[ Page 1945 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Payment to Northern-Central Municipal Association. Mr. Lea –– 1945

Federal subsidies to ferries. Mr. Wallace –– 1946

Deletion of land from agricultural land reserve. Mr. Skelly –– 1946

Closing of Railwest Plant. Mr. Gibson –– 1947

Cabinet appeal committee on Revelstoke Canyon Dam. Mr. King –– 1948

Need for refrigerator cars to transport produce. Mr. Skelly –– 1948

Negotiations with Japanese coal buyers, Mr. Lea –– 1948

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Human Resources estimates.

On the amendment to vote 184. Mr. Lauk –– 1969

Mr. King –– 1949 Mr. Gibson –– 1972

Mr. Stupich –– 1951 Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1972

Mr. Wallace –– 1953 Mr. Nicolson –– 1972

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm 1957 Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1973

Mr. Barber –– 1957 Mr. Lauk –– 1973

Mrs. Dailly –– 1957 Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1974

Mrs. Wallace –– 1958 Ms. Sanford –– 1974

Mr. Gibson –– 1959 Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1975

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1960 Mr. King –– 1975

Mr. Cocke –– 1962 Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1975

Division on the amendment –– 1962 Ms. Brown –– 1976

On vote 184. Mr. D'Arcy 1977

Ms. Brown –– 1962 Mr. Wallace –– 1978

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1966 Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1979

Division on vote 184 –– 1980

Appendix –– 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, seated in the members' gallery today is Mr. Norman Woods, director of special products for Participaction. Participaction is a non-profit organization working.with the co-operation with the federal Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport to develop "participarks" across Canada, promoting physical fitness as a pleasant outdoor recreational experience.

The Port Coquitlam Kinsmen club is building the first such "participark" in Canada. The enthusiasm of this group, and the support of the community in general has been phenomenal. In addition 35 Kinsmen clubs throughout British Columbia are preparing to provide similar facilities in their communities and nearly 200 Kinsmen clubs across Canada are waiting with anticipation for the progress of the Port Coquitlam "participark."

Mr. Woods is spending a majority of his time on the park in Port Coquitlam, which I'm proud to say will be the model for those developments across Canada and will be officially opened on April 1,1977.

I would ask the House to give Mr. Woods a very special, warm welcome.

HON. S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today is a group of nine members from the Victoria Dance Arts Ensemble. This is a very talented new group of dancers which has been assisted in their initial stage of development by a grant from the B.C. Cultural Fund. I would ask the members to join me in wishing them well in their art and welcoming them here in the House today.

Mr. Speaker, if I may I'd just like to introduce to the House Mr. Peter Caleb, who is headmaster of St. Michael's University School in Victoria, and ask the House to make him welcome as well.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Seated in the galleries this afternoon is a group of students from Georges P. Vanier Senior Secondary school at Courtenay, accompanied by their teacher, Doug McRae. I would like the House to join me in making them welcome.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): This afternoon in the members' gallery is Mr. Eddie Deerfield. Mr. Deerfield is the director of the United States government's office of information services in Vancouver. He is their official representative, and prior to being stationed in Vancouver he served in Malawi, in India and in Pakistan. For the members of the gallery, prior to entering government service he was a reporter for the Chicago Sun Times. He is a highly decorated World War II pilot. I would ask the House to give a very special welcome for the official representative of our next-door neighbour.

MR. L. BAWTREE (Shuswap): I would like to introduce to the House Mr. Floyd Parkinson, the mayor of Spallumcheen, and Mr. Len Pepper, one of the members of the council of that same municipality. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome and, if possible, the government give assistance to a group of concerned citizens from the constituency of West Vancouver-Howe Sound - specifically, from the town of Squamish. This group of citizens is here petitioning the government to assist with all possible effort in keeping Railwest operating so their jobs are secure. I ask the House to welcome them here today.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the MLA for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) and myself, I'd like the House to welcome a group of students from the Community Baptist Christian Academy in Abbotsford who are here to view the proceedings of the House this afternoon.

Oral questions.

PAYMENT TO NORTHERN

CENTRAL MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Yesterday I asked the minister a question in regard to a $25,000 payment from the consortium of Kitimat Pipeline Co. to offset or to help offset the expenses of a municipal government convention.

I asked the minister whether he considered that to be a moral thing to do. He, of course, needed some time to think that over.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA: It's been 24 hours. I wonder if the minister has a question on that point of morality.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you know the question was taken as notice yesterday.

MR. LEA: Yes, I know.

[ Page 1946 ]

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr. Speaker, I've had a very busy 24 hours, including meetings last night until 11:30 on other matters. I'll have an answer in due course for the member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

FEDERAL SUBSIDIES TO FERRIES

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, this is a question to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. In view of the figures released by the B.C. Ferry Corporation showing that ferry traffic continued to decline last month - vehicles down by 26.7 per cent and foot passengers by 21.6 per cent -and in view of the minister's statement that agreement on a federal subsidy will be forthcoming, can the minister assure the House and the users of ferries in British Columbia that these subsidies will result in a reduction of passenger and automobile rates prior to the 1977 tourist season?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): No, I can't give the House that assurance. If moneys are forthcoming from the federal government, I would expect that they would be tied in some degree to better service to people in the middle and upper coast of the province, rather than to those already served by B.C. Ferries.

MR. WALLACE: I thank the minister, Mr. Speaker. But in view of the great importance of the federal subsidy and the minister's earlier statement in the House on February 14 that that agreement with the federal government was expected in two weeks -and we had a further statement on March 2 in the House that there would be an announcement before the end of this month - can the minister tell the House exactly what stage has been reached in the negotiations with the federal government?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, an announcement will be made in due course. I hope it's a matter of weeks.

MR. WALLACE: With regard to the figures I quoted, could I ask the minister if he was consulted by the B.C. Ferry Corporation in their decision to withhold these figures relating to passenger and vehicle use from the public? My assistant phoned the general manager's office today and was refused the figures. When he told them that he was inquiring on behalf of an MLA, he was told that the release of the figures would have to be cleared by the minister.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, there should be no change in past practice and I'll make arrangements to that effect.

DELETION OF LAND FROM

AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of the Environment: with reference to the two cabinet committee meetings to discuss releasing Brett Chevrolet company land from the ALR, did the cabinet committee have recommendations from the Land Commission, its staff or the ELUC secretariat before making the decision to release that land?

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): If I follow the question, the Land Commission was present at the hearing and the Land Commission had previously recommended that the ELUC hear the appeal following their rejection of the 9 (2) application. It then follows that ELUC could hear the appeal. The secretariat prepared the background information for the appeal and arranged the appeal. They do not make recommendations.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): They do!

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

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The Land Commission had members present at the hearing.

MR. SKELLY: As a supplementary to the minister, did the Land Commission staff make a recommendation on the deletion of that eight acres? If so, what was the recommendation? What were the contents of the background paper filed by the ELUC secretariat?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: This information is somewhat detailed. I wouldn't even attempt to supply that information to you this moment. I am not quite sure that I fully understand your question. You are asking if the secretariat furnished certain information. You would have to elaborate on what type of information you are speaking of.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, the minister stated that the secretariat provided a background paper. What were the contents of that background paper? If they didn't make a recommendation, what was the background supplied? I am also asking what recommendations had been made by the Land Commission's staff, if any.

HON, MR. NIELSEN: I wonder if the member might perhaps write out the question in some detail and place it on the order paper so that I could respond to this very detailed requirement that he is

[ Page 1947 ]

asking for.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary by the hon. member for Alberni.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: It's not final.

MR. SPEAKER: I said "final, " hon. member.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, was the Save the Farmland committee invited to appear before the cabinet committee to express their views on the deletion? If not, is it a fact, then, that only a Social Credit card-carrying car dealer was invited to appear or did appear and the Social Credit MLA (Mr. Schroeder) for the riding obtained an office from that card-carrying car dealer?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano has been recognized.

MR. LAUK: A point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have no point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I have recognized the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: I'm on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: As a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you recognized the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) and you said it was his final supplementary. I listened with great care to the question and it was in perfect order. Then immediately you recognized another member. Would you allow the minister, who is very anxious to answer this question, to answer it?

CLOSING OF RAILWEST PLANT

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development. I would like to ask it of the Premier but he is not in the House today. As the minister is aware, there are nine Railwest people in town today who are concerned about the imminent death of their plant and 265 jobs and serious injury to Squamish if no action is taken. They've tried to see the Premier and they were fobbed off on a completely unsatisfactory meeting with the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you state your question, please?

MR. GIBSON: What I want to know is whether or not the minister will arrange to have this delegation see the Premier today or whether they are going to have to come back next week with half the town.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, I'd like to inform him that in spite of other commitments this morning, during the period between I o'clock and 5 o'clock I broke off a cabinet meeting and met with this delegation in my office. We had deliberations, at which time they again explained to me their concerns about the effect on Squamish and indeed the effects on their own families and their future if that plant should go down. I'm very much aware of the situation, Mr. Member. Certainly you can Test assured that this government will do everything possible to see that that plant is kept open.

We are in negotiation with Ottawa. I hope to be in Ottawa on Monday meeting with some federal officials. As I've said here before, I feel very strongly that we will be able to get an order for grain cars, which would not be committed until next spring, out of the federal government and that that plant will remain in operation.

MR. GIBSON: I have a very specific supplementary, Mr. Speaker, because that was a pretty vague reply. I want to ask the minister specifically: is he ready on behalf of the province to match the offered federal subsidy of $5,000 per car?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, the government has made a commitment that we will certainly meet Ottawa's commitment to subsidize the cars.

MR. GIBSON: As a supplementary, does that mean that the province will match dollar for dollar each $5,000-per-car subsidy that is given by Ottawa, which means there will be a total subsidy of $ 10,000 a car? Is that your current offer? Can you confirm that?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, his question is hypothetical. He's using a figure of $5,000. I'm certainly hopeful of getting an order out of the federal government which would be for more than 100 cars. As you know, if there's an order for more than 100 cars, the price

[ Page 1948 ]

comes down because the cost of tooling up is amortized over a greater order of cars. I'm not interested in an order for 100 cars. I'd like to see am order sufficient to keep that plant going at least until fall, when possibly a decision on the northeast coal -which the members opposite have been fighting and arguing about and saying they don't want to see it go ahead....

MR. SPEAKER: Could we get back to the question that was asked now, hon. minister?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The people in the unions up there certainly expressed the desire in my office this morning to see economic development in this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Hopefully that message will get across the chamber, Mr. Speaker, so that some other members of the chamber will realize it.

MR. BARRETT: Would the minister be prepared to tell us what minister he has an appointment with on Monday of next week to discuss this matter?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As I said, Mr. Speaker, I'll be in Ottawa on Monday and I'll be having discussions with several ministers. I think this is not just a one-minister concern. I think we have to involve more than the Minister of Transport. I think we have to involve the Minister of Industrial Development for Canada as well.

MR. BARRETT: Could the minister please inform us as to the exact names of the exact ministers he will be seeing on Monday?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I'll be meeting with several ministers in Ottawa.

MR. BARRETT: Would the minister be prepared to tell us the names of the cabinet ministers with whom he'll be meeting Monday so that we, in turn, when we're asked questions, can properly interpret the minister to the public, rather than leave the impression that perhaps he has no meetings at all?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Could I draw to the attention of both the minister and the hon. Leader of the Opposition that questions are supposed to be of an urgent nature. I would have to observe that such a question is far from that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, I just want to say that I will leave the interpretation of our policies up to this side of the House and certainly not to him.

CABINET APPEAL COMMITTEE

ON REVELSTOKE CANYON DAM

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, Mr. Speaker. Is it true that the Minister of Transport has replaced the Minister of Labour as chairman of the cabinet appeal committee to hear the appeal on the Revelstoke Canyon Dam?

HON. MR. DAVIS: No, Mr. Speaker.

NEED FOR REFRIGERATOR CARS

TO TRANSPORT PRODUCE

MR. SKELLY: I have another question for the Minister of Economic Development. The federal government has said that there's a need for 500 to 1,000 refrigerator cars to transport horticultural produce between Prince Edward Island and other points in Canada and from the Okanagan Valley to other points in Canada and the United States. Has Railwest expressed an interest or made a bid on the production of those railcars?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Why not?

MR. SKELLY: Why not? No interest? This is the fast-talking minister who wants to create economic development for British Columbia. Why not?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I'll be meeting with Ottawa officials on the whole Railwest deal and the future orders for cars. I realize that the members opposite would like to make a little political hay today because the union leaders are in, but I'll tell you that on this side we're interested in results, not necessarily political hay. And it's results that count.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH

JAPANESE COAL BUYERS

MR. LEA: I have a question to the Minister of Economic Development: is it a fact that there are negotiations going on now between the province of British Columbia and coal buyers in Japan, not to increase orders of coal from British Columbia, but to negotiate downwards the orders that are already here in this province?

[ Page 1949 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the member's question correctly, I guess I would have to say the answer is no.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

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

On the amendment.

MR. KING: Speaking, to the amendment, Mr. Chairman, which is a motion to reduce the minister's salary by the amount of $1, which is a traditional gesture by this institution of non-confidence in the minister, I want to strongly support the amendment.

I was very disconcerted and very alarmed to hear the minister's comment yesterday when the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) was describing the sorry and sad plight of an individual who was reduced to the position of begging on the streets of the capital city of British Columbia. The minister responded by suggesting that that was initiative, that was incentive.

Mr. Chairman, I think it was that rather contemptuous remark that prompted the motion of non-confidence in the minister's performance as chief custodian of human resources in this province. It's a further indication, a further demonstration, of the disdain that that minister holds for human resources in this province, as demonstrated by many previous statements which he had made; as demonstrated, Mr. Chairman, by a tremendous volume of mail, which I'm sure all members of this House are receiving from constituents, from B.C. citizens all over the province, outlining the extreme difficulties they are having in terms of making ends meet in a stagnant economy where jobs are no longer available. In many cases, pleas for assistance either from those who are no longer eligible for unemployment insurance, those who are senior and indigent, and those who are handicapped and hence prevented from getting gainful employment in any event are met with what I believe to be a callous disregard by that ministry.

The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) yesterday attempted to defend the minister, and he called upon the opposition to be specific and to outline specific examples of people who are indeed suffering hardship under this minister. Mr. Chairman, I'm quite prepared to do that. I certainly don't want to embarrass those people, either in my own constituency or elsewhere, who are already suffering the indignity of having to appeal for assistance to get by but are being treated in shabby fashion by that ministry and, in many cases, are virtually on the border of starvation.

I'm going to read some of their pleas, Mr. Chairman, for assistance. I'm going to leave out their names but give my undertaking to the minister that if he is interested in those pleas, I am prepared to provide him with copies of these letters if he does not already have them, which I believe he does, Mr. Chairman.

One particular letter from my own constituency was directed to my office on February 2 1, this year. I'm just going to read some of it and give a sampling, Mr. Chairman. Quite frankly, I'd have to censor the letter anyway because I believe you would rule that some of the very descriptive' phrases which this u n f o r t u n a t e individual uses might be unparliamentary. But it indicates a strength of feeling that the individual has.

He says:

"Thanks for the letter of February 14,1977. It's a pity people of your government are not holding the reins. I feel many local people who are getting" - I'll substitute the word "hammered" - "specifically by Vander Zalm's department here have too much dignity to complain. Moreover, when social workers in Revelstoke invoke section 18 (d) of the Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act -failing to demonstrate a reasonable effort to secure employment - on partially disabled applicants, something stinks.

"When I wrote Vander Zalm about this individual's case, he received one $10 grocery voucher in six months. The hon. minister sent an enclosure. The individual never did get further benefit and was too proud to push it.

"Regarding my own case, I never did receive a reply to my numerous inquiries after application for assistance on December 4,1976. As you know, I got section 18, which is 'failing to demonstrate a reasonable pursuit of employment.' "

The individual is handicapped, Mr. Chairman. We have over 100,000 people in British Columbia unemployed and that department callously indicates that the handicapped, crippled person should be out seeking employment, and is quite prepared to let him starve rather than provide assistance through that minister's department.

