[ Page 2021 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Human Resources estimates.

On vote 186. Mrs. Dailly –– 2030

Mr. Kahl –– 2021 Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2030

Ms. Brown –– 2021 Mr. Cocke –– 2030

On vote 187. Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2031

Mr. Lockstead –– 2022 Mr. Wallace –– 2032

Ms. Brown –– 2023 Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2033

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2023 Mr. Skelly –– 2033

Mr. Nicolson –– 2023 Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2034

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2023 Mr. Barnes –– 2034

Mr. Barnes –– 2023 Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2034

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2023 Mr. Wallace –– 2036

Ms. Brown –– 2024 Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2036

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2024 On vote 190.

Mr. Nicolson –– 2025 Ms. Brown –– 2037

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2025 Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2037

On vote 188. Mr. Wallace –– 2037

Mr. Nicolson –– 2025 Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2038

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2025 On vote 19 1.

Mr. Wallace –– 2026 Mr. Wallace –– 2039

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2027 Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2039

On vote 189. On vote 193.

Mr. Kerster –– 2028 Mr. King –– 2039

Ms. Brown –– 2028 Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2039

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2029 On vote 194.

Ms. Sanford –– 2029 Mr. King –– 2039

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2030 Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2039

Ms. Brown –– 2040

Ministry of the Provincial Secretary estimates.

On vote 19. Mr. Wallace –– 2040

Mrs. Dailly –– 2040 Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2041

Mr. Skelly –– 2040 Mr. Skelly –– 2043

Presenting reports

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills first, second, and third reports. Mr. Mussallem –– 2044

The House met at 8 p.m.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: Under standing order 12, 1 have to inform hon. members of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES:

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 186: services for families and children, $60,273, 365.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): I won't be long. I knew the opposition would appreciate that. They always do. So I thought I would give them something tonight, anyway.

I want to talk briefly about the family and the preventive programme at the Pacific Centre for Human Development in my constituency. I want to talk about it because it was a problem tinder the former administration. There was a lack of funding for it and cutbacks. Under the present minister, however, it was funded properly and it functions extremely well.

I want to talk about it because I mentioned the family in a speech earlier in the House. I want to emphasize the importance of preventive work in the communities that we must do for the family. And if we look at it in terms of dollars, money can be saved with our young people by their not ending up with expensive residential treatment services later on in life.

Now the Pacific Centre is a good model because it has a group of counsellors who co–ordinate the activities between the Department of Human Resources, the schools, the Department of Health and the RCMP. They all work very closely together. This centre does mostly field work. Counsellors work in the schools where teachers and principals assist them in identifying problem children. They also take referrals from the ministries of Human Resources and Health, and it is with those people that the bulk of their time is spent. I want to point out to the members of the House that this is an excellent programme.

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

MR. KAHL: It's one that the community holds in very high regard and it's one that has done a very good job. The crime rate in the Colwood–Langford area decreased for the first time in many years. Indeed, it's one of the few places that has grown very rapidly and one of the few places in the province where the crime rate actually decreased this year. I think that's something that the minister should take a close look at and see if that type of programme couldn't be instituted in other parts of the province. Indeed, I would like to see it expanded upon in my own constituency to take in not only the western community sector but also the township of Esquimalt area.

Mr. Chairman, I only want to say that I am very pleased, as are the citizens in my community, with the funding that's received from the Ministry of Human Resources for that facility. I'll take this opportunity to thank the minister for that.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver–Burrard): Mr. Chairman, the government is in the process of drafting legislation dealing with juvenile containment. What this legislation says that's going to be dropped on the floor of this House in the near future is that the government is going to have

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member. It is not permissible in committee to comment on proposed legislation. Let's deal with the vote.

MS. BROWN: I'm in the opposition. What do I know about proposed legislation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it is not permissible to comment on items that require legislation. Comment on vote 186.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I am talking on vote 186 ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Fine. Continue, please.

MS. BROWN: ... to show you where the government is putting its money rather than where it should be putting its money.

Mr. Chairman, the government is in the process of drafting legislation to deal with juvenile offenders. It's putting its money at the end as a result of withdrawing its money at the beginning. It's planning to have 30 secure bed facilities for juveniles. It's talking about building forest camps in Lakeview and in Chilliwack in December and October of this year. It's talking about developing 30 beds in ranches in the years 1978 and 1979. That's where the government is putting its money, Mr. Chairman, and withdrawing $5 million from services to children. I'm saying to you that this is pretty short–term; this is a very short–sighted way. Here the Minister of Human

[ Page 2022 ]

Resources is withdrawing $5 million from services to children, and as a result of that decision, Mr. Chairman, they're ending up having to introduce legislation dealing with juvenile containment.

It's not my fault that I know what the government is going to do, Mr. Chairman; it's the government's fault. Here we have all these programmes dealing with children and learning problems, the adoption programme, the child protection programme – all of these are being cut by five million real dollars. But if we look at it in terms of the 8 per cent inflationary factor, we find in fact this minister is saving $10 million in services to children in his department. The Attorney–General's department is going to end up with the juveniles. They're anticipating that these children are going to need juvenile containment, and now they are in the process of talking about building forest camps and ranches, Mr. Chairman, for juveniles who turn out, over the age of 14, to be a danger to the public or to be unsuitable for other resources. It's very short–sighted.

This is the third time today that I'm pointing out, Mr. Chairman, the way in which this minister is a burden on the taxpayers of this province: first, with his ridiculous PREP programme; then with his ridiculous fraud programme; and now with his penalizing of the young children in this province who need assistance, saving $10 million by withholding services to them that in the final analysis is forcing the government to go into the business of building forest camps and ranches to deal with juvenile delinquents. We wouldn't have juvenile delinquents if the minister wasn't so short–sighted, cutting out funding to things like the contract–treatment programme, the foster–home programme, and other kinds of programmes like this.

MR. D. BARRETT (Vancouver–East): You'll be keeping them at the Empress Hotel.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, this is also the vote that deals with child–care facilities. The minister says he is so pleased that they have raised the supplement to people needing child–care facilities, which is ridiculous. In fact, what he has done is to create a hardship on people who need the child–care subsidy.

