[ Page 1983 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

British Columbia Petroleum Sales Act, 1977 (Bill M 207) Mr. Shelford. Introduction and first reading –– 1983

Psychologists Act (Bill 16) Hon. Mr. McClelland. Introduction and first reading –– 1983

Oral questions.

Employment with Ministry of Highways. Ms. Brown –– 1983

Sales tax and ferry rates reductions. Mr. Wallace –– 1984

Employment with Ministry of Highways. Ms. Brown –– 1984

Dissemination of government information. Mr. Gibson –– 1984

Meeting with justice system officials. Mr. Macdonald –– 1985

Payment to Northern Central Municipal Association. Mr. Lea –– 1986

RCMP evidence-gathering techniques. Hon. Mr. Gardom answers –– 1989

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Human Resources estimates.

On vote 185. Mr. Gibson –– 2012

Ms. Brown –– 1990 Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2012

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1991 Mr. Wallace –– 2013

Mr. Kahl –– 1998 Ms. Brown –– 2013

Ms. Sanford –– 1999 Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2013

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2000 Mr. Skelly –– 2014

Mr. Skelly –– 2000 Mr. Gibson –– 2014

Mr. Barnes –– 2000 Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2014

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2000 Ms. Brown –– 2014

Ms. Brown –– 2001 Mr. Wallace –– 2015

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2001 Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2015

Mr. Gibson –– 2002 Mr. Skelly –– 2016

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2002 Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2016

Mrs. Jordan –– 2003 Mr. Lea –– 2017

Mr. Lea –– 2004 Mr. Skelly –– 2018

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2007 Mr. Wallace –– 2018

Mr. Wallace –– 2008 Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2018

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2009 Mr. Skelly –– 2018

Mr. Skelly –– 2010 Ms. Brown –– 2018

Ms. Brown –– 2012 Division on Vote 185 –– 2019

Appendix –– 2020

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): I would like to ask the members of the House to welcome today a group of students from the new Ballenas Secondary School, a new school between Parksville and Qualicum Beach. They are here under the direction of their teacher, Mr. Eric McMurray.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): We are honoured today to have in the precincts, although I don't see them in the gallery, eight gentlemen from Puerto Rico who are visiting members of the Ministry of the Environment, particularly those persons involved with the pollution control branch: Dr. Fred Soltero, who is secretary of Natural Resources in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; Hon. Pedro Gelabert, who is chairman of the Environment and Quality Board; the hon. Felix Prieto, who is assistant secretary of Natural Resources; Mr. Ernesto Quinones and Mr. Louis Cordova, members of the staff of Natural Resources; Dr. Rafael Pico, who is vice-chairman of Bank Popular of Hato Rey, Puerto Rico; Mr. Heriberto Alonso, who is vice-chairman of Enterprise Development Corporation of Hato Rey, Puerto Rico; and Mr. Ambrose Walsh, who is co-ordinator for the tour. I would like the House to acknowledge their presence in the precincts today.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): I would like to welcome the members of Smithers school district here today. I know the members would like to join me in welcoming them.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): In the gallery later today there will be a group of students from the Chemainus Senior Secondary School with two of their instructors. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): I would like to introduce to the House today a constituent, Mr. Frank Haskell, who is noted for his unique home in the Comox area. It's one of the few places in all of British Columbia which has a special thatched roof, and Mr. Haskell has received some publicity on his particular home. I'd like the House to welcome him.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Please make a group of students from Trinity Western College welcome.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I would like to welcome all the Irish in the gallery today and all the Irish on the floor. There are so many.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered!

Introduction of bills.

BRITISH COLUMBIA PETROLEUM

SALES ACT, 1977

On a motion by Mr. Shelford, Bill M 207, British Columbia Petroleum Sales Act, 1977, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PSYCHOLOGISTS ACT

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

Bill 16 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

EMPLOYMENT WITH

MINISTRY OF HIGHWAYS

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): My question is directed to the hon. Provincial Secretary. Would the minister tell the House whether the government directive which was sent out of the Ministry of Highways requesting that people needing employment in that department first be registered with the Ministry of Human Resources came from the Public Service Commission?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take that question as notice. As the member and the House know, I have been out of the province. I am not aware of that question. I will get the answer.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I hope that I may be permitted to redirect my question to the Minister of Highways. Would the Minister of Highways. . . ?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I haven't recognized the hon. member. I would suggest that you've already asked one question. I'll try to get back to you, hon. member, but there are other people who would like to be involved in the question period.

Interjection.

[ Page 1984 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I have suggested that I'll get back to you as soon as I can, hon. member. The hon. member for Oak Bay.

SALES TAX AND FERRY RATES

REDUCTIONS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Premier, on the basis of a report which I I heard on CBC radio on both the 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. newscasts today.... The Premier stated publicly last night. . .

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): No, not publicly. It was a hundred bucks each.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. WALLACE: . . . that by the time of the next election, there may be lower sales tax and lower ferry rates for the people of British Columbia. Can the Premier tell the House at what date, prior to the next election, the people of B.C. can anticipate these reductions?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the report was erroneous.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WALLACE: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, since elected representatives in this House are not allowed to question ministers on future government policy, does the Premier not consider that his revelation of future financial policy at a party t fund-raising dinner is something of an insult to the members of this House?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I've just told the member that the report he heard was erroneous, and by his follow up question he obviously wasn't I listening to the answer. I would advise the member that I did not make those statements as they were reported.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Are you going to sue?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I was asked if there was any possibility of ever cutting the sales tax. I repeated what I have told this House and told the people -that the only way government services can be dealt with is either by increasing taxes or a higher level of taxation, or building the economy, employing our people, which will send more money to government. I If we're successful in reducing the large I unemployment by rebuilding the economy and t creating a more buoyant economy, then money will flow to government. If there aren't additional demands made upon government for services, then government, of course, could consider the option of tax cuts. Those options would be any of the taxes that are presently paid by British Columbians, but one of the first taxes we'd look at is the sales tax.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I believe it's a little irregular to give an answer to a question that was not asked.

EMPLOYMENT WITH

MINISTRY OF HIGHWAYS

MS. BROWN: The pause, I notice, gave the Minister of Highways an opportunity to consult with the minister of intergovernmental affairs, who is also responsible for the Department of Human Resources, so now I'm sure he has the answer to my question. Actually, if the Minister of Highways would prefer that the minister of intergovernmental affairs answer, that's okay.

Where did the government directive come from, Mr. Minister, which was referred to in your press release? Also, would you be willing to table the government directive along with your earlier - if I can quote from this thing - instructions to your department?

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, the Department of Highways and Public Works was instructed to co-operate with the PREP programme. They were instructed by myself to co-operate with hem.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I ask the Minister of Highways if he would be willing to table with the House the instructions which were issued to the Department of Highways crews. We want to know the level of co-operation that you asked for. Did you ask for co-operation that said they first must be registered as welfare recipients before they could be hired? What was the level of co-operation? Would you be willing to table those instructions with the House, with the permission of the minister of intergovernmental affairs, of course?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

DISSEMINATION OF

GOVERNMENT INFORMATION

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): 'd like to ask the Premier a question about a promise e made in the opening speech, which was to improve he flow of information to the citizens of British Columbia.

[ Page 1985 ]

Now, Mr. Speaker, there's so much secrecy around this place something may have been done without my knowing it, but I....

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please state his question?

MR. GIBSON: I'd like to ask the Premier to tell the House what steps have been taken to improve the flow of information to the people of British Columbia.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): We haven't got a mail route to Maui yet.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, many of the efforts to improve the flow of information to the public have already taken place in the way of quarterly financial reports, not only on government finances but those of Crown corporations in British Columbia. We also have an auditor-general being selected by an all-party committee, which of course will give advice to government. Every day more and more information is being provided to the public of British Columbia by this government.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, along that line there have been many remarks by the Premier on the independence of Crown corporations and getting them out of politics. On two recent occasions, my of f ice has phoned B.C. Ferries for routine information and has been told that that information has to come through the minister's office, even though it was available to them. The same thing has been happening, I might say, in departments such as Human Resources.

MR. SPEAKER: Could we state the supplemental question, please?

MR. GIBSON: I'm stating the information on which it's based. I want to ask the Premier if that kind of response - namely that members can't deal directly with Crown corporations which he says are non-political - is an example of his policy of freer information in British Columbia.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, Mr. Speaker. Crown corporations all have a minister assigned to them to be accountable to the total Legislature. From time to time, within the confines of any of the corporations, some information for short periods of time may be incomplete or confidential. Most information should be available and it should be available to members from those corporations.

Any time a member has difficulty in dealing with any of the corporations, the one avenue you have is the fact that a minister is responsible for those corporations and accountable to the House. That is your avenue to information you feel you must properly have as an MLA when it has been denied you from those corporations. That is the traditional avenue that all governments have provided, that this government has provided in the past for information to be provided to members of this House when they haven't been able to obtain that information from any of the corporations or agencies that surround government. That's accountability to the Legislature as a whole.

MR. GIBSON: I would ask the Premier if he would inquire among the different ministries responsible for Crown corporations to see if there are any directives to those Crown corporations not to deal directly with MLAs on any matter and, if there are, that he insist that those directives be rescinded.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll certainly take the advice and statement of the member for North Vancouver-Capilano and hold such a conference with my ministers. But I would advise him that this government has instructed ministers responsible for Crown corporations to make them accountable - and full accountability on top of the ordinary avenues open to every citizen in dealing with those corporations - so that they are fully accountable to this Legislature through the ministers.

MEETING WITH JUSTICE

SYSTEM OFFICIALS

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. Following yesterday's three-hour cabinet meeting with senior officials of the justice system, will the Premier confirm that there has been an attempt in his government to take over the administration of justice and place it in political receivership?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BENNETT: There wasn't a three-hour meeting. Your information is wrong - it was a four-hour meeting.

The cabinet has met on a continuing basis with different full departments of government. This is the fifth such department to make a complete presentation to cabinet with all of the component groups of agencies or parts of the ministry having an opportunity to provide information directly to the government.

We found that this was appreciated by members of the public service, some of whom said that they had been with the government service 23 years and had never before met the Premier, let alone the cabinet. In fact, I think there were some there who hadn't

[ Page 1986 ]

even met the former Attorney-General.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that so?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Why has the Premier and not the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) served as spokesman for the Ministry of the Attorney-General on television and in this Legislature?

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Why are you serving as the spokesman for this department, if what I said about an attempt is not correct?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I just understood that the previous question was directed to me. (Laughter.)

But I want to assure this House that the whole government is responsible to the people in this province and is interested in cleaning up the mistakes that were left from the former Attorney-General.

MR. BARRETT: Will the real Attorney-General please stand up?

PAYMENT TO NORTHERN

CENTRAL MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION

MR. LEA: A question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It has now been two days since I asked him to tell this Legislature what his idea of morality is in terms of a private company giving $25,000 to a municipal government convention. It's 48 hours, Mr. Speaker, and I now ask the minister: has he decided on this question of political morality?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: The question is irregular in that it has been asked on two successive occasions and was taken as notice.

Order, please. Would the hon. member please take his seat?

MR. LEA: I want the minister to tell me whether he's going to answer the question. The question is permissible.

MR. SPEAKER: Not a repetition.

MR. LEA: It is not up to the Speaker to decide whether a question....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA: It is not repetitious. I want that minister to answer, and I don't want you to run interference for him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

[Mr. Speaker rises. I

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince Rupert will withdraw the imputation that the Speaker was running interference for any member of this House. I'd like to draw to your attention, hon. member, that I observed, and quite correctly, you had asked the same question on a previous occasion -as a matter of fact, on two previous occasions. It is irregular and improper to restate a question that has already been asked, particularly when the question was taken on notice.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Before I recognize another member, I think that you should all be very clear about the fact that it is improper to restate a question which has already been asked. It is also improper for any member to impute a motive, as you have done, and suggest that the Chair has been running interference. I ask you to withdraw that statement, hon. member.

M R. LEA: Of course, under the British parliamentary rules, I withdraw any charge that you would be running interference for a minister of the Crown.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The bell terminated the question period, but I'll listen to your point of order, hon. Leader of the Opposition

MR. BARRETT: It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that a point of order raised in the question period does not detract from the time of question period. My point of order is that in the exchange between the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and the Chair, a statement was made by yourself that the question was irregular, and the argument suggesting that the question was irregular was that it was a repeat of a question. In actual fact, Mr. Speaker, the member did, indeed, ask the question for the first time today.

It has been the practice of this House when a question has been taken as notice, that the member then gets up in a question period following the first time the question was asked to say that the question was asked and it was taken on notice. The minister has now had an opportunity of having the question

[ Page 1987 ]

on notice. Is he prepared to answer it today?

If we were to follow your ruling - that it is irregular to ask a question that was taken on notice -then any minister could obviously rule any question out of being asked again by just saying that it was taken on notice.

MR. SPEAKER: I draw to the hon. member's attention Beauchesne, 4th edition, 1958: "It is irregular and improper to repeat in substance a question already answered or to which an answer has been refused."

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, what you point out merely makes my point stronger. The question was (a) not answered, and (b) was not refused. It was taken on notice. Therefore the only method for the member to repeat a question taken on notice is to wait, as the hon. member did, for a full question period to pass, then stand up and ask the same question. The minister did not refuse an answer. The minister has not answered. He's said he's taken it as notice. If we interpret your ruling strictly, Mr. Speaker, it would mean that any minister could block any question by saying he takes it on notice. From that point on, to ask it again would be to call it irregular. Beauchesne does not say that, sir.

MR. SPEAKER: It is improper to set circumstances before the House that would infer that a minister must answer a question within a given period of time, hon. Leader of the Opposition. It is therefore the position of the Speaker to listen to what has been said, and if it's a repetition of the same question - particularly when only two days have passed since it was originally asked - then it is truly improper.

I have no objection, hon. members, after a sufficient period of time; and I've quite often recognized a member in this House and allowed them to jar the memory of a minister. But it is certainly quite improper, when the question was only asked originally two days ago, to demand an answer today, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: You are saying that it is not up to a minister to set exactly the period of time to answer the question. We agree with that, and that is obvious.

Conversely, it is not up to the member to set a period of time when it should or should not be asked again because the question was taken as notice. It is a member's duty, in pursuing the question, to ask the minister if the notice period is over. If he is prohibited from doing that, then we have set a precedent that permits a minister to block a question from being followed by simply saying that he's taking it as notice.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'd like to point out to all of the members of the House that there is a responsibility on the shoulders of the Chairman, and in this case, the Speaker, in question period to determine whether a question is improper, whether it is irrelevant, whether it is a question of urgency and of importance that must be handled today. It is the Chair's responsibility to rule questions in order or out of order or to make an observation, which I was forced to do, in my opinion, when the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) gained the floor. There's nothing irregular about that procedure at all, and particularly so when we have an oral question period without notice and the rules were set down by an all-party committee and give the Speaker some extensive powers with respect to that. I appreciate that and try to operate under those rules in a level-handed manner.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the opposition surely must remember that it passed in the first day of the Legislature a motion specifically dealing with the oral question period. It was to this effect, and I would like to requote it: "Only questions considered by the Speaker to be urgent and important shall be permitted, and his decision shall be final. No debate shall be permitted during questions. Supplementary questions from members may be allowed by permission Of MT. Speaker." This was passed unanimously in the House. If the opposition members would care to remember that I think it would tend to make the procedure during question period a great deal easier, not only for the opposition and for members of the government, but certainly for the Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in order to be precise, the question I rose on was a point of order concerning your use of the word "irregular." That, sir, was the ruling that you gave - that the member's question was irregular. The Attorney-General was talking about urgency of question, which of course is within the purview of the Speaker, but on the question of "irregular" you quoted Beauchesne and then you gave the situation under Beauchesne as saying that whether it had been answered or there had been a refusal to answer, it was not applicable to this question because it was taken as notice. Now, Mr. Speaker, what I had asked for was instruction from you as to how a question taken as notice can be placed back before the minister without being called "irregular." At what time, sir - how many days - is the question no longer irregular in your opinion? That's the point of order that is being raised.