I have a further letter here, Mr. Chairman, and I'm sure the minister must have received a copy. The letter I have is addressed to the Premier of the province with copies to, I believe, all MLAs. I'm sure the minister got a copy. It's dated January 27,1977,

[ Page 1950 ]

under the heading of the First United Church, 320 East Hastings Street, Vancouver. I'm not going to read it all because it's quite lengthy, but I'll quote from it to give you the general tenor. It says:

"Dear Mr. Bennett:

"The staff team of the First United Church are very concerned with the inadequate and discriminatory income assistance rates, also known as welfare or social assistance, as provided under the Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act and the pursuant regulations to this legislation effective October 1,1976.

"We can, without hesitation, support the recipients who are upset with reference to the discriminatory rate changes. Also, we fully endorse the positions of the Federated Anti-Poverty Groups in British Columbia, the Association of Social Workers, the Inter-Church Association to Promote Social Justice in Canada, Victoria Community Action Group of B.C., and the British Columbia Coalition for the Disabled, in their representation to your government concerning inadequate income assistance."

Mr. Chairman, here is an indication that the First United Church, along with other relevant community groups - groups which are working with and for the disabled in the community - find the minister's policies and the minister's legislation not only inadequate, but discriminatory. That is precisely what the members of the opposition have been trying to point out. That is precisely why, Mr. Chairman, the opposition has indicated a lack of confidence in this minister. Not only is he demonstrating his inability to meet the needs of handicapped and unfortunate people in the province; at the same time that he is introducing discriminatory and inadequate policies, he is heaping scorn and derision on those people who can least help themselves.

That is the part that really hurts. To think that any public servant - which we all are, as elected representatives - would view their own status as so high and so mighty that they would cast aspersions on those less fortunate, brings dishonour to this chamber, to his government and to his own office, Mr. Chairman.

The contemptuous remark which was levelled yesterday - that this poor individual, begging on the streets of Victoria was showing initiative - is a clear indication to me, Mr. Chairman, that this man lacks the sensitivity and the understanding of his role and his obligation to serve human needs in this province. As such, in my view, Mr. Chairman, he is not fit for office.

There are further examples. Here is an individual in a different category, writing from the city of Victoria to myself as an MLA in this House. I'll quote part of the letter:

"I am writing this letter to bring to your attention the hardships people are facing on pensions and low incomes. Now, there are special concessions granted old age pensioners, but there are no concessions granted to those under 65 years old who are on pensions, such as handicapped and disabled pensions."

He goes on to outline the lack of equitable treatment with respect to Pharmacare, land taxes, automobile insurance and so on.

All of his representations to the Ministry of Human Resources have fallen on a deaf ear. The minister responds by such contemptuous comments and phrases and adjectives as: "Let them use a shovel. Let them eat tulip bulbs." - a variety of contemptuous remarks, Mr. Chairman, that I think bring great indignity not to the people who are suffering alone, but certainly to this government, who, when they ran for election, indicated they were a people's government as well as one of millionaires.

Mr. Chairman, it is not coming through to the people who need assistance a hand-up in a time of economic slump and economic stagnation, when even the healthy and the able-bodied are suffering idleness because there simply aren't enough jobs available.

At this particular time, when unemployment is over the 100,000 level, it is a natural consequence that more and more people will have to turn to the government and to the Human Resources ministry for sustenance to maintain themselves until once again they can become self-sufficient. It's the kind of attitude that that minister displays in his public statements and in his jibes across the floor of this Legislature, which convinces the opposition that the only measure of benefit and the only measure of hope that people who are unfortunate in this province can look forward to is the removal of that minister from that particular portfolio.

Indeed, editorials have questioned the Premier of this province as to why he remains so stubborn that he has not taken the initiative to remove that minister, and others who have become arrogant in their posts, from office to demonstrate that he, at least, is sympathetic and sensitive to people's needs in the province.

Mr. Chairman, he has shown no inclination to do so. The opposition feels an obligation, not only in response to our own observations, but in response to the heart-rending pleas that we are receiving from literally hundreds of people throughout this province, to put their case before this House, to make the government understand and feel sympathetic to the needs of people.

Under these circumstances the strength of our feeling can only be put forward in a forceful enough manner to the government by a motion of non-confidence. Mr. Chairman, I certainly support

[ Page 1951 ]

that motion. I believe that as a token and as a symbol that minister's salary should be reduced by $1. 1 t appeal not only to all members of the opposition, but t to members of the government back bench who have a heart and a conscience and who might know what it t is like for people to suffer, to stand up and to register their displeasure with that minister also.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Chairman, t I'm sure there are times when all of us, whether as members of this Legislature or as members of almost any other group to which we might belong in the community, wonder whether a decision arrived at in a group discussion is one that we can support i wholeheartedly. In this particular instance, a group decision has been arrived at by our group with respect to this amendment. I can't think of any time when I have personally felt more satisfied that a group has made the perfectly correct decision with respect to a question than in our decision to ask for a reduction in this minister's vote, not because we want to reduce his salary by $ 1, but because we want to say unanimously that we believe there should be no confidence in this particular person as Minister of Human Resources in this province.

Mr. Chairman, I can recall a meeting held some years ago in my own constituency in Nanaimo, when a person who was widely respected as a humanitarian by everyone in the province who knew him - a previous member of this Legislature, one Ernest Winch - was invited by a women's organization, an organization that sponsored a public meeting initially and went on to other meetings. This was a meeting sponsored originally with a view to building the first senior citizens' housing complex in the city of Nanaimo. That was some years ago.

But I recall him saying during his opening remarks when he was called upon to speak that a society should be measured not by the material wealth of that society, not by the number of people within that society who are wealthy, but the way in which that community looks after those of its members who are, through whatever circumstance, unable to look after themselves. Mr. Chairman, because there are people in our community who find it difficult to look after themselves for varying circumstances, we have a Ministry of Human Resources. But to put in charge of that Ministry of Human Resources an individual who apparently has absolutely no human feelings, it would seem to me, is a denial of the very purpose for setting up the ministry in the first place.

This minister, Mr. Chairman, has attempted time after time in his remarks in the community to indicate, to prove to anyone who will listen, anyone who will read, that he has absolutely no feeling for people as human beings - not just those who are unable to look after themselves, but even those with whom he is working in his own ministry. To tell the public at large, to tell the community, that he feels he people with whom he is working and presumably trying to deliver community services to people who are unable to look after themselves are shirking in heir responsibility, that they are not delivering a good day's work....

Mr. Chairman, in the short time that I was Minister of Agriculture, I felt that I had an excellent staff. I think one of the reasons that I felt they were good was that they had some feeling that I was trying to do a job for the people for whom they were trying to work. I ask you, Mr. Chairman: how can people in a ministry really deliver their best, really put their heart into their work if they believe - and I don't see how they could believe other-wise - that the person in charge of that ministry has absolutely no feeling for the people they are trying to serve? So I would think that if any minister feels that his staff are not doing their job in his ministry, that minister should look unto himself and ask himself why the people working with him are not confident about what they're doing. Why do they not feel that their work is worthwhile? Why are they not putting themselves out to serve the community that they're supposed to be serving?

Mr. Chairman, I think I would not have bothered to take part in this particular debate. I think there's not too much point in trying to say anything to this particular minister and expecting him to listen to it. I think he's not going to take advice from anyone who has any concern for human beings because he just can't appreciate that. Being completely without knowledge, without feeling, for human beings he can't understand anyone else having such feelings. So I would not have bothered, but his remark the other day to the effect that people who are reduced, through whatever circumstance, whether it's a physical handicap, a mental handicap, whether it's because unemployment cheques aren't coming through on time, whether it's because there's some reason they're not getting timely assistance from his department when they need it, whatever the reason -whether it's their own negligence, their own mismanagement, whatever the reason - if people are begging and if that minister's attitude is that such people are showing initiative, then I think there can be no reaction other than to support a motion that that minister's salary be reduced by $1.

Such a remark, Mr. Chairman, is totally inexcusable. It illustrates only too well his flippant attitude, but I think it illustrates more than that. It illustrates in the case of this particular minister his true feelings about people. That's how he really feels about people, unfortunately.

He should not be the Minister of Human Resources. Whether he should be anything else, I don't know. Perhaps he couldn't do too much harm in mining. But he certainly should not be working with people. He has that attitude towards young people,

[ Page 1952 ]

towards t~he people in his own department and towards all of the people, it would seem, with whom his department comes in contact.

Mr. Chairman, I think you would agree with me that begging, of itself, is a demoralizing form of existence. It's not because people are trying to do something for themselves or because they are trying to show initiative. It's motivated by something quite different from that - desperate circumstances of some kind, Mr. Chairman - or they wouldn't be undertaking that particular kind of activity. It certainly has no place in a civilized, industrialized nation in the 20th century. It has no place in Canada and no place in British Columbia.

Had the Social Credit government demonstrated any initiative of its own, then I think there would be less of that kind of initiative demonstrated by individuals in our community. But it is this government that has not shown the initiative, and that is the reason why some people in our community feel that they have to follow that particular line of activity. Is the Social Credit government, of which he is one of the spokesmen, so devoid of any ideas that they now think that this kind of initiative - to have to beg on the streets to earn your daily bread - is not demeaning? Is he speaking for himself or for cabinet? Is the Social Credit Government now thinking this way? These are serious questions, Mr. Chairman, and they concern me.

To me, the word "initiative" means the right to originate or to begin something. Begging is certainly not in that category. It implies that the person doing it has some control of the situation. I would submit that the people who are begging do not really have any control over anything, Mr. Chairman. They are simply falling in line and falling into a pattern, the only one left to them. They have no control of the circumstances in which they find themselves. There might have been a time, because of something they did in the past, when they had some control. But once they are reduced to that particular line of activity, I would suggest that they no longer have any control of the circumstances. This government has failed in its duty to initiate the kind of economic stimulation that is needed in this province so that these people can have some meaningful activity.

Tommy Douglas, speaking in Nanaimo on Saturday, talked about these same kinds of people, He talked about the bums who travelled the railroads in the late 30s. Do you remember them, Mr. Chairman? You're not old enough to remember them but you will have heard about them - the bums who travelled back and forth across the country looking for work. Within months, some of those bums were dead heroes in Europe - these same people. At least something was offered to them, some opportunity to do something. Perhaps they didn't like what they were doing. They were called upon to do something.

They were ready then to do what they had to do for the common good. Up to that time there was no initiative for them. They had lost control of the situation completely. When an opportunity presented itself, they once again had some control of what they were doing and they showed themselves to be good Canadian citizens.

But this government has shown no initiative. It should be ashamed of itself, Mr. Chairman, and this minister should certainly be ashamed of himself. This government should be ashamed to have a minister such as the present Minister of Human Resources, who has no regard for people who have problems.

Mr. Chairman, I took occasion to check with the dictionary to see just what this word "initiative" does mean. According to the dictionary, many meanings are used. The first phrase of this description is: "Initiative is first step." But the last definition in that particular dictionary is' "Initiative refers to the rights that some citizens have outside of the Legislature to originate legislation." That's something that exists in Switzerland.

I wonder what kind of legislation some of the citizens of this province, outside of the Legislature, would initiate if they had that particular kind of avenue open to them - if they had the right to that kind of initiative, rather than the kind of initiative that seems to appeal to the Minister of Human Resources, shown by those who are on the streets begging.

If they had the right to bring in some kind of initiative, I wonder how these people would feel about the government's concern about increasing industry that is capital-intensive rather than labour-intensive. The government's only avenue of economic initiative shown in the last 15 months is to try to export some of our coal from the northeast part of the province. I t's very heavily capital-intensive. There's not much labour involved in that. But let's spend lots of B.C. and federal money to get rid of that coal. It won't create much in the way of jobs, but it will show that something is happening. I wonder. If a people initiative was available, would the people of the province say: "Let's spend a little bit of that money creating some economic opportunities in the province that will be labour-intensive rather than capital-intensive."

I wonder, if the people had an opportunity to bring in some initiatives of their own, how they would feel about the high ICBC premiums. You'll recall, Mr. Chairman, that a year ago - 15 months ago, even - we said they were far too high. ICBC actuaries said they were far too high, with the result that by December 31 of last year there was almost $ 100 million extra sitting there on top of the money given to them by the government of British Columbia. If there were opportunity for an initiative, I wonder if the people of the province would bring in

[ Page 1953 ]

some legislation that would say: "Let's reduce those premiums and let's use that $100 million to provide economic opportunities in the province so that people will not have to beg on the streets." That's the kind of initiative we should have.

Mr. Chairman, what about agriculture? This minister has had something to say about agriculture. He's had something to say about a lot of the t departments, including Agriculture. Mr. Chairman, there is going to be a need for more food. There are agricultural programmes now....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member, this is not directly related, though, to the administrative responsibilities of this minister. The motion before us demands that our debate be strictly relevant to the responsibility of the minister.

MR. STUPICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The point that I am trying to develop, I think, is that the remark that triggered this particular amendment was the remark on the part of the minister to the effect that people who get out and beg are showing initiative. And what I'm saying is that if these people had the opportunity to show a different kind of initiative, then they might show some true initiative that would be in the interest of themselves and the community as a whole. Begging is not a proper form of expressing initiative. The people have the right to say that we should use some of the money that the government has used for other purposes, has simply hoarded or, in his own case, has saved by not giving it out to people on handicapped pensions. If the people of the province had an opportunity to say, "Let's use this money differently, " that would be a good form of initiative. It was the minister's own word about initiative that triggered the amendment. I'm trying to confine my remarks to that particular word, and I thought not too badly, Mr. Chairman.

Let's try this one on for size. There is something else that happened in the economy: government legislation. It's the regressive sales tax - very regressive. It has obliged members to go to Alberta, to Washington state, to buy....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, may I....

MR. STUPICH: Even there I'm transgressing, am 1, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: If we took one word out of the vocabulary of every minister in this House and developed our speeches around that one word, then of course all things would be relevant. The purpose of this debate, of course, is to discuss those matters strictly relevant to the administrative responsibilities of this minister.

MR. STUPICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again. But I just say to you that we're not really worrying about that, because I can't imagine any other minister on that side of the House saying that people who are begging on the streets are showing initiative. I just can't imagine. I wouldn't worry about it with respect to the other 17 or 18 or 19 cabinet ministers. So I think in this particular case we have to deal with him as an individual, because the amendment to reduce his salary by $1 is zeroed in very closely on him, not on what might happen. You're talking about a hypothetical situation, Mr. Chairman, and I'm not thinking about hypothetical situations.

Again I may run into the same problem, but the initiative was shown by the government a year ago in getting rid of the B.C. policy economic institute. I think we should reinstitute that.

Mr. Chairman, I'll leave all those things. There's a whole area of things that have been done by the government that have shown some initiative and caused the very situation that has resulted in certain people in the province being forced to be out of work, to live at a very low level of existence, and even being obliged in some instances to go begging on the streets. That is the kind of initiative that we do not feel is appropriate to the 20th century in the province of British Columbia. For that minister to stand up during discussion of his salary vote and endorse that particular kind of initiative while at the same time supporting all of the other initiatives that have brought that into being is reason enough, Mr. Chairman, for voting in favour of an amendment. It says nothing but that we have absolutely no confidence in this particular person as the one who should be responsible for helping all of us look after those people in our community who, for whatever reason, at a particular period in time do not have the ability - mental, physical, economic or whatever -to look after themselves. And for that reason, Mr. Chairman, we should vote in favour of this motion to reduce his salary by $ 1.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, in dealing with the particular portfolio and the minister in charge of that portfolio, I believe the first requirement of the minister in that role is a need for breadth of vision, for empathy and an awareness of the human condition in today's society, which is highly competitive, highly materialistic and full of technology. The individuality of man is continually being eroded in the face of ever-increasing numbers and layers of government activity. The number of times a constituent tells me how difficult it is to really establish rapport or communication with governments at all levels and in all kinds of areas of government responsibility confirms the fact that in this ministry, of all ministries in this government, there has to be a tremendous amount of commitment

[ Page 1954 ]

by the minister to human need - not to moralizing as to why that need probably exists or whether people can help themselves or whether they've made poor judgments in their education or their work or whatever.