We find in Vancouver, when we look at the statistics, that the vacancies in the child–care facilities are all occurring on the east side. The areas of the city where the subsidy was really needed, such as in Grandview/Woodland, in Hastings/Sunrise and in Downtown Eastside are where we are finding that the day–care centres have vacancies. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that came out in this conference on violence in the family was that the child–abuse centres and various other social service centres, in the instance of child abuse, used to use the day–care centres as a means of separating the child from an abusing parent, just to give them an opportunity to be away from each other. Now, as a result of the changes made by this minister in terms of his subsidy, this option is no longer open to them. Not only is he not prepared to support the child abuse centre, but by tampering with the subsidy programme he's wiping out an alternative that the child abuse centre used to use. They used to use these day–care centres. That was one place where they would put the abused child, maybe for a couple of hours each day or three or four hours, as the case may be, to give the abusing parent an opportunity to reintegrate himself or herself and to work the problem through. As a result of this minister's policy, this option is no longer open to them. What we find that government doing instead is d rafting legislation to deal with juvenile containment. They're talking about 30–bed facilities; 10 beds in Victoria and 10 beds in Vancouver, working up to a maximum of 30 beds. They're talking about building forest camps in Lakeview and in the Chilliwack area; about building ranches for juveniles over the age of 14 who are a danger to the public. At the same time, they're withholding $10 million from services to children.

Vote 186 approved.

On vote 187: services for seniors and handicapped, $167,023, 863.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): I'll be brief, but I waited to speak under this vote because, like most other members in this House, I am receiving a great deal of mail from the senior citizens of this province and in my riding; from the poor and the handicapped; and from people who are disadvantaged. I am going to read into the record a letter which was sent to me March 9 and received March 14 of this year. The letter goes like this: "Dear Don:

"I would like to know why, since Mincome has been changed to GAIN, I and others do not receive any raises for the cost–of–living increases, which we did every three months previously under Mincome. Cost of living and rents haven't stood still. They are steadily rising and we are being left behind with the same pension cheque as we received eight months ago. I receive a small pension from England which, at the present time, gives me $30 per month. I have made inquiries of our local Human Resources office and they tell me they know nothing about it or the shelter programme, when I asked.

"On one occasion last year, when I had an appointment at the Human Resources office, I was asked if I had any valuable jewellery. All I have is my wedding ring and my engagement

[ Page 2023 ]

ring. What has that got to do with GAIN? If I had had, I am wondering if they were going to tell me to sell same, as that was the impression I got.

"it doesn't take a good education to make me realize the difference in the very small estate of the couple of hundred dollars I can leave, to the thousands and thousands left by the wealthy, tax free. Am 1, a poor widow, helping to pay for them?"

Well, Mr. Chairman, this writer poses three questions. I just received this correspondence the other day and I want the House to understand that I am not casting any reflection upon the people in that department. They have to work with a minister who himself is handicapped. So it makes it very difficult for them. But I am going to ask the minister if one of the pages would be good enough to take this correspondence to the minister, to reply to this person who wrote to me and to send me a copy of that correspondence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I don't think this vote should pass without drawing to the attention of the House that this is a vote under which the minister has been ripping off the senior citizens and the handicapped people of this province. It is a shame. It is a shame, in fact, that the vote is down by $20 million, which, again, if we include the inflationary factor, indicates a loss of $35,327, 779. This is the vote under which the. homemakers service programme is run and the senior citizens are being penalized under it.

But this is a vote, too, under which an interesting regulation occurs. In assessing the assets of a person for eligibility under this vote, one of the things that the policy manual states is that the family home, partially or wholly owned and lived in by an applicant, should not be included in terms of assessing that person's assets. Right? Okay.

In fact some interesting things are happening to senior citizens, because with a number of these senior citizen couples the family home is in the name of only one spouse. Now when the spouse becomes ill and has to go into extended care, and is no longer living in the family home, then that family home is no longer exempt in terms of assessing their assets. The spouse who is left at home finds that he or she has to sell the home because the home is no longer eligible for asset exemption. I have the regulations right here in front of me.

Mr. Chairman, there was one case of an old gentleman who was living with his spinster daughter. The home is in his name, but that's the only home that she has. He has to go into extended care and she has been told by the Human Resources department that the home is part of his assets now because he's no longer living there, so it has to be sold. The other instance is the case of a couple where the home is in the name of the male spouse and he has to go into extended care. This woman, at age 84, is finding that the family home has to be sold because, since he's no longer living in the home, it's no longer exempt from the assets thing. I wonder whether the minister would like to make some kind of indication as to whether he's prepared to take this into account or not.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Well, Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the member bringing this to my attention. I have not heard of any such thing happening, but I'm certainly under the impression that such interpretation could be placed on the regulations. To prevent it from happening I will assure the member that we will immediately look at it to assure that there's a change provided to make certain this doesn't happen.

MS. BROWN: May I have the minister's permission, then, to contact both of these families and ask – because it's in the Vancouver area – the Human Resources director there to suspend their decision until after they've been in touch with you?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: If the hon. member – and I think this might be better – would give me the names, my deputy could contact them immediately, or they could contact the office in Vancouver, so there's no hardship or worry on the part of those people.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson–Creston): Mr. Chairman, one thing I'd like briefly to bring to the minister's attention in this matter is that persons who were receiving Mincome when the new regulations under GAIN came in – I believe these people fell in the category between ages 60 and 65 – were disqualified from getting GAIN because of the fact that they had an outboard motorboat. They live at Riondel and have retired there. This has been brought to my attention. It was looked upon as a liquefiable asset, I imagine. I would like to know if it was really the intention, or if it's really the interpretation of the regulations that people should have to dispose of such an asset.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, again I thank this hon. member for bringing that to my attention. If given the name, I assure the member it'll be checked through immediately because that should be an exempted article.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): I hope you don't rule me out of order on this, but quite possibly you may do.

[ Page 2024 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Not unless you are, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: Well, I would have perhaps brought part of it up under an earlier vote but, in any event, it does deal in part with a programme related to handicapped. It's a question that I raised last session, I believe.

There is a programme at 444 Dunsmuir called the Handicapped Opportunities Programme. Apparently this is a solicitation by telephone, and one of the requirements for the job is that they be handicapped. Now the question that I'm asking is: could you tell me if this is a programme that is endorsed. by the Department of Human Resources? If so, what are the criteria used to determine the extent of handicap, or is that a factor?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, no, we're not involved with that particular programme. I myself have been called to buy light bulbs. Is that what you're referring to? No, we're not involved with that and we're certainly not sponsoring that programme.

