. This gives help four hours a day, three times a week. The new rate is quite impossible for us to handle and have a livable life. At 74 years of age, we are not in good enough health to manage properly."

They're not on the labour market. They're not welfare sponges. They're not able to take care of a shovel. They don't come from the province of Quebec. They don't belong to a minority group. None of the categories you've attacked in your 16 months as minister suit these people.

"Our income from old-age security and guaranteed income, plus GAIN, plus WVA of $33 a month, totals $585 a month. Our expenses: homemaker, $27.60-1 rent, $40 in Legion housing."

Thank goodness for the Canadian Legion. They understood what these people went through.

"Phone call, once a month to the East to the family, " - their daughter - "$15 a month; gas and light, $28 a month; cablevision, $5.75."

Yes, these people on welfare actually have a T.V. set.

"The newspaper is $4 a month." I suppose they could do without that. "Car, insurance, et

[ Page 1940 ]

cetera, is $50 a month; food - $170 a month; fire insurance - $3 a month; clothing - $30 a month.

"Using the past year's figures, we also spent an average of $90 a month for gifts, anniversaries, donations to charity . . . "

Isn't it ironic that one of the biggest groups that give to charity are the poor? They understand more than the rich.

". . . medicare, medical supplies for my wife not covered by Pharmacare. As you can see there's little left for the good things in life, such as a holiday. Would you please take this matter under consideration for us and thousands of others who will be affected?"

Here's the enclosed letter that they got, Mr. Chairman, and why we're making this motion tonight, and why we support this motion tonight.

"Dear Mr. and Mrs.... :

"We have been advised by the director of human resources that after April 1,1977, all clients must pay for service according to the means test. Beginning in April, therefore, you will be required to pay $234 for the service you're receiving each month."

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): What - $234?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, $234 every month. From that minister's office, $234 per month out of their total income of $585 a month.

"We are urging the government to revise this policy. We sincerely hope that we will be able to continue providing service to you at no cost, or at a very nominal fee."

This is the agency providing the service.

"Your field worker will keep in touch with you and advise you regarding further policy changes, If you wish to write directly to the government to state your concern regarding this payment, you should direct your correspondence to the Minister of Human Resources."

You talk to me about nonsense of specific cases, and this minister doing a fine job. Don't be silly! Yes, there is a great deal of leeway in the debate. Yes, there is some levity between members, but I'm being specific, Mr. Chairman, directly related to why I will vote for reduction of his salary by $ 1. Why these two human beings out there, one in a wheelchair, one on crutches - one a five-year veteran of fighting for the freedom of this country - with a service provided for $27 a month get a letter from an agency saying that because of instructions from the minister it's going to cost them $234 a month....

If both of these people gave up, both of these people abandoned what hope they had in terms of a relationship to each other and that family, do you know what would happen? It would cost the taxpayers thousands of dollars a year to place them in a nursing home. They're trying, with the help of this service, to maintain a little dignity and self-respect in their own family life, in a wheelchair and on crutches. They get this service, they get kicked in the teeth by that minister and that government, and that member gets up and says: "Give examples." We're almost too embarrassed to give examples, but if you want more you'll get them. How many does it take to get it into their thick heads that there are people who are depending on help out there?

What is the answer we get from the minister? I wrote the minister and I said as follows:

"Dear Mr. Minister:

"I have received a letter from Mr.... East Avenue in Vancouver, who has been receiving community home services at a cost of $27.60 per month. He has now been advised that commencing April I the same service will be $234 per month.

"Both Mr. and Mrs.... are invalids. Mrs.... is in a wheelchair and Mr.... uses crutches. They are both 74 years of age. Their combined income is $584 a month.

"Would you please have someone from your department check into this case and provide me with a resume so I can reply to his query."

I didn't condemn the minister. I didn't take the letter at face value. I learned that a long time ago. Check with the minister; find out. They may be misinterpreting. Perhaps there's an error. No one could be that wrong or hardhearted. So what is the policy that I've always adopted? That minister knows it: I write directly on every single case before I make any statement, to make sure that I have all the facts in front of me. Because I know how difficult it is for the minister to be faced with irrational, irresponsible statements that may not be correct. This is what the minister responded.

I don't like doing this. I don't like doing it, but if we have to reach the point where we have to throw the minister's own words back down on the floor of this House on behalf of two people, then, by golly, I guess we're going to have to do it.

On March 14 1 received this letter in my office.