The first responsibility of the Minister of Human Resources of any government is to recognize the kind of society we are in and the erosion of the individual's access to government at a time when governments are getting bigger and more impersonal all the time. I would suggest that that's the yardstick against which we should be taking part in this debate.

The famous Scottish poet, Robbie Burns, once wrote a poem: "Man is made to mourn." I am sure many Scottish people in Canada would be very familiar with his writings. One of the most immortal lines that Burns ever wrote was in that poem when he said: "Man's inhumanity to man makes countless thousands mourn." I couldn't help but think of that verse from Burns when I was listening to this debate during the past few days and preparing some notes to speak on the amendment.

So frequently we refer to life today as a "vale of tears" and a very stressful experience for everybody, as indeed it is, with nuclear extinction probably just around the corner, earthquakes, revolutions, disasters, huge oil tanker spills, and I don't know how many more kinds of serious disasters. We are all exposed to concern on these kinds of disasters. So, Mr. Chairman, does it not make it all the more incumbent upon those of us who have had all the breaks in life and have been blessed with health and the capacity to earn our living and perhaps go to university and do all these things that put us where we are today. . . ? We can't change all these national disasters and all these worldwide problems and the overwhelming fear of nuclear war, but at least within our own community where it is within our capacity to look upon people around us who are less fortunate, surely, when we have that chance and we have the resources and the know how, we should be able to do a great deal better than we are doing at the present time.

That would be my first criticism of this minister -that within these kinds of terms that I have outlined, recognizing that there are enormous problems that none of us can solve, there are problems within this minister's responsibility which could be better solved than are being done at the present time. The sense of priorities is wrong. The commitment to meet the kind of need which has been demonstrated in this debate and in the yards and yards of clippings that one could refer to shows that the need is there but it is not being met within the resources and the money that is available.

Another factor which this House always considers, Mr. Chairman, in regard to any minister has to be credibility. As I have said earlier in the debate, this minister has an amazing capacity to catch headlines which usually have some element of truth in them. I won't bore the House with repeating all these different headlines save to mention them in passing. We've heard the comments about shovels; we've heard how jobs will be more available if a person cuts his hair and wears his clothes a certain way; we've heard the statement that Quebec social workers are encouraging Quebecers on welfare to come to British Columbia; we've heard varying statements that anywhere between 20 and 40 per cent of all welfare' applicants are fraudulent; we've heard the statement that civil servants, in large measure, only work three days a week; and we've got statements that more and more children are coming into care because of family breakdown. If I might just comment in passing on that fact, Mr. Chairman, I've researched the annual reports for 1974-75 and 1975-76, and it's almost exactly the same number of children in care in these two years. The minister's own department reports that in 1974-75 there were 9,883 children in care, and in 1975-76 there were 9,860.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, the minister is quite right. He interjects that there are too many. The point I'm making is that we've heard statements, including your statement about the Conference on the Family that more and more children are requiring to come into care because of family breakdowns. The point I am trying to make is that the minister makes many very flamboyant statements which catch the headlines, and we find that there is always an element of truth in what the minister says, but his credibility is seriously under question when one starts to analyze exactly what the minister said and to ask for some of the statistics.

I've got the report of an interview which the minister did with the magazine B.C. Today, dated December 5,1976. Again, I don't want to take a lot of time reading it, but the minister admits that he doesn't really know how many claims are fraudulent on welfare, but he believes that it might be 10 per cent or it might be 5 per cent. He acknowledges that 40 per cent seems a high figure, But the point I'm trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that a minister must have credibility, and to make statements that are all over the ballpark - anything from 5 to 40 per cent -just leaves this minister's credibility very much in question. I think if the income tax department one year decided that his income should be taxed somewhere between 5 and 40 per cent, but they weren't quite sure what it should be, that minister would be somewhat concerned and I think he would speak up about it.

When I talk about credibility, we've had the example of the minister having the very reasonable intention of scrutinizing applications for welfare and

[ Page 1955 ]

seeking to have the proper scrutiny by proper staff, but then we find that they were to be given police powers. The minister backed off, I gather, in the face of wiser minds within the cabinet. I would like to think that we won't hear of that kind of suggestion again. It all leaves not just the members of this opposition, but the members of the population of British Columbia, wondering about the credibility of the Minister of Human Resources.

I just want to raise another point in passing, Mr. Chairman. The minister has told us that PREP has found jobs for 6,000 people. When this was published the other day in the newspaper I had an interesting call from Williams Lake. I learned, in short order, how the 6,000 figure is created. Because there's a great deal of casual work on B.C. highways, and a person may be hired for a few days on B.C. highways. They get laid off, and a week or two later they get rehired again, and each time they get rehired this is counted as a new job.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): No, no.

MR. WALLACE: The minister says no. Well, probably I could read....

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: I'm really glad the minister interjected because I have a very interesting letter from another minister in his cabinet who says the whole practice is absurd.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It must have been the former minister.

MR. WALLACE: No, I'm sorry, you can't get off the hook that easily, Mr. Minister. I have a memo from the present Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) - good old Alex - to Mr. R.G. Harvey, the Deputy Minister of Highways. I should say that prior to this the Minister of Highways had received a letter to the effect that two individuals in particular had been hired, or were to be hired, by the Department of Highways, but first of all they had to go and register as being on welfare so that when they got the job with Highways it would be recorded as a welfare recipient who had been found a job.

The letter from Alex Fraser, Minister of Highways, dated March 7,1977, to the Deputy Minister of Highways, Mr. R.G. Harvey.... I'll just read it so that nobody misses a single word:

"Enclosed is a letter received from the Human Rights and Civil Liberties Association in Williams Lake with regard to a policy of hiring casual employees only from the PREP referrals. As outlined in my memorandum on this same subject with regard to Quesnel, which was dated February 25,1977, this is absurd and was not the intent of the Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm's PREP programme. Will you please make your staff in Williams Lake, as well as any other area where such a practice is being carried out, follow my earlier instructions with respect to the PREP programme."

Now if we have one minister writing this to his deputy because he says it's absurd, I think it's, a little difficult to believe otherwise, Mr. Chairman, than that that practice was being used. I don't mean to spend all afternoon making an enormous case out of it, but I think, again, the minister's claim to be finding many new jobs within the PREP programme, and the facts as we are finding out about them, would leave us again to say that the minister's credibility can be very seriously questioned.

The second value which I think we should use as a yardstick is administrative ability. The minister has time and time again related to this House and to the public that he's an absolute whiz kid when it comes to saving the taxpayer's dollars within the Ministry of Human Resources. It's quite obvious, Mr. Chairman, that he also has a feeling of symbolism, because I recall the joy with which that party nailed the former Minister of Human Resources (Mr. Levi) about a $100 million overrun. It would seem that this minister's sense of symbolism has led him to somehow rearrange the figures so that we have a $ 1 00-million underrun. But even that is not the point I'm trying to make.

The astonishing thing we discovered yesterday is that, for all his supposed financial wizardry, he could not tell us in eight different votes how that $100 million was going to be underspent. We are within 14 days of the end of the fiscal year. He said: "I think I can tell you that the saving under vote 120, which is the income assistance programme, will be about $54 million." So there's another $46 million that is being underspent in seven other votes. Yet this minister, who's supposed to be so adept and skilled and knowledgeable about how to manage his department and produce figures, will not tell us exactly how these, different votes have been underspent, even when we get to his own estimates.

Now the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) has made his predictions and the predictions aren't all that difficult to make when one uses the interim financial statement of money spent to December 3 1,1976. Simple arithmetic suggests that these figures represent three of the four quarters, and a little, simple calculation can bring us, within reasonable proximity I suppose, to the actual figures.

On that basis, Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to read into the record that it's quite obvious that services for families and children - and these are the people today who need the empathy that I mentioned a

[ Page 1956 ]

moment ago - will be underspent by about $17 million. Vote 117: senior citizens and handicapped -can you think of any group in our tough, competitive, bitter, material society that needs a little more empathy than the senior citizens and the handicapped? Their budget will be underspent by about $35 million.

Now either this minister doesn't want to tell the House these figures - which I think is not meeting his responsibility at the time of estimates debate - or, even worse, he doesn't really know! How come? We have the minister, who's supposed to be the financial wizard who can really run the welfare department, who can grab the headlines and who can tell the people of B.C. and the taxpayers: "By golly, as long as I'm minister, we'll fix these welfare bums and give them shovels and send them out of B.C., " et cetera, et cetera.

It's one or the other, Mr. Chairman. He either knows the figures and is afraid to tell the House, or he doesn't know the figures because he's not half the financial wizard that he's tried to tell us he is. I hope that it's not too late. Which is it, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman? Do you not really know the figures? Do you know them within a few percentage points of accuracy, just the way most of us do from these documents, but you just don't want to come out and tell the public what you've underspent in two particular areas: families and children, and senior citizens and handicapped?

The same kind of credibility applies to the secrecy about Pharmacare. Here is a very important social programme on which the government has made a commitment to making it universal, as announced in the throne speech. We've now been in this House eight weeks; the ramifications of the new Pharmacare programme, as far as we can deduce them from indirect evidence, suggests that there will be added hardship to people who are already having difficulties, and money will be made available to some people who no more need it than I do.

That's right. There's no way that I need government to help me pay for my prescription costs. The minister knows that. There's probably nobody in this chamber who needs that kind of help. So the distortion of priorities is an issue which we'll debate later.

But the point I'm making is that this minister, in charge of this department, knows the basic decisions that have been made regarding the new Pharmacare programme. He knows what the impact will be, yet he solidly sits there and refuses to reveal any detail whatever. He leaves us all to try and figure it out from indirect evidence.

MR. LEA: I know they've changed it three times already!

MR. WALLACE: Once again, Mr. Chairman, can I ask the minister a straightforward question, because it means one of two things. It's like the figures I've just quoted: he's either afraid to tell the figures that he does know, or there's been a change in plan. Which is it? Have you backed off universal Pharmacare? It's a simple question. If the government has not backed off and means to proceed with the plan - as much as we can deduce about its details - then once again I have to say that his responsibility to this House and to the public of the province is not being met at the very time, the one and only time once a year, when a minister is responsible to tell this House what he's doing in his department and why and how it will be financed. This is the one and only time that members of the opposition have this kind of opportunity to speak their minds, to ask questions, to inquire and to scrutinize the action of each and every minister.

If we were to vote for this minister's salary and his other votes today, we won't have this opportunity probably for one more year. Under these circumstances, Mr. Chairman, and the fact that the minister, until this moment at least, has chosen to keep many of these figures and facts secret, what can one possibly do on this side of the House but state that we have no confidence in the minister? That is based on what I consider to be a reasonable analysis of what the duties of any minister are - namely, to deal responsibly and openly at the one and only time in the year when we get to debate his many specific responsibilities, whether it's the Minister of Human Resources or Highways or Health or any other. That's the No. 1 responsibility of a minister, regardless of ideology or policy or anything else. It is the style and the frankness and the honesty with which a minister deals with his estimates.

Now I might give this minister just a little bit of advice. This is one reason why the estimates this session are taking so long. We had the first example by the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , and now we have an example by this minister, who will just not converse with this side of the House in response to very valid questions which relate most directly and intimately to his responsibilities. The longer each minister plays that game, the longer I assume - I'm speaking for myself at least - I will stand in this House and repeat the question.

The debate adds up to one of credibility, responsibility, frankness, a willingness to give us public information. It's a little bit like trying to get the ferry figures from the Minister of Energy's (Hon. Mr. Davis') office. Whose affairs do you think you're running? It's our money; it's the taxpayers' money you're dealing with, both taking and giving. Whether you or I agree with how you're doing it, you have no right whatever to keep figures in your possession which are public information, least of all from the

[ Page 1957 ]

opposition.

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

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I guess I can finish by saying that I've come to the reluctant conclusion that this minister, apart from these other attitudes of secrecy and the other points I've mentioned, seems to lack the fundamental empathy that I mentioned when I started my speech. I've come to that conclusion reluctantly because many times, even in that minister's presence, I've heard him express his concern for families, people on welfare, and those who are truly in need. I just can't reconcile these statements with the general aura and evidence of his activities and policies.

But then, I suppose, a man who believes that you can straighten out human nature with the lash.... "Bring back the lash, " he said in the leadership convention a few years ago when he was trying to become the Liberal leader.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The lash - for what?

MR. WALLACE: I don't care for what. What goddamn good - pardon me -- does the lash do?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I noticed the member's embarrassment. I know he will withdraw.

MR. WALLACE: I withdraw and I regret the outburst. But the minister's interjection just makes my whole point. He says: "The lash - for what?" The lash - for nothing. The lash - down through centuries. Human infliction of purposeful pain on other people never solved a thing. Would we have problems in debating capital punishment, for example, if it had ever been any measure of success? The very fact that it's such a highly controversial debate - corporal punishment and capital punishment - is because there's so much evidence that it never solved anything.

"The lash - for what?" I quit.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Does the minister care to reply to questions that have been asked? If so, I'll defer to him. Apparently not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you're falling into a habit of trying to cajole ministers into answering.

MR. BARBER: Into doing their duty.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): That's right!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The proper approach is, when a member is recognized to speak, to deliver his speech. Does the member defer?

MR. BARBER: I most certainly do if he'll answer some questions.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'll be pleased to answer questions when we get back to the estimates. Right now they're speaking on a motion to reduce my salary by $ 1. Let them go at it, if they wish. When they get back to the estimates, we'll talk'about estimates.

MR. BARBER: Well, I suppose that's fair enough, Mr. Chairman. Speaking, then, to the amendment, which I most certainly support, I'd like to say that in the case of this particular minister, if you can't find something good to say about someone, you shouldn't say anything at all.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Chairman, I may be somewhat in conflict with the former speaker, who is my colleague, when I say that everyone, surely, must have some good in him. So I will continue, although it may be rather difficult. I'm not dealing with the minister as a person; we're dealing with his job and with his competence and his handling of his ministry. That is what the debate is about. I always hope that we would not end up in a personal vindictiveness between people across the floor in this Legislature.

Mr. Chairman, I primarily feel that I'm up on my feet to support this amendment. As the representative of the Burnaby North constituency, I would be very remiss, frankly, if I did not express my great sorrow that this minister has been allowed to continue in office, not only following the statements that he's made, but following the policies for which he's been responsible.

When I'm in my constituency office in Burnaby North, I meet, as I know many of my fellow MLAs do, with the constituents of Burnaby North. Ever since the Social Credit came in as government and ever since this minister became the Minister of Human Resources - one of the most vital, sensitive portfolios and difficult in government - I have found that I am being besieged. I don't like to use the word besieged. I'm simply being inundated by constituents who are living in an atmosphere of fear, but many of them have actually come to me with very specific evidence of rather drastic cuts in their former payments from the former government under Mincome.

I have seen senior citizens come into my office who are shaking. They're shaking with fear - I'm not being overly dramatic; this is a fact - at what may happen to them. Why do they feel this? For two reasons. They have seen that the regulations and the

[ Page 1958 ]

new policies brought in by this minister are bringing about cutbacks, in a time when the government which this minister represents has imposed heavy financial burdens on these citizens. The Minister of Human Resources and the cabinet of which he is part have brought in further restrictions on the amount of money that is allowable to them under this so-called GAIN legislation.