MR. BARNES: Would you say then, Mr. Chairman, that the PREP programme has made no referrals of any handicapped persons to this particular organization for work?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member may have a good point there. I'm not aware of that, but certainly I imagine if they had vacancies a handicapped person might well have been referred there, if that's what they were seeking.

I know that I've been questioned about the programme, not only in the House but out of the House, by people perhaps who were contacted and who were of the opinion that because handicapped were mentioned, or brought forth in the sales presentation, it was as if they were using their involvement with the handicapped for the promotion of their product. If the hon. member can give me more specifics I will check it out with my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) , and certainly, once proven, we would move in to discontinue such a practice.

MR. BARNES: I appreciate the minister's interest and willingness to follow the matter further, and I don't wish to prolong the matter. I do think, though, that he should be aware that that particular programme has been criticized as being highly exploitive of people's misfortune in terms of their physical condition. In fact many of the sales persons have not been handicapped but have represented themselves as having been handicapped in making their sales pitch. That is a high–pressure, commercialized programme. I would hope that the minister would not permit any of our clients or the clients from the Department of Human Resources to involve themselves in such a degrading programme.

MS. BROWN: Just one final question to the minister, Mr. Chairman, about the homemaker service: is the minister ready to make some kind of statement about any changes in the criteria? We brought up over the past couple of days a number of senior citizens who were suffering under a hardship as a result of your new circular letter about who would be eligible and who wouldn't be eligible for subsidy under the homemaker programme. Would you like to make some kind of adjustment to that decision?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Chairman, we have provided approximately a 50 per cent increase in the moneys to be expended in the homemaker programme during this fiscal year. Much of it, of course, will be directed toward assisting the handicapped in that we're now moving toward or have changed the regulations to assure that the income of a handicapped person is not considered in the determination of the need or in following out the normal needs test. But we're hoping that we can finalize negotiations before perhaps the middle of the year to assure that the service will be more liberally applied to the aged as well so that it's available on a more liberal basis to the seniors.

MS. BROWN: Is the minister willing to say that the status quo should exist? In other words, the new letter should be ignored until you have worked out this new criterion. In the meantime, it really is a hardship on a number of the senior citizens.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Chairman, we've given clear instructions to all of the offices. If there is any information that comes to my office to the contrary, I would like to hear from any member of the House to assure that there is no hardship. Now mind you, hardship may be a measure, and I agree with the hon. member that when you are in that income category, undoubtedly anything is a hardship because you're going to have to do without something to obtain the service. But we will assure that there is no direct hardship to the recipients. We are dealing with approximately, as I stated yesterday, 100 to 150 GAIN for seniors/Mincome recipients. The new programme will go into effect for the handicapped on July 1, and we're hoping that the changes for the seniors might come about then as well.

MS. BROWN: Why don't you just freeze it until then?

[ Page 2025 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'll answer the question, Mr. Chairman. The question was: "Why isn't it frozen until then?" Perhaps that is in effect what's happening indirectly, in that we're assessing each and every one individually. If there is a known hardship, I would certainly want to hear about it first hand.

MR. NICOLSON: Just one other question. I would like to have some knowledge from the minister as to when he intends to make public the report on intermediate care headed by Larsen and Bristow. The minister would perhaps comment on that.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Chairman, that report is held by my colleague, the hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) . I think the time to raise it would be under his estimates. He's the one who has that particular report.

Vote 187 approved.

On vote 188: health services, $37,100, 000

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister under this vote the criteria for establishing which people on the GAIN programme, particularly over age 60, qualify for full medical coverage – that is, for continuous medical coverage under the programme. Yes, I see it says vote 188 claims that it provides coverage of the health needs of all recipients of social allowance GAIN for senior citizens, GAIN for the handicapped and children in care.

Specifically, I have here a letter in which an 82–year–old woman has been denied continuous medical coverage. It is a letter of February 16,1977.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I overhear the hon. member for Coquitlam saying we all get such letters. Well, that's what I would like to bring about – a stop to such letters from people.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): All you ever do is read letters.

MR. NICOLSON: That's why we bring it to the attention of the minister during estimates. I would hope that those members, after two years in this House, Mr. Chairman, would also learn that it's their duty to get up and bring these points to the attention of the minister.

This particular letter is for an 82–year–old lady. She's on her own, Mr. Chairman. The letter says:

"Your request for continuous medical coverage has been revised. However, we are unable to issue coverage for an indefinite period of time. We can only consider emergency medical expenses."

She has had occasion to go into hospital. She has had to pay $4 a day. I understand she also has to pay some level of medical premiums. If this lady would have had to take an emergency flight – not yet having the new programmes of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) in place – to Vancouver for some medical reason, she, also, would not be covered. But more than just this specific case of this 82–year–old, I would like to know how this affects people between the ages of 60 and 65 as well.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, with respect to health benefits – and this is not a change; this is, as I recall, how it has been for a good many years – the eligibility is: (a) recipients of handicapped allowance; (b) unemployable persons under 60 years of age –that is unemployable persons in receipt of income assistance; (c) children in care of the superintendent of child welfare or in the home of relatives who receive assistance on their behalf.

An 82–year–old person may be eligible, and may not be eligible; it depends. The health benefits are not applied – or the eligibility is not applied – on the basis of age, but on the basis of need. Again, age may not be a determining factor. If you're an 82–year–old person and you're....

MR. NICOLSON: On GAIN. Receiving GAIN.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, when you're over 65, if you have no income but you could ha–~e any amount of assets, you would still be eligible for income assistance or for GAIN for seniors. It's the assets that determine the eligibility there, and that's not a change. But I would like the particulars again on that letter you have. I'll promise to follow through and get you an answer very quickly.

MR. NICOLSON: You know, let's not worry about how it was when we were government and now that you're government. Now we're members in this House. I would like to bring something to the attention of the minister. It appears that the policy, as I have been able to determine it, is that if a person was getting income assistance from age 50 to age 59, and then goes on GAIN, he has qualified to get full medical coverage, and that continues when they get into GAIN at, say, age 60. It continues at age 65, when they go up to the other higher level.