"I am in receipt of your letter of March 3 regarding the inquiry from Mr.... and about his homemaker service benefits. As you perhaps are aware, nearly all the beneficiaries of homemaker service are needs-tested and are required to provide what funds they have toward their homemaker service. Due to a decision by the previous administration. . . ."

I don't know what you mean by that. Are you suggesting, perhaps, he was too generous? I'll tell you something. If anybody came to me as Premier and said that that minister had not provided these people

[ Page 1941 ]

with this kind of care, I would have canned the minister within 24 hours. You want to talk about a comparison between me and the present Premier? I'll give you a comparison. You're still in the job. I would have canned you within 24 hours if you hadn't straightened out this kind of situation. I'll read the rest.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, I wouldn't work for you.

MR. BARRETT: You wouldn't get the chance. I'd give you one chance to ride in my car but not the second chance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair. It will assist me.

MR. BARRETT: You bite the hand that feeds you, through you, Mr. Chairman. "Due to a decision by the previous administration, some 100 people in receipt of GAIN for Seniors were grandfathered . . ." That's an actuarial term to say that they are accepted at the level they are. What it really means is that GAIN is a cutback. But instead of cutting people back since they came in, they grandfathered them into that position. That's what it means. Everybody else under GAIN has to be cut back. They're grandfathered. It's an admission. ". . . and allowed to receive free benefits regardless of the needs test criteria. I am sure you can appreciate this has created agitation among the elderly who, although they have the same income, are required to pay a portion of the cost of the homemaker service."

Now we've cut everybody back, you see, and we left those who are on there. But now that we have cut everybody back, they're agitated to get the same as those who got it. Therefore, to make everything equal, we are going to cut them back too. That's how you rationalize service to people. It's an old communist trick. I don't know where you learned it but I feared it a long time - a totalitarian, communist-style trick coming from you!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't know about communism.

MR. BARRETT: Well, fascists and communists operate the same way. They take away everything you have and give half of it back to you and say: "Be grateful." Fascists and communists are the same way - there's no difference. One is psychotic and the other is neurotic, but they're both pretty messed up.

"I'm sure you can appreciate this has created agitation. As a result of this anomaly" - Who created the anomaly? He created the anomaly - "we have attempted, since October, 1976, to phase into the needs test those few individuals who remain under the grandfathered programme.

"As is the case with all recipients, each individual is very carefully considered, and we are endeavoring, during the transition period, to give the widest possible consideration for hardship."

During the transition period, the widest possible consideration for hardship. They were given an absolute.

"In the case of the X family, I am informed that they are living in government-subsidized housing where rent and utilities amount to approximately $76 per month. By their own estimate, this couple spends about $160 per month for their other support needs plus the additional $60 per month required for colostomy supplies."

Listen to this. A minister of the Crown who deals with a budget of half a billion dollars, as my good friend said, says this in a letter: "As can be seen, this couple appears to have a monthly income above their needs, which could be applied to homemaker services." So we'll take half of it away - those are my words. They've got an income of $585 a month. "This couple appears to have a monthly income above their needs, which could be applied to homemaker services, " so we'll take half of it away. Thick!

"While the complete assessment has not been made, it would appear that a contribution will be required from them for homemaker service." That is not true. Mr. Chairman, it is an attempt by the minister to soften the interpretation to me. The fact is that the complete assessment was made. That's why I was complaining in the first place.

Don't suggest to me, through you, Mr. Chairman, that the assessment wasn't made in an attempt to weasel out of a situation. You made this decision. You ordered it to be done, and when it's brought to your attention, you say the assessment hasn't been completed. If the assessment isn't complete, why are they being forced to pay $234 a month? Are you suggesting that everybody appeal directly to the minister, and if they're lucky enough to have an MLA write, you might do something about it?

"Having been made more thoroughly aware, however, of the ages and handicap of the couple, I have asked that the assessment give full consideration to this."

The assessment already gave consideration to that. You are asking your own department to appeal your own decision. That is tantamount, hon. members, to a person going out and murdering their mother and father and then appearing in court and pleading for mercy because they're an orphan. That is exactly the analogy - a situation created by that minister, demanded by that minister, and then when it's brought to his attention, pleading that he'll take a

[ Page 1942 ]

look at it.

"Again I can assure you that we are providing the widest possible latitude for hardship and will endeavour to make this transition period as smooth as possible for all concerned."

Stuff and nonsense, Mr. Chairman! You deserve a $1 cut.