If they're not only concerned with that, they are also worrying every day about what's next. They listen to, they read and they watch on television the intemperate, insensitive statements that this minister is known to make. This does not, I can assure you, give any feeling of confidence to the young, the old and the handicapped of this province. It is such a highly sensitive portfolio. It is a portfolio which must have someone in it, of course, who understands the importance of handling an efficient administration, but who also understands the needs and the sensitivity of the citizens of this province.

I suppose this minister really does symbolize very strongly the basic difference between the NDP philosophy and the Social Credit philosophy, because we haven't heard anyone, even in the back bench, stand up and express any concern over these policies which their cabinet is imposing on the people of British Columbia through the policies and regulations of this minister. I suppose the. basic difference is, as was pointed out so eloquently by our critic, the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) , that our party believes in sharing and caring for our fellow citizens. That is what it's all about, Mr. Chairman, and this does not mean shovelling money out of the truck. You can care and share for the citizens of this province and yet still be most moderate and temperate in how you handle the funds which are available. It's all a matter of priority. We do not feel that this minister and his government, which he represents, are showing true caring or sharing to the citizens of this province. If it comes to a matter of efficiency, we have already pointed out that many of the policies which this minister is imposing are, in the long run, going to impose heavier financial burdens on the citizens of this province.

Again; we see that this minister symbolizes the Social Credit philosophy, as does the minister who sits beside him, the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) . Everyone for himself. We've heard this over and over again. The Minister of Human Resources happens to be a man who has made it, if we call "making it" becoming materially wealthy. There are people who admire this, but let's face it, not everyone is in the position which this minister is in. Whether he got there on his own through hard work is irrelevant. There are some people - many of our citizens - who do not have the opportunity to put themselves in the position this minister has.

These are the people who become very upset and very hurt when they are told: "I made it - you make it. Don't ask for help unless you're absolutely desperate, and if you are desperate, then you have to come to us and you have to plead your desperation and you have to demean yourself." In demeaning yourself to get your handout from the government, Mr. Chairman, you lose your human dignity.

I cannot support a minister and a government who are inflicting this on the citizens of our province. I have too much respect for the human dignity of our citizens.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Chairman, this minister, prior to his election, had become notorious throughout this province for his redneck and right-wing attitudes. His treatment of the unemployed in the Surrey municipality, his attitude towards minority religious groups in that area with his land zoning attempts to keep a church from being built - those things were all well known before he reached this House. We should have been forewarned. He has come into this House and he has proved that everything we had heard about him was true.

We've heard a lot of talk about this inhumanity in his office, but I suggest that even his administration is not good, Mr. Chairman. A good administrator looks to the long term, to the long haul, and spends his money accordingly to make sure that he's not bringing in programmes and policies today that are going to be a disaster tomorrow, and that is what that minister is doing. His curtailment, his cutback, his chop-chop-chop policy today is creating a kind of havoc out there that you and I and the taxpayers of this province are going to have to pay for tomorrow, Mr. Chairman. It's not good administration. But even in day-to-day administration, there is much to be desired.

I wrote to the minister back in August of last year pointing out the case of a couple in my constituency who through their human resources worker in Duncan had been assured and given to understand that they would receive a certain amount of money.

The letter I had in reply from that minister, Mr. Chairman, reads in part that he has "no direct knowledge of what their understanding was in relation to their entitlement, " but he will ask his staff "to pursue the matter." Then he goes on to give me a little lecture about how much an MLA should know about what a person should be receiving when they are in receipt of social assistance or GAIN or whatever you want to call it, and how other income affects this. It was a very neat, tidy little lecture, Mr. Chairman, and that was the last I heard from that minister.

Some weeks later I had a phone call from the people involved to tell me that their income had been upped by $32, which was their original understanding. There was not another word from the

[ Page 1959 ]

minister - not an apology, not anything. That, Mr. Chairman, is not good administration.

During his estimates last year on the floor of the House, I raised the case of a couple in Lake Cowichan. At that point in time his deputy, or one of his assistants sitting beside him, pointed out to the minister that they were very familiar with this case and that they would be carrying this out. That was in June - June 8. They were very familiar with it then, Mr. Chairman. They were looking into it; it was all in hand.

On August 17, 1 received a copy of a letter to them from the minister. This is August 17; 1 raised it on June 7 on the floor of the House and was told that it was all in hand. On August 17 he writes to them and in his last paragraph he says: "I'm very pleased I was able to rectify this situation for you and only regret that we were not informed sooner so we might have been able to head off this rather confusing situation." I suggest that's very poor administration.

I suggest that this cabinet minister has been recognized for what he is by his fellow cabinet ministers. It's quite evident by the number of them absent from their seats today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MRS. WALLACE: They have no desire to sit here and hear what's being said about this minister, because they know too full well that what we're saying is true, Mr. Chairman, and they've left him to face the music by himself - rightly so.

MR. GIBSON: He's left with the Munchkins.

MRS. WALLACE: This minister has been referred to as a man with no heart, and I think that's true, Mr. Chairman. His attitudes are frightening. He assesses people according to their monetary worth. That seems to be his sole criterion. I know he gives lip service to many other things, but I judge a man by his actions, not by his words. His actions have proved that that is where he's really at.

There are 100,000 people unemployed in this province, Mr. Chairman, and yet the minister says that it's up to the young people of this province to go out and get jobs. There are no jobs there, Mr. Chairman, and yet he refuses to give them any assistance. He is part of a government that has refused to take any initiative to move toward seeing that those jobs are there for our young people. He has taken no part in this.

'There was a young girl in my constituency who had some rather severe nervous problems and some very trying family problems. Her doctor suggested that she should go back to the Prairies, where she had relatives, and get away from her home environment for a while. She was in receipt of social assistance before she went. She went back there, got herself a job and was able to work for a year. During that time, at her own expense, she came back at Christmas to visit her parents. She made no application at that time for any assistance whatsoever. But after she had been there for nearly a year, she returned and went back to her job after Christmas. She had a further breakdown and was unable to continue. She came back to her parents, who are already in receipt of social assistance, and applied to once again be reinstated. And do you know what she was told, Mr. Chairman? She was told that she was a transient, that she kept bouncing back and forth from the Prairies to B.C., and she did not qualify for assistance.

What does a person do? What do they eat? I don't think the minister realizes or, if he does, he doesn't care - and probably that's where it's at. He doesn't care. But that's what is happening.

In his remarks last night, the minister chastised me for saying that a young man who was playing the mouth organ on the street was begging. That young man, Mr. Chairman, was poorly clothed, standing in front of a bank doorway with his hat on the sidewalk at his feet. One does not do that sort of thing for enjoyment or pleasure; one does that because one is in need. I would expect to see that if I were in some countries, but not in British Columbia. And even in the countries where that is happening - in countries like Mexico, for example - there is a grave concern on the part of the people of that country and of the government of that country to move as rapidly as they can to see that does not happen. But here, Mr. Chairman, we are going in the opposite direction.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Have you been in Mexico lately?

MRS. WALLACE: We are going in a downward spiral. It takes me back to the situation that we had in this country back in the '30s when we found our young people banned from tin canning on the streets of Vancouver and gassed from the post office. If these kinds of policies persist, if this minister persists in his hard-hearted tactics and if this government persists in its lack of real, true initiative in bringing in some sort of economic policies that will provide jobs, then, Mr. Chairman, we are going right back in that spiral to a position where we are going to expect to see tin canners on every street corner and we're going to find teargas being used in our public buildings.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I was surprised to hear the minister say earlier on that he didn't propose to answer any questions on this amendment because the amendment, I gather, has offended him a little bit by the fact that it proposes to reduce his salary by $ 1. Now the only fault I find with the amendment is the restraint that the mover of the amendment

[ Page 1960 ]

showed in that figure of $ 1. 1 would have moved to reduce his salary to $190 a month, plus $75 shelter allowance, plus $57 payable on July 1, which is what the handicapped people of this province get. It should have been reduced by more than $ 1.

But what does he mean that he doesn't propose to answer questions on this amendment? This amendment is one of the more serious that can be offered in this House, and the minister should take it a little bit seriously. He should appreciate that people do not have confidence in the way he is administering his department. He should try to answer enough questions to earn some of that confidence back. I'm going to ask him a simple little question now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will he resign?

MR. GIBSON: "Will he resign?" would be a good question, Mr. Member, but I wouldn't expect an affirmative to that, although I would be overjoyed.

He met this morning, I believe, with representatives continuing from the Council on the Family. At least he said last night that he was going to meet with them this morning. Now what I want to know is very simple: what commitment did he give them? Did he give the commitment that was being requested - to carry on the funding of a co-ordinator, working toward the day when a council for the family will be set up? It's a very simple question: did he give them that commitment?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, the member said this was a very serious matter we were debating and that there were an awful lot of people who didn't have confidence in this particular minister.

I've heard a lot of talk about this for the last so many hours, and I've counted them now. I believe there are about 15 NDP and there's one Liberal. There may be a few more, but certainly I have a good many letters from NDP and Liberal alike - there are some left.

AN HON. MEMBER: There are!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: They certainly are very supportive. They're very, very good, and I'm very proud of these letters and the fact that these people took the time to write and express appreciation for the very positive policies that have been introduced by this ministry.

Very often people are quick to criticize. As a matter of fact, I guess the easiest thing in the world is for one to criticize. Certainly when you're in a ministry as vulnerable with respect to criticism as Human Resources, you're bound to get a lot of it. But it's so great to see people writing, taking the time to sit down and say: "I'm NDP. I voted NDP, but I like what you're doing - not because it's good for the NDP but because it's good for the province." I also hear the same from the Liberals. This type of thing is very gratifying. I'm grateful to these people, and I thank them publicly.

With respect to the question: yes, I had a very fruitful meeting this morning with representatives from the Conference on the Family. I'm very pleased with what I was told and with the consensus that we arrived at. Those representing the churches felt similarly. Things are very, very good. They're moving in the right direction and we all have a better understanding. Everyone was grateful for the meeting and what took place there.

MR. GIBSON: You know, Mr. Chairman, the minister doesn't sound any better with a cough drop in his mouth, or whatever he's got, than he does normally, and he isn't any clearer in this answers than he is normally.

MR. KEMPF: That's scraping the bottom.

MR. GIBSON: As far as his popularity goes, I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, that will be tried at the next election. The minister can cite all of the letters he wants. I get a few letters, too, about his activities.

I asked him a simple question: did he guarantee continuing funding for a co-ordinator for the successor organization to the B.C. Conference on the Family? A very simple question: did he guarantee that funding?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I might caution the committee that we are dealing with the motion. Perhaps questions and answers could be better dealt with during the time of the major vote.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I certainly will take the time to answer that question because the hon. member may wish to leave the House. I don't think it requires a long answer. That question was not posed. This was not the question from the delegates this morning at the meeting, and their representation was not on the basis of the hiring of a co-ordinator. They were dealing much more with the overall programme, and that's what we discussed.

MR. GIBSON: Well, perhaps the intent of my question might then be phrased another way: did the minister guarantee any funding for any purposes whatsoever or is he still waffling on it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'll drop that subject

[ Page 1961 ]

because he's still waffling on it. I want to move on to another point. The minister stated in August of last year that within six months his department would know the kinds of facilities and programmes that can be developed in B.C. to help assist in the problem of juvenile crime. This is a report from the Northern Sentinel - that was back in August.

We are certainly more than six months hence. He said at that time that his department would know within six months "the kinds of facilities and programmes that can be developed to help curb juvenile crime in this province." In order that we should know whether he's worth his full salary less one dollar or not, I wonder if he could report to the House, now that this six months has passed, just what "facilities and programmes, " to quote his words, he and his department have come up with to help curb the problem of juvenile crime in the province.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I'll give my answer to the question but I also wish to take this opportunity to bring some further information to the House which I think should be welcome, particularly by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) . I asked someone just to find out if the accusations thrown at this young man over the past two days with respect to him being a beggar had any validity whatsoever. I felt this man who had been playing the harmonica on the street in Victoria, who has been called a beggar time and time again by those people from the opposition, deserved to have something cleared in this House just as publicly.

The young man playing the guitar and the mouth-organ outside of Eaton's lives in Duncan and he plays every day at the same spot.

MRS. WALLACE: It's not him.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: He is originally from Oregon. He is a student at the Conservatory of Music in Victoria and he has worked as a professional. He plays guitar, flute and trumpet. He has no ambition to receive welfare. The whole idea is repugnant to him. He does not beg or solicit money. He plays, and if someone likes what he's doing and they drop a quarter in his case, great. If not, that's great, too. He does it because he likes the relationship he creates with people.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): You got the wrong guy.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I would ask of the members there: if he is begging, what is Jim Gorst doing in front of the parliament buildings? I don't think that's a fair suggestion or a fair question. I say this in defence of this particular young person who has been called "beggar" time and time again by those members in the opposition, which I think is not only distasteful but disgraceful.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: With respect to the question posed by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) , the programme is proceeding extremely well and I expect we'll be making an announcement very shortly.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to correct the record. The man whom the minister is speaking of is not the man of whom I was speaking. The man whom I was speaking of was in front of a bank on Government Street and he was definitely begging.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The correction is well taken.

MR. GIBSON: I'd just be interested to know, Mr. Chairman, who the minister has had out checking on street musicians around Victoria.

MR. LAUK: I'd like to know too. The Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) sends his executive assistant out to shine his shoes. I'd like to know who this minister sends out to check on street musicians at taxpayers' expense, no doubt. Was it Dan Campbell?

The second thing I'd like to point out is that the minister should know that it's dishonourable to raise the name of a former MLA in this House in the cavalier fashion in which he has done and give the impression that a legitimate business enterprise is a begging enterprise. Dishonourable!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You know, I don't appreciate the double standard that this particular member professes. He mentions Dan Campbell in a derogatory way and immediately thereafter says it's dishonorable to mention Jim Gorst. Both were members at the same time in this same House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No. 1, they were both members of this House. Secondly, the hon. member who asked the question - and people have suggested that when he was minister his files were removed at public expense by a truck from here to his basement - should know that I do not send out staff on those particular missions. I had someone else check it, and it's been checked thoroughly and adequately.

[ Page 1962 ]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, nobody made any remarks about the young fellow who plays the guitar outside the liquor store and a number of other places. The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) talked on the record about somebody entirely different. But you know....

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): How do you know? Did you talk to him?

MR. COCKE: Look. That person's name has never been.... That has always been the situation.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Look, member for Esquimalt. You have no more right to stick in your chair and throw those kinds of remarks around. . . You should be standing up defending an indefensible situation. You're all mouth in your seat, but you'll never stand and put yourself on record.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the hon. member who has the floor please address the Chair and other hon, members please not interrupt the member who has the floor.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the member for Cowichan-Malahat wasn't talking about a street musician. We don't back off one little bit on that kind of capsulization of the minister's position when his immediate retort to the fact that somebody said that somebody was begging - nobody at that time knew who it was or what it was or what the situation was or anything else - was: "That's initiative." That was the question.

What we're trying to show in example after example after example during the discussion of this amendment is that the minister really showed his true self at that point. He really showed what he stood for. He showed that he has a lack of concern, a lack of real conscience where the needs of those people less fortunate than himself are concerned - purely and simply that.

Mr. Chairman, I ask support for this amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 18

NAYS - 27

Mr. Barrett requests that leave to asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On vote 184.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the minister has indicated that he's ready to answer some questions, so I'd like to put a few questions to him. As you know, Mr. Chairman, he has, since becoming minister, cut off quite a number of services to people. I have a very incomplete list here. Actually, I just have about 55 or 56 such services that I'd like to ask him about. I wonder if he would make a note as I go through - if I can have his attention, Mr. Chairman - and give me some indication as to what's happening to some of these groups who were waiting for some information from him.

The first one is the child-abuse team at Vancouver General Hospital, with the suggestion that it be made province-wide. Just the team at Vancouver General is not enough.

The other ones are all the information centres, such as the Downtown Eastside Information Centre and others, which have had their funding cut, Mr. Member.