We have some people then, in the age category, say, 60 to 64, who are getting this full continuous medical coverage and are getting $265 a month through the minister's department. We have others with full medical coverage because they were receiving normal welfare before. We also have other

[ Page 2026 ]

people who are perhaps retired or, for some reason, can no longer get employment. They go onto the programme at, say, age 63. They do not automatically get that same coverage.

I would like to bring to the minister's attention that this is, to my mind, an anomaly. People might have assets, but it is really their income that causes this concern. With an 82–year–old woman: in this person's case, she went to hospital for a little bit more than a week, and that's quite a few dollars out of that monthly amount of money that she does live on. She happens to still live in her own home.

So there are these different categories that I have tried to bring to the minister's attention. It is not a completely rational system to my way of thinking. I will bring this particular case to the minister's attention, but I would like the minister to give an undertaking to review the manner in which people qualify for full medical coverage. They only get on GAIN between ages 60 and 64 on the basis of assets as well as income. So there is no distinction in that category. But people who have been on the welfare programme and go into that, as opposed to people who come into the programme at, say, age 62 or 64 for the first time, are not getting it. So we have haves and have–notes on what should be the very same programme.

MR. KERSTER: I stand on a point of order. I want to correct a statement that was misconstrued by the member for Nelson–Creston (Mr. Nicolson) , who said that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order, hon. member, but you may make a correction.

MR. KERSTER: It's a point of privilege. As a point of privilege, I would like to correct the member for Nelson–Creston who said that I made the statement; "We all get such letters." I said that we all get letters, not "such" letters. I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that he spends his time reading these letters on the floor of the House and I spend my time reacting to them positively.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order, hon. member, nor a privilege.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I feel that this particular vote deserves mention because it includes the Pharmacare programme. There are few issues this session over which I'm receiving more mail than the concern being expressed by senior citizens over Pharmacare. I think it would not be wasting the time just to read a paragraph of a typical letter that I got today, and I've got many like this.

"I am myself one of the very many just–getting–by pensioners most concerned. I have to obtain approximately four different prescriptions more or less monthly, let alone one prescription filled a year, in order to cope with varying states of bodily ill health. There must be many more worse cases, such as diabetics and the chronically ill. The cost to me and so many like me would be prohibitive, apart from further fuelling inflation and the cost of living, not to mention the increased, bureaucracy, red tape and paperwork involved for all concerned.

"Another thing we could not deal with is the actual payment at the time of a prescription or prescriptions, as so many people, including myself, would just not have the necessary amount of cash or credit available.

"I do not think I am being overly dramatic when I say that the outlined pay–a–portion scheme, if implemented, would condemn many pensioners to increased illness or even death rather than allowing the pioneers of this province to live their lives in comparative tranquility."

I raised this issue yesterday, Mr. Chairman. We have had a general statement in the throne speech about the Pharmacare programme. I've made inquiries of various people who know exactly what is going on in the Pharmacare programme and they tell me that the figure in vote 188 of $25.9 million wouldn't even fund the existing programme next year. When we know that the programme is to be expanded as to the number of people covered, we can only come to one conclusion: there is going to be a deductible.

I think there are two very important points at issue here. One is the almost certain increase in costs to elderly citizens who are presently receiving prescriptions free. The letter I have quoted from very briefly is a very accurate and reasonable evaluation by that gentleman who happens to live in Vancouver.

We've said so many times in this debate that the senior citizens have the toughest job of anyone trying to cope with the increasing cost of living. As I mentioned in the debate yesterday, Mr. Chairman, citizens over 65, on the average, require something around four times as many prescriptions as the citizen under 65. To them, these prescriptions, if not a matter of life and death, are certainly a crucial factor in the relative comfort within which they live – their mobility, their relief of pain, their ability to get a good night's sleep, or relief of a whole host of complaints to which all of us in this chamber become more and more susceptible as the years go by and we approach the rather arbitrary but magic age of 65.

1 think that is the most serious consequence of this vote, which just does not financially meet the needs which will be placed on it by the minister's expansion of the programme. Therefore the people over 65 are writing to me, and I'm sure they're writing to every

[ Page 2027 ]

member of this House, stating that while $25 or $50 or $75 might not be a lot of money to the people sitting in this chamber, it certainly makes a dramatic difference to the citizens over 65 if they have to pay the first $25, the first $50 or the first $75 of their drug bill per year. Not only that, it means that they have to put out the cash in the first place before they can reach a certain point of expenditure, at which time they can then claim X per cent of the remaining cost.

If this minister, as he says he does, feels concern for people who are less privileged than those of us sitting around this chamber, I say with the strongest conviction I can muster: first of all, tell the people of British Columbia tonight what the score is on Pharmacare, because you know. Don't give me this stuff that we got yesterday that it hasn't been decided. It's been decided. In fact, I have reason to believe that it was decided in principle some considerable time ago.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): He wants to get his estimates over.

MR. WALLACE: The hardship that will be imposed on senior citizens over 65 by a deductible programme is just, in my view, quite unfair in the total context of this debate and in the context of all the other rising costs on essential items of expenditure which senior citizens have to face. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the minister should tell us tonight, at least in basic principles, what this $25.9 million is all about. How will that meet the proposals which he knows are already pretty close to finalization as to the new criteria in the Pharmacare programme?

I think it was Mr. Chartier from Manitoba who somewhat let the cat out of the bag after the throne speech because he, I think, was under the impression that the details of our proposed B.C. programme were revealed at the time of the throne speech. In Manitoba, I understand, the patient pays the first $50 and then receives 80 per cent of any expenditures over $50. 1 think that this minister knows tonight, within a few dollars, what the programme will provide in British Columbia. Is it $50 deductible, or $25, or $75, and what percentage of the remainder will be rebated to the consumer?

The senior citizens are very concerned. Although I am not an active practitioner of medicine nowadays, I know that the senior citizens really worry about, first of all, the many problems that they face health wise –arthritic problems, heart problems, respiratory problems, emotional problems. We can all stand here and be very self–righteous and say that doctors should prescribe fewer drugs, and I know we should. I accept that. But if there's one group in society that gets more solace and help out of the judicious prescribing of medications, it's our senior citizens. This is for the very reasons I've mentioned – their mobility, their peace of mind, pain, sleep, many of the things, Mr. Chairman, that you and I take for granted. We go home at night and we put our heads back, because we've been bored to death for hours by the procedure in this chamber, and we go to sleep very easily. In fact, most of us sleep here sometimes during the day.