[ Page 1988 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Replying to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I think if he checks the Blues he will find that I said to the hon. member for Prince Rupert: "The question is irregular in that it was asked on a previous occasion, not once but twice." That was the basis of the suggestion to the hon. member. I am sure you will find that.

I would also reply to you in respect to the other question you have asked. It is a discretion on the part of the Chair, and a matter on which I must exercise discretion, as to how long a question can sit unanswered before it would be proper for another member, or the member who asked the question, to rise in his place and ask for an answer. Certainly in the opinion of the Chair, in fairness to all members of the House, if you check the record you will find that many questions asked by members of many ministers of this House have remained unanswered - not only under the present administration but before - for some length of time before they were answered. It's completely at the discretion of the Speaker and I was trying to be very fair in suggesting to the House that two days is certainly not an unwarranted period of time to wait for an answer.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about two different things. You quoted from Beauchesne.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: I think it's an important point of order and I have a right to raise it. You quoted from Beauchesne and the answer you have given is not applicable in this case. The answer from Beauchesne deals with two distinct things. One is a question that is not answered or a minister refuses to answer it. Now the Beauchesne quote is not appropriate in this instance. The minister took the question as notice. Now we're at the definition of how much time should be allowed before the member should be permitted to ask that question again. We have not had an instruction on that and I am asking you, sir, if you will inform the House how many days must pass before a notice question can be asked again. It's as simple as that.

MR. SPEAKER: I must reply to the hon. Leader of the Opposition suggesting to you, sir, that it is at the discretion of the Speaker. Certainly in my opinion - and I think that I have that right and that duty to perform - two days is not an unwarranted period of time.

MS. SANFORD: I rise on a point of order as well. Part of the question period time today was utilized by points of order. I would like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that you had recognized me as the one to ask the next question when it was interrupted by a point of order. I would like the Speaker at this time to grant permission to allow me to continue with question period in order to answer the question because, as I pointed out, you had already recognized me, and the question period time was then subsequently used up by points of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, in replying to your point of order, it is not for the Speaker to extend the time of the question period. It's a matter that the bell quite often, and on many occasions, has interrupted a member who had his place on the floor when a question was being asked. Either the question or the answer is terminated. So it's not the position of the Speaker to extend the question period. The only way that you can proceed with a question outside of the time that is allotted is by leave of the House.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask leave then on that basis.

Leave not granted.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, there's no further debate.

MS. SANFORD: I am not going to argue the decision of the House, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to suggest on a point of order that, based on that ruling, it then means that the entire question period could be used by points of order by any member of the House, and therefore no time would be granted to questions. Is that what that means, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: If it's the intent of the members to take up the time of the question period with points of order, you're quite right.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a suggestion which perhaps might be construed....

MR. SPEAKER: Are you on a point of order, hon. member?

MR. GIBSON: I'm on a point of order, yes, following along the two important points of order raised, I think, by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Comox, and other questions which have arisen with respect to procedure during question period.

As Your Honour is aware, we have in this House an Act called the Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act which permits Your Honour to investigate questions of this kind that arise from time to time, and to receive in a more or less formal way

[ Page 1989 ]

the opinions and advice of all sides of the House. I would ask Your Honour if you would take under consideration the question of looking into these points of order and others that have arisen with respect to question period under the aegis of that Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, your point is well taken. I am certainly aware of the Act and the fact that it could be implemented to review any procedure within our House, including the question period.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Before calling Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker, is the House in the mood to grant me leave to respond to a question from the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) ?

MR. WALLACE: Aye! (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: The procedure, hon. Attorney-General, is to table the answer at the table with the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's not an alternative procedure.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not the only procedure. It could be with leave, I presume.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I don't think anybody could read my writing. It's entirely up to the members.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. Attorney-General asking for leave?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes.

Leave granted.

RCMP EVIDENCE-GATHERING TECHNIQUES

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to a question, Mr. Speaker, from the hon. member for Oak Bay, concerning a witness in the Ross murder trial in Nanaimo, I gather the case in question involved a vicious drug-oriented murder. I'm informed, Mr. Speaker, that lengthy interrogations are unaccepted common practice with the RCMP or, for that matter, with any force in the province.

In the case in question, prior intelligence indicated that the person being interviewed was a prospective accused or the only eyewitness to the crime. I'm informed the actual time of inter-viewing was eight hours, which included a period of time when this adult witness was taken to the alleged scene of the crime.

Throughout the time of his interview he received normal amenities: meals, washing, toilet facilities and so forth, the use of the telephone, and all as he wished. Altogether he spent about 22 hours in custody.

I'd like to say to the hon. member there's absolutely no policy in this province that witnesses shall be paid for their evidence. They may, of course, receive the normal witness fee, which is far from compensatory, but I think that's part and parcel of the responsibility of a citizen in a democratic society. I would like to reiterate that witnesses are not paid for their evidence. To suggest anything different is, of course, completely contrary to every concept of our criminal and common law.

I would, though, like to mention that individuals do receive compensation beyond witness fees in certain circumstances. I'm now speaking of the criminal law. At times, special considerations are made available to witnesses, such as police protection, relocation of the individual, and a change of identity. This, in some cases, Mr. Speaker, is obviously most necessary simply to keep them alive.

Some of our criminal elements are very lethal and may well attempt to remove those whom they consider could bring them to justice or whom they may consider to h ave transgressed the so-called underworld codes. The kind of witnesses that I'm speaking of now are those individuals who can become marked people.

Now dealing with the complaints of any individual in British Columbia against our police, whether such complaints be those of a witness, a complainant or of an accused, there are available procedures for such complaints to be considered and disposed of all within the provisions of our Police Act. So if there are people who consider they have been inappropriately dealt with by a police force or a member of a police force - and I'd say specifically within this case - if they have a grievance they should proceed to lay a complaint in a manner that is afforded by the law. The procedures are there; the remedies are there. If there is a justifiable grievance, I would indeed welcome that the same be brought to the attention of the police commission.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the second member for Vancouver Centre was on his feet. For what reason are you on your feet?

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Just as a point of information, will we be having a private members' day this week?

MR. SPEAKER: That is not a point of information at this particular time.

[ Page 1990 ]

MR. BARNES: Is there a private members' day?

MR. SPEAKER: There is a precedence motion on the books, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just would like to ask if the House would grant leave in order to go to private members' bills and resolutions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: Could I explain my... ?

MR. SPEAKER: No. It's on the books, hon. member. Please take your seat.

MR. BARNES: I ask leave to ask one final question.

MR. SPEAKER: No, because you're out of order.

MR. BARNES: It's very important.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you on a point of order? If you're on a point of order, I'll listen to the point of order. But hon. member, it had better be a point of order.

MR. BARNES: What's going to happen?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. BROWN: He's going to thrash you!

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, it would appear as though you're threatening me.

MR. SPEAKER: No, just anticipating.

MR. BARNES: I come in good will. I only wanted to congratulate the government on some of its recent legislation, especially the seatbelt legislation which is . . . .

MR. SPEAKER: Now what is the point of order? (Laughter.)

MR. BARNES: Well, the hon. House Leader, I'm sure, would want to give me an opportunity to ask the House for leave to introduce my resolution asking that this House join the city of Vancouver in celebrating March 21 to 27 as Bicycle Safety Week. That's all I wanted. . . .

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure that you can put a resolution on the order paper, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: I'm sure that in the interest of safety and good health we'd have an opportunity....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You're going to have to follow the rules of the House, hon. member, as well as the rest of the members. You know well enough that you can place a motion on the order paper or a resolution.

MR. BARNES: I have one right here. I wanted to debate it, if I could get leave of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: We'll deal with that when we come to that stage of business, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: Thank you for nothing, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALLACE: On a point of order, could I ask your guidance on the procedure we followed this afternoon whereby a minister or any minister, by leave, chooses to make this statement? Is there any privilege afforded to the member who raised the matter to answer the statement of the minister?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, perhaps I should refresh the memory of everyone. I suggested to the members of the House that if a question is taken on notice and the reply comes back - if it's a short reply - it can be handled in question period. That way it gives the person who originally asked the question an opportunity to follow with supplementals. If it's to be more than a short reply - and this has to be discretionary, too, on the part of the person answering the question - then the best solution is to file the answer at the table of the House. This would then give the member asking the question an opportunity to read the answer - once it's filed with the House it's public knowledge - and follow it up with additional questions or supplementals the following day or whenever, within the time of question period. I would hope that the hon. members would follow that practice from both sides of the House.

Hon. Mr. Bawlf files an answer to question 87. (See appendix.)

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 185: administration and community service, $32,660, 388.

MS. BROWN: This is the vote that encompasses that incredible programme known as PREP. The

[ Page 1991 ]

minister started out by saying that we'd find 24,000 jobs, I believe, last year. He admitted later on that maybe he had been a little bit overenthusiastic about it. But what we haven't been able to get from the minister is an exact figure of how many jobs had actually been found. So I want to put the question to him because, as you know, Mr. Chairman, this minister does not answer questions on the order paper and he does not submit annual reports. So we are discussing his estimates without any basic information whatsoever. So I'm putting a question to the minister: were there any jobs found in 1976? If the answer is no, I'll accept that. But if the answer is yes, I'd like to know exactly how many people were placed in each month in 1976, and to date in 1977 -region by region.

I'd also like to know whether any of these placements were made in the provincial government. If so, in which ministries? I'm also interested in knowing which of these placements, if any, were made in ministries of the federal government - which ministries and how many. Were there any placements in private employment subsidized in any way by the provincial or federal government? If the answer to that is yes, I'd like to know how many jobs were subsidized and what the total cost was (a) by the provincial government, and (b) by the federal government. I'd also like to know whether any of these placements were made through Canada Manpower. If the answer to that is yes, I'd like to know how many in each month.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) mentioned in a press statement the existence of a government directive sent out to him concerning the PREP programme. I'd like to know whether the Minister of Human Resources knows anything about that directive, and if he can let us know exactly what is in that directive.

I want to know also, Mr. Chairman, the names, salaries and previous occupations of the rehabilitation officers - as these are called - who were hired. I think they're called rehabilitation officer 2 and rehabilitation officer 1. 1 notice that this year there have been 20. In any event, I'd like to know their names, salaries and previous occupations. I want to know the location of these job finders - where are they? What is the total number of the administrative staff of this programme? I also want to know what it is costing this government, by month, for 1976, and to date in 1977.

Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it if, when the minister is responding to these questions, he would just stick to the facts. I've heard his statements about the "best programme since previously, " which he's been giving every day since the beginning of his estimates. I want to remind him that he is now the "previously" to which he's referring. He's been minister for the past 15 months, and when he talks about any improvement in programmes, he's referring to improvements in some of the programmes which he himself gutted and debauched during his 15 months as minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We can have only one member standing at a time, Mr. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) . The Minister of Human Resources.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Chairman, I certainly welcome this opportunity to speak about PREP, because I've actually been very frustrated and very discouraged by much of what has been said by the opposition about the PREP programme. I say this in fairness to people on income assistance who, like everyone else, deserve every help to find a place in the community like everyone - at a job, if that's possible for them. We are, for the first time, giving them that opportunity. Yet all that I've heard from the hon. member who spoke, like so many others from the other side, including members from all of the parties, is criticism about our efforts to try and find a job for the people who want to be employed and who have found themselves in the grasp of income assistance - on welfare. We, for the first time, have given these people that opportunity, and they have found a place in the community. They're grateful for it, and day after day after day I receive letters from people who previously did not have that opportunity, and who not only suffered themselves, but their families and their friends suffered as well. They're grateful for it. They're thanking us. They're welcoming the opportunity, and they're speaking positively about this programme - none of this negative stuff that has been coming across from the other side.

There appears to be a continual attack on the PREP programme. There appears to be a continual effort from the members of the opposition to try and discredit, to try and find even the least little fault with a programme so that hopefully it may die on the vine. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, I'll find faults with the programme and I'll move to correct those faults. I'll accept that there will always be faults, but despite the faults we'll push on, we'll keep trying, and we'll keep fighting to try and find jobs for people on income assistance.

People in an ordinary system have been forgotten because all of the agencies available tend to cater to the people that are easily employed. All the agencies, federal or provincial, for years past found jobs for people that were easily employable. But those that have been on welfare month after month after month are forgotten. They're left alone. They're left at the mercy of income assistance and what the government will give them.

I say, Mr. Chairman, we have a very positive

[ Page 1992 ]

programme and I don't care about the little faults. I'll accept them, I'll try and change them, but I will not, as the opposition is continually demanding, abandon a tremendous effort on behalf of people on income assistance, on behalf of people who need help.

I'll give you the figures. In July we found 755 jobs. I'm sorry, it was July-August, because it started at the end of July. In September of 1976 it was 996 jobs. In October of 1976, it was 893 jobs. In November of 1976 it was 1,183 jobs. In December of 1976, it was 758 jobs. In January of 1977 it was 870 jobs. In February of 1977 it was 1,026 jobs - and that's great. That's tremendous. That's 1,000 people in British Columbia who were on welfare that now have an opportunity available to them and were given that opportunity in February of 1977.

Now if you want to become more specific, of the 1,026 jobs last month, 341 jobs were full-time, 52 were part-time, 64 were casual, 173 were those that were found through the PREP programme in co-operation through CMC. There were 290 jobs found by people coming in to make application for income assistance or, having been on income assistance, they were referred specifically to a job. They themselves obtained the job after the referral. Thirty-five were training jobs in co-operation with Canada Manpower. Seventy-one non-welfare people were placed in jobs.

I and other members get letters about individuals who are down and out and have been for some considerable time. The last resort appears to be welfare but they're trying every other opportunity available to avoid welfare. We go out on a limb for whatever need to try and find them a job. These 71 were aided, though they weren't on welfare.

I think it's a tremendous number. It's 6,481 jobs in a period of just slightly over six months. The hon. member said: "That minister said 24,000 jobs." This minister never said 24,000 jobs. I said there were possibly 24,000 employable people on welfare whom we would assist or try to assist.

The job-finding co-ordinator, when he took on the job, said: "I'm going to find 12,000 jobs." At the time I said this man was being very enthusiastic. But this particular minister likes to have people around him who are enthusiastic. I like to have winners. I like to have people who want to get out and work hard and do their very best. They're not doing it for themselves; they're doing it for people on income assistance. That co-ordinator doesn't work a five-day week; he doesn't work a 35-hour week. That co-ordinator is there morning, noon and night, and weekends if need be, because he's concerned about people on income assistance, because he wants to find them work and not because he wants to, like so many members on the opposition, sit and knock, knock, knock. We're not helping people on this income assistance when we knock a programme that is affording them the only opportunity,

Statements were made by myself suggesting that the PREP programme could do much better still, and I'll continue to say that. I believe it can do much better still and will do much better. Statements were made by me, the hon. member will recall, where I criticized the Vancouver Resources Board because, in my opinion, they were not doing the job in the job-finding area. They were a leftover from the previous administration and they didn't know what job-finding was. I expressed dissatisfy faction and yes, I stood up in the hotel here across the street, the Empress Hotel, and I said that in government circles we have to be aware of cost, just as private enterprise has to be aware of cost when they're manufacturing something to sell to the people. The cost of salaries is passed on in that product when the people purchase it off the shelf.

Too often we in government don't pay much attention to the amount of time spent in providing a service, but when we spend all our bucks and when we're not getting the returns because people aren't putting in the time, it is costing the programme. Not only that, it makes it so that we can't deliver the level of service the people deserve.

I did not, as some members suggest, thereby kick at all the civil servants. I didn't, as one newspaper suggested, call them a name which.... I didn't even know the word. I did not criticize all civil servants. I have people around me and I believe that the majority of people at work in the Ministry of Human Resources are very faithful, great individuals who want to not only do what's asked of them but more, and will do more and always do more. The people in my office work more than the seven hours per day required of them - much more.