I notice that the community grants programme has been cut by $1 million. It included things such as grants to the St. James Social Service centre that deals with senior citizens, the First United Church handicapped programme, and the downtown health service. Is he writing, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You went too fast.

MS. BROWN: Oh, I'm sorry. I'll start all over again. It was suggested that the child-abuse team be , made province-wide, but specifically VGH. The information centres, in particular the Downtown Eastside Information Centre, which has a very specific clientele....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Send me a list.

MS. BROWN: No, no, I want your answers. I think you hear better when I speak to you than when you read, if that's okay with you, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 1963 ]

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Well, he's cut so many programmes, and I'm only giving a partial list. I'll give the rest tomorrow.

The community grants programme that handles things like funding to the St. James Social Service centre; the First United Church handicapped programme; the downtown health service; the talking-book service for the blind. The talking-book service for the blind was operated by the CNIB; their funding has also been cut off and the blind people who were relying on it are now going to be without its service.

The day-care subsidy. The Island Youth Centre. Is he writing?

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Day-care subsidy?

MS. BROWN: Yes, I will be speaking more about what you're doing with the day-care subsidy afterwards, but I just want you to make a note of these: the Island Youth Centre had a cutback in funding to them so that their staff is down; the crisis centre, which puts out things like the emergency services bulletin; the Red Door, which the member for Vancouver Centre mentioned, which gave housing information to senior citizens.

I mentioned transition houses yesterday with the recommendation that you take responsibility for it on a province-wide basis.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Transition?

MS. BROWN: Transition houses.

Rape Relief centre. If you'll remember, Mr. Minister, last year I was discussing it under the estimates of the Attorney-General. When he refused them any support, you came sailing in like a knight in shining armour and said you would do it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First time in the history of this province.

MS. BROWN: You haven't done it yet. So what I want is a firm response from you at this time in terms of the request made to you by the coalition for Rape Relief Centres right around the province.

Family Place. The adoption programme has been cut. Are you prepared to return that to its previous funding or add to it?

The Conference on the Family, which a number of members have spoken of.

Crossroads, in Courtenay.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM.: In Courtenay?

MS. BROWN: Yes, one of your deputies might know about it.

The craft therapy programme. This is good stuff, that's right. I'm anticipating that you're going to tell me that you're not going to continue cutting back on these programmes, that you are going to bring them back to their previous funding and increase them.

The craft therapy programme that was run for handicapped children so they could use it as a rehabilitation service, Mr. Chairman.

All of these programmes have been cut since you have been minister, and I am asking you to reinstate them.

The family life counselling service and the parent encouragement programme - again its budget has been cut.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No, I know you haven't heard of it but I think one of your deputies might have. He's trying to tell you something.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No, he's against parent encouragement. He stands up in the House and proclaims his love for the family and he's cutting all these programmes out that have a very salutary effect.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you address the Chair, hon. member?

MS. BROWN: They have a very salutary effect, Mr. Chairman, on the family.

The family life counselling service....

MR. KING: He's never heard of them.

MS. BROWN: The programme for retarded children - specifically I am talking about the accommodation. I had someone from Victoria come in to see me about the situation with some of the group homes here in Victoria. There has been a complaint about the quality of the workshop and the group-home programmes - the workshop in particular. I know that the minister has received the same complaint that I have and I want to know what he is doing about the whole cutting back of staff there which has resulted in the deterioration of the programme.

The Association for Children with Learning Disabilities - again, another programme dealing with children which the minister has cut.

The Mental Patients Association boarding home programme - and I will talk on that some more, Mr. Chairman, when we come under that particular vote

[ Page 1964 ]

- are also waiting for some kind of information about funding.

The Vernon Women's Centre, Mr. Chairman....

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Just a minute! You're not telling the full story, and you're hurting them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor.

MS. BROWN: I wish I didn't have to mention the Vernon Women's Centre, except that it keeps sending me clippings and letters. I wish their member would represent them. I wish their member would represent them because I have enough on my plate. I have to be fighting for the Vernon Women's Centre, too, because that member hasn't stood in her place once, Mr. Chairman, to say one word on behalf of the Vernon Women's Centre. Here they are! They're sending me their clippings, carbon copies of their letters to the minister, their complaints - everything. I'm still waiting for that member to stand up and say one single word on behalf of the Vernon Women's Centre, and she hasn't said a word to date.

, Mr. Chairman, they are being hurt even more by the fact that they have a member who doesn't give one hoot for them and isn't speaking up on their behalf. That's where they're really hurting.

MR. KING: Why do you hate women, Pat?

MRS. JORDAN: I don't.

MS. BROWN: The other group that is sending me clippings and asking that I do something on their behalf is the Vernon and District Community Services. They have also had their budget cut, they have also waited for their member to say something on their behalf, and not a word! I have also received letters and clippings from the Vernon and District Association for the Retarded. Vernon doesn't have a representative! It certainly looks as if Vernon doesn't have a representative, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member. We are dealing with the vote of the Minister of Human Resources.

MS. BROWN: These are all under the Minister of Human Resources. I am asking the Minister of Human Resources about the funding for the Vernon Women's Centre, the Vernon and District Community Services and the Vernon and District Association for the Retarded.

Meals on Wheels, Mr. Chairman, and the youth services division in Burnaby have also had their services cut.

The homemakers service was discussed yesterday. We still haven't received a response from the minister as to whether he is going to put those people out or make them eligible again, Vancouver and province-wide.

HON, MR. VANDER ZALM: Those $6.75-an-hour-people are your friends.

MS. BROWN: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I hope when the minister stands up to speak he will speak on behalf of the two senior citizens in receipt of $560 a month who are finding that they have to pay over $200 a month to get homemakers service.

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to make a speech. I am asking question. But the minister just doesn't understand that in most instances the people who use the homemakers services are referred by their doctors. They are people who are coming out of hospital who are using acute-care beds. The doctors say that if they have a homemaker they will be discharged and they are sent home so that they can release an expensive acute-care bed. That is the whole point of the homemakers service. In fact, what the minister is doing by cutting these people off the homemakers service is putting them on the budget of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) . They are using up acute-care beds in the hospitals. He sits there and makes smart-alec comments about being my friends and then bragging about what a great administrator he is when he is withholding services costing $14 a week so that people need to stay in an acute-care bed that costs hundreds of dollars more.

Halfway house for men in Burnaby. Are you writing, Mr. Minister?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Yes, that has closed down.

Coast Foundation Society, the home for women with alcoholic problems.

Hunter Creek, the home for discharged offenders in Chilliwack.

I'm halfway through my list. Would you like to respond to those and then I'll give you the other half? There are 16 community resource boards, including the Vancouver Resources Board, and I specifically would like you to make a statement concerning the future of the Vancouver Resources Board.

The Grand Forks Community Health and Human Resource Board.

The Doctor Endicott Home for the handicapped in Creston.

The Creston Society, which has had a reduction in its budget and therefore is short of workers.

The day-care centre in Nakusp.

The Canadian Red Cross programme of swimming for the disabled.

[ Page 1965 ]

The quarterly indexing of Mincome. The quarterly indexing of the handicapped pension.

The senior citizens counselling service. The VOP incentive programme for people on welfare.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: VOP?

MR. LAUK: Quite a list, eh?

MR. COCKE: And that's only a partial list.

MS. BROWN: The West End Senior Incentive Programme.

The West End Service to Seniors.

MR. LAUK: Remember that one?

MS. BROWN: The West End Landlord and Tenants Centre.

The Vancouver Community Legal Assistance Society - that's the one the minister withheld funding from because he said they were breaking up families. We've had an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to explain to him what they're really doing, which is giving assistance to people who cannot afford legal s, services. I'm wondering whether he is willing to reconsider his position on that.

Then there's the Boundary Community Health and Human Resources.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Boundary?

MS. BROWN: The Regional Rental Referral Agency, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No such thing.

MS. BROWN: Some of the services of the YWCA in Vancouver, specifically the Pender YWCA, which is having to close its doors. The Pender Y services primarily the Chinese community. It was crucial in the kinds of services that it gave to immigrants, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Immigrant Services Centre?

MS. BROWN: No, no. The Pender Y. All of these things were included in the services of the Pender YWCA. As a result of the cutback, the Pender Y, which was on Pender Street right in the heart of the Chinese community....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: The Pender YWCA. Yes, I'm trying to explain that part of their function, Mr. Chairman, was to deal with new immigrants. They had translation services. They would help them to find jobs, to find housing, to do the kind of adaptation that was necessary. That Y is now having to close its doors as a result of the YWCA funding being cut back.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Something is wrong there.

MS. BROWN: A lot is wrong when the Pender YWCA, which is one of the oldest branches of the YWCA in British Columbia, is having to close its doors. A lot is wrong.

There are four group homes for single mothers, Mr. Chairman, which are run by the YWCA in Vancouver. They're going to have to close their doors. Is the minister prepared to reconsider his lack of commitment?

In the Raymur low-income housing project, Mr. Chairman, there's a recreational facilities programme which is going to die as a result of the minister's refusal to fund Ray-Cam - that's what it's called.

The Gibbs Boys' Club, Mr. Chairman, one of the oldest boys' clubs in Vancouver, has had to close its doors.

The programme mentioned yesterday by the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) for children of veterans who find themselves in need - I think he said there were only 100 children - we'd like a response to that. The children of veterans -veterans' children who find themselves in need. Apparently there are about 100 of them.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: The Detached Youth Workers in the Victoria area.

Families with a handicapped child, Mr. Chairman. I want to talk specifically about one case in Nanaimo of a family that has a 12-year-old boy - he's below 19. He is grossly retarded. He needs 24-hour-a-day care. The parents, Mr. Chairman, want this child to remain at home with them. They are not receiving any assistance whatsoever.

He's one of six children and they'd like to keep him in the family. When the family inquired as to what it would cost the province if he were placed in a hospital, they were told that his care would cost $ 105 a day. It would cost $38,325 a year to place that child in an acute-care hospital where he'd get the 24-hour-a-day service he's getting in the home. He's not receiving any assistance whatsoever from the department of Human Resources - not even homemakers service so that the family can get out once in a while to take a holiday or whatever.

There is a gap in the handicapped programme. There has to be some kind of special consideration for families which have a handicapped child.

[ Page 1966 ]

1966 increase in social assistance rates which the minister promised in a statement of his - are we going to have an announcement on that?

And what about proclamation of section 8 of the GAIN legislation indexing?

As I said, Mr. Chairman, this is a partial list, and I would appreciate a response from the minister.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, it's a little difficult to answer some of these because, while the member speaks very much in support of the Vancouver Resources Board and its effort, she is asking me at the same time to comment on organizations that are funded through the Vancouver Resources Board. If the Vancouver Resources Board is to have the autonomy of dealing with the organizations which they wish to fund, and if they're to carry through the function which they and others claim is what they're best able to do - that is, to keep in touch with the community and better monitor the programmes - then I think we should leave it with the Vancouver Resources Board.

MS. BROWN: Does that mean the Vancouver

Resources Board is going to continue to live?

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

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: So the Vancouver Resources Board has dealt with these in the past, and the funds are provided to the Vancouver Resources Board. They have been notified again as to the approximate number of dollars that will be available to them, and they are proceeding to assess the applications they're receiving for grants on the basis of those moneys.

MS. BROWN: They're meeting at 5 o'clock this evening. I know that, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: So, I guess that takes care of a good many of the ones that you've questioned me about because, in fact, most of the ones that you've mentioned come under the jurisdiction of the Vancouver Resources Board. There are others, of course, in other areas, but again, we have democratized the system.

It used to be - a year or two ago - that an organization would make application for a grant and then they would sort of camp on the minister's doorstep. They would continually pressure and pressure, and those close to Victoria received their grants. But the unfortunate ones that you mentioned, in places like Vernon and elsewhere, that were somewhat further removed from that minister's office were always just a little late.

So now we have democratized the system, and it's up to the regional directors to make recommendations on the basis of the number of dollars available. It worked well last year and I expect it will work well again this year. So we certainly expect that most of these organizations will again be funded because we've not cut back on the dollars, as the members know.

Day-care subsidy: yes, we increased the day-care subsidy, and it was high time. We did it only after having been in office for four months, and day care had not seen an increase in that subsidy during two years or almost three years of the previous administration.

The Red Door agency has not been funded through the ministry. They made application to the Vancouver Resources Board, and I understand the board had refused them funding. Instead, they were being funded through the Vancouver city council.

Transition houses: yes, we have continued to fund transition houses on a per them basis which is equitable, which works well ...

MS. BROWN: That's not good enough!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: ... which provides the opportunity for people to establish transition houses ...

MS. BROWN: No, no, no!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: . . . in whatever part of the province they are required. Of course, that name member who just gave me the list spoke in this House yesterday and stated the need for transition houses in places like Kamloops on the basis of - supposedly - the information she had: "Six hundred men in Kamloops were beating their wives."

MS. BROWN: There's more than that - 800 men....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Eight hundred. As opposed to 122 in Langley and 180 for Victoria.

I think the member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) might take exception to that sort of statistic, and I wouldn't blame him if he did. I think it may be, Mr. Member for Kamloops, that the other member's statistics aren't quite what they ought to be.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and corporate Affairs): No.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No. Obviously that's t.

The children of veterans: the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) raised that point yesterday. The children of veterans were being given a grant with respect to certain needs, and this was done

[ Page 1967 ]

according to legislation that had been on the books for a good many years.

The previous government, of which that member was a part, decided in 1974 to rescind the legislation that was providing the assistance to those children. Now, by legislation, that is not available to them. Unfortunately, that member did not research that too well; nor did the member for Nelson-Creston, because it was the government of which he was a part that rescinded the legislation.

The parent encouragement programme. My deputy advises me that this is again being funded, to the best of his knowledge. It'll be recommended by the regional director.

MS. BROWN: It's been cut back.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The Group Home Project for Handicapped. That's a wonderful programme. I visited a model home in Victoria. I guess I was the first minister who ever called on the home and they were very pleased to receive me there. They were very courteous and they informed me about what they were doing. I advised them that not only was I impressed with that operation but on information that had been given me earlier I was prepared to expand the programme a great deal, throughout Victoria, greater Vancouver and elsewhere in the province, on a scale such as we've never seen previously.

The workshop programme. I can assure the member that it will be expanded on a scale like we've never seen before in this province, and I'm sure that we'll probably see more activity in that area during the next year than we've seen over the last four years.

The community resource boards. No, there will not be funding for the community resource boards. The advisory committees can receive a grant so that they might provide information to the regional directors and the people involved with the delivery of services in the area, but not to the community resource boards. They have been done away with.

MS. BROWN: Vancouver Resources Board?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The community resource boards have been eliminated and there will not be funding for them.

The Dr. Endicott Home. I visited the Dr. Endicott Home and it's a great place. I was very impressed with not only the place but the people involved. I commended them for their activities and will continue to assist them as much as required.

MS. BROWN: But you've cut back their funding.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We've not cut back, hon. member.

The Pender Y immigration centre finds jobs for immigrants. I find there's something wrong with that information. I'd have to get more detail because immigrants, when they arrive here, apparently - at least, according to all of the policies and the regulations as they presently exist federally - are to have jobs before they get here. There's something wrong with that one. If the previous administration was funding it for the purpose of finding jobs for newly arrived immigrants, they obviously didn't know the immigration rules.

The Raymur housing project recreational programme. A recreational programme of a local nature is for local government. I'm sure the Vancouver city council will be considering that.

The Boundary health and human resource centre was discontinued last year, so there will not be funding for it.

The Vancouver community law association. I would guess that comes under the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Gardom's) department.

The Vancouver Opportunities Programme, the incentive programme. Yes, I'm sure it's continuing as it has been, although if you've received information to the contrary you'll have to check with the Vancouver Resources Board. It's a Vancouver Opportunities Programme, administered by the Vancouver Resources Board.

MS. BROWN: No, they reply to you.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Swimming for the disabled. As far as I can recall, that was being financed through the Provincial Secretary's department last year or previously, but certainly it's not been a part of this ministry.