Mr. Chairman, I know I'm being a little facetious when I say that, but I'm very serious about this particular item. This, perhaps out of all the items in the total budget that we are debating this session, represents an area which is of great human need and which affects a segment of our society who simply have no collective bargaining clout for themselves. They depend entirely on that minister for the degree to which they are going to be helped in receiving a service which those of us in good health and mobility find difficult to appreciate.

I just appeal to the minister either to tell us tonight what this programme means in terms of this $25,998, 000, or maybe better still, even at this eleventh hour, perhaps to go back and rediscuss the original concept with cabinet, or with his advisers. I sincerely believe that the minister would be doing perhaps the greatest service this session that he could do to any group, or to society as a whole, by taking another look at what obviously is a programme which, even with the best of intentions to the rest of society, is going to inflict some very substantial hardship on our citizens over 65.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Chairman, I perhaps am aware as much if not more than anyone else here of the tremendous impact any change in this particular programme could bring to all of the groups affected. One of the groups affected obviously will be the government, because we're a party to bringing about whatever changes will be introduced.

As a matter of fact, I'll confess here that I thought the programme was sufficiently finalized about a month ago, so we could have announced it then. Every month that we delay the introduction of it causes some differences in what's been provided for whatever programme adopted.

I've had many presentations. We've had very thorough meetings with the professional people – the medical profession, the pharmacists. 1, too, have received many letters, phone calls, delegations at my office, on the telephone at home and here, and by way of letter. We've taken it back a number of times. We certainly wish to devise a change which will be acceptable to the majority of British Columbians. The last thing that I want to see done is to have us introduce a programme which may be condemned by the citizens of B.C.

So we still have an open mind, despite what the member just said or assumed in what he said. We still have an open mind and, frankly, I have not yet

[ Page 2028 ]

finalized the programme to the degree where I can take it to cabinet.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, that's the best news I've heard in a long time. I want to thank the minister for frankly telling the House that the programme is not at all finalized. It's obvious that some of the information I've tried to acquire by my own research is in error. All I want to say very briefly is that regardless of the minister's good intentions to satisfy the citizens of British Columbia, I would think that the theme I want to re–emphasize is very acceptable to the minister: that society has got to the point of having various universal programmes where the government – whether it's federal, provincial or whatever – too often ends up helping people who don't need help and not giving enough help to those who really do need it.

Frankly – and this statistic I can substantiate –persons in society under 65 use about one–fifth of the total prescriptions. The other approximate four–fifths is used by people over 65, and for good reason. It gets us back to this whole issue of the nursing homes and the number of elderly citizens who do need two or three or four prescriptions per month. Some, like most of us in this chamber, probably use one prescription every six months.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I accept the interjection that too often doctors over–prescribe. We've still got to work at that. But just because we have to correct the errors of some professionals doesn't mean we should turn our backs on a tremendous service that's provided an exceptionally highly appreciated service for the people over 65. If the minister is still open to ideas, I make this plea to him tonight: if there's one area where he could really sustain the most worthwhile kind of help to the elderly people who are trying to fight rising costs and who are faced with rent increases, increases in the price of food, increases in clothing, increases in travelling costs and television rentals per month, and just about anything that brings them a little bit of pleasure.... I'm not even talking about pleasure. I'm talking about essentials –things as essential as sleep and peace of mind and comfort and freedom from pain. In these terms, surely the least this government can do this time around – even if it's for review a year from now – is give the citizens over 65 free prescription drugs.

Vote 188 approved.

On vote 189: community programmes, $30,793, 471.

MR. KERSTER: Mr. Chairman, I've spoken very briefly on funding for the Conference on the Family. I've put forward my reasons for concern that united families can only be of a great advantage to this province. I put those proposals forward to the minister and he has listened. My reason for entering this debate tonight is not to be negative, but to be positive. I believe that the minister is considering restructuring and funding the Conference on the Family as a form of preventive medicine, administered properly, to work towards family unity and understanding. I believe honestly that the result can only be better communication and understanding and education within families. This education and understanding within families, hopefully, will prevent many of the broken–family and juvenile–related problems that we all face in society today.

I feel the minister must agree that family unity can definitely be benefited by the continued funding of the Conference on the Family, even though the programme maybe should be restructured or redirected as long as the goals are positive and lead to positive end results.

MS. BROWN: First of all, I am sorry I forgot earlier to mention how sorry I was to hear that the Speaker is unavoidably absent from the chair. I hope it's not catching, whatever it is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your concern, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, this is the $2 million deducted from this vote that is resulting in the cutback of all the kinds of services that we've been talking about for the past few days. I listed 50 of these services yesterday that were going to have their funding either cut back or terminated as a result of the minister's decision to eliminate $2 million from this vote.

I am surprised that the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Schroeder) is not speaking on funding for the Conference on the Family, because I received a newspaper clipping from his riding in which he gave his assurances to his constituents that he would be continuing the battle with the Minister of Human Resources on behalf of funding for the Conference on the Family. But all of the programmes we raised –rape–relief centres, transition houses, child–abuse centres – are going to go down the drain or have their funding curtailed as a result of the minister's decision to cut $2 million off the community grants programme. It is going from $9 million down to $7 million. Again, if we add that 8 per cent inflationary figure, we find that the loss is really much greater than that.

The thing I really want to ask the minister to do under this vote is to stand up and tell us, once and for all, what is going to happen

[ Page 2029 ]

to the Vancouver Resources Board. Mr. Chairman, if the minister is listening, what is going to happen to the Vancouver Resources Board?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First, I wish to assure the member that while perhaps there might be more in the vote than what is presently provided for community programmes or community grants, there will be no less than what was expended during the last fiscal year.

MS. BROWN: Eight per cent inflation.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We did budget for more than what was expended in that particular vote, I assure you. That was partially because we developed a more stringent set of criteria as to who would be eligible and which organizations would not be. We have also established an auditing procedure since then, and some of these organizations may not qualify because of that. I have looked at the list you gave me yesterday, hon. member, from the Vancouver Resources Board and I can't understand why you are saying that these have been discontinued from funding when only last night the Vancouver Resources Board was meeting to consider these grants.