But I was upset. I said too at that very same meeting in the Empress Hotel when I addressed that group that there were people in the service whom I was aware of who were not putting in the 35 hours per week required of them. I was upset. I said that this did not only exist in my ministry, it existed probably in other areas of government, and we should be aware and we should attempt to change that. That wasn't a criticism of the whole civil service, that was a statement of fact. The civil servants themselves, I'm sure, are aware of that and they too would like this corrected.

I was particularly concerned then because I had just that day received a report about the job-finding efforts in the Vancouver Resources Board by that group which had been left over from the previous administration. The report said, among other things: "There is an apparent lack of ability and willingness." The report said:

"There is excessive sick leave. During the period of August, 1976, to January, 1977, of the nine staff in -question only two had not

[ Page 1993 ]

taken some form of sick leave. During that period of 25 weeks the nine staff had taken over 50 days of sick leave, not including an additional 10 days of sick leave taken in early February, 1977, or statutory holidays or leaves of absence."

The report said, among other things:

"Several members of the staff had taken days off without reporting to their supervisors or senior staff. Others had taken half days off without advising of their intended absence. Resulting from laxity, staff have been working partial weeks and receiving full pay."

The report said:

"When statutory holidays are taken into consideration, it would appear that many Vancouver job-finding personnel have worked ~an average of only three and a half days per week over the past six months."

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Resources board ripoff.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: "Add vacation to this and it leaves few working days from a staff employed on a full-time basis." The report said:

"Apart from the deplorable attendance record, staff have failed to practise even common courtesy when sick time is required. They do not telephone their offices until halfway through the day and on many occasions they simply do not bother to call at all.

The report points out more and more and many of the things that I'd prefer not to mention because it's so bad.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, it's not because it's a resources board, but it is because of some laxity within the system. It's been brought to my attention and as minister responsible to the taxpayers throughout the province I should be concerned and I should be moving to do something about it. I should be speaking out and I shouldn't be criticized by that opposition who should be equally concerned about tax dollars and where they're going.

I get plenty fed up when you continually stand up and say: "PREP is no good. You're not finding enough jobs." You were not finding any jobs. All you were doing was handing out, shovelling out the back of a truck. Were you concerned about the tax dollars of the province? You pushed this province into debt so deep, you left so many legacies, that the people of British Columbia will never forget.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: And nor should they.

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

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I'm hoping that this once and for all will end the criticism of a tremendous programme, the criticism of people out there who are working hard day after day after day for the people of British Columbia, regardless of their political affiliation. They don't ask somebody coming into the office: "Are you Social Credit? Are you NDP? Are you Liberal? Are you Conservative?" No, of course not. What they're interested in is finding jobs for people on income assistance.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't think it's fair that just because you have another party label, just because you differ politically, just because you have a different political philosophy ...

MR. BARNES: Tell that to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) !

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: ... just because you perhaps are not of the same political party and feeling as this particular minister who says that when people are able to work, they should work.... All of us have a place and all of us must make a contribution; all of us must try and give, not continually take.

We have a responsibility to give what we can, to help where we can, and not to continually be asking for something. That group over there on the opposition are of the opinion that we must continually be pouring it out and that we can't ever ask for anything in return, or that we can't ever ask an individual to take his or her place in society as a responsible person doing what they can.

There's the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) shaking her head. That is the member who stood up in this House only yesterday and said: "Hey, the minister said there are a lot less people on welfare. There aren't as many people on welfare now, and that's not because he did such a good job of finding jobs or changing attitudes in the province where now people are taking a more responsible approach. No, " she said, "it's because they're moving to Alberta, moving to Saskatchewan, moving to Manitoba."

Well, frankly, most of the people I know come from Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and with the government they've got there now they may not want to go back.

But aside from that, that member said: "These people are leaving British Columbia, and I know that to be so because it was said by a gentleman in

[ Page 1994 ]

Victoria who represented Canada Manpower, Stan Purdy. Stan Purdy said people are leaving the province. They're going to Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. They're not staying in British Columbia." That's what she said, and she blamed this minister.

MS. SANFORD: I didn't say that. I did not say that. I

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Hansard will say it.

The member quoted from an article in the local paper. I did some research and I found out what the article was. What the member didn't say is that while the statement was made by Mr. Stan Purdy, he didn't mention Bill Vander Zalm, this Minister of Human Resources; he mentioned Norman Levi. The time was not September, 1976, but September, 1974.

Mr. Chairman, this minister will continue to support these programmes; this minister will continue to support PREP. I have a list of the people involved. I know that the hon. member just asked who they were, what they were doing before, how much they are getting paid, in the hope that they were being paid enormous salaries and in the hope that they perhaps were seconded from private enterprise, which is a bad word, according to that group over there.

Well, I have the list right here for that member, and it's not a group of people seconded from private enterprise. They're not getting the fantastic salaries that some of these people in the opposition were giving to their many, many consultants, who were not only getting huge salaries but were getting great pension plans that were for them and for their relations almost for ever. They weren't even required to stay a particular number of years to be entitled to that pension.

I shall read the list. There's a Mr. Kenneth Laing; he was a district manager for Investors Syndicate, Abbotsford. There is Nestor Garandza, who was managing director of Outreach, Canada Manpower, in Burnaby. There was Harry Castle, who was a community service officer with the probation department in Campbell River. There was Elmer Devore who was a financial assistance worker with the Ministry of Human Resources.

There was Linda Ball, who was a student employment programme co-ordinator with the Ministry of Labour. There was Randy Rasmussen, a civil liberties secretary. There was John Versfelt, a minister of the church.

There was Garry MacDonald, a news reporter. There was Anne Walker, a branch manager for Canada Manpower for students. There was Stuart Piper, a federal-provincial sales tax consultant.

There was Robert Boyd, a W.P. 11 federal solicitor with the Solicitor-General's department. There was Ian Land, a bank manager for the Royal Bank of Canada. There was Doug Abrahamson, an assistant personnel officer with the Ministry of Transport.

There was Nichols Turlock, a job placement officer for Search Outreach, Canada Manpower. There was Don Sugimoto, an assistant manager with the men's wear department of Woodward's stores. There was William Simpson, a financial assistance worker with the Ministry of Human Resources.

There was Bjorn Petursson, vocational instructor and industrial counsellor in Smithers. There was Alf Blackaby, personnel officer, rehabilitation consultant, Workers' Compensation Board in Richmond. There was Helen Dutkowski, assistant employment co-ordinator for the municipality of Surrey.

There was Jill Haugo, a rehabilitation officer for Woodlands School. There was David Gellately, an employment co-ordinator for the Ministry of Labour. There was Doug Faris, an administrator, northern training centre in Smithers.

There was Lorne Campbell, an employment co-ordinator ' Ministry of Human Resources for the past five years. There was Evan Allan, an employment counsellor, Ministry of Human Resources. There was Marilyn Goede, administrator with the Alcohol and Drug Commission.

There was Wilf Robertson, employment counsellor, Canada Manpower; Paul Snickars, a sales manager with the Hudson's Bay Company; Morley Trenholm, an insurance officer; Nona Young, an employment counsellor; Ronald Stew, an employment co-ordinator.

They're a great group of people - the best people in British Columbia. They're a great group, working for the people on income assistance and working for all the taxpayers. They are people working much more than a 35 -hour week as required of them to try and help people, people working to help people, people that are thinking positive. They are not the preachers of doom and gloom; they are not the knockers. These are positive individuals working for people and giving an opportunity to people who otherwise could not find a job.

Mr. Chairman, I'm proud of this programme. I'm proud to be Minister of Human Resources at a time when so many changes had to be made. I'm proud to be of a government that's positive, and that's going to continue moving to change things for the better in British Columbia.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm really pleased that the Minister of Human Resources is finally getting to his feet and saying something after all this time. I'm sorry, though, that the one programme that he's getting up to defend is such a monument to his failure as a minister. If any programme has failed, it surely must be the PREP programme.

The minister reels off a list and tells us that he's found 6,000 jobs in the last six months. By the minister's own statistics, which he tabled in the

[ Page 1995 ]

House, he showed that in 1973 the job-finding programme in the Ministry of Human Resources found 22,829 jobs. The job-finding programme in 1974 found 27,240 jobs. This is the minister's own statistics. In 1975 the job-finding programme in the Ministry of Human Resources found 24,191 jobs. Yet he comes here and tells us that he's proud ...

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Garbage.

MS.BROWN: ... that his PREP programme has found 6,000 jobs.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Garbage!

MS. BROWN: That's what he's proud of - that the programme is running at 5 0 per cent inefficiency. He is proud of that! He is proud of 6,000 jobs - at what cost to the taxpayers of this province, Mr, Chairman?

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): The civil service has grown from 23,000 to 43,000.

MS. BROWN: Let the member bleat in the corner. He is embarrassed for the Minister of Human Resources, and he should be. He stands up and talks about how concerned he is and how many jobs he's found.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about the 150,000 unemployed out there.

MS. BROWN: Listen, Mr. Chairman, to what his own Mr. Stew, his own job-finder, said when questioned about the jobs. He's saying: "Well, actually, some of them are referrals to the LIP programme." They were federal jobs that were in existence long before Mr. Stew and PREP came along! He admitted that they were make-work, short-term LIP jobs.

There are 103,000 people in this province out of work and he's bragging that PREP has found 6,000 jobs. In the month of February, PREP found 1,000 jobs. What do we find? Three hundred of them are full-time jobs! And what kind of staff does he have? According to the information in the estimates, he's .got 20 rehabilitation officer 2s and 12 rehabilitation officer Is. That's 32 people out looking for 300 jobs, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: At what cost?

MS. BROWN: At what cost? It's an expensive and fraudulent programme. It is not working, and the minister should be ashamed and embarrassed to stand up in this House and tell us that more than half of those people went out and found the jobs themselves - self-found jobs, casual labour, part-time jobs, and ...

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): It's better than welfare, isn't it?

MS. BROWN: ... including people not on welfare.

Then he's bragging about jobs which are found under the LIP programme. Mr. Stew himself admitted that many of the jobs found were in newspaper listings!

AN HON. MEMBER: Right!

MS. BROWN: His department is not creating any work, Mr. Chairman. His department is taking credit for doing a lousy job of finding jobs. They're not nearly as efficient as the job-finding people who were in that department before. He's standing up here and telling us that he is proud of the fact that instead of finding 24,000 jobs, as in 1975, or 27,000 jobs, as in 1974, he has found 6,000 jobs. Then he tells us that he's concerned about the taxpayers. He's so concerned he won't answer my question. I asked him: "What is it costing us?"

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I would not have them on welfare, Mr. Member. That is why I am so upset that they're now only finding 6,000 jobs, instead of finding the 27,000 jobs that they used to find. That is why I am upset.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): He's a failure!

MS. BROWN: He's a failure! The minister is a failure, Mr. Chairman, and his programme is a failure. It's an expensive failure, too. That is what I'm concerned about: what is this programme costing us?

We know that Mr. Stew was supposed to have been employed as the co-ordinator of the programme for over $20,000. What is he paying the other members? There's a figure here of $290,202 for the 20 rehabilitation officers 2s; $161,304 for the rehabilitation officer Is. Is that what this programme is costing us for 32 people to go out and find 300 jobs? Is that what it's costing us when there are 105,000 people in this province out of work and, by your own admission, 15,000 of those people on welfare? You go out and find 341 jobs and have the gall to come in here and make a speech about how concerned you are about the tax dollars and how concerned you are about the people of this province.

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

[ Page 1996 ]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the programme is a failure. The minister is a failure. He has not responded to my questions so I'm placing them to him once again. What is this programme costing us? I want the names, the salaries, the previous occupations of the so-called job-finders, and the locations. I know what the locations are because Mr. Stew admitted they are all in the Manpower offices. I know what the locations are. I want the minister to stand up and tell us, Mr. Chairman, that all he's got is a desk and a chair in the Manpower office. In addition, all he's got is a directive that goes around to the Department of Highways in Duncan and the Department of Highways throughout this province, saying: "Before you hire anybody, you see to it that they go down and register on the welfare as a recipient. Then you hire them so it can become part of the PREP statistics."

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MS. BROWN: That's what he's doing - playing games with people's lives. As someone mentioned, an editorial in one of the newspapers referred to it as a cruel hoax. Quite frankly, that's what it is - it's a cruel hoax. There's a social worker whom I interviewed in the Kitsilano area who said that she sends everybody down to the PREP programme to be registered but they haven't been finding any jobs. She says: "It's completely useless. They have not got any jobs. Last week somebody at the PREP office said that he wished we wouldn't send any more people down to them because they just don't have any jobs." That was the exact quote. Then the minister stands here and claims that he is so proud of the job that he is doing.

Mr. Chairman, he also did not answer my question concerning the total number of the administrative staff, including the job-finders, what the total cost is, and the number of months covered for the programme from 1976 to 1977. We've heard the speeches. All I'm asking for, Mr. Chairman, is a response to these very straightforward questions. We've heard the speeches. He's got 32 people out finding 341 jobs - that much I have got out of him. Now I want to know what it's costing us.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is quite right. We have a desk and a chair in a Manpower office. That, again, is what makes the programme such a success. Under that other administration, they would have had plush offices with carpets, with $6,000 desks, with fancy pictures and paintings worth thousands of dollars each - not worth thousands of dollars each, but costing thousands of dollars each.

MR. BARNES: How about the Premier's office?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's what that member wants - she wants swanky offices. We had plenty of those around the province when they were in government. We don't need swanky offices. I don't want expensive desks. I don't need a lot of chairs. I want these people out finding jobs.

MS. BROWN: Answer the questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I want them out 'finding jobs. I don't want them sitting in a fancy office.

She's concerned about the fact that we have rent-free accommodation with Canada Manpower. We have tremendous relations with Canada Manpower. This government is getting along well with Ottawa, and why shouldn't we? We're working for the people. We're all working for the people of British Columbia and the people of British Columbia are also Canadians. Why should we not co-operate with Canada Manpower? Sure we're co-operating! Sure we're not duplicating! Sure we're not doing like they did - setting up offices on every street to do the very same thing. We're just providing a desk and a chair, and it's working. It's working beautifully.

Interjections.

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

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You know, we have co-operation with other departments. It's terrible! We've heard something said in the last couple of days about the fact that other ministries appear to be co-operating with the Minister of Human Resources. You know, that's great! I can expect that criticism from that particular member because, again, when they were government the one minister didn't know what the other was doing. It was chaotic. We are co-operating.

One of the very first things I did was to contact my very good colleague, the best Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) we've ever seen in British Columbia. I went to that Minister of Highways and I said: "Hey, we've got a great programme and if you ever have the opportunity of having your people help our people find jobs, please, let's give the people on welfare the same opportunities that would be afforded to anyone else."

Why should we not give some extra effort through this ministry by contacting other ministries to see how they might help? Apparently there was a foreman someplace who perhaps, carried it just a little bit further and suggested that it had to be PREP only. You know, that was a mistake; that wasn't intended.

[ Page 1997 ]

But that doesn't mean that he's not a good foreman or that we should suddenly move in on him. He may be the best highway construction man that the minister has - I'm not sure. I'm certainly not going to criticize him for getting enthusiastic about the PREP programme because I'm enthusiastic about it. I'm not going to knock because, of course, I am not a knocker by nature like that bunch over there.

The hon. member said there's a social worker in Kitsilano who says that PREP is completely useless. I can appreciate that; I can appreciate that there is a negative social worker. As a matter of fact, the minister before me was a social worker. So I can appreciate that in social workers we have negative people, too, and I guess we'll always have a percentage of negative people in every profession. But the results they produce will be related directly to whether they are negatives or positives. The negatives never win, and that's why the Premier who went before our great Premier is now out of a job as Premier, because he was maybe a little negative. That happens. We have to accept that.