Fortunately, it isn't anybody's relatives in the back benches. Fortunately, they don't have any such complaints in their constituencies. Everybody is hail and hardy in every other constituency. Mr. Member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) , through you, Mr. Chairman, and through the minister to that member: shame, shame! At 74 years of age, $585 a month provided a decent homemakers service from my good colleague whom I admire tremendously and whom thinking people in this country respect for pioneering services to keep people in their home from coast to coast in this country.

The coal companies walk away with $11 million: the millionaires walk away with $32 million. You sit there smug and contrite and happy with a sanctimonious pile of bilious nonsense from the member for Dewdney as the only defence. I say you're disgusting!

What's it all about? Seventy-four years old and you give him this kind of stuff. You write me a letter saying: "Dig, dig, dig - I might look at it." You don't deserve it! Your government doesn't deserve it!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Address the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: You're a bad government, through you, Mr. Chairman, and a bad administration and should be voted against for moves like this!

Interjections.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Oh, are we going to have fun when we get the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) up, Mr. Chairman. Are we going to have fun! The guy who can only think when he's got his glasses on.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Back in the truck!

MR. LEVI: I've got two reasons why I'm going to vote against the minister's salary. And I hope that in saying it, we might just be able to bait the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) to get up and say something. When the question was posed about where the wastage of money was he yelled across the floor: "What about Good Hope Lake?" Well, Mr. Member, get up and tell us about the wastage of money that we spent on Indians. You get up and tell us about it, because we want to hear from you about what you think that government does for Indians. They don't do anything. But if you consider that to be a waste of money, then, Mr. Chairman, he should get up and make his point and defend that minister.

I want to talk to the minister about another case. He wants facts. This is the minister who says: "If you write to me, you get an immediate reply." Well, I wrote to the minister on January 14, and he replied to me on February 22. 1 wrote to him about the case of a woman last year - a maintenance~ case. This is one of the minister's big efforts in his job as the minister. He's going to chase all of those errant husbands who don't support their wives.

Interjections.

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

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, we haven't heard from the minister of one example of how he's actually caught one of these husbands. But I wrote him a letter. This is what I said to him: "I am attaching for your information a copy of relevant correspondence regarding Mrs. Scafardi's case." You all remember the case of Mrs. Scafardi; I raised it last year. You may recall I raised this case on June 7 during your departmental estimates.

The issue here is the payment of maintenance. In Mrs. Scafardi's case, she was granted a maintenance order of $350 a month. I made the statement during the estimates that there appears to be something very inequitable in our system when debts owing to banks and other creditors ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) return to his seat, please?

MR. LEVI: ... are taken into account before the needs of families. Now this is an issue that might appeal to the minister. After all, he wants to be able to catch husbands who don't pay maintenance for their wives. Last year, I provided him with the facts of the assets of the husband. This was a registrar's report before the court in Vancouver, in which they list the assets and liabilities of the husband. Here is a man who, in 1975, made an income of some $33,000. The indications are that he made $36,000 in 1976. Yet the people in this province - the taxpayers - are contributing to that family more than $500 a month in welfare payments. Here's a man that makes $36,000 a year and does not provide the maintenance for his family. The taxpayer provides it. Now I pointed this out to the minister: "I provided you last year with the information. The principle here is, are we're going to have a situation where children and wives are going to come after the obligations that a man has to a bank or to his creditors?" Well the minister wrote me back on the 22nd and he said: "We have no evidence that Mr. Scafardi can pay the welfare money."

In 1976, he was required to pay some $4,200 in

[ Page 1943 ]

payments. He paid $1,200! He didn't wind up in court. The department didn't, through the family court, have him subpoenaed to show cause why he didn't make these payments. But the minister in his letter makes an excuse and says: "We have no evidence that he can pay the money."

Well, if the bank and the creditors are going to take, respectively ... as is stated in the case here by the registrar of the court in Vancouver: "The petitioner's means, personal income tax returns for 1971,1972,1973,1974 and 1975 were filed. He talks about his income being $15,000 in 1975 from hair styling and $16,000 from wigmaking." It talks about his liabilities: mortgages on a condominium, about $30,000; Bank of Montreal loan, $7,000; Bank of B.C. loan, $23,000. All of that money that the man owes in terms of payments has to be paid before the wife and children get their money. That's the situation that we have in the province today - that before the children and wives, we get the banks and the creditors.

Now it may very well be that over there, the businessmen will tell us that that's the way it has to be. If you borrow money from the bank, you have an obligation to pay it back ' I gave him an opportunity when I wrote to him and suggested to him in the letter that:

"I urge that you use your offices to see that Mr. Scafardi is brought to court and is compelled to carry out the terms of the maintenance order. I'm aware that you're concerned that husbands who have left their wives should be responsible for their maintenance in the first instance. Here you have the case of a man who makes a considerable income and has refused to accept his responsibilities."