MS. BROWN: What grants?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I can't give you the particulars on each one, but I can see a good number on the list that I have heard mentioned during discussions with Vancouver people that I think would certainly not only meet all of the criteria but would be funded because they have been delivering a good service.

You mentioned one yesterday – Family Place. I have had a lot of correspondence regarding Family Place. I imagine it's partially due to the fact that the audit members discovered that Family Place.... I am sure this is known to the people involved with Family Place, although no decision has been made to my knowledge with respect to Family Place. It became known that the people involved in Family Place were from an area which attracted to the particular service provided – and I am not saying they should not be entitled to this service or should not be receiving the service – people from an area and people from families with incomes up to $20,000 and they could well afford to contribute towards such a service collectively. They were not the same type of people you made reference to earlier in Vancouver East, Grandview and these areas where we think the need is much greater. So it does become a matter of priorities.

Yes, some of the people who can afford it, who are participating in services provided by agencies –and the services are good; we're not knocking that –may be, , and probably will be, asked to contribute, because it's within their means to do so. Naturally, it may mean that they won't have the money to spend on something else. But it's not as important there as what it might be in Vancouver East or in Grandview where the needs are greater. So priorities do play a very great role in the consideration of these.

The Vancouver Resources Board. I know the question has been posed time and time again. I don't think you'd like me to say no. I'm not in the position to say yes or no at this time. I've said consistently that the programme was being reviewed and that a decision would be made. It's a matter of policy, of course, but it's something which will be decided reasonably soon. I will be discussing it with the chairman and the members prior to making a decision and prior to bringing it to the public on the floor of the House.

The other question, I think, was posed by the hon. member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) with respect to the family conference. Yes, I had a very good meeting yesterday with the group. I think we arrived at a reasonable consensus. It was agreed that Canon Hilary Butler would put forth his understanding of the consensus reached, and I would put forth my understanding of the consensus reached, and we would compare notes tomorrow. I was to do this all tonight. Unfortunately I won't be able to do it tonight, so I'm hoping I might, before tomorrow morning, get a message to Canon Hilary Butler to delay it for a day or two until I get the opportunity to sit down and work at it.

MS. SANFORD: I'd like to return to a question that I posed to the minister yesterday or the day before, and point out to him that I was quite surprised, and quite frankly alarmed, at the answer that he gave. This relates to a proposal put in by the women in Campbell River for seed money for a transition house in Campbell River. They have very carefully documented the need. They have letters of support from all over the community. They have indicated how the home would operate. They've set up the entire guidelines. They have gone to doctors in the area to find out the need for the transition house in Campbell River, and find the doctors are saying they get as many as three females a week in that community who come to their attention because of battering in the Campbell River area.

Now the need has been amply demonstrated. The proposal was made to the minister last year – before Christmas of last year. The minister said yesterday, Mr. Chairman, that he had not yet seen it. I am hoping that he's had an opportunity since then to discuss this with....

[ Page 2030 ]

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Well, what happens in that department, Mr. Minister? How many months does it take for you to get to a proposal such as this one? This is before Christmas that this was made.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that in spite of the fact that he has not seen the proposal in the department, because of the assurances given in this proposal – the need is very carefully documented – and because he has said seed money will be available if the need is proven, he will get up tonight and say yes, seed money will be provided for a transition house in Campbell River.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, the same question was asked by the hon. member yesterday, and I said then that I could not recall receiving that request. Unfortunately there's been no time between yesterday and today to check it out. I will follow it through and I will certainly advise the member as to what happened and why. But in effect, all of these grant applications are first dealt with at the regional level. We receive the recommendation from the regional director and on the basis of that recommendation and all the data provided as to the ability of the proponents to carry forth their proposal, we will move or we will take action.

I will again assure the member that when I get through with my estimates I will immediately find out where it is and what's happened to it, or why, and I'll respond to the member. If she's not satisfied then, I'll gladly sit down in the office and talk about it further.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I realize that the minister, as he was pointing out earlier, has to work on priorities. I would just like to ask him in which priority he places the prevention of teenage delinquency and services which assist in that area. I know that he can't be expected to know of all the programmes that go on throughout the province, but I believe his deputies would perhaps be aware, if he's not, of the Youth Services Division of Burnaby, Mr. Chairman. The Youth Services Division of Burnaby formerly, before the Human Resources department took over from the municipality of Burnaby, did receive funding from the provincial government.

Now this division, Mr. Chairman, has done a tremendous amount of excellent work, as I'm sure our chairman knows, for the young people of Burnaby, particularly those who have had problems with shoplifting. They actually have been able to bring about considerable rehabilitation of these young people. Now the financing from the provincial government has ceased, and I simply want to ask the minister if he could give us the present status of this. Is it completely a no–no assistance from the provincial government? Are you considering giving some financing again? It is a very vital programme.

It's called the Youth Services Division, and there was formerly a grant from the government. I wonder if the minister, if he's not aware of it, could look into it. You have mail from Burnaby on it. If you would perhaps do a study of it and check on it I think you would find out it's a most valuable service, and it does need some help from the provincial government.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, we do have here a very long list of organizations that are funded, and they are youth programmes. They're funded by the community programmes division.

The ones that I can see from Burnaby here are the Burnaby Lochdale Area Community School, and that involves youth workers....

The Burnaby Citizens Development Fund is a sizeable sum. I'm not sure exactly what they do.

The Burnaby Purpose is again a sizeable fund. I'm not sure what they do.

I'm not familiar with the Burnaby Youth Services Division. I just questioned my deputy and he's not familiar with it either, but we'll certainly check it out and I'll let the hon. member know. We've made a note of it.

I should point out, of course, that many a time we get applications and, unfortunately, they must be referred back to the municipality. I've received these same applications, not only from other constituencies but from my own, where the municipality makes application or supports an application for what really should be a municipal project. You know, every municipality has a parks and recreation budget and, again, generally it's not adequate, so that when something comes along at a later date they tend to find a slot or a place that it might fit into, and we're an obvious target. Human Resources is now and always has been, and I suppose always will be. But I will certainly check this one out and I'll get back to the hon. member on it.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, it takes a good deal to get me on my feet, but when that formal municipal chief magistrate stands in the House and tells us so many of these things should be on the shoulders of the municipality when that once chief magistrate used to stand and cry bitter tears over the treatment they got in Surrey from the provincial government with respect to sharing and financing.... You know, I think I'm going to remind the hon. minister about the detached youth programme in New Westminster, just for the fun of it. I didn't even get an answer to that one, Mr. Chairman.