The cost of the programme - yes, I can give you the cost of the programme. The cost of the programme for eight months was $273,058 and the federal government says: "Hey, you're doing such a good job we'll pick up half the bill! Great stuff! Real good going! Wonderful!" I think it's wonderful. It's great! Things are really picking up in British Columbia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Then, of course, the hon. member said: "Hey, we've got better statistics for the NDP. I can give you real big figures." Well, I guess he can give big figures because when the NDP was there the social welfare rolls were growing at such a rate that.... If you produce figures on the basis of people who are leaving welfare and saying that these are people who have now found jobs, then I guess they would be large figures. But we have taken more people off welfare percentage-wise than any other government previously. Therefore if we match the figures or the type of statistics used by that hon. member for a category called gainfully employed, we can really give you the figures. I can back these up because we kept the same statistics even though we know that these statistics are rather useless. But I thought I had best keep them because one of these negatives from somewhere will undoubtedly ask the question. So knowing some negative would get up and ask the question, I now have those statistics also.

It was called "gainfully employed."

AN HON. MEMBER: Hurray!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We'll take January, 1974. Just a moment. I'll get the exact figures here, then it will be in as easy a form as possible and the member will understand them best.

They have just been given to me. But if you use a gainfully-employed category the way that this is arrived at, you take the number of people leaving welfare for whatever reason - they may have moved, they may have.... Well, you know, there are any number of reasons. You say that because they have left welfare, despite the fact that we didn't do anything, we'll consider them gainfully employed. That's the type of statistics they kept, and we kept them for a while just for comparative purposes.

Well, in July, 1976, the gainfully employed were 21.44 per cent; June was 22.86 per cent- May was 22.82 per cent; April was 23 per cent; March was 18.69 per cent; February was 18.23 per cent; and January was 18.01 per cent.

Now we'll start with January, 1975, working back. . . . Now we've got 17.06 per cent; 19.62 per cent; 20.10 per cent; 17.5 1 per cent; 18.17 per cent; and 18.30 per cent. So you see if you simply take those figures you will find that our figures are still beyond their figures.

The difference, however, hon. member, is that PREP is for real. We're not dealing with fictitious figures. We're dealing with something done for people. It's a positive programme. It's not a bunch of garbled information, a bunch of useless statistics. It's a job for a person. It's a meaningful way of life for some individual who previously had nothing other than social assistance.

It's great; it's positive. We're going to keep working at it. It's the best programme ever but it's going to be greater still.

MR. BARRETT: A point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that it is customary and traditional in this House that when a member quotes from a document, the document is then filed in the House. I would ask the member to file the document.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Phony statistics!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think all members of the House are aware of the fact that documents cannot be tabled in committee. Perhaps the minister will take notice and ask leave to table it in the House.

[ Page 1998 ]

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, to continue on that point: I'm aware of the fact that documents cannot be tabled unless the minister wishes to ask leave, and most ministers do so in the middle of debate rather than expose themselves to criticism that they may not be really relating the correct figures. However, the minister is an hon. minister, and he may wish to ask leave now or, we presume, he'll follow the tradition and table them when the committee rises. Whatever the minister wishes to do, the House will accommodate him on the basis of seeking veracity.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The tradition of the House is that if a minister quotes verbatim from a document, that it is desirable to have the document tabled. However, if he only refers to it, then it is left to the discretion of the minister, and I'm sure that that is satisfactory to all members.

MR. BARRETT: A point of order, Mr. Chairman: I appreciate your interpretation of the point of order, and I know the minister is aware of that tradition. The option is open to him to ask leave to table it now, or table it when the committee rises. However, to facilitate debate, it's traditional to ask leave to table during the middle of the committee, certainly. You'd do that, wouldn't you?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, this is an open government.

MR. BARRETT: Ask leave to table. Will you table it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the proper procedure would be for the minister to ask leave when the committee rises.

MR. BARRETT: Or now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Not in committee, I'm sorry. Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: Just send it over. Don't doctor it.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): I just want to take a few moments and look at a few news clippings that I have here. The minister in his speech earlier was making reference to the hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) and the statement that she had made regarding Canada Manpower and Stan Purdy. Well, in actual fact, quoting from the Blues of yesterday, the hon. member did say: "Oh, they've probably gone to Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Stan Purdy of Canada

Manpower has advised them in Victoria not to stay here." Well, the hon. minister did talk a bit about an article that appeared in the Victoria Colonist on November 23,1974, and that's when Mr. Purdy did say that. He did not say, as I believe the hon. member for Comox mentioned, that it was from the Colonist of November 5,1976. It did, in fact, come from the Colonist of November 23,1974. I'd like to take a moment, Mr. Chairman, to read part of this article that appeared in the newspaper at that time, since we're talking about PREP and the job-finder programme. The headline is: "Jobless Sent East." It says:

"Employable welfare recipients in British Columbia could find themselves looking as far as Saskatchewan for jobs, says Canada Manpower's Stan Purdy. Provincial government and federal Manpower officials have already begun sending B.C.'s unemployed to Alberta and employment opportunities in the rest of the country are being examined."

That's the Colonist, November 23,1974, page 11.

"The provincial action is part of a job-finding programme for all employable welfare recipients, announced by Human Resources Minister Norman Levi in September. Under the programme" - and this is in November of 1974 - "welfare recipients are offered an exploratory grant of $160 to canvass job opportunities in other centres."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. COCKE: Where did you come from?

MR. KAHL: Well, I know where these people went when you were a minister. They were sent to other parts of Canada because there weren't any jobs here. Never mind where I came from.

The article says:

" 'Opportunities here have been drastically reduced to 300 jobs, ' Purdy said Friday in an interview. 'We're only supposed to move people to the closest area, but that means Vancouver and it's bad there. So we're moving them further away, ' he said. Beyond the initial grant Manpower is willing to pay for relocation of the family if the applicant is successful, and Purdy boasts a 20 per cent success rate in placing people in Alberta."

Now I stand in my place today to support the Minister of Human Resources in his excellent job-finding programme, because he spends money in the programme finding jobs for British Columbians in British Columbia. He does not spend money sending them out of the province to find jobs.

[ Page 1999 ]

MR. BARRETT: You're a disaster.

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

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, it's interesting the way the minister got so rattled this afternoon. I think he has blown his cool somewhat and got quite

MR. BARRETT: He got his Irish up.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, he got his Irish up, as someone is saying.

MR. BARRETT: He's kissed the Blarney stone.

MS. SANFORD: It's interesting that he should get rattled because one of his own colleagues, namely the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) , has exposed the PREP programme and how it works. I think that's what has done it. I think that is what caused the minister to fly off the handle a bit this afternoon.

I was interested in the fact that the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) would get up this afternoon and talk about Stan Purdy and people leaving the province.

MR. SKELLY: He hasn't been up for a while.

MS. SANFORD: The article that I was referring to in my remarks a couple of days ago, Mr. Chairman, which were attacked by both the member for Esquimalt and the Minister of Human Resources, refers to a clipping in the Times. This one is December 2,1976.

MR. KEMPF: File it in the House.

MS. SANFORD: There's a big headline. Can you see the headline, Mr. Chairman? Do you know what it says? "Jobless Young People Told 'Get Out of Town.' " Do you know who said it?

MR. KAHL: George Oake. (Laughter.)

MS. SANFORD: Oh, that member is accusing the editor of the Victoria Times of putting words in the mouth of Mr. Stan Purdy of Canada Manpower. That's a serious accusation, Mr. Member. I hope he's prepared to make that accusation outside the House. That's a serious allegation made by that member.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's devastating.

MS. SANFORD: Now I'll get back to this article-, December 2,1976, where the headline says: "Jobless Young People Told 'Get Out of Town, ' " Purdy said: "These people who have left Victoria for the Prairies are finding jobs." Now what sort of nonsense are the member for Esquimalt and the Minister of Human Resources trying to peddle in the House this afternoon?

The Minister of Human Resources said that he's concerned about the taxpayers' money. He's concerned about people finding jobs in this province. Well, let me give him a bit of advice, Mr. Chairman, this afternoon. If he and his government didn't have such archaic and outdated economic policies, we wouldn't have this problem of 103,000 people unemployed, people moving out of the province, people leaving, vacancy rates going up in residential and commercial properties. That's what's happening because of their economic policies and because of the way that they approach the problems of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And now back to vote 185, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I'm only responding to the minister's comments made under this very same vote.

I tell you, Mr. Chairman, that these young people are leaving the province. The minister ignored in his statements this afternoon in the House the fact that the total work force has declined during the last month in this province by 10,000 people. Where are those people?

Mr. Chairman, it is not since the end of World War II that the work force in the province of British Columbia has declined. A slow, steady growth in the work force is an indication of a healthy economy. When that work force declines, it reveals a sick economy. That sickness, that illness, has been created by this government and their economic policies. There's no doubt about it.

Where are those young people then, Mr. Chairman? There's a drop of 10,000 in the total work force in B.C. There's an increase of 11,000 during the same month in the work force in Alberta. Mr. Chairman, this afternoon the Minister of Human Resources tried to accuse me of making erroneous statements. He obviously doesn't read the Times.

MR. SKELLY: Or Hansard.

MS. SANFORD: Or Hansard.

I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, how many of the jobs found under the job-finder programme are actually government jobs where people have been asked by government departments, such as the Department of Highways, to go and get registered on the welfare rolls if they want a job in that government department. Now we know that that's happened in this province. We know that's one of the reasons the minister is coming and saying he's found 6,000 jobs. How many jobs of those 6,000 are in the

[ Page 2000 ]

civil service? How many have obtained government jobs?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I'll concede to the member that people do move, and that people have moved even during this last year to Alberta and perhaps even a few have moved to Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I'll concede that. I suppose for as long as we are the great nation we are, we'll continually see people moving from province to province. I don't believe there should be any restriction to such movement. As a matter of fact, I don't think there's even that much wrong with a young person going to Alberta for some opportunity that may not be available for them at some time in some part of British Columbia. As a matter of fact, the greatest people in our British Columbia are the pioneers who came across this land to settle in places like Alberta and British Columbia. That's what has made our country strong, and that is what will continue to make our country strong and give us an understanding.

So if young people wish to move to Alberta for a time, more power to them, If they say, "I want to because there is no job for me at this time in the community of Surrey or wherever; I want to seek out the opportunities in Fort McMurray or Calgary or Edmonton, " I say, great! These are good Canadians. They are willing individuals who will seek the opportunities wherever they are. That's what makes our country strong. That's positive; that's good. I'm with them all the way.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

But I'll continue to strive to make British Columbia stronger. That's what this programme is all about. It's building a stronger British Columbia by affording people on income assistance the opportunity of employment.

The member again came back and said: "How many people were employed by the government?" Well, perhaps a percentage were employed by the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Is that member suggesting that because a person is on welfare, they should somehow be not given the opportunity that is available to somebody else?

MS. SANFORD: How many?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There has been great co-operation. There's a small percentage that may now be working on some government project. That's not a crime; that's wonderful. I say good for our

PREP people. I say good for this government, to give a person on income assistance the help, if that's what is required, to get them on a government project. Why not? Why shouldn't people on welfare have that opportunity? Why does that opposition continue to talk about people on welfare like they were something else, something foreign, something that should be treated differently? I say: "Shame on you!" I say: "Shame on all of you!" I'll continue to fight for those people. Listen, I'll go on for as long as I can standing up for the rights of people on income assistance and giving them the opportunities they ought to have.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, it was a simple question that was asked by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford): how many people not on social assistance who went to government offices seeking employment were told first to go to the PREP programme, and then received employment in government offices in order to fabricate employment statistics? That's the question that the minister didn't answer; that's the question that he has skated around. How many people not on social assistance approaching government offices were told to go to PREP first in order to beef up the statistics so that PREP could then present to this House, in order to fabricate those statistics and present them through the minister as fake statistics? That's what we're asking.

MR. BARNES: I just have one question. You were speaking about helping people on social assistance. I have a specific case in mind, a fellow who is a first-aid instructor. He has a class C certificate. He had worked for the city of Vancouver for some time but was laid off and was waiting for his unemployment insurance. He was put on social assistance during that interim period until his first cheque came. Now he finds that he could obtain employment in the province of British Columbia by leaving the city of Vancouver if he could take the course sponsored by the WCB through the Saint John Ambulance programme. I think he would get a class B certification.

His problem is that as a social assistance recipient, they have told him he doesn't qualify for sponsorship to take the course because he is also eligible for unemployment insurance. In the meantime he's getting $ 160 a month, which is not sufficient enough for him to live on, let alone take this course which would give him assurance of getting a job. I'm wondering in a case like that why this person should be in the unfortunate position of having these funds coming at a later date when in the meantime he doesn't have them.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I would certainly appreciate from any member of the

[ Page 2001 ]

House, no matter where he sits, any individual situations that may appear to be creating a hardship. I can assure the member that no matter where you sit in the House, the matter referred to me will receive immediate attention.

However, I need the particulars in that situation, although I find it strange.... If the facts are as you say they are, there's something wrong. You say this individual is waiting for his unemployment insurance cheque and at the same time receiving welfare. We don't allow that. We don't give people welfare while they're waiting for the Unemployment Insurance Commission to issue their cheque. So there's something wrong there.

Now you can argue that we should take a different attitude - that we should be giving them welfare while they wait the two weeks for unemployment insurance cheque. You can argue that and I can answer that and we'll probably end up having a philosophical difference. You say: "Yes, he should." I say: "No, he shouldn't, " I'll give you the reason and you'll give me yours. But that's not the point. I would like the particulars of that situation and I assure you that I'll follow it through.

We've helped many individuals under far more trying circumstances. We have helped a blind person take a course in small-engine repairs and, you know, it's going to work. We have a blind person who will be in a position some time in the not-too-distant future of participating in the community by repairing small engines. He could go on getting the handicapped person's allowance and that would give him some existence. But this person wants just a bit more and wants to be doing something. I say give that person the opportunity. Bend backwards. Do whatever you have to to make it work. We'll make it work. We want to help people.

If there is an individual case, please give it to me. If it is a person wanting welfare while awaiting an unemployment insurance cheque, we'll give them two weeks under certain circumstances. But if there's a cheque coming to them from the unemployment insurance, which, of course, is retroactive - you know that - we shouldn't be paying them welfare when some other level of government is giving them unemployment insurance, because they are all tax dollars coming out of the same taxpayers' pockets. There's something wrong with that. But we won't argue about that one. Give me the particulars. I'll help that person, too.

MS. BROWN: I asked the minister a couple of questions about the PREP programme and all I got was an academy award performance from the minister instead of some answers. I am not quite sure what the dramatics are all about but I suspect that what he's trying to do is take people's attention away from the fact that his programme is a failure, which is what I have been saying all along.

MR. KEMPF: Garbage!

MS. BROWN: Even Mr. Gaglardi, when he had that job under the PAB programme, was able to find 30,000 jobs. That minister comes in here and starts bragging to us about 6,000 jobs. Now I have given the minister the statistics; in eight months he has found 6,000 jobs. That is not a successful programme. I still would like to know - in terms of the year, not of the month, Mr. Minister - just what it is costing the province for his 32 people to go out and find the 304 jobs each that they have found. And the business of padding the statistics: people who are not on welfare, when going to government departments trying to find work, are being told that first they have to go down and register with the welfare department so that they can turn up as part of the PREP statistics. I would not like another academy award performance from the Minister of Human Resources, Mr. Chairman, but I would like an answer.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't going to involve myself in this debate but I just want to take one minute. The previous speaker really forced me to say a couple of words. I don't understand how that member could have the gall to refer to the former PAB programme, as she put it, because the very first act - and she admits that that programme found 30,000 jobs . . .

MS. BROWN: No, no. I'm saying he claimed that he did.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: ... the very first act ...

MS. BROWN: He claimed that he did.

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

MS. BROWN: He claimed that he did.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: the very first act . . .

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: He claimed that he did.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the very first act....

MS. BROWN: He claimed that he did.