And we get a most fatuous reply from the minister saying: "We don't have any proof that he can afford it." Instead of saying that they will notify the courts to bring him before the court to find out, he makes that kind of opinion. He says: "We don't have any evidence." This is, again, evidence of the way this minister talks - lots of rhetoric, no action whatsoever. Here's the taxpayer being ripped off to the extent of $500 a month under that man's ministry, simply because he is not prepared to make the effort to bring this man before the court. He had enough to say last year. He said he was hunting through the province~ and he was hunting through the country. He was going to work out a reciprocal agreement....

AN HON. MEMBER: Going to get them out of bed.

MR. LEVI: No, he was going to go under the bed first, to get them out.

He was going to work out a reciprocal agreement with the other provinces to track these people down. Well, how many has he tracked down? He didn't track this one down, and this guy isn't even outside the city limits of Vancouver. He's making $36,000 a year - very successful. His wife is living on $500-a-month welfare payments.

MR. LEA: Is he a Socred?

MR. LEVI: No, he's not a Socred. He's a hairdresser. I don't know whether that makes any....

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) , in his most eloquent fashion.... And he is there. Mahaba effendi!

He's there. He made a beautiful speech. He was defending the minister. Actually when he finished speaking, I just wondered whether the minister was as well off as when the man started. Obviously he wasn't. I mean, how do you defend the minister? I find it very difficult to even stand up and have to address him, through you, Mr. Chairman. After all, I was the minister before. I spent 40 months building programmes and he's spent the last 15 months tearing them all down. That's a pretty disappointing situation. Forty months to build programmes in this province.... The previous Social Credit government spent 20 years penalizing people, running up the highest total of future costs on damages to children and families of any government in this country. We spent 40 months, and we spent a great deal of money. And you know, the interesting thing about the money that we spent is that it all went into the bank. All of the welfare recipients hoarded it. They squirrelled it away; they didn't spend it. None of the businessmen in the community of Surrey or Chilliwack, or in the member for Columbia's (Hon. Mr. Chabot's) riding, had any access to that money at all. It was all squirrelled away. Nobody spent any money.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Back of the truck.

MR. LEVI: Back of the truck! Well I told you yesterday about the back of the true. You guys went around with a truck with a big vacuum cleaner ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Address the Chair.

MR. LEVI: ... and you sucked it all back again. Last year you sucked $0.5 million out of the ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Address the Chair, please, hon.

[ Page 1944 ]

member.

MR. LEVI: consumer's pocket. This year you've sucked over $100 million out of the welfare....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Address the Chair, please, hon. member.

MR. LEVI: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can see you except that I constantly have to see the back of your head. When you lay back I'm much more aware of the fact that you're there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's disrespect for the Chair, hon. member.

MR. LEVI: There's no intent to be disrespectful, Mr. Chairman; it's a fact. When you're back there I can see you; I can't see you from there.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: No disrespect was intended, Mr. Chairman. It's 5 to I I - let's not get into a hassle. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed with your speech, and keep it in order, sir.

MR. LEVI: Fifteen months to tear down programmes, and the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources says: "Out of the back of a truck!" I know that the businessmen in his riding, Mr.; Chairman, would have been much happier if we had taken all of the money that we spent on old people and welfare recipients and the handicapped and kept it in the bank. Then they would have had no income for their businesses.

After all, when you pay out, say, $180 million in income assistance to welfare recipients, what happens to the money? They go down to Woodward's and they buy fur coats? No, they don't. They go down and they pay half of it in rent and half of it for food. So who benefits? The landlords and the supermarkets. Nobody saves any money on the kind of money that's paid out by the Ministry of Human Resources. Nobody saves any money on that. We hear from these people that somehow it's all squirrelled away by people who shouldn't really get it. Well, isn't that a pity. They shouldn't really get it.

We have had two examples today of the homemakers programme. And that is probably the worst travesty of destruction of a programme that we've heard, because we are dealing with people who for 20 years got nothing from the government. I've heard the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) when they were on this side of the House, talk about those things. They don't talk about it now. After all, they are sitting on the other side of the House. But that's what they have done. They have turned down the programme; they have taken away the money. But the interesting thing is that out there they are not going to forget. They are not going to forget about what they have done for seniors.

I can't support this minister's salary.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:59 p.m.