The fact is that a programme that's been doing some fine preventive work for a number of years had had not only municipal support, but also had had

[ Page 2031 ]

provincial support until this despotic group came in and took over as the government of British Columbia.

No, Mr. Chairman, it's hard as hard can be for me to take that kind of a monologue.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: What is the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) croaking about? You know what I heard about you today, Mr. Minister of Highways?

Somebody told me you don't even know what you're doing.

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

MR. COCKE: Can I address the Chair, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You may.

MR. COCKE: That thrills me. Thank you very much indeed.

Would the minister... ?

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

MR. COCKE: Well, who was I addressing, Mr. z Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, kindly address the Chair.

MR. COCKE: Yes, I'm addressing the Chair, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I would like the Minister of Highways ... or the Minister of Municipal Affairs ... or the Minister of Human Resources....

There are so many of them over there who are incompetent it's hard to remember them all. I would like the Minister of Human Resources to stand up right now and tell us what he's going to do about that i sharing programme.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased that the hon. member raised the detached youth programme because I've had considerable presentations regarding that programme. Also, with respect to the comments by the hon. member that I made very many strenuous presentations as mayor of a municipality, well, understandably and rightfully so. I was doing my job, and once in a while, I'll confess, I came to Victoria armed and ready to fight and do whatever I had to with the previous administration, and the one before, n behalf of that municipality. Once in a while, too, I new down in the bottom of my heart that it was really a municipal recreation project. But I had to try; had to do it, and I think that's still so, and understandably so, because municipalities, I agree with the member, do require all the assistance we can give them – always.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the detached youth programme, I promised o meet with the group. As a matter of fact, there was some misunderstanding. They thought they could meet me at the constituency on Monday. Of course, I was here because my estimates were ready to come before the House, but I will be meeting with the group and I'll be expressing to them some of the concerns that we have, and I'll tell the hon. member what they are.

There has been a real problem with the organization, as the hon. member's probably aware, n that there was some question as to the relationship between the citizens' advisory board and the Y board. Because of that, there appears to be some lack of accountability. Also, there was concern regarding the frequent firings and the resignations that took place within the staff complement, so much so that it was noticeably something of concern to the community project people within my ministry. Thirdly, there was a lack of organization with respect to programming. There appears to be little organization with respect to programmes – they were somewhat all over the board. We're not so sure that, in effect, it was reaching the youth at risk, and that instead possibly he target population or group was not that group which should be getting priority attention. That's not to say that we shouldn't be providing all of the assistance we can to all youth, but originally the programme was intended to really provide a service to youth at risk. Somehow, because of these other problems, this particular programme – and it existed n Richmond and it existed elsewhere on the lower mainland – was not getting at the problem as we believed it should. I'm hoping that from this meeting next week we can arrive at some consensus and, hopefully, we'll be moving positively from there.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, just a word to the minister, I recognize that you have to be careful; you have to monitor all programmes. There's no question about that. But when monitoring that programme, I would hope that you'll go and talk to the police in New Westminster to have your people talk to the police there who have had a reduction, by far, in the

[ Page 2032 ]

number of criminal activities in the youth. They give a good deal of the credit for that reduction in criminal activity to this very programme.

I'm not going to answer for the specifics. I don't know their budget; I know they have their budget, but I don't know their accountability and so on. I'm sure that the Y – that's been a responsible organization for many, many years in Canada – is sufficiently responsible to take care of seeing to it that monitoring is done and it's properly administered. I can say no more.

MR. WALLACE: Under this vote, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to touch fairly quickly on three points. I would like to know, in response to the minister's comments about the Conference on the Family and the meeting he had yesterday about a consensus, if he can tell us if that consensus relates to an agreement on 50–50 cost–sharing of the proposed $60,000 or thereabouts which the steering committee, of which I'm a member, suggested to the minister. The feeling was that we don't need any more talking; we need some action in the communities with all the various delegates involved. But this had to be co–ordinated through a council. The basic structure of the council would involve a co–ordinator and a stenographer as the very basic minimum. So I'd like to leave that question with the minister. Is the consensus a continuation of the proposal that if the church leaders through their churches provide half of the funding, the provincial government will provide the other half?

Again, Mr. Chairman, I can't exaggerate the fact that personnel in these two positions will be very crucial to the success of the council when it is established. The two people who are closely involved with the conference are still available to take on this continuing role. I would hope that the minister could reassure us that things are pretty close to agreement. I'd be interested to know if it's on the 50–50 basis that was suggested.

The second area that I'd like to ask the minister for some updating relates to the question of marriage counselling. I know I was somewhat critical of the minister when he announced his concept of community marriage counselling. But I don't think we should lose sight of the fact that the need for marriage counselling or help that anybody can give to sustain successful marriages is indeed great. While the idea of a two–month waiting period before a licence can be obtained I don't think is the answer, we should all support the minister in some kind of non–partisan, apolitical' effort to do what we can through programmes of one kind or another to help people make a success of their marriages. With human relationships being the complicated matter that they are, we all know that there will be failures. But the failure rate seems to be climbing.

Just today I did some research on divorce statistics from the department of vital statistics. This just relates to divorces; I haven't had the time or the opportunity to go into the question of separations. In 1973, there were 5,412 divorces. In 1974, there were 6,328 divorces. In 1975, there were 7,250. In 1976, there were 9,350 divorces. Between 1973 and 1976, they've almost doubled. While marriage is a subject that we quite often joke about in this chamber, often with no malice intended, we are talking about the social impact of divorce and the dollar cost of divorce and the hardship to children involved in divorces.

So while' I cannot agree with the specifics of the minister's proposal on marriage counselling, I do think that all of us should support the idea of some kind of constructive attempt to make marriage counselling more effective. In my view, the effectiveness depends on taking some action in the schools, long before people make that decision to get married.