[ Page 2002 ]

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

MS. BROWN: He claimed that he did.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The very first act by the NDP government, after it was elected in 1972, was to destroy that PAB programme - to fire all the people involved in that programme around the province, without any notice. They left secretaries out on the street. They left workers out on the street. There was no notice given and today, still, there was never any assistance given to those people who were left out on the street. They were ordinary British Columbians who that government callously fired. I still have, Mr. Chairman - and I raised this issue over and over again with that former Minister of Human Resources (Mr. Levi) , who didn't care about these people - those people on my files in my office. Some of them are now working again because of the new programme that this minister brought in after he was elected.

I would like to tell you, Mr. Chairman, a story about one individual. I think that individual is typical of people around this province in similar circumstances. It's a young girl, who happens to be a friend of mine, who used to work for me at one time in Langley before she moved to Victoria. She is handicapped and was unable to find work. She came to the former government time after time, wanting to help herself out of a difficult situation. She was willing to work, bright enough to work, anxious to work and wanting to get off the welfare rolls. That former government knocked that person around from wall to wall, from promise to promise, from hope to hope, and never did serve her needs. Today, Mr. Chairman, that person is working because PREP found her a job.

Those are the kinds of people who are not on the welfare rolls today and are working because of that minister, and who were knocked around and kicked around by that former government. PREP is a good programme. It's the best this province has ever seen.

MS. BROWN: Six thousand jobs!

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, these are very interesting statistics that the minister has brought to the House today, and I'd like a few more of them.

First of all, I was very upset by his reports of goofing off in one of his agencies. The public will be very interested in those figures, I think. I want to ask the minister what he is finding in this area in other parts of his department and he is doing about it. That's a sincere question to the minister.

I want to go and ask a little bit about this PREP business because, as I've listened to the debate go back and forth, I've been wondering, just from my own perspective, how many of these jobs, Mr. Minister, are new jobs. How many, on the other hand, are the same jobs but perhaps being filled by new people? Perhaps the minister could answer that. A new way of answering, I suppose, would be if he could file with the House or give us in these estimates specific examples of the jobs that have been filled. Would he just undertake to table within a week or two - this information might take a while to assemble - a detailed list of the jobs that have been found?

I'll tell you what I suspect, Mr. Chairman, as I look at the unemployment figures in this province: I very much suspect that there are no new jobs involved here. I very much suspect that there is no real job creation. I suspect, rather, that it's a different kind of person in this job.

One of the purposes of the PREP programme, I guess, was maybe to challenge the people who are on welfare and say: "Will you take a job?" So is this, in effect, one of the instruments that the minister has been using to check the bona fides of people who are on social assistance? If so, what has been the result of that?

It has been one of the underlying premises of the Social Credit Party and of the minister explicitly that a lot of people were on welfare who oughtn't to have been there. So is this one of the ways in which he's been using the PREP programme? I remain open to be convinced, Mr. Chairman, but until the data is filed, I will suspect that there are really no new jobs here; there are just new people getting existing jobs.

I wonder if the minister could stand up and clarify those two questions for me - first of all, the disturbing evidence of goofing off in one of these agencies that the minister has brought to the House today. The other is the question of how many of these jobs are really new jobs.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am sure that many of these jobs are jobs that have existed for a good many years in British Columbia. I would suggest that the job which is held by that particular member who just asked the question is a job that has been situated in British Columbia for a good many years but filled by a different person from time to time. We don't deny people on welfare the opportunity to fill existing jobs; we help them fill those jobs. Not all of these are new jobs; some of them are new jobs, some of them are old jobs, some of them are jobs that have been here for a long time. I don't know; I don't ask those questions when we get the people the jobs. The main thing is that we want to get out there and find jobs.

The, member suggests that we use this as a tool. Well, it's not a tool; but, on the other hand, it certainly has a very sobering effect on some people. Quite frankly, I heard stories from our PREP people

[ Page 2003 ]

about individuals who walk up to the counter in some income-assistance office and say: "Hey, I'm here for welfare. W ' hat about it?" They're told: "Go see PREP, right over there. We want to get you to see PREP first." Suddenly they find a quick exit through the door. They're gone; they don't want to re-apply.

That happens, and if you call that a negative result of the programme, that's too bad. I call that a positive result; I think that's good. If that person is motivated away from the welfare office because they were offered the possibility of a job, then they shouldn't have been there in the first place. You can knock that, but I say that's good. That's a part of the programme -- another thing that makes it great.

Now as to whether we have found other people in the civil service who relate to those whom I mentioned earlier in my statement, quite frankly, we have not had any organized effort to find out what's happening in various areas. We knew there was a problem in that area because the Vancouver board, or those who were employed within the board, hadn't produced relative to their numbers and relative to what was happening in other parts of the province. So we said: ' Hey, there is a measure; we should zero in and find out why." And that's how we discovered it. I don't intend to go through the administration and check on every individual. But if I hear of something that appears to be wrong, I intend to follow it through.

I love those people who work for me. They're great. I depend on them because it's their efforts and us working together - they and myself me with them -- equally pulling together that is going to make it work. It can't be the minister. He can't make it work alone from his office. He depends on those people there,

I depend on my staff. Listen, they're great! They're wonderful! They sit in my office here and in the Belmont Building. They work hard, and they work hard in many of those field offices. Unlike the other minister before me, I have visited most of those offices. I've gone there; I've talked to them; I've met with the staff. We've had good liaison, good rapport, and we're going to continue to have that because it's only in that way that we can together make for a better welfare system, a better human resources system in British Columbia. It's shaping up to be the very best in Canada.

MR. GIBSON: Just on a short follow-up, I think it's a little bit strange that the minister would choose to attack only one group in the group that are funded by his department. If he found some evidence - and it was serious evidence he brought before this House in one area - I'm surprised that he wouldn't be checking into other areas, Mr. Chairman. If that's the way he chooses to proceed, I would question it, but he's the minister. All we can do is question.

But I must say he's pretty stoked up this afternoon. What I was interested in determining was how many of these PREP jobs are now jobs. I suggested that really none of them are new jobs and I asked the minister if he would table a list of the jobs. I didn't ask him to table it today because 6,000 jobs are quite a large list. If he would even table a sample of one month within the next week or two so we can see what kind of jobs they are....

Then I went on to say: "I am suggesting that there's going to be virtually no new jobs in that package in terms of jobs that weren't available in the province before - just different people getting the jobs."

Then I went on to suggest that one of the net results of this kind of thing is that people come in and say: "I would like social assistance. I am able to work, but I can't find a job." They're challenged by the evidence that there is a job available. That's a good thing, Mr. Chairman; let me make that clear. It's terribly important to the integrity of the social assistance system in this province that the people of this province should support it. For that purpose they must be able to feel that it is a relatively clean system in the sense that there are not too many people getting social assistance when they could be making their way in this world otherwise.

But - and here's the problem - when you come to the time when there are 100,000 people out of work in this province, and when you come to the time when your unemployment insurance has run out, and when you come to the time when there are another 100,000 people looking for that particular job, there are some people who are employable but who in those circumstances are going to be on income assistance. So to a certain extent you can just recycle around and spend this PREP money for recycling. To the extent that it is spent in challenging deliberate malingerers on the income assistance system, that is good. To the extent it is spent in terms of helping people who have been caught in the welfare cycle to get out of that welfare cycle - sometimes they're generational welfare cycles - that is good too. But to the extent that it is spent in just recycling around people who have no hope of finding a job in any case because of the situation in our economy, then that money would be better directed for economic development.

So what I'm asking the minister to do, so that this House can form an impression, is sometime in the next couple weeks just to table the precise jobs that have been found in even any one-month period during that PREP term.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I don't intend to take up much time in the debate on this, but I would like to make this one comment in relation to PREP and the debate we've been listening

[ Page 2004 ]

to this afternoon. I think the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) is missing the point. I think some of the other members of the opposition have missed the point, and I think the hon. leader of the Liberal Party just missed the point. He kept saying: "Recycling jobs. How many new jobs are being created?" This is a programme to help people.

The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard said: "How many of these jobs were found because they came out of want-ads in the newspaper?" This is the core of this problem to a large degree. The people that this ministry is trying to help in this programme, and this government is trying to help in this programme, are the people who - I can only put it this way - simply just don't fit. They don't have the ability, for one reason or another, to go out and buy a newspaper and read the job want ads and apply for that job.

They perhaps don't have the self-confidence. They perhaps are part of the repetitive social welfare cycle that goes on in every society, or that we've created. There are numerous reasons why they can't do this. This is why, indeed, you have to have enough staff to take these people, to help them apply themselves to that job. There is going to be recycling of those jobs over and over again because so many of these people will have to be taken back and back and back again -often four and five times.

Then sometimes it's not successful to help them build the confidence, to help them find in that job something that they can satisfy themselves with, something that will give them that extra little initiative that they need to want to get up in the morning, to want to go to work and to feel the confidence and fulfillment that they should from working, which most people do. It was proven in all these programmes in the United States and in Canada - and it was here in British Columbia before - that you needed a one-to-one situation, and frequently a repetitive one-to-one situation.

I think it's important that we do create new jobs, but I think it's important that we don't create what the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) is creating in this discussion - and that is confusion. With creating jobs in British Columbia at a time of high unemployment and the serious economic problems we have, in helping those who must be part of this stream of the rest of them in finding jobs, you can't drop them until such time as you can get the unemployment down to a desired level. They must be equally as important in all our efforts to create jobs and to help people find jobs. I believe the minister is doing this.

The member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) questioned a number of people employed in this programme. I would just point out to that member that this is a very big province. We are a small population in pockets of this province, and it's vital that this programme not only be effective and available to people in the lower mainland but that it be effective and available to people in other parts of the province. A person with these problems in Pouce Coupe is equally as devastated by their problems as they are if they live in Vancouver.

I wanted to contribute to this, Mr. Chairman, because I think it's important. We're not in the numbers game in this programme of new jobs or old jobs; we're in the business of trying to help people, as the minister has said, of recognizing in this help programme what their problems are. If you forget what their problems are, then you can't deal with those problems. Then the programme really would be subject to criticism.

I hope that the minister continues both his enthusiasm and his efforts. I hope that the minister has an opportunity to hire more people to help in this programme, because it does need a very personal amount of contact and takes a lot of time. It will repeat itself over and over again with many of these people, but I hope that they don't become discouraged. I know they won't, if for no other reason than because this minister's enthusiasm and his department's enthusiasm is affecting these people. They need that sort of human emotional support as well.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, it's bottom-line economy, bottom-line thinking, in terms of fiscal management.

We have to understand that the more numbers of people show up as PREP-successful, the better it is politically for the minister, not only for his government but in his bid for other jobs in cabinet -like the Premier's.

But, Mr. Chairman, I think we have to understand that if people are on unemployment insurance or on welfare, they are our dollars. They're taxpayers' dollars, whether they're coming from the federal government or whether they're coming from the provincial government. As I understand it, parts of the welfare payments are from the federal government at any rate. They are tax dollars.

Now I think we also have to assume that the major portion of people who are registered for employment with Canada Manpower are probably people who are drawing unemployment insurance, at around $100 a week or better - about $400 a month or a little better, I think. The minister can correct me, but I think a single unemployable gets about $160 a month on welfare - something like that. So it's considerably more money out of the taxpayers' pockets to have someone on unemployment insurance than it is on welfare.

So you put a desk in the Canada Manpower office to siphon off some of those jobs. In itself, it doesn't seem that that's a. bad thing to do. But in the long

[ Page 2005 ]

run, does it cost us more as taxpayers to take a person off welfare and put them to work or to take a person off unemployment insurance and put them to work? He's a person who is probably a little easier to place, for no one's fault, possibly - maybe not the welfare recipient's fault - but just a little easier to place. He's probably had work experience that's a little easier to place. He's probably had work experience that's a little more up to date than the person who's on welfare. Probably the person who's on welfare has been on unemployment insurance, run out of stamps or run out of money to collect, and is then on social services under the welfare programme.

What we have is just an absolute juggling of the books. That's all we have - just a juggling of the books. Whether a person is taken off unemployment insurance and employed, or whether a person is taken off welfare and employed, or whether a person is receiving no subsistence or no help at all from any government but isn't making any money, that's a help to that person into society too. It's a help, and the PREP programme is just juggling. They admit that they don't create jobs. Is it a good thing that an agency may be there to help people who are on welfare to find employment? I think so. I think that's a service that's worthwhile.

No one is knocking the minister for having a programme to help people who are on social assistance find jobs. No one's knocking him for that. But the hon. Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace) pointed out in this House yesterday that one of the practices that has been going on is that when you go to apply for a job in the Highways department, they say: "Yes, we have a job. We'll hire you, but first of all would you go down and apply for welfare so it shows up and makes PREP look good?"

I'm not suggesting that that's happening all over, but what is happening all over? We've talked about attitudes in this House before. What is the civil servant, out there doing a job on behalf of the province of British Columbia, supposed to think when he hears about the statements that the minister makes? Is he to assume that the minister is a person who will look towards that civil servant with favour if the civil servant says: "Oh, by the way, PREP didn't get that many jobs this month."?

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Off with his head.

MR. LEA: Off with his head. That's right. That's the kind of attitude that the civil servants can read, not only from that minister but from this government. So is there not a tacit pressure on those civil servants to do exactly what's been going on?

MS. BROWN: Cook the books.

MR. LEA: To help the minister cook the books to make PREP look good, because they're afraid for themselves.

MR. KING: Prop for PREP.

MR. LEA: Yes, prop for PREP. The minister knows, Mr. Chairman, that it's all baloney. It's all baloney! They're not creating any jobs, and probably the jobs they are getting are only those which, if they had not gone to those people, would have gone to people who are drawing unemployment in Tolerance, which is a far higher price that we pay out of our tax dollars than people who are on welfare. In that case, it's just a defeating programme. It's defeating!

If the minister wants to put PREP to work finding people jobs, then get out of Canada Manpower and go out and start talking to small businessmen and employers and try to look for jobs that are not registered with Canada Manpower. Look for jobs out there in the business world, in the everyday world. Then they would be doing a service not only to people who are receiving welfare and looking for work, but to society as a whole. Then they'd be doing it.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Did we hear from that member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) down there again, who's so chicken that in this House he accepts to debate me in his riding but when he's offered that chance by the radio station in Smithers he said "No way"? Is that who we're hearing from, Mr. Chairman? Is it Mr. Chicken-Hearted down there we're hearing from? If you're not chicken, then let's go to Smithers and debate the issues of this province on the Smithers radio station. Let's go up there.

MR. KEMPF: You're wrong again. Wrong again.

MR. LEA: You said you'd debate it. Now you're chicken!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member.

MR. LEA: Come on, you're chicken!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. LEA: You won't debate it. The radio station asked you and you said no. You wouldn't do it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member.

MR. LEA: But let's not get into that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Back to vote 185, please.

[ Page 2006 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Nobody likes a chicken.

MR. GIBSON: Let's have some support from Mr. Chairman.

MR. LEA: That's right. Thank you, Mr. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) . I think it's important, Mr. Chairman, that people know the member for Omineca lacks a little something here called - what? - intestinal fortitude. He won't do it. He took the challenge down here but he won't do it there.

MR. GIBSON: If there's a chicken in this zoo, we should know.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Do you want to cluck, cluck, Mr. Member? He won't debate it up in his riding. He said he would. He told the media here he would but he won't do it up there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order, please!

MR. LEA: Chicken!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Back to vote 185, please.

MR. LEA: Oh, yes, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry if I strayed.

I think the Liberal leader's request is a valid request - not just for one month, but for the entire length that the PREP programme has been in existence. I think there have been some serious charges levelled in this Legislature against the minister's programme, PREP, saying: "We don't believe that it's a programme the way the minister says it is." We believe it's a boondoggle. For political purposes, it's a boondoggle. The minister, I believe, because of those charges, either stands guilty or should prove that we are in error. He should table in this House a list - not of the names; I don't think we need the names - of the kinds of jobs. Where was the person before? What were they drawing? Were they drawing welfare? How long has it been since that particular person - we don't need the name - has worked? How long is the job for?