The quarterly indexing for the handicapped. If we had proceeded with quarterly indexing, the handicapped would now be receiving about $279, as opposed to the potential $332, for those who want to live independently in the community. I would suggest that what we've done for the handicapped, despite all the criticism that has come from the other side of the House, is the most positive thing that has happened with respect to the handicapped programme for a good number of years.

MR. SKELLY: It's come from the handicapped.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: With respect to the increases in social-assistance rates, yes, we provided increases in social assistance paid to families, and we will be dealing with the social-assistance rates given to single recipients. I can assure the member that, again, it will be dealt with in the positive manner that we looked at all of these programmes with. It will be worthwhile; it will be innovative. It will be the best change that these people have seen for a good many

[ Page 1968 ]

years.

MS. BROWN: I thought when the minister was taking the list he was going to deal with each of these more than 50 points as I itemized them. Instead, he's picked out the ones that he wants to respond to and he has left the others, and he's done a beautiful job of distorting on some. I'm going to start all over again and deal specifically with the ones he has not answered.

What, Mr. Chairman, is going to happen to the Vancouver Resources Board? I am asking that question very specifically. I know they're meeting at 5 o'clock this afternoon to deal with some of the programmes which are under their jurisdiction, but what is going to happen to the Vancouver Resources Board? That's what I want an answer on.

As far as the child-abuse teams and transition homes are concerned, I've recommended to you that the department should fund these on a province-wide basis. I said yesterday, and I say today again, that it's great that you have a fee for service once the house has been established, but what we need is seed money to start those houses.

The old-fashioned way of people scrounging around and coming up with something and then trying to get a house started is a hit-and-miss method. Now that it's been demonstrated that violence in the family is on the increase and that there is a need for these transition houses, I propose that the Ministry of Human Resources take over responsibility for starting them up, not just per them funding.

As far as your statement about 800 men in Kamloops beating their wives: that information came from a questionnaire that was sent around and the women filled out that information themselves.

HON. MR. MAIR: My wife?

MS. BROWN: I didn't check the names on it, Mr. Minister, but if you would like to know if she's telling, I'll check.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, that is the point. I'm talking about seed money, not per diem.

The other point is that you have not responded to the question about funding for rape relief. Again, Victoria has been back and forth, negotiating with your department, ever since that night a year ago when you rolled into this House and said: "I will take care of it." They have been waiting, and the coalition of Rape Relief houses around the province are waiting for some kind of response.

I am really disappointed at your lack of information about the job being done by the Pender YWCA. I would like to ask the minister to really investigate some of the work being done by that particular YWCA. It is in the Chinese community. It does deal with helping people. Even if you come and have a job, Mr. Chairman, someone goes along with them, deals with the translation and helps them to find accommodation. There are a number of things involved in being an immigrant in a country where you do not speak the language that you need assistance with. The Pender YWCA has been doing it for years. Now, as a result in the cutback in funding to the Y, the Pender YWCA is going to have to close its doors.

I wish the minister would stop continually talking about the great job that's being done for the handicapped. It's not true. The basic rate that a single person on handicapped person gets in this province hasn't changed. It's still exactly the same amount and that is the reason why handicapped people are asking that it be indexed to the cost of living so it will go up each year as the cost of living rises. Of course there are rent overages. Every landlord in town is gratified for the rent overages. But the single handicapped person still gets the same basic pension and that hasn't changed. The minister has not responded to the very serious problem I raised about the family with the handicapped child and the lack of support for that family.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'd have to get the details with respect to the family with the handicapped child, and our staff in Nanaimo would certainly assess the need in that particular case and I'm sure they would be most willing to help. The way the question was put by the hon. member, without referring to a particular family, it almost seems as if there were some suggestion that the child might be turfed out because the child was handicapped. The suggested was this family is keeping the child. Great. Wonderful - the family is keeping the child. I firmly believe that most families - and it's politicians that tend to put on other interpretations - including that family, would want to keep a child. It's not a matter of whether we put them into an institution or keep them at home. Most families would want to keep that child at home. It's politicians who are suggesting otherwise.

MS. BROWN: Then help those families! I'm suggesting you help that family keep its child.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: If that family requires help to keep the child at home ...

MS. BROWN: It does!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: ... we will assess that situation and that would certainly be done. If, however, the family can manage, then we would

[ Page 1969 ]

expect the family to manage for a handicapped child as we might for another child.

MS. BROWN: A handicapped child has additional needs, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: A handicapped child has additional needs and certainly those needs must be assessed, as must the ability of that family to provide for the child, and that will be done. We would like to have the particulars.

The rent overages provided to handicapped persons are, as the member stated at least, a boon for the landlord. I would suggest that that statement is ridiculous and it is, again, an injustice to many landlords who are fair and who would no more rip off the tenant for the rent overage than they would had the money been given them for cash.

MR. LAUK: What do you know about it? You don't know anything about that.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Rents are not....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. members, the minister has the floor.

MR. LAUK: You're incredible.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Rents are not established on the basis of a rental overage but if the money were given them in cash ...

MS. BROWN: What would they do with it?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: ... it could just as well be assumed, on the basis of what that member said, that it would be taken then as well.

MR. BARRETT: What would they do with the money?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the hon. minister has the floor. You must await your turn in the debate.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Rape Relief was funded for the first time by this government. I don't know what the question is from the hon. member. Perhaps he would give it to me in writing and I'll provide further details.

The child-abuse programme in Vancouver is as it was. The one at the Vancouver General Hospital, which Dr. Israel made representation about in my office.... We found after checking further and after it came out in the press that he had failed to ask the foundation which had funded him the previous year if they would fund him again. When asked they said yes they would, and they are funding it again.

MR. GIBSON: Until the end of June.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The child abuse programme will not only be continued but will be expanded upon in this province.

Transition houses - yes, the opportunities are available for the establishment of transition houses. We have a per them for the transition houses. The member was suggesting that we provide seed money. If there is a particular situation in a given area, I'd like to receive the particulars. But the hon. member should know too that many community facilities were initiated by that community. All the workshops which he mentioned earlier and the achievement centres for the handicapped were initiated locally. Again, they too are funded on a formula other than a capital investment formula. They're working well; they'll be expanded upon. It may be that we'll again decide to put in some capital funds, but each situation will be assessed on its merits.

MR. BARRETT: You're a disaster!

MR. LAUK: It may be appropriate at this point, Mr. Chairman, to point out why the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) is upset with this minister and his responses. It's like playing tennis with a machine that eats the balls. This minister has a particular response to every question: that is that there will be more activity in this programme than ever before and it will have the potential of having the greatest progress in the history of the province and we'll have this and that and the other.

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

MR. LAUK: The minister is glib, but a flim-flam man nonetheless. The minister, Mr. Chairman, survives and thrives as a politician on utter and complete bafflegab. On the one hand he says it's not the responsibility of his ministry for a number of these projects that have had cutbacks. He has solved that problem. It's like having the bill collectors come to his cousin who lives in the basement suite - the fellow who's broke. He says: "No, no. You don't understand. You don't come to me to collect the bills anymore. I appointed my cousin in the basement. You collect the bills from him." And the bill collector says: "Well, he hasn't got any money."

"Well, I'm sorry. I have appointed him."

What kind of nonsense is that, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister? It's absolute nonsense. He keeps on getting up and he talks about things that he reveals an abysmal ignorance about. It's rather shocking. He talks about in every jurisdiction.... Mr.

[ Page 1970 ]

Minister, are you listening?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Chairman, the hon. minister thinks he's at a tea party at the Empress. He's chatting away with his deputies there and he's laughing and giggling. He's happy. Power is very comfortable with the minister; he loves it. He's chatting and whispering.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: He has not answered the question about the Vancouver Resources Board. Did you see the way he reeled back on his heels - iron, no doubt? He said: "Community resource boards? We've done away with them."

MS. BROWN: They're finished.

MR. LAUK: They're finished. And he went like this: "Look what I've done! Look what I've done! Aren't you proud of me, everybody? I wiped them out! Strike of the pen!" The minister loves power; he wallows in power. He hasn't answered questions about the Vancouver Resources Board. He thinks it's cute not to answer questions.

He stands up and he says that the shelter allowance to the handicapped is not going to be absorbed by landlords. The history of such allowances to handicapped persons and old-age pensioners across this country and, indeed, North America is always that it is absorbed by the landlords with increased rent. As he is saying: "You're being unfair to some honest landlords."

MS. BROWN: They don't get it unless it goes to rent.

MR. LAUK: In some situations, Mr. Chairman, there is only one side to the story and that's one of those situations. It always gets absorbed by increased rent to these people, to the landlords. Anybody can tell him that, and particularly the staff in his department. He stands up here with typical self-righteous pap and says: "Oh, we're being unfair to honest landlords." He says Raycan....

The previous Social Credit government built that national disaster called the central public housing unit. There are families that are stuck underneath a bridge in the east end of my riding with children with no place to play - no recreational facilities. And he, with that wave of his hand, says, "Oh, well, the city will provide the funds, " while he's saving $100 million. Mr. Chairman, he's saving $ 100 million this year. He's going to call it the $ 100 million underrun. He's going to put his thumbs in his vest again. He's going to smile and he's going to say: "See, aren't you proud of me? Aren't I cute?"

MS. BROWN: He's cute, but I'm not proud of him.

MR. LAUK: Everybody's paying for this man's political ambition, Mr. Chairman. Everybody in this province is paying. The taxpayers are paying because of his stupid economic policies in running his department. The disabled are paying through the cutbacks and lack of facilities. Old-age pensioners are going without and eating pet food, paying for his political ambition. What ego; " what fantastic, incredible ego!

Keep families together! That man has absolutely no understanding about keeping families together. He's got a series of 55 cutbacks involving social agencies when what they do is keep families together.

I know that the minister is against abortion. But let me tell you something. In 1971, the central YWCA in Vancouver started up a group-home situation for single mothers in that city. It was the only facility of its kind anywhere in the greater Vancouver area. The YWCA paid the brunt of that cost and they raised money from other sources. They begged for money from the previous Social Credit administration. They got some. Under our administration they put away their begging bowl, because we funded those places. They provided for 60 or 70 single mothers in transition - family counselling, child-care counselling, usually to young mothers. They provided home situations, protection and care, and, in some cases, active counselling for retraining so that young mothers who did not want to go and have abortions could keep their children. The YWCA is closing down those group homes by June this year. Ask them why, Mr. Chairman. No funding from the provincial government. Funding dried up from other sources; funding dried up from community resources.

The Vancouver Resources Board is the poor cousin in the basement. He's appointed the resources board, through the department, to say yea or nay to grants, but he doesn't give them any money. It's utter and complete flim-flam to support this man's ego and political ambition.

The Dr. Endicott Home. He visited the Dr. Endicott Home and he said it is a fine institution. Nobody cares what his opinion is about these institutions. These volunteers have worked for years and years, and people have donated their time and money to build these homes, to build these projects in the community long before he was ever in this country, Mr. Chairman. These people have been putting together these volunteer organizations. They don't need him to come along and say it's a good institution. They know that. What they want him to

[ Page 1971 ]

do on behalf of this province is to give them a proper funding base so they can carry on.

Of all the audacity, he says to them: "I commend you for a fine operation." He says: "I commended them." He says: "I can't give you any money but I'll give you a commendation." Perhaps the minister can get some scrolls made up. The scrolls can say: "In lieu of a grant this year I hereby give you the official Crown minister pat-on-the-back. Yours truly, Willy." But no money.

The Pender Y. He has no conception about the impact of the Pender Y on young immigrant people, particularly Asian women who are learning English language requirements and occupational training through the Pender Y.

And legal clinics. When I was in law school and just out of law school, for many years I attended the legal clinic there on a volunteer basis. So do many people in the community who devote hours of their time to provide legal aid to people in that area. It's closing down, Mr. Chairman. Why? He can't tell me the Vancouver Resources Board, his poor cousin, has dried up the funds. He can make direct grants to the Central Y so they can keep these institutions open.

It is a shock for the hon. Leader of the Opposition to know the Gibbs Boy's Club is closing down. The East End Gibbs Boys' Club is closing down, Mr. Chairman. No funding. The Gibbs Boys' Club is a tradition.

Keep families together, indeed, to save his $100 million underrun. Tonight the Premier of this province is going to the most luxurious hotel in the city of Vancouver to attend a $ 1 00-a-plate dinner of Socred cronies and supporters who have got relief under the succession duties Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member, we're dealing with vote 184.

MR. LAUK: That's what we're dealing with, Mr. Chairman - $100-a-plate to support a Socred Party while this minister is bleeding the disabled, the handicapped and the underprivileged in this province dry. How much of $100 a plate is the $22.50 you're holding back from the disabled persons? How much of that $100-a-plate dinner that the Premier is going to attend tonight belongs in the pockets of the people of this province that's being relieved through succession duties and other relief to the millionaires of this province?

A $ 100 million overrun - we're all paying for it. Boy, he's going to have a ball. We're all paying for this one man's political ambition and ego, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I just have two questions for the minister, and they're very brief. The first one relates to the Vancouver Resources Board, because we still haven't had an answer and a guarantee by that minister that the Vancouver Resources Board will be continued. It's a very simple question. Would he please just stand up and say: "Yes, the Vancouver Resources Board will be continued, at least until estimates time next year"?

The second thing I have to say to him concerns his reply with respect to the child-abuse team at the Vancouver General Hospital. The minister came before us and said that Dr. Israel made representation to him for Department of Human Resources funding of the social worker on the child-abuse team without having asked the foundation which started the project to continue the funding. Well, I will say two things. First of all, that funding was done on an experimental basis by a foundation which does not have unlimited funds and can afford to pay for experiments from time to time, but not to carry matters which in the ordinary course of events ought to be carried by the public purse. Secondly, is the minister not aware that after the two-year grant ran out at the end of March there had to be an individual person come forward and say: "Listen, I will cover the payroll for the next month in order to keep the guarantee going through April"? The hospital then went back to the Vancouver Foundation and said: "Look, can you help us a little bit further?" The Vancouver Foundation said: "Well, yes, we can carry it to the end of June, but that's it. After that you're on your own."

The end -of June is about three months from now, , and we're looking at estimates that go through the next year. What I want to know is: does the minister understand that this funding for that social worker is running out at the end of June, and that this child-abuse team has identified well over 100 cases of child battering at the VGH that would not have been identified without the presence of this team? You can see this in the year-by-year statistics. We're talking about children that are helpless. If these cases aren't detected, the kids remain in that home environment, which is not a well environment - the parents need help as well as the children....

The first step is the detection. The child-abuse team is there and it's working. It's a resource for the whole lower mainland in the province, not just VGH.

Mr. Chairman, as it stands now, the funding by the Vancouver Foundation is running out at the end of June. They've been told that that's that, and after that the social worker's gone. That's a critical part of this two-person team that goes around and talks to the family and does the education with medical personnel inside and outside the VGH and around the province. So I see the minister nodding, Mr. Chairman, but I want to know: what's he going to do about it once June is over? Will he fund that social worker out of his department?

[ Page 1972 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, the answer is probably.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You know, I find it very difficult. On the one hand, we have that particular member arguing in favour of the VRB and its continuation because it provides a certain autonomy to a particular region and it provides for local input. On the other hand, he's telling this ministry that we must take action despite the fact that Dr. Israel was referred to the Vancouver Resources Board, and while Mr. Schreck was investigating the question of continuing or what or how, he also went to the press - to the media. I'm hoping that while they are being funded through the Vancouver Foundation, it can be worked out with the Vancouver Resources Board.