What is PREP all about? Nobody knows. All we know is that the minister stands up and says: "Six thousand jobs." So what? What does that mean? Unless the minister is prepared to table in this House a list of those jobs and the length of those jobs, the date of hiring and the date of termination, then PREP means nothing not only to this Legislature, but also to the people of this province who are footing the bill. It means nothing.

[ Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

They talk about an open government and they won't even file in the House the results of a programme that they brag about, Mr. Chairman. If it were a programme that they were running around hanging their heads in shame about, then it might be understandable, but this is a programme that they consider to be a crown in their social services programme.

That's what they consider it to be - the crown programme, the great programme, the programme that's getting those ne'er-do-well, shiftless, no-good citizens of this province off of welfare. He's implying that. He's not saying that it's ordinary people on welfare that he's getting jobs. He's saying that it's people on welfare who won't work and don't want to work, and through his programme he is forcing them - what? - to work. That's what he's saying. It's the employable people on welfare whom he says he's putting to work. He's at least hanging that inference out here in this Legislature and in the province that he's the tough minister, that he's the minister, Mr. Chairman, who is going to get these people working.

You know, maybe it runs with the office of mayor of Surrey. I had a chance to talk with the present mayor of Surrey. He was talking about prisoners and he called them all turkeys. He said: "Just let those turkeys out of jail. I'll get those turkeys on a road gang and I'll make those turkeys work." That's what he called them. Maybe it goes with the office of mayor of Surrey that you become a person who thinks that anybody who hasn't done as well as you are is a turkey.

MR. GIBSON: What's the difference between a turkey and a chicken?

MR. LEA: Well the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) appears like a chicken. A turkey might be from some other riding - maybe from Surrey. Who knows?

All I know, Mr. Chairman, is that unless the minister puts papers where his mouth is and tables them in this House, I say that PREP is a farce, a deliberate farce, designed deliberately to mislead the people of this province. I believe that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEA: There are other people, Mr. Chairman, who believe that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I just ask the member if he is imputing an improper motive to the minister? If he is, I have to ask him to withdraw.

MR. LEA: I'm saying that the programme was designed, in my opinion, to perpetrate a fraud on the people of this province.

[ Page 2007 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS; Oh, oh!

MR. LEA: The programme is a fraud. It is not doing what the government says it's doing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the member is imputing any improper motive to the minister then I have to ask him to withdraw.

MR. LEA: No, no, I'm not - just to the programme itself, which I believe was designed to mislead the people of this province into thinking that the minister and that government are taking employable people off welfare and putting them to work. I believe that's hogwash. There may be some, but let's see the names, let's see the figures, let's see the dates of hiring, let's see the termination of employment for those jobs. If that doesn't come down here in this House and be made public, then that programme is indeed nothing more than a fraud and a hoax designed to lull the people in this province into thinking that that government is taking action, when in fact they are not taking action in that direction.

We have a right to know, not we the opposition, but we the Munchkins down there too. The Munchkins have a right to know what's going on in this province. I believe that the Chairman should know. I believe everybody in this province should know whether that programme is a farce. I believe it is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I recognize the member for Rossland-Trail, may I just remind the members again of page 418 in May, which says: "Abusive and insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder must be promptly interfered with by the Chair." I'm duty-bound. I must remind hon. members, and I'm sure that our vocabulary and our language is broad enough to express ourselves without that kind of language.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I would ask the Premier to withdraw that. . . .

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Chairman, I've been following the afternoon very closely. I've noticed a certain degree of histrionics on both sides, particularly from the minister when the galleries were fairly full.

I do appreciate that fact that he does have a problem, though, that's showing up in PREP. It's nothing to do with whether or not PREP is a good programme or whether it's a boondoggle, although it may be a good programme and it may also be a boondoggle. He's not going to produce the papers that the member for North Vancouver-Capilano has asked for. Even if they exist he's not going to produce them, because they're too embarrassing. He's not going to produce them in this House.

He's got a problem. It's nothing to do with his department, nothing to do with vote 185. 1 hope the Chairman doesn't call me to order on that. It has nothing to do with any of those things. It has to do with the economy of this province. There are no jobs to find - not for PREP, not for Manpower, not for anyone. The jobs aren't there, and they never have been since this government came into office.

The former Social Credit government h1-4 a reasonably good record in supporting an economy that produced jobs. Over seven years ending in 1972 there was a total of 240,000 new jobs - 34,000 a year, including two record years, 1967 and 1969, when there were 45,000 new jobs produced in each one of those years. That's a very, very fine record relative to the present government.

We had that little interregnum, of course, of three years when the socialists were in office when that record was broken not once but twice. That new-job record of 45,000 was broken not once but twice. In 1973 the number of new jobs in British Columbia went to 56,000, breaking the old record of 45,000. In 1974 that record was broken again. The number of new jobs that year was 59,000. In 1975, a very bad recession year when British Columbia was the only province in Canada to show a real growth - the only province in Canada - we still had 32,000 new jobs in B.C.

That was the best single-year record, the best two-year record, Mr. Chairman, and the best three-year record in the history of the province of British Columbia.

What happened last year when this government came back in? The number of new jobs went down to 29,000 total employed for the year - 1,057, 000 in British Columbia. On March 15 what does Statistics Canada say? They say that there are employed in British Columbia 1,045, 000 people. That's 12,000 less than last year's average. But that's adjusted, Mr. Chairman. What happens if we don't adjust it? Unadjusted, we find that there's only 1,014, 000. That's minus 43,000 jobs from this point last year. That's why PREP isn't working, apart from the fact that it may be pointed at the wrong people, it may have hired the wrong people, and it may be doing the wrong things. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that the jobs aren't there, not for Manpower to find, not for PREP to find, not for the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen to find, and not for the job-finder programme to find, if it were still in effect.

[ Page 2008 ]

That's what we should be concerned with in this House. With respect to all the members here who've spoken on this, arguing back and forth on whether the PREP programme is doing the job it's supposed to be or whether or not the minister is telling the truth when he tells the people of B.C. the great things that it's supposed to be doing and manifestly is not doing, that's not the point at all.

Just to divert a little bit, I'm sorry the minister has left the House, but the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is here, my good friend from Langley. He made some points that there was some retaliation or some unfairness given to people employed in the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen when that programme was terminated. I'm rather sorry that the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) is not here in the House. I don't know if the Minister of Health would have made those remarks if the second member for Vancouver-Burrard had been here.

The fact is that those employees were duly elected under the Public Service Commission of British Columbia. I'm sure that if they had any grievances, they would have processed those grievances. I'm sure that if they had been mistreated in any way, they would have taken action. I'm sure that the then opposition, particularly my friend from Langley, would have gleefully seen that they got injustice through the normal processes - through legal means, if anything. I think it was straight innuendo and political flim-flam of the worst type to suggest that anybody was mistreated in the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen.

In my riding there were two off ices of that organization, and one of the individuals retired because he was past retirement age and working on contract. All of the others were absorbed back into the provincial service, some of them at better rates of pay than they had with the PAB. So that was absolute nonsense, and that was the kind of nonsense that some members on that side of the House have been spreading for the past four or five years.

Mr. Chairman, getting back more specifically to vote 185, 1 would like to associate myself with some of the remarks that people have said. How many new jobs have been created and how long did they last? Was it only one job? Was it recycled 6,000 times? We'd like to know that. I think the people of B.C. would really like to know that.

We have in this vote 185 a total of $32 million, and $450,000 alone for - what do they call them? -Rehabilitation officers I and 2. Well, they may be very honourable people and they may be trying hard to do a job, but if we're going to spend $450,000 on people to find 6,000 jobs that you can find listed in the want ads of the newspapers of this province in any day, I would suggest that is a most inefficient way to spend money at a time when bankruptcies are higher than they've ever been before and at a time when more people are unemployed than ever before. Not only are there fewer jobs being created than ever before; we have a negative growth rate in jobs. That may not be that minister's fault specifically, but he is part of the government. He sits on the treasury benches and he supports the economic policies which have led to that situation. And it's getting worse. The situation deteriorated in 1976, even though it was a better economic year generally than 1975, and we've moved into disastrous proportions so far in 1977.

The minister said earlier, in trying to change the subject of the record of his department in this regard: "Don't we have wonderful pioneers in B.C.?" Well, I happen to think that we still have a number of very fine pioneers in B.C. The only problem is, Mr. Minister, many of them don't live here any more. They've gone to Washington state, they've gone to Alberta, they've gone to the Yukon, they've gone to Saskatchewan, they've gone to Ontario. Lord knows where they've gone. They're pioneering in those places. They're pioneering with business and job opportunities. It isn't because they want to. They'd rather stay in B.C., they'd rather build businesses here; they'd rather provide British Columbians with opportunities. But they don't have the opportunities themselves to invest. That's the real problem - they don't have the opportunities to invest in British Columbia.

There's no point in setting up a manufacturing plant to produce something that you can't sell. There's no point in hiring people in a service industry if there are not any customers coming through the door with pay cheques to spend. That's a fact. That's a hard, cold, economic fact. It's got nothing to do with Social Credit, nothing to do with the NDP. That is a reality in British Columbia today.

Your government should be addressing itself to that reality and trying to do something about it instead of getting up in here, waving your arms about PREP, PAB, job programmes - whatever they are. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, those jobs are not there and they're not there because of the economic policies of that government. F don't like to see that minister try and front for the failures of the Premier and the failures of the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , because that's really what he's doing.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I had a lot of notes prepared for this afternoon, and it's been very disappointing to hear all the other speakers take my lines. But there are one or two additional questions I'd like to ask about PREP, and I hope I don't repeat questions that have already been answered.

MR. LEA: No fear - they haven't been answered!

MR. WALLACE: In particular, Mr. Chairman, I

[ Page 2009 ]

want to ask about the fact that, while 12,000 jobs i were estimated by Christmas of 1976, we now find that, in a much longer period of time, there are just over 6,000 involved.

I was very interested to read Mr. Stew's comments, i which I think are worthy of repeating, in The

Vancouver Sun of December 18. He says:

"We're an action group. We want to move quickly - too quickly for the bureaucrats. But we've got to understand that government doesn't move as quickly as we do, and we'll just have to give them time."

I wondered, if we already know who the Kojak in the Economic Development ministry is, if the minister looks upon Mr. Stew as the Kojak of his department; because that, in December, gave a tremendously optimistic, enthusiastic interpretation of what the programme was doing. Yet the figures are, frankly, disappointing. I wonder, in regard to that comment of mine, whether the minister feels that we can look for a faster rate of performance than the rate which has been analysed today, and is in the monthly breakdown that the minister gave for the last six months.

I won't repeat all the questions about Manpower and the question of duplication of service and so on. But it's been demonstrated by the minister that we don't have all the information we would like to have. For example, there is the question of how many of the jobs last a short time, with the person subsequently unemployed again. In other words, how much follow-up information do we have to be able, in a very realistic way, to analyse the essential worthwhile nature of the programme or otherwise.

When I think of the evidence that we've already had in this House - that some of the government computers are used about 20 per cent of the time - I wonder what progress is being made by the minister and his ministry to have this kind of information computerized? I assume it can be done. In the course of a year then, it isn't just a question of knowing how many employees were found employment, whether it be 6,000 or 12,000. From computer utilization, we can find out what happens, as far as possible, to the total, and find out how many of them maintain employment - whether for 3 months or 6 months or 12 months.

The last thing I'm opposing is the concept of any new idea that will make it likelier that people will get out and get a job. I'd like to associate myself with the Liberal leader's comments that this kind of programme, if it succeeds in challenging people to take available jobs when they have previously been on social assistance, is a very excellent concept. All that I'm asking is: (1) that the most accurate kind of statistics be kept, and (2) that we don't run away with the idea, because it has created or found 6,000 jobs, that it is perhaps economically feasible within itself.

I notice that the staff is now approaching 100. That would be my second question: what is the total number of staff exclusively involved in PREP? What s the total cost of salaries, plus overhead operating costs, of PREP alone?

Thirdly, could I ask the minister in reference to one public statement about "Dial-a-job, " which I believe was started in Langley and Surrey? It was expected that that might be extended to 22 other centres. Has the concept of having someone at the end of a phone to answer inquiries about jobs been extended? And, if possible, can the minister tell us what that fraction of the programme is costing? You know, "Dial-a-job" is a rather unusual title. First of all, I presume it was a pilot project in Langley and Surrey. So my question would be: has it succeeded to the extent that it has been expanded? Or is it not going to be expanded? Again, what is the "Dial-a-job" part of the total programme costing?

The last question I want him to just clarify was the degree to which we know the average length of time that the 6,000 people already listed in the minister's records. . . Do we have any figure at all representing an average period of time over which they were employed? For those who take casual work, for example, on the highways, if they're laid off then re-employed, is this statistically counted as two jobs or is it simply re-employment of a person who previously had the same job?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, firstly it's very difficult to supply statistics as to how long these people have been employed because of course, as the member knows, the programme has really only been in existence for six months. So while there has been a follow-up right to the end of a three-month period, there hasn't been enough time yet to give you all those statistics in detail. But when they're available - and I'm hoping they'll be available in the not-too-distant future - I'll table them in the House so that we all may be aware as to exactly what the results are. I can tell you now, which of course is something available at the time that you find a job, that for example. . . .

Perhaps these statistics may give some information. In February, out of the number of people whom we found jobs for, 325 had been on social assistance for less than a month; 163 for a month; 113 for two months; and 273 for three months or more.

The dial-a-job programme was an experimental thing which unfortunately never did get off the ground in Langley, but did get off the ground in Surrey. It's only been going for three months and the cost is $250 per ninth. Again, I can't give all of the statistics but it is providing two services: first, it's a place for people to phone, and once this becomes

[ Page 2010 ]

known it will be a good service; secondly, it's managed through the local chamber of commerce, which in turn is the very business community that is able to supply us many of the jobs. So we have a contact and we have made them, through the chamber, a part of the programme which has a double-barrel effect and which we think will prove very worthwhile.

You made reference to the 12 000 jobs that Mr. Stew made reference to, and I did explain this earlier on - you may have missed it. I explained it in detail, so perhaps you can pick this up out of Hansard. I believe those were your questions. The follow-up is first on a weekly basis and then on a monthly basis. Then we have a last follow-up every three months.

I may as well answer the question too from the hon. member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) . He said: "What's PREP all about?" Then he went on to say certain things and make certain assumptions. Well, it's very difficult to answer that type of question when I've already explained it in detail. But I would like to say again that one very great benefit from this programme too is that it has helped to change - some members refer to this and I think that's a good aspect - attitudes with at least some of the people. Certainly we're aware and the social workers themselves are very positive and very grateful for the programme and are making such comments. There are people who have, on their own initiative, gone out and sought their own help or jobs because of the PREP programme. That’s a very positive result from the programme which is difficult to measure in numbers or dollars. But it's positive; it's good.

I would like to tell the member for Rossland-Trail that PREP is beautiful. PREP is working. I'll pledge to him right now that two years from now I'll make certain that PREP helps him find a job.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I think that as a result of the events in the Department of Highways that were revealed by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) , it's been shown that the statistics that have been given us attesting to the success of the PREP programme were actually fake statistics and that the programme is a fraud. It's creditable that the Minister of Highways (Hon, Mr. Fraser) has asked his department not to participate in the fraud.

There is an interesting story on the front page of tonight's Victoria Times where a Canada Manpower employee in Williams Lake states that there was at least one documented case and others that he knows of where supervisors on construction sites have told prospective applicants that they couldn't be hired unless they went down to the local Human Resources office and applied for PREP. Then they would be hired on the site in order to beef up the statistics of that programme. So the statistics we've been given are unreliable. They can't be trusted; the programme itself can't be trusted. What we would like to see - a job-creation programme in the province that can be trusted and that can be relied on - I don't think we can expect from that minister or from that government.

The minister said he loves the people he works with. He enjoys the enthusiasm of those surrounding him. But, of course, there's always the implied threat there, Mr. Chairman, that if they don't act in the way the minister demands that they act, or if they express any criticism of the programmes, then they will be shipped off to Fort St. John. This is a threat that the minister delivered to his staff in a speech to the Victoria Chamber of Commerce some time ago. I

I'd like to talk about the type of people with whom the minister does surround himself. I'd like to know if, under this vote, we are dealing with the departmental inspectors - the snoopers - who go after so-called welfare fraud people. Perhaps the minister isn't listening, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to know if, under this vote, we're considering the officers of the departmental inspectors in the Ministry of Human Resources.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Are we considering the departmental inspectors under this vote - those people who have been hired to look into the files and to investigate welfare fraud? Is that under this vote, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is a question that the minister perhaps could better answer.

MR. SKELLY: I don't think the minister was paying attention. Perhaps I could ask it again.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: In answer to the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) , I am sorry I failed to answer one part of the question. We have 29 job-finders, 22 secretaries and one co-ordinator, so it's not 100 people as someone suggested to you -29, 22 and one.

MR. WALLACE: What's the total cost?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I mentioned it earlier today. It's $279,000, 1 believe, for the last eight months.

The question now is: do we consider the eligibility investigators under this particular vote? The answer is yes.

MR. SKELLY: I'm just wondering, then, under what category the eligibility inspectors come. Are they administrative officers, social worker 5s, economists, or what? How many eligibility inspectors

[ Page 2011 ]

are there? How much are they paid? How many eligibility officers were initially hired? How many have been terminated, and for what reasons? I'm also wondering, when the departmental eligibility officers are hired, who does the hiring. What steps are taken to look into the previous qualifications and the characters of these people? Whose duty is that? Are they hired through the department, through the Public Service Commission? How many people have been hired as eligibility officers and how many people have been terminated in the last year as eligibility officers?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly about another great programme in the Ministry of Human Resources - the inspector programme. Not only has this programme provided a measure of accountability but, again, it has brought out situations that have existed for a number of years under that previous government which were allowed to go on, sometimes with the knowledge of the people involved from that government. We now have a far more accountable programme, of which the people of British Columbia can be proud.

All of us, from time to time, are concerned about people receiving benefits who are not properly entitled to them. We know it happens. It has happened in the past, and undoubtedly it will happen again, but at least the people of British Columbia can now rest assured that we have a means of checking, a means of being accountable to them, and a means of saying "yes" if there's something wrong. If you as a citizen reported to us, we can follow it through and give you the appropriate answers. And so it should be. They're the taxpayers and they have a right to know. Not only that, but it's fair to the people on income assistance, because the deserving should be protected as well from those who would abuse the system. It's good. It's great. It's working. I'm very proud of the programme and I'm very proud at the large number of dollars that it has saved so that we might provide further benefits to people in need.

We have 12 eligibility officers. The cost for 1976-1977 is $158,000, and the federal government recognizes the worth of it and shares it with us. They're hired through the public service. If you want to know the qualifications for these people, I think they're great. We try to hire the people who can do the very best job for us. I think they're good people. I'm with them, and I know they will work for this ministry and do a fine job. One had his employment terminated, and I certainly don't have to give the member the reason for that. I can assure the member that we will have the very best people in this programme because this programme deserves the very best.

MR. GIBSON: I just have a very brief question which is along the same line. I'd ask the minister if he could tell the committee, Mr. Chairman, the exact duties of the eligibility officers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The duty of an eligibility officer is to determine for certain, where there's any doubt, whether a person is eligible for the assistance provided them.

MR. GIBSON: That's all they do?

MR. SKELLY: I asked a direct and a specific question: what type of qualifications is expected of the eligibility officers? Does the Public Service Commission take steps to look into the previous character and activities of those eligibility officers before they're hired? If the minister could give me some indication as to what steps are taken to look into the character and qualifications, I'd appreciate that.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm surprised that the member would question the Public Service Commission as to their efforts to try and employ the best people and, for an important job as this, whether they would check their background. I'm sure the Public Service Commission does check them.

And if you're wondering about what else they might do, as the member requested - if there is fraud they report it to the police department.

MR. SKELLY: I'd just like to say that I wasn't questioning the Public Service Commission. I'm just wondering how these people are hired, how their characters are investigated, and how their qualifications are investigated.

The minister, in reply to the question about qualification, said they're great. Well, that doesn't really answer the question. One has been terminated, for whatever reason. It would be interesting to know the reason.

I would like to know what steps are taken by the Public Service Commission to look into the character and qualifications of those fraud squad investigators, or whatever they're called. It's important to the people who are on welfare, whose files are confidential. Much of the data in those files is confidential between the social worker and the person on social assistance. What steps are taken to look into the character of those people and their activities prior to being hired into what is an extremely sensitive job?

I'm not questioning the Public Service Commission; I'm simply asking what steps are taken. I would hope the minister would answer that question.

[ Page 2012 ]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure whether we are discussing the same job or not. Would the minister tell me whether this is the job that calls for:

"Post-secondary education in criminology and investigational technique; to be responsible for the investigation of all matters pertaining to internal irregularities in the ministerial administration of the financial assistance programme; and all steps up to and including prosecution. Also to liaise with law enforcement and other agencies." I

Are these the qualifications he was describing when he said that their sole responsibility was to check the eligibility of people applying for welfare?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, that doesn't sound like the criteria. Of course, I don't have the criteria before me; they were drafted by the ministry. I don't have the exact criteria. Certainly that doesn't sound like that. I don't know where you got that information. Maybe that's the Vancouver Resources Board....

MS. BROWN: No, this is a job help wanted, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We can only have one person standing at a time.

MS. BROWN: I didn't see anyone else.

Mr. Chairman, this is a job that was a help-wanted ad in the Sun on February 23 for the Ministry of Human Resources in the district of Surrey. It is certainly not the Vancouver Resources Board.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: February 23 of what year?

MS. BROWN: 1977.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I haven't seen the ad.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We can only have one member on the floor at one time.

MS. BROWN: Mr, Chairman, I think the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) asked whether this particular person came under this vote, and the minister said yes. Then the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) asked for a description of the job that these people did. Now what I'm reading from is an ad, advertising for someone....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: In the February 23 issue of the Sun under employment opportunities, help wanted, for the Ministry of Human Resources in Surrey. This job pays $1,309 to $1,523 a month. If, as the minister says, all they do is check eligibility, I'm kind of curious about this post-secondary education in criminology and investigational technique.

I'm also wondering whether these are the same people that Frances Russell, in one of her articles in the Sun, referred to as the political police force that the Department of Human Resources was embarking on.

She went on and said: "A squad of 12 welfare fraud investigators" - which was the exact figure that the minister just used. .

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor.

MS. BROWN: I'm asking, Mr. Chairman, whether this is the same qualification required for what Frances Russell referred to as the "political police force" - the first one in the history of British Columbia, the squad of 12 welfare fraud investigators who were being hired to carry out the responsibility of checking the eligibility of people applying for welfare.

She went on to say that the minister requested that these welfare investigators should enjoy immunity from prosecution for conduct such as trespassing.

MR. GIBSON: I have a very specific question for the minister with respect to the duties of these investigators. Would they have investigative functions elsewhere in the department or elsewhere in the government in any way, shape or form at any time?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No.

MR. GIBSON: I just want to be assured. For example, suppose one member of the minister's department asked for a report on how another member of the minister's department was doing their job with respect to the administration of the welfare system. Would this group be called in? Would they be eligible to check the eligibility of other public servants, so to speak?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The hon. member may be making reference to a situation where, following reports to the eligibility investigators, we found on several occasions that employees had been involved in fraudulent practices. Now if they become directly involved in a fraud situation, such as the member for Vancouver-Burrard.... She's shaking her head right now. It happened in her constituency; someone in the office had been issuing cheques to her

[ Page 2013 ]

own person. Naturally that's the type of fraud that the eligibility investigators would be concerned about and follow through to the nth degree. That would be the only time that I can see.

MR. GIBSON: To follow that up, Mr. Chairman, there are some circumstances then when this fraud squad would check into activities in other parts of the minister's department. Would the minister give us a guarantee that there would never be a time when they would be used to check into activities in other parts of the government? Will he give us that guarantee that they'll never operate outside the confines of his own department?

MR. LEA: Or have they?

MR. WALLACE: Or have they already?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Oak Bay.

MR. GIBSON: Surely the minister. . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: He may answer following the member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I placed a question on the order paper on this subject last year. It might be more appropriate to just repeat it at this point in the debate.

Could the minister tell us the most up-to-date figures which have been uncovered by the effort of the inspectors as to the number of cases of established fraud and the total sum of money involved in these established cases? If I'm not asking too much all in one mouthful, could he tell us how many other cases are presently under investigation awaiting a decision as to whether prosecution should be requested? I'll just repeat that: the number of cases in the most recent period of time and the total sum of money alleged to be involved in that total number of fraud cases.

The reason I ask is that the debate has ranged for several days over many issues, but one of the issues that has been repeatedly discussed is the so-called welfare bum and welfare fraud. When we consider the large total sum of money which the minister's department spends on various forms of assistance, I think we should try to find out what percentage of that money can be shown to have been obtained fraudulently.

Many members of the opposition have expressed an opinion with which I want to associate myself very clearly. That is that the great majority of people who seek assistance of one kind or another would be very glad if they could find some other alternative way of meeting their needs. I think it's very unfair for a large number of people in genuine need who legitimately should have help from society to be publicly painted in the image of someone who is either not really in need or who might be obtaining the assistance fraudulently. If there is one very specific figure which I think this House should obtain in the course of this minister's estimates, it should be the established amount of fraud which we can compare to the amount of money which has genuinely and legitimately been provided to people who are really in need.

I've already touched upon the underspending in two particular votes which we'll get to later. I think to put the whole financial significance of this minister's total ministry into context, we must know how many applications for social assistance have been shown to be fraudulent. How much money has been paid on these fraudulent applications? How many cases are presently under investigation? What is the total amount of alleged fraudulent money involved in these outstanding cases which have not yet proceeded to prosecution?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member will appreciate that this might take some research. Perhaps the next questions could be asked.

MS. BROWN: I was wondering if, while the minister is putting his answers together, he would also let us know whether he was able to get permission for his inspectors to enjoy immunity from prosecution for conduct such as trespassing. Also, I would like to know why they need post-secondary education in criminology and investigational techniques.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The people who are involved in this particular work certainly have to be credible to the court and they have to liaise at all times with the police. So I am sure that experience in criminology or such would be far more valuable than say, experience in the construction field. There is a type of expertise required for this sort of work. That doesn't mean that because these people have been trained in a particular field they won't do their jobs well. As a matter of fact, because of their training, they will not only be well aware of their own capabilities and their own rights, but equally well aware of the rights and the protections that should be afforded the people whom they are investigating. So I think it's fair that they have this type of information.

The question has arisen twice and I am sure that the member will now agree that it's important that we have people with proper qualifications. Trespassing? No, they have no police powers. They are not outright police and they don't have the protections that are otherwise afforded police. But if they have police experience and this helps them in their jobs, great! It makes for better work.

The other question was from the member for

[ Page 2014 ]

North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) I think your question was, how many people were involved in the programme?

MR. GIBSON: No. I said: would they operate outside your department?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: They're operating within this ministry. There is no reason or intent for them to operate outside of the ministry, except in the course of work. I don't know where this would arise. I can't see it at all.

MR. SKELLY: I was just wondering, Mr. Chairman, if the minister would care to answer: how many of the 12 eligibility inspectors already in the programme have the qualifications outlined in the present ad in the Vancouver newspaper? How many of the ones presently in the programme have that criminology and investigative experience or education? Also, what type of qualifications did the person have who was terminated from the programme? Were they similar qualifications to the ones presently being advertised to fill the present vacancy?

MR. GIBSON: I want to question the minister a little more about the activity span of this group of people - this little group of investigators. I think it's only natural that this House should be a little bit concerned when there's this kind of unit operating in the minister's department on things that you would think the comptroller-general could handle, or the auditor-general could handle in due course. I' am particularly concerned when the minister replies that this group wouldn't operate outside his ministry, except in the course of work. I can't imagine how there could be any course of work that would leave these people outside of his ministry. If there is some problem of collusion or something like that in another ministry then, for goodness' sake, call in the police or some duly constituted body that operates under duly constituted control, rather than have these people wandering around throughout the ministries of government even in any potential way. I ask the minister to give an absolutely blanket assurance - we know they are wandering around in his ministry - that they won't operate outside of his ministry.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I'm surprised at the member. I am sure he can't be that naive. I'm saying again: there may be, for example, a time when one of these members has to check with the motor-vehicle branch or with another agency of government - ICBC or something - to help track down, in the course of their work, a particular fraudulent claim. They may operate in that respect, but certainly in no other way. I don't know what your question is. As I said, if it's in the course of their work, they would be following through with the motor-vehicle branch or suchlike.

MR. GIBSON: I'll explain my question more clearly. I am talking about the potential investigation of public servants. The minister said that in some cases there might be cause to investigate the activities of other public servants inside his department. I just want a guarantee that there won't be any such activity in other departments of government by this particular group. That's all I want.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, Mr. Chairman. I did not say that.

MR. GIBSON: I know you didn't say that. I'm asking for a guarantee.

MS. BROWN: This is just an observation. The minister hires a secret police force and refers to them as "eligibility officers." When asked to explain what they do, he says they have to ascertain eligibility. But he demands that they have a post-secondary education in criminology and investigative technique.

It's like the Americans in the Vietnam war. When they drop a bomb on you, they call it an "anti-personnel device." They are a secret police or they are not. Don't go around calling them eligibility officers, because they're not eligibility officers. They are peepers and snoopers. That's what they are.

MR. WALLACE: I'm sorry that I have to take more time with the House on a question which I consider the minister should have available very quickly. I am talking again about the fact that there has been tremendous emphasis - headlines, very often unjust - about welfare fraud.

We've heard that a very justifiable action was taken to have inspectors who at least would not have police powers. My blood curdled when I first read in the press last fall that in fact the request had even been made that they should have police powers. I wrote to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , and I got a very prompt and reassuring answer. We needn't go over all that again. If there is any fair play in this whole issue of welfare bums and welfare fraud, we should know and the minister should have very much at his fingertips how much all this very serious investigation of all these serious allegations about fraud has uncovered. I want to quote from The Vancouver Sun of January 27,1977:

"Human Resources minister Vander Zalm told the Legislature Wednesday that charges involving $75,000 are pending in Surrey alone, and in a separate instance one individual is being charged with four counts of false

[ Page 2015 ]

declaration, and 40 counts of fraud totaling more than $19,000. In another case, Mr. Vander Zalm said the investigators are pursuing 29 counts of fraud where an individual has very likely bilked this province of more than $16,000."

We know these cases occur; we know that these details or part of the details have been released in public. Perhaps some of them are still before the courts, and I've no wish to transgress on that privilege.

The estimated amount that this province will spend next year on income assistance is $193.9 million. Now if the amount of fraud is all of the terrible thing that we've been told it is in very general terms and pervades the system as it's been reputed, we should very readily have the figures from the minister.

For the sake of example, for the first nine months of the 1976-1977 fiscal year, can the minister tell us how many cases have been identified and how much money this province was defrauded so that we can make some reasonable analysis of what percentage that represents out of the total of $ 193.9 million?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Unfortunately I don't have all of the particulars, but I think perhaps the information I have may be sufficient for the hon. member, I have some statistics for the last three months of 1976.

The programme didn't start until sometime in October, 1976. So we're looking at a short three months in 1976. No one has ever pinned down a percentage of fraud, and I doubt if anyone ever will. It has been stated that by and large we're not dealing with large numbers of people, but those who are defrauding the ministry know how it's done and are defrauding the system for considerable sums. This appears to be borne out by the investigators so far, though I don't have the particular sums before me.