It's a very good programme. We intend to expand on it. It'll be expanded not only in Vancouver; it'll be expanded throughout the province because it is providing a very necessary service. Where a necessary service is required, we'll not only provide that service, but we'll provide it at a level that it has not been provided at previously. We do things well.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, that service is a province-wide service and there's no reason why the VRB should be called upon to fund a province-wide service. That is properly within the duties of the minister and his department. The next thing I'll say is about the minister's implied criticism of people concerned with the child-abuse team who were going to the media. Mr. Chairman, God help us if the government starts to look with a jaundiced eye on anybody who has the guts to go to the media. That is an absolutely shocking suggestion.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair. ]

I want to stand in this place and say that they wouldn't have as good a chance of getting funding if they hadn't gone to the media. They would have been cut off right at the knees.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I'm not speaking about where the moneys will be coming from, because obviously the Vancouver Resources Board does not have a local tax for the city of Vancouver. It's funded through this ministry. I am saying that if we wish this organization to have a degree of autonomy, then we should not be removing powers or authorities from them at every turn when it appears politically popular or politically the thing to do. We'll deal with it and we'll deal with it well.

It'll be the best programme that British Columbia's ever had.

M R. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, the minister in his response made the claim that it was the previous government that discontinued the grants to the children of soldiers who were in financial need. I pointed out quite clearly last evening, as I have pointed out in two different letters to the minister, that either the minister is being misinformed by his department or there has to be some other explanation. I'll read out a letter here. Here's the letter under the signature of Mr. G.J. McKay, consultant of the Ministry of Human Resources. He has said to Mr. Ray Thomas, General Delivery, Wymer, B.C.:

"Your letter to the hon. William Vander Zalm has been referred to this division for response.

"It is my understanding that you were making inquiries about Education for Soldiers' Dependent Children's Act. I wish to advise you that this Act became ineffective at approximately February, 1974."

That Act was repealed, as I said. It was proclaimed in February, 1974. As I have also pointed out to that minister, in the Statute Law Amendment Act debate, two present members of this cabinet made inquiries. It's in Hansard. It was pointed out that payments would continue under the Ministry of Human Resources. Payments did continue under the Ministry of Human Resources in 1974 and in 1975. 1 have talked to members of the Pacific Command of the Royal Canadian Legion and they say that those amounts were even greater because they no longer had to apportion small amounts of money among the deserving few. There was ample, so that each deserving family could get $250 for each deserving child.

Mr. Chairman, I would like this minister to say that he has the power - and he does have the power - even under the Guaranteed Available Income for Need. There i s the power for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council to make regulations without limiting the generality of subsection 1:

"Regulations may be made prescribing classes of income assistance and social services and the items composing the classes and the amount and cost of each, defining individuals or classes of individuals who qualify for classes for income assistance or social services; prescribing rules of eligibility for individuals or classes of individuals for income assistance or social services."

Going back to section 1: Income assistance means financial assistance, assistance in kind, and assistance in aid of municipalities, boards, commissions, et cetera, but also to individuals.

[ Page 1973 ]

Mr. Chairman, this minister has the capability, if he has the inclination, to see that those deserving families that have been served by this Legislature -certainly from 1948 until 1975 - with grants, can continue to be served. I think that the full 100, at least, of which I'm aware, should continue to receive that funding.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, there is provision for the minister to make assistance available to people in need under the hardship clause in the GAIN legislation. I can assure the member that, under the hardship clause, assistance can and will be given if hardship is shown. I don't know why that previous government repealed the legislation. You can't hold this minister responsible for the actions of a previous government. You should be aware of that because you were a part of that government. So you might blame me for many a thing. The attack's been on. But don't blame me for anything that happened in 1974.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, it was debated in this House, and as I've said, members of both sides of this House debated the issue and were satisfied that the small number of persons remaining could best be served through the Ministry of Human Resources. When that Act was repealed, the assistance did not decrease. It actually increased, because it had been subject to a vote in the Ministry of Education.

The old legislation required the setting up of a three-person commission, one of whom "shall be appointed or nominated on or before the first day of April of each year by the executive committee of the British Columbia provincial command of the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League"; one of whom should be "nominated on or before the first day of April of each year by the executive committee of the British Columbia provincial command of the Army and Navy Veterans' League in Canada"; one of whom was to be "nominated on or before the first day of April of each year by the executive committee of the British Columbia branch of the Amputations Association of the Great War of Canada."

Can you imagine having to go through this for what now remains to be about 100 children and even fewer families? These people had served very well. The person who served for the Pacific command, Mr. Chairman, of the Royal Canadian Legion felt that the purposes of this Act were served better after it had been repealed, and has made that statement to other members of the Legion.

I would like the assurance from this minister, and I will only be satisfied when he points out that families who qualify for social assistance and who fit the criteria of a veteran who served at home or abroad in the wars, in this whole piece of legislation.... I would send it over to the minister.

But those should be the criteria. Anyone who is having to receive social assistance of any form, whether it be Mincome or handicapped persons' allowance, should also be entitled to this little bit extra in keeping with the commitment that was made by this Legislature in 1948 and reaffirmed in 1973 when that legislation was repealed. It was repealed on the understanding of all sides of this House.... It was not a big political debate, but an agreement. I would hope I have from that minister the commitment that anybody receiving social assistance meeting those other criteria which were set forth in that legislation would qualify.

MR. LEA: Check with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) .

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, as I stated earlier, if they meet those requirements, the provisions are there.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Right. Fair enough. Obviously if they're on social assistance, they're in need.

MR. LAUK: I would like very much for the minister's estimates to go through because, quite frankly, I don't think we should go through the indignity of receiving back-of-the-hand answers from this minister on a constant basis. He has demonstrated his complete contempt for this House and contempt for the people of British Columbia. He has no respect for the questions that have been asked because he doesn't answer them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the kind of language that is now being used has, in the past, always dictated the interruption of the Chair. I would ask the hon. member to use more temperate language.

MR. LAUK: I asked the minister, Mr. Chairman, some two days ago whether he was going to exercise his power under the Landlord and Tenant Act to report designated residential premises in the downtown east side of the city of Vancouver. I explained in detail how these people were being mistreated and how, indeed, the taxpayer was wasting money because of that mistreatment. He needs protection in two areas - from improper eviction and from outrageous rent increases. You keep on nodding your head. You haven't said a word in this committee.

The second question is that I want some commitment of a direct provincial grant to keep open those group homes for single mothers which have

[ Page 1974 ]

been open for the last six years. It's absolutely essential in the city of Vancouver that those group homes keep open. Where are these single mothers going to go? The Y cannot afford it, Mr. Chairman; the Y cannot possibly afford it.

Don't skate too close to the edge, my friend. Perhaps the minister can answer those two questions because I can certainly notice that unless I get a satisfactory commitment from the minister on those two questions, you're going to be here until June.

AN HON. MEMBER: A threat.

MR. LAUK: It's not a threat; it's a promise.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the question on rentals in downtown for those who are having to find accommodation in hotels that are not covered by the landlord and tenant legislation, about a week ago we asked a regional director to provide evidence, such as is required prior to us making a presentation to the rentalsman. Certainly if that evidence is available, as the hon. member would suggest it is, it will be acted upon.

MR. LAUK: Have you got in touch with DERA?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The regional director can contact DERA if he deems it advisable.

With respect to the other question, I would imagine that the Y, if they are administering the programme for the single mothers, will be making application through the Vancouver Resources Board. The Vancouver Resources Board deals with the grants. They have as much money now as they did in 1975 and 1974.

It's a matter of priorities. If the Vancouver Resources Board is dealing with it on the basis of priority, fine. On the other hand, if the Y wishes to make further presentation, I'll be pleased to receive their presentation.

MS. SANFORD: I have a few questions to pose to the minister. One relates specifically to the issue that I raised a couple of days ago in the House on the transition-house proposal which has been made by a group of women in Campbell River. Now I understood him to say this afternoon that seed money would be made available for these groups where they can prove a need. I would like to remind the minister that that need has been very well documented by the women who are making this application. I would like him to let me know this afternoon so that I can inform the women in Campbell River who are waiting very patiently for an answer from the minister with respect to their transition-house proposal.

My second question, Mr. Chairman, is perhaps one that I missed the answer to. It was one of the ones that was listed by the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) , and that relates to Crossroads Crisis Centre in Courtenay, which is also awaiting an answer from the minister. They've been in touch with me. They keep making inquiries as to the status of their funding. I think the minister appreciates that staff people must make other arrangements if, in fact, they're not going to receive their funding. it's not fair to keep them waiting until the very last minute to discover whether or not they're going to be able to continue receiving funds for the services that they provide in the area.

The third question that I have relates specifically to a handicapped person who is also in the Campbell River area. He, at the moment, has been informed by the Workers' Compensation Board that he will be receiving only $6.95 a month because of the handicap that he faced as a result of a job injury. He has since then applied to the federal people for a disability pension and receives $110 a month through that programme. Now what I would like to ask the minister is whether or not these rent subsidies that he's going to make available to the handicapped -this new programme that he made such a fanfare about announcing a couple of weeks ago - will apply to people such as my constituent who does receive a disability pension through the federal disability pension fund. In addition, as I say, he gets $6.95 through the Workers' Compensation Board. His wife is also incapable of obtaining employment. I think that people such as those two should be eligible for the programme announced. I would appreciate it if the minister would give me that information.

The last point, Mr. Chairman, relates to the question that was raised in the Legislature the other day b y the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) . At that time he was asking the minister, during question period, about the positive recruitment officer for the Vancouver Resources Board. Now I am somewhat dumbfounded by the answer the minister gave the other day in wanting to get more information, as he said, from the Human Rights Commission as to other groups such as the Dutch, the English, the Irish and the Greeks.

Mr. Chairman, the Human Rights Commission has worked very closely with the board in working out this positive action programme, this affirmative action programme, so that natives and handicapped women could be employed at the Vancouver Resources Board. They've gone through all of the questions. The minister, to date, has not contacted the Human Rights Commission to find out if he needs to have more information as to why this decision was taken by the Human Rights Commission or why they have agreed with this or why they have worked hard

[ Page 1975 ]

to see that it happens. In fact, the human rights commissioners have been attempting to contact the minister in recent days. I recognize he's been busy with his estimates under discussion, but they have been attempting to contact him because they would very much like to see this programme initiated. It's currently being held up by this minister. I would like him to give us the assurance that, on second thought, the affirmative action programme - now that he recognizes it has been worked out with the Human Rights Commission - will indeed be initiated.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chainnan, the Crossroads in Courtenay received $23,841 during the last fiscal year. I do not know what the recommendation is for the coming year. As a matter of fact, I don't suppose we could advise them in any case until the estimates have been passed. I do know that during the year I have received....

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Why? Because we cannot give grants until the estimates are passed.

I do know that during the year we've had inquiries about this particular facility in Courtenay. Perhaps that's why the member questioned it. I know there's some controversy in Courtenay as to whether it should be continued with or not. The regional director is assessing it fairly, despite the controversy that exists in Courtenay with respect to this particular group.

The transition house for Campbell River. I will certainly await their proposal. I don't know what they're seeking. The per them rate given them, of course, may be sufficient to amortize an amount in any case, but I will wait until I see the proposal.

The suggestion was that I had not contacted Human Rights re the Vancouver affirmative action programme. 1, of course, have talked to Human Rights. As a matter of fact, I posed a question, and the Human Rights person whom I spoke to on the telephone was unable to provide me with the answers on the telephone - and understandably so - but has promised to get back in touch with me after obtaining the information that I was seeking. So when I receive the information from the Human Rights Commission, we can decide further. All I have from the Vancouver Resources Board is:

"This is a person responsible for the developing and implementing of a positive recruitment system for use in the VRB to actualize the goals and objectives of the VRB affirmative action programme. This person would be a non-voting member of the affirmative action committee."

Now if the hon. member can tell me what that means, I'd be pleased to receive the information after the sitting from that hon. member. I don't know what it means. I need a further explanation.

I also have here an ad which did run in the Vancouver papers, and that also led me to inquire further. It was an ad for a Greek social worker for Kitsilano. When I say this ad for a Greek social worker, I wanted to inquire further because I'm sure that other minority groups would be making presentation for equal rights and equal opportunity. I felt it should be looked at further.

MS. SANFORD: I would like to assure the minister that I can provide him with the information with respect to the affirmative action programme, and will do so today if possible. All of it.

The other thing is that I'm wondering how long it takes for the minister to see a proposal. This proposal by the transition house people in Campbell River was made last year. How long does it take for it to come to your attention? It was mailed in last year to you. Yes, it was.

MR. KING: I just wanted to follow up with the minister, Mr. Chairman, regarding the human rights implications of the affirmative action programme that was being discussed in Vancouver. It's my understanding, and I think it's a source of public information, that the Human Rights Commission had approved the affirmative action programme under the special section of the Act - I forget which one it is precisely - which is designed to allow what may be referred to as affirmative action - or positive discrimination - if you will, to allow the catch-up of minority groups who have not had fair representation in the past. I would have thought that the Minister of Human Resources would have been familiar with that.

I wish the minister would tell the House why he felt it necessary to query the human rights aspect of this programme rather than querying his colleague, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , who has within his jurisdiction the custody of the Human Rights Act and who certainly, as custodian of that legislation, would have been able to apprise the Minister of Human Resources of what the intent and what the design of the programme was, and its compliance or non-compliance with statute. I wonder why the Minister of Human Resources intercedes in the Minister of Labour's department and jurisdiction to make judgments which he is neither competent nor authorized to make. I wonder if he could tell the House why he chose this route to delay a positive and needed programme on the basis of a jurisdiction which resides with his colleague, the Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I questioned the Human Rights person with respect to

[ Page 1976 ]

the ad for the Greek social worker, and I could not obtain information then as to whether that had been approved. I think, as the minister responsible for the carrying out of the Act which governs the actions of the Vancouver Resources Board, I have every right -as a matter of fact, not only the right but the duty -to question matters that aren't clear or that require further scrutiny.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, what we have here, apparently, is a superminister who is going to take unto himself the responsibility for interpreting all the provincial statutes, regardless of which ministry they reside under.

MR. BARRETT: Yes. You too, Rafe.

MR. KING: I suggest it's an insult to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , who is responsible for the Human Rights Code and the staff of the human rights branch, who have given, I understand, approval to the affirmative action programme which was referred to. It's an insult to that minister for the Minister of Human Resources to presume to override the authority of that Ministry of Labour and its human rights branch, and to presume to interpret statutes which reside under that department.

Now would the Minister of Human Resources, by his response, take unto himself the responsibility for seeing that the Vancouver Resources Board complies in every respect with the municipal regulations that fall under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs? I think not. I think the minister must have been seeking a device to delay the programme. And I wonder who the person in human rights to whom the minister spoke was. Surely on a matter of this importance the minister should have talked either to the Minister of Labour, which would have been the ethical thing to do, or to the director of human rights, who is responsible for the day-to-day administration of that branch.

To talk to some vague unnamed person leaves much to be desired in terms of that minister's assessment of his own responsibility. I think that it demonstrates ineptitude, Mr. Chairman, for that minister to delay an important programme on the basis of his ignorance of the Human Rights Act, apparently, which allows precisely the kind of advertising that he seems to object to.

MR. BARRETT: He's a busybody.

MR. KING: The Human Rights Code does allow advertising for specialized minority groups in terms of employment to ensure that those minority groups are served and recognized after all these years in the milieu of government and in the milieu of regulatory authority which the government is responsible for.

That's precisely part and parcel of the human rights philosophy, the concept of the code. I think it's shocking that the minister displays his disregard, this scorn, for his colleague, the Minister of Labour, and also, apparently, is ready to deal with some obscure person in the human rights branch rather than someone in authority. That's an unsatisfactory answer, and it demonstrates to me that the minister is either power mad and anxious to take over total responsibility for all government decisions, or else he simply was bent on the destruction of the affirmative action programme, Mr. Chairman. Shocking and intolerant!

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm really glad to hear that that minister is so concerned about human rights. I wonder whether his concern extends to his own department. Under his PREP programme, Mr. Chairman, he has a form known as: "employment profile - the Department of Human Resources." One of the questions asked on this employment profile is: "Is this person likely to have any special problems such as racial or cultural background?"

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. BROWN: Or No. 70: "Recent immigrant?"

Now I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the real reason that this minister attacked the Vancouver Community Legal Assistance Society is because they issued a press release saying that this minister was in direct violation of the Human Rights Code by having that kind of question on his employment profile.

Here it is! The minister stands up in this House , and tells us it is his duty ...

MR. BARRETT: Violator!

MS. BROWN: . . . to interfere with the Department of Labour. When does his duty ever extend to his own department?

MR. BARRETT: Busybody!

MS. BROWN: Here it is on his employment profile - a clear contravention of the Human Rights Code.

MR. KING: Nasty little man!

MS. BROWN: He interferes when it suits him, but when he is himself a violator, he suddenly has no duty.

MR. BARRETT: Peeping Bill!

MR. KING: Nasty little man!

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

[ Page 1977 ]

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): I do have some questions, and I'm going to phrase them in as orderly a way as possible. I hope that the minister will grant some courtesy that he has not seen fit to grant thus far.

However, before I get into that, I am rather disturbed at the minister's remark that he cannot meet any grant proposals until after the estimates are passed. You know, that was the kind of balderdash that the minister tried to send out to the handicapped people when they wrote to him about the $22.50 federal money. They said: "We don't have any money because the Legislature won't give it to me." When the member for Capilano (Mr. Gibson) stood in his place here and asked leave to move a motion, that government wouldn't give it to him. We wanted to give you the right to give them that money, and you wouldn't let them. So let's not hear any of that nonsense.

You say you don't have flexibility. You've got $100 million worth of flexibility from last year's budget. You've got all that power right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair, Mr. Member.

MR. D'ARCY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to address the Chair, because I find you a much more reasonable person than some of the people whom I, in moments of weakness, address across the floor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. D'ARCY: Speaking of the budget, Mr. Chairman, the minister last year put policies and procedures into effect in January, February and March, which, if carried to their logical conclusion -and indeed they were - were going to result in an expenditure from that department substantially below what was in the estimates. The estimates were not introduced into this House until late March in 1976, and were not, in fact, passed until sometime in May. The policies were in effect in January, February and March, Mr. Chairman. So we get down to the end of the fiscal year and we find out that that minister has $100 million underrun by following policies that were already in effect. He says: "What a fine boy am l!" In fact, Mr. Chairman, those estimates were an insult to this House. He never had the slightest intention, when he introduced those estimates, of spending that money. When he went to Treasury Board with his estimates, they figured out what they were actually going to spend under his programmes and then they added $ 100 to $150 million. They put that in and that's what they got. We voted and debated in good faith - all 55 members of the House - estimates which were, in fact, inflated estimates. They never had any intention of spending it. What an insult to this House and what an insult to the people of British Columbia - all for the purposes of political flim-flam.

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, now that those points have been made - although they've probably been made and made better by other members - I hope that the public of B.C. does not forget them. I'm certainly not going to let them forget them.

Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister and his deputies, when they get proposals from individual societies and organizations such as Homemaker Services, which are largely volunteer and cost the department very little money, and when they get proposals from day-care societies, which, again, while they are not completely volunteer, the volunteer principle is certainly used, to consider, rather than the traditional annual budgeting, quarterly budgeting. They should consider getting proposals and allowing those, too, on a quarterly basis.

I think the traditional system of receiving proposals in the fall or early winter and having the society never knowing exactly where they stand until April when they hear, leaves a great deal of uncertainty. It causes discontent, and I think that when the money eventually does come through, the value for the dollar is not fully realized when it should be. Possibly someone in the bureaucracy is going to say: "Oh, that's going to be extra work. That's going to be four times a year when we only have to do now.... It's going to be expensive."

I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that the department is already doing this quarterly budgeting through the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) for services such as alternate schools. Alternate schools in fact have quarterly budgets, and the reason they have those is because the school district and the Ministry of Education required them. I don't see any great turmoil or problem within the department. You'll have your chance, Mr. Minister; I'll be delighted if you'll respond. These things in fact can be done. I'm merely asking that the department have a good look at doing what you're already doing in some areas, and doing it in other areas as well.

Mr. Chairman, what I really wanted to talk about, though, is the area of preventive health for children, in particular regard to infant development programmes. A great many members in the House from time to time have talked about preventive health. We talk about services to seniors, services to disabled, and services for the handicapped. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that we really have paid very little deference to services to infants, who really are not in

[ Page 1978 ]

a position to take preventive health care on their own recognizance’s because, after all, we're talking about children usually under 3 and certainly under 6.

There have been proposals put to the department. With respect to the minister, I would say he has not rejected them; they're still being considered. But the fact is that children do need these kinds of help. There can be co-operation if they would only get this kind of help in referrals from doctors and public health nurses. We know that children with behavioral and minor health problems in their early years can be treated, and what is merely a problem can be prevented from becoming a handicap. We know how much a person with a handicap can cost the public purse over the years and we know how much any person who is not in a position to support themselves for one reason or another costs the public sector both in tax money and in earnings which they do not put back in by being a productive citizen. I think on both economic and humanitarian grounds this really is a crying need.

In most cases, Mr. Chairman, we're not talking about new capital facilities because in many cases -certainly in my riding and in most centres of the interior - the facilities are already in place either through handicapped societies, through child-care societies or through day-care centres. What we're really talking about is an extra staff member or two, probably for the entire Kootenays. Certainly for the entire west Kootenays, one or two staff members could plug this hole in our services to children, as I say, fully in co-operation with the Dr. Endicott Home Society which you're already praised, fully in co-operation with the local medical practitioners and the public health service. I certainly hope that the minister would consider looking at these when they come in.

The other matter for which I would like to request an answer from the minister is the possibility that the step subsidy programme for day-care centres be raised. I know it has already been discussed here and the minister claims to have made improvements in that. However, the fact remains that whether some small improvements have been made or not, the schedule is essentially the same as it was in 1974. It has not changed appreciably. Some people in the $700-, $800-, $900-a-month income bracket can pay, and do pay, as much as 25 per cent of their income for day care. The alternative is children who are taken out of centres - which is happening all too often right in my own constituency and in other areas -where they get somewhat less than adequate care in most cases, or the parent goes off the labour market and onto social assistance. That is a real tragedy, and I would hope the minister is going to change his point of view when it comes to rehabilitative services and when it comes to incentive programmes.

Mr. Chairman, I was noting when the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) was reeling off all the programmes, all the services and all the grants that have been cut off completely, all the organizations which are closing their doors or have been seriously curtailed, that most, if not all of them, were in fact rehabilitative services and they were incentive services. They were incentive and rehabilitative services that, if working properly, would get people off social assistance and get them back into the mainstream of society. I thought that's what that minister was all about. That's what he used to talk about when he was mayor of Surrey and that's what many of his rhetorical statements have been since he has been minister. In fact, many of his actions have disturbed society's ability to help people to help themselves so that they are no longer wards of the state, not only in the short term but also in the long term. I hope he is going to reconsider some of his callous decisions involving these organizations because it has been obvious over the years that government, whoever is in office, does not always know what is needed in a community and cannot always serve their needs, but volunteers can. They have the time, they have the effort, they have the understanding, and they cost a whole lot less money, Mr. Chairman, and the minister knows that.

I made a remark earlier when I was not on my feet. I said the minister all too often is penny-wise and pound-foolish. I think that has happened over and over again in British Columbia since he has been minister, not only in his department but also, as has been pointed out by other speakers, because he has foisted expenses on other ministers - notably the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) - and even possibly other agencies, such as the corrections branch, where if people were getting proper child-care services, for instance, we would perhaps not have the same kind of juvenile offender problems that we have in many of our communities.

I would hope the minister is going to take this into account and talk to his senior advisers and officials and talk to other members of the treasury benches and see if they can deal with some of these situations which appear - only appear - to be savings. In fact, they are costing our society and our economy hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

MR. WALLACE: When I spoke on the amendment earlier this afternoon the minister said we would get back to some specifics under his vote. I just want to ask one localized question and two general questions.

The localized question relates to the moving of the Human Resources office in Sidney. I understand that it's about to be moved to a second-floor office which has no elevator and no wheelchair access. It shows the usual apparent indifference to many of the people who must depend on being able to get access to the Human Resources office. I have made some inquiries

[ Page 1979 ]

and I've had some earnest requests from the people affected in Sidney. For the minister's information, the office will be moved from the municipal hall to a building at the junction of Second Avenue and Beacon. The office will be on the second floor, there's no elevator and generally poor access. I just want the minister to know that the suggestion that an elevator will be placed in that building later on is not correct. The information I have is that, if the plans are followed, it would be very difficult for handicapped people, particularly in wheelchairs, to get to that office.

The more general questions relate back to the points I made earlier on. Since this is the only opportunity we have to discuss the minister's estimates in detail, is he ready to give us some general outline on the principles underlining universal Pharmacare? I read in the press the other day that the minister had made a statement that it might not involve any legislation. In other words, it would likely be implemented by regulation, which, of course, we're not able to debate in this Legislature. This is a programme which would appear to have some very substantial impact, not only on the recipients, but on the community as a whole. If it is to be implemented by regulation, which we can't discuss, would it not be most appropriate for the minister to give us some detail while we're debating the one and only vote -namely his salary vote - that we can discuss in any one year? I would ask the minister, as I did earlier on this afternoon, to at least give us some basic outline of the Pharmacare proposals.

Third: Perhaps the minister has reconsidered some of our earlier comments regarding the underspending, which he referred to in very general terms.

The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) is sending me notes to try and disturb my calm and equilibrium, which, I'm sorry to say, was shattered earlier on this afternoon.

Could I ask the minister, Mr. Chairman, if he now has carried out any study in the last day or two since our earlier comments, to tell us what underspending there will be in relation to families and children and to senior citizens and handicapped, compared to the estimated figures which we were given in last year's budget?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Chairman, it seems strange that for the last several days there has been attack from all parties in the opposition with respect to the underspending in the ministry. The member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) made reference to the fact that it was an insult to the people of British Columbia that there should be, I believe he mentioned, a $ 1 00-million underrun. Well, frankly, I don't feel bad about this at all. I think the people of British Columbia have had enough bad news about overruns during the last several years that they're very happy now that there's maybe some change with respect to the care of their tax funds. I cannot give the exact figures now. I can do no more than what the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) himself did, and that is to take the last quarterly report and extend or deduct from it as to where approximately the surpluses or underspendings might be. The figures he calculated are probably fairly close - probably very near right on. It's a matter of extending the figures in the last quarterly report. I'm sure that as the individual votes come up, you may question those amounts.

The other matter of no elevator, no ramps and moving the office to the second floor in some Sidney building. My deputy is not aware of it; I'm not aware of it. We'll look into it. I think our facilities should be such that they can provide for the handicapped, particularly those in wheelchairs.

Pharmacare. As recently as a week ago we met with representatives of the pharmacists' association and the medical profession. While we're very near complete in what the programme will be or how it will be, I can't provide the details now.

A question was raised by the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) as to the question on our application with respect to racial origin. PREP is an organization that's there to help people who are really in need. Very often these are the people who perhaps do not speak English fluently. We can find out from this application. If they are Dutch or Greek or Italian and don't speak the language fluently, we will be in the position of providing an interpreter, if such is required. I think that's great. I think that's thinking ahead. I think that's preparing well.

The member for Rossland-Trail mentioned the infant development programme. I can assure the member that that particular programme will be tripled if not quadrupled. We think it's a very positive programme and we intend to expand upon it in your area as well as other parts of the province.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, the point that the minister seems to miss is not whether he spent $600 million or $500 million. The point is that he told the people of B.C. he was going to spend $600 million.

The expectations went up there. T ' hey knew what the situation was in January, February, March, of last year. The budget came in, they saw this extra money, and they thought: "Oh, my goodness! Mr. Vander Zalm has relented. The minister has relented. He has realized and he's going to restore some of these things." But you didn't. Now they're saying again:

"Oh, we see $570 million." Forget it. It's only $470 million. He says $570 million but is he only going to spend $470 million? You just stood up and said: "I want to assure the member for Rossland-Trail that we're going to triple that programme."

I'll believe it when I see it, Mr. Minister. The fact

[ Page 1980 ]

that you bring the money in here to the House, put it down there and we vote on it, doesn't mean a darned thing with your department. It doesn't mean a darned thing. You say these programmes are apparently available - all kinds of things you say are available -but somehow no organizations can manage to qualify.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. D'ARCY: You said there was an extra shelter allowance for the handicapped but how many people are going to qualify for it in British Columbia - 10 or 15; 10,000 or 15,000? How many? That's the old Social Credit story: we have this great new programme, but it turns out because of this, this and this, and maybe 20 or 30 other restrictions, nobody actually qualifies for it and so the money never does get spent. But it sure made a nice headline in the paper, it sure made a nice voice clip or a TV-tape clip to go on the news that night.

Mr. Chairman, that's what bothers me about this minister. I would like him to tell us exactly what he's doing and what he intends to do, so that we and the people of B.C. - and even the people in his own party - have some assurance that he means what he says, because he hasn't shown that to me in 16 Or 17 months of being minister.

Vote 184 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 25

NAYS - 15

Mr. Cocke requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Hon. Mr. Fraser files answers to questions. (See appendix.)

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.

[ Page 1981 ]

APPENDIX

2 Mr. Barnes asked the Hon. the Minister of Highways and Public Works the following question:

What was the total number of employees of the Highways Ministry for each month of 1975/76 and to date in 1976/77?

The Hon. A. V. Fraser replied as follows:

"The total number of employees of the Ministry of Highways and Public Works (Highways Division) was:

Please note the above figures represent total of regular and additional auxiliary employees hired for project work, etc."

3 Mr. Barnes asked the Hon. the Minister of Highways and Public Works the following questions:

1. What are the average total costs including amortization of capital costs per passenger mile on the British Columbia highway system?

2. What is the similar figure for the Second Narrows Bridge (Highway 1, Mile 85.4 to 86.5) ?

3. What is the similar figure for the bridge across Okanagan Lake from Kelowna to Westbank (Highway 97, Mile 78.5 to 79.54) ?

The Hon. A. V. Fraser replied as follows:

"1. Answer is unavailable as (a) statistics concerning passenger miles are not maintained; (b) under normal Government accounting practices, with the exception of bridges, there is no amortization of capital costs; and (c) the period of time is not defined.

"2. and 3. See No. 1."

45 Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Highways and Public Works the following questions:

With regard to the offices now occupied by the Premier and his staff-

1. What was the total cost of renovations?

2. What was the total cost of furnishings?

3. Was carpeting and furniture purchased from a Canadian manufacturer?

4. What was the cost per square yard of carpeting?

5. Were bids asked and tenders submitted for the purchase of furniture and carpeting?

6. If the answer to No. 5 is yes, what companies submitted tenders, what were the tender figures for each company, and which company obtained the contract?

The Hon. A. V. Fraser replied as follows:

"1. Approximately $156,000.

"2. Approximately $25,000.

"3. (a) Carpeting was purchased through a Canadian dealer from a United Kingdom manufacturer, and (b) with a few exceptions, all furniture was purchased from Canadian manufacturers.

[ Page 1982 ]

"4. Carpeting cost $22.89 per square yard.

"5. Yes. All items, whether new or refurbishing of existing, were tendered and awarded through the normal channels of a Purchasing Commission requisition, and awards were made to the low bidder.

"6. Thirty-seven requisitions were raised and 27 purchase orders were involved. In view of the number, they have not been attached to this question but are available for perusal, if required.

"In explanation, it should be noted that original orders for the occupancy of the West Annex were placed by the former Minister of Municipal Affairs and the office of the Deputy Provincial Secretary.

"The decision that the Premier and his staff would occupy the West Annex resulted in substitution and exchange of some of this furniture for furniture previously ordered under similar procedures for, or existing in, other parts of the building."