In those last three months, or whatever part of those three months the programme was in effect, in those areas where we have inspectors, with the exception of Vancouver, Surrey and Burnaby.... Unfortunately we were unable to get any statistics for Vancouver because they weren't keeping that sort of statistic, and for Surrey and Burnaby we don't have them available now. But the areas left involve about eight inspectors. The reported cases were 545. The charges laid were 30.

MR. LEA: How much did you pay for that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The "insufficient evidence" is 186 - that is insufficient evidence to proceed. The "settlement negotiated" is 54. This is where we don't proceed with charges; we instead arrived at an arrangement whereby they would repay at the rate of $25 or $50 a month. The "still under investigation" and "under investigation where charges are to be laid" - and these are the ones that involve the larger sums - are 275 cases.

The "recoveries" - this is where people have voluntarily agreed to pay back the moneys - during that same period was $ 2 2, 7 17. 1 should explain that. In many cases the inspectors do not proceed with the investigation or do not proceed with laying charges because the circumstances are such that it would be creating a further hardship to the individual when the explanation given by the individual appears to be reasonable. Instead we then settle for cash, whereby they pay back immediately. That amounted to $22,717.

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Dollars. So that was the amount of money that was received from people voluntarily.

The largest number - and I wish I had the particulars of the cases - is the 27S. These are larger cases which will take some time to prepare and which will then proceed to court.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, does the minister readily have figures for 1976 beyond the three-month period of the actual number of total cases which went to prosecution? Out of that total, what number were successfully prosecuted? Of the ones that were successfully prosecuted, what was the total value of the sum which these particular people had acquired fraudulently?

I'm still trying to determine in money terms. I'm not doing very well this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, but I'm trying to determine that if we're spending somewhere around $200 million a year in income assistance payments, we're trying to find out some approximate amount of money which seems to be fraudulently obtained out of $200 million. If it turns out to be 12 times, or that $22,000 figure, it seems to me to be pretty small potatoes. We may well be employing staff to investigate and the administration of justice to process charges and all the kind of overhead costs of doing this investigation. . . . I'm trying to relate that also to the amount of money that's recovered.

Now I know the minister can't give specific, precise answers, but I would like to know if at all possible how many cases were prosecuted in 1976. Of these, how many were found guilty? Of the guilty ones, what's the total sum of money that they were found to have obtained by fraud?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First, I'm sorry if I didn't make it very clear; perhaps it will appear more clearly in print. But the $22,717 was not obtained

[ Page 2016 ]

through any court proceedings. This was where the people settled voluntarily with the inspectors. The real money is in the 275, but unfortunately it takes some time. We're attempting to expedite this because obviously we don't want to leave these people in a state of worry and anguish. So we're attempting to expedite the 275. But that is where the largest amount of money would be - in the 275.

The insufficient evidence is where someone, for example, had charged that a person had received welfare fraudulently because they were living with another person who also had earnings. But when the inspectors came the person they were living with was not there and the proof as to whether this relationship had existed at the time cannot be obtained. It's that type of case. So they have been dropped.

There are also very many cases that never ever.... They come to the inspectors, they're referred back to their social workers and the practice of whatever.... The fraud may have been so minor that it's been discontinued and there's no further problem with it.

Finally, I think it's important to know too that many people have made accusations with respect to fraud from people on income assistance, so that everyone appears to be tarnished with the brush. This is making the system accountable, and we can now answer those charges through correspondence, calls or otherwise.

MR. LEA: But you were the one who made the changes.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'll be most brief. The point I'm trying to make is that there were some investigations going on before the new inspectors were appointed. I'm still trying to find out for purposes of comparison what, for example, was the number of prosecutions in the whole of 1976, or the first nine months, or from April I to the end of September or whatever. I'm trying to get some basis of comparison, because I would take it that before the inspectors were appointed the department was still trying to keep tabs on the possibility of fraud and how much of it was uncovered, even before the inspectors were appointed. That's part of my question.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: A quick answer: there were no inspectors within the ministry prior to October.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: They had one or two in Surrey and they had a couple with the Vancouver Resources Board. They were actually detectives seconded on a "here's a case" basis. There were no inspectors with the ministry.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, just for the purposes of comparison, I think this is what the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) is trying to get at. There's been a question on the order paper since the second day of this sitting which asks the minister how many convictions were obtained in each of the years since fiscal 1971 and 1972 and how much money in welfare fraud is represented in those convictions. This year, fiscal 1976-1977, to date, how many convictions obtained and how much money is represented by those fraud convictions?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I've just given that answer.

MR. LEA: No, you haven't.

MR. SKELLY: Zero?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I gave that answer. I'll be in Hansard.

MR. SKELLY: The minister stated that he's spending $176,000 on the eligibility investigator programme. He has investigated 545 cases - this will all be in Hansard - and there was insufficient evidence in 186. He says: "They were guilty but we couldn't catch them."

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, he didn't say that.

MR. SKELLY: No, he didn't say that exactly.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, then say what he said exactly.

MR. SKELLY: Okay, you said that in some cases these people were living with someone who had income but when your inspectors got there the person with income had evaporated and therefore you couldn't nail them.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I didn't say that either.

MR. SKELLY: Okay. Well, let's read Hansard on that one.

Settlements negotiated: 54. Now you recovered, I believe, from the negotiated settlements - is that true? - $22,171. The programme costs $176,000; 54 settlements were negotiated, out of which they recovered $22,717; 275 cases representing the real goods - the big money, according to the minister -still are outstanding. What I am asking is: how many people were actually taken through the court process

[ Page 2017 ]

and convicted of defrauding the government, and what amount of money is represented in those fraud convictions for fiscal 1976-1977 to date?

That hasn't been answered. That's the reason why the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has been asking the question - for the purposes of comparison. This type of question has been on the order paper every year, as far as I can recall. Just for the purposes of comparison and to give us an example of how this programme is so cost-effective compared to the regular police procedure, we would like the minister to tell us how many fraud convictions and what amount of money was defrauded from the government in those cases.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, my deputy and my comptroller advise me that there were no records kept prior to October, 1976, with respect to that because before the inspectors came into being it was only where a social worker went directly to the police. There was no record for that, but the records for that time that we've been in I have given you, and they will be in Hansard.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, one thing that the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) touched on was the minister's statement that so many people were taken to court, some were convicted, and some weren't convicted because of insufficient evidence. You know, in this country I think we call that innocence. If you go to court and the court cannot prove that you're guilty, in this country we call that innocence. The minister has left the feeling in the chamber that they were guilty but they weren't found guilty -there was insufficient evidence. That is innocence. How many innocent people went through our courts and for what reason?

The minister also said that someone will inform on somebody that maybe they're living with someone they shouldn't be living with, but when we got there some of them didn't bear up. The squealer was incorrect. The informer was incorrect. Is it enough evidence, Mr. Chairman, to go into somebody's private home and to check them out to see whether they should be living with that person because somebody down the block squealed? Were some of the people taken to court with insufficient evidence, which I suggest to you is innocence?

But let's get back to this other question. The minister applied to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) to set up police officers. The Attorney-General said no. Good for him. But he did it anyway. It would be like the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) applying to the Attorney-General to have the highway patrolmen pack sawed-off shotguns and wear revolvers, and the Attorney-General says no. Then we see an ad in the paper that says: "Patrolmen wanted. Must be experienced with sawed-off shotguns and revolvers." But they won't use them - right? The Minister of Human Resources applied to the Attorney-General for police officers. The Attorney-General said no. An ad appears in the paper, but you have to be a cop to get the job. That's what it says, basically - you have to be a cop to get the job. The Attorney-General said: "No cops." You hired them anyway. You just called them eligibility officers, or inspectors . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Address the Chair, please.

MR. LEA: . . . or whatever you call them. What we have here is something that the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) should really be concerned about, because we actually do have now, within government, a group of people who are trained to be cops. They are working with no particular terms of reference, going out investigating not only people on welfare, but also civil servants, There is actually at this point, in my opinion, a political police force working in this province. That's what we have. The Attorney-General said no. He did it anyway.

The minister hired those people, and then has the gall to come into this House and say that people who are not convicted because of insufficient evidence weren't really innocent. You're darned right they were innocent.

How'd they get into court? Some busybody down the street said, "I think they're living together up the street. What's happening up there? Oh, I'll tell that little inspector that there's a creepy thing going on down the block. They're not living morally down the block. How about getting your eligibility inspectors to go down there and check it out And so the eligibility inspector, otherwise known as a cop, goes down the street, knocks on the door, and says, "I'd like to check out your private affairs. Why? Because someone down the street said they didn't like you. Figure you're unsavory. Don't like the style of you. So we're here to check you out, and you'd better answer these questions. If we take you to court and you're innocent, we'll call it insufficient evidence." The Attorney-General was wise to stop it, but he'd be a lot wiser to stop this.

Yes, people who are committing fraud on the government should be checked and should be convicted if they're found guilty. But to have a bunch of people who are going around checking out rumors - neighbours squealing.... Then for the minister to say that those who are found innocent because there was just insufficient evidence, I think is a shame, Mr. Chairman. But I'll tell you one thing: the statements that the minister has made since he's been in office sure don't surprise me. It sure doesn't surprise me that he'd sic 'em after them all right. There's somebody out there whom we don't like in the Social Credit.

[ Page 2018 ]

MR. SKELLY: Possibly the minister has some answers to the questions.

Having worked in a prison for two years, I don't believe that everybody who goes to court and gets off.... As an employee of. a former Social Credit government, for the wages I got paid, it would probably be to my advantage to be on welfare; but at least you didn't have to put your life on the line until this government came to office, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. SKELLY: But that's not what I'm worried about. What I'm worried about is the cost effectiveness of the programme. The minister hasn't really answered the question as to how many convictions have been obtained this year. Maybe he doesn't know. If that's the case, he could get up and say so. It's not in Hansard. He hasn't answered the question: how many convictions have been obtained for defrauding the government through the Department of Human Resources' social-assistance programme? I suspect the answer is zero. Is the answer nothing? Nobody has gone to court and been convicted.

There have been some negotiated settlements. I can understand where situations like that would develop, where people who were desperate probably got involved in defrauding the government, and the amounts weren't substantial. In fact, as the minister states, it was $22,717. In other words, for every dollar obtained in a negotiated settlement, $8 was spent by the government to obtain that dollar recovery.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair. ]

Well, what kind of cost effectiveness is that? That's what we're asking for in this programme. What kind of cost effectiveness is it where you spend $8 on a welfare inspector programme for every $1 you recover. It's insanity to put these people through that kind of trial, to have confidential files investigated, and to go through this type of negotiation with an expert in criminology and investigation. For every $8 spent on this programme, you recover $1. That sounds like A plus B.

I'm simply asking the minister a question, Mr. Chairman. How many actual convictions have there been? How many people have been taken to court and found guilty of defrauding the government, and how much money was involved? It's a simple question. The minister probably has the answer at his fingertips, because he's concerned. He's always expressed his concern about welfare fraud. All we want to know is, how many convictions have been obtained and how much money was involved in those fraud cases.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would just like clarification of an answer the minister gave to me about trying to document the cases of fraud and the values involved. Last year I asked much the same question. The minister answered that in the previous year - that would be in 1975-1976 -- 142 people were charged with frauds totalling $235,842, and 67 were convicted of welfare fraud totalling $61,832. It was a written answer. The minister mentioned that the numbers represented charges which were laid as a result of only a few staff being available to investigate alleged fraud. Just a few moments ago, he said that prior to the inspector system he set up, there was nobody doing any checking into it at all. I'm puzzled.

In relation to his statement of last year - that there were a few staff available to investigate alleged fraud and they apparently uncovered the number I have just quoted - would the minister care to, perhaps, clarify his earlier answer? The earlier answer implied that there was nobody doing anything about investigation and only when this government employed these inspectors has anything started to happen. Even under the new circumstances, we have very limited statistics. Such statistics as we have suggest that it's a mighty expensive business. You put out far more money than the money you recover.

If that, in time, proves to be changeable - in other words, if the amount recovered can be increased - I think it's nevertheless the responsibility of the opposition to keep a very close eye on two things: the degree to which individual freedoms may or may not be seriously threatened by overenthusiastic investigators with or without police powers; and secondly, that we don't, as the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) says, perhaps finish up spending $8 for every $1 we recover.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Chairman, the statistics I gave last year, I must assume, were those for Surrey because the ministry had no investigators. So those must have been for Surrey or the Vancouver Resources Board.

But let me make it very clear: this is one area, one programme, where I hope business gets really bad. I'm hoping that we find very few cases of fraud, I'm hoping we find very few people guilty. The worse business gets, the better I like it, because that speaks good for us.

MR. SKELLY: That's one point where the Minister - of Human Resources and I agree, Mr. Chairman. But the minister did say that prior to this date no records were kept of convictions and investigations. Yet in the 1970 Journals of the House, Mr. Hall asked the Minister of Social Welfare at that time, P.A. Gaglardi, the following questions: "How many persons were formally charged in court during 1969, how many were convicted and what amount of

[ Page 2019 ]

money was involved?"

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: "What amount of money was involved?"

Sixty-three were charged; the total amount of money involved was $38,000. Forty-seven were convicted, the total amount of money involved $27,000.

In 1971 the Hon. Mr. Hall asked the same question for the year 1970: "How many people were charged?" There were 75. "How much money was involved It was $51,000. "How many people were convicted?" There were 56. "How much money was involved?" It was $34,340.15. A question tabled by the Minister of Human Resources in the House last year with the Clerk's office, June 30,1976: number of people charged - 142; amount of money involved - $235,842; number of convictions: - 67; amount involved - $61,832.

Even if this year we obtained the same conviction rate as last year, we'd still be paying $3 for every dollar we recovered by conviction. I'm simply asking the minister: how many convictions this year? You do keep records. The records have been available as far back as 1970. How many convictions this year under your $176,000 programme and what amount of money is involved? The question has been on the order paper since the second day of the session. You haven't answered it, and we'd like to hear what your answer is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 185 pass?

MR. SKELLY: I believe the minister intends to answer the question, Mr. Chairman. In any case, those figures are available. I believe that very few fraud convictions have been obtained, and the programme is not that cost effective. In fact, it's wasting the money of the people of this province. Putting people on social assistance to . . . an incursion into their right of privacy, which they have very little of under the present social-assistance programme.

I believe we have adequate police forces in this province that the department can summon at any time to their assistance. Yet we're hiring an additional $176,000 worth of people to duplicate police forces that already exist in the province to go through confidential files of the department and to harass people who are on social assistance. That's the policy of this minister.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to bring to the House's attention that, along with the PREP programme, this is another programme in which the Minister of Human Resources is spending a lot of money, and a programme that's failing.

What we're trying to establish over here in the opposition is that this minister is a burden on the taxpayers of this province.

Vote 185 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 24

NAYS 18

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr, Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

[ Page 2020 ]

APPENDIX

87 Mrs. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Recreation and Conservation the following questions:

Relative to Tent Island-

1. What were the terms of lease, which expired last year, to use this island as a marine park?

2. Were the owners of the island prepared to renew the lease?

3. If the answer to No. 2 is yes, (a) what were the proposed terms, (b) were any counter offers made, and (c) if the answer to (b) is yes, what were those counter offers?

4.1 Is this island presently under consideration as a future marine park?

The Hon. Sam Bawlf replied as follows:

"I. There was no lease in 1976. This situation was brought about by the insistence of the Federal Government for a clause to indemnify the Crown Federal for any fire damage, and to protect them from any action for damages resulting from negligence.

"The last previous lease expired March 31,1975. This was for a yearly rental of $2,000. On June 23,1976, the same rental was paid, without a lease, for the period April 1,1975, to March 31,1976, by treasury cheque 3639776.

"2. Yes.

"3. The rental remains the same. The disputed clause has been reworded, and the Crown Federal assumes all responsibility for the standing timber. The new lease is now being drafted for execution. There were no counter offers.

"4. No."