The minister made the statement back on December 7,1976, that many young people almost: get married on the spur of the moment, particularly in teen–age marriages. The statistics show that the younger the age at which two people get married, the greater are the chances that the marriage will end in divorce. The divorce rate for young people under 20, and I haven't got the statistic right with me, is absolutely frightening. They have something like a four times greater chance of ending up in divorce if they get married under 20 than the progressive age from 20 onward. Can the minister tell us whether his department is taking any initiatives, presumably in conjunction with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and probably the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) , to initiate some kind of counselling or instruction or education in the school system or through community clinics or some community resource, to try and inform younger people of the very practical problems in marriage: balancing a budget, accommodation, jobs, health and many other factors that can have a tremendous impact on whether a marriage succeeds.

The third question relates to the detached youth programme in Victoria. I've been making inquiries and the verbal information I have is that the co–ordinator has been told that financing will be cut back. At the present time, the Victoria detached youth programme has a co–ordinator and five workers. The workers are professionals with backgrounds in child care, social work or teaching. At the present time, that programme in Victoria works with approximately 300 young people, either by direct referral or otherwise. The whole thrust of the programme is intervention in a preventive way. I don't know how often we and the minister have talked about prevention. Some of them liked preventive health and I'm sure the Minister of Health

[ Page 2033 ]

(Hon. Mr. McClelland) is interested in this subject. Everybody talks about it but nobody is very keen on spending the necessary money, because it usually takes some time before you can see the actual saving from preventive programmes.

We've talked for the last several years in this House about the juvenile delinquency problem in British Columbia. It seems pretty obvious that the greater degree to which we involve youth in community recreational programmes – field trips, educational trips, swimming or whatever – the lesser the chance of their being involved in the drug scene or criminal activity or whatever. I won't go through a lot of the statistics that are available to show that that is a fact. The programme in Victoria is working very well and there are 300 youths involved. I'm appealing very bluntly and directly to the minister tonight: can we have some reasonable assurance that the $69,000 budgeted for the coming year can be maintained?

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, the amount which was authorized during the last fiscal year was $82,511. Unfortunately, here again, in all fairness and in all honesty, we had some problems; although they were certainly reaching a number of youths, they were not getting at the youth at risk. Part of the reason may be that it was a completely provincial effort; there was no direct or financial involvement by the Y. As a matter of fact, there was some question as to what body was really responsible or accountable for the efforts from the programme. You know, I'm not knocking the Y; they're a wonderful group and in all probability, if we research this further, it may just be a misunderstanding. I intend to follow it through.

But I think my main concern – and I know it's the concern of the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) –is that we deliver the best possible service to those requiring the service for the least amount of dollars, so that we can expand it in the greatest number of areas. One of the most successful programmes, which we intend to expand upon, is the rehabilitation resources in the classes – a combined effort of the Attorney–General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , the Ministry of Education and our own ministry.

We take those who are identified in the school as problem youngsters and we provide them with special classes to give them the training and the counselling required to hopefully direct them in a direction or in a path which will steer them away from problems. However, again I assure the member that we're looking at the Victoria project, just as we are the lower mainland projects.

In answer to the other question with respect to counselling, we are becoming more and more involved with organizations that are involved with counselling.

It is my hope that through, say, the family conference, we might motivate many other resources through the churches, particularly, that could help in this area. That's one of the things that I want to get an understanding on with the people I've been negotiating with for the family conference programme.

I mentioned to them 50–50 sharing. I said: "For every dollar you put in, we put in a dollar." That way there will be a real effort from both sides. They instead wanted one–third on their part and two–thirds on our part. I think that's fair enough because I think all of us can agree, too, that the people who are contributing the one–third through the church or however, are the same people who are paying for the two–thirds in a different way. I understand that, and I think we've got to try and make it so that it's manageable on their part, yet there is some direct involvement which will provide us all with a greater level of accountability.

Finally, my proposal for marriage counselling was certainly. . . . I think it was good that the proposal was put forth. I had the greatest amount of feedback I could ever get on anything. A lot of people became very aware. If the name of the game is to make people aware so that they too will become involved and become interested, it accomplished that.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Chairman, you'll recall that during question period a few weeks ago I asked the minister about the situation at Good Hope Lake. I'm wondering if he's had an opportunity to look into the situation up there since then. I've been in touch with the staff and with some of the people in the area and I realize that there is a real problem in the community split at Good Hope Lake. Unfortunately the split has developed around the funding of the United Native Nations or the BCANSI local in the area.

I also realize that for a community programme such as was going on in Good Hope Lake to continue there must be some kind of accountability. The regional director has called the people in that area to ask them to account for the funds and I understand that because of the initial problem of trying to deliver a service to Good Hope Lake as quickly as possible and then switching it around to a continuing community programme, there has been some problem with accountability of funds. I understand that something like $6,015 hasn't been accounted for in terms of how that money was spent and who got it. I realize that there is that problem of accountability.

Possibly members of the minister's staff should go up there, but the books were called in last September and nothing has really taken place in Good Hope Lake since last September, although a desperate need still exists there for services. There still is the Ministry of Human Resources van, which was to be used to

[ Page 2034 ]

provide transportation for the people of Good Hope Lake into Cassiar for groceries and this type of thing. There still is the question of the wash house and laundry facilities and providing some assistance to keep that facility going and to improve it, to provide basic hygiene and laundry services for the Indian families in the area who don't have running water in their homes. Also, there is the question of the casework aide who can provide counselling assistance and whatever to the Indian families in that area. As a result of the lack of funding or the lack of activity over the past six months, an increased split has developed in the community, more tension has developed in the community. People have taken sides and it seems now to be centering around the activities of the Department of Human Resources, which I feel is unfair and around the question of this funding.

Also, moral in the highways camp up there is deteriorating and the regional manager of the Department of Highways has been in touch with your regional staff and asked them for assistance in trying to resolve this problem.

I also understand that people in the area from both sides of the community, the white community and the Indian community, have asked the minister to come up and take a look on site to see what might be done to expedite funding, to resolve some of the splits in the community and to get that funding going again so that some of the necessary needed services can be provided right away.

There have been accusations made on all sides of Good Hope Lake against the police, the court system, the Crown prosecutor, against local individuals, both Indian and white. One white family, employees of the Department of Highways, have been accused of bootlegging transportation services for some of the Indian families. The pre–school teacher has been accused of taping up the mouth of one child in school and causing that child to fear school. As a result, that child hasn't returned to school. There have been some real problems. A real split is developing in that community over the lack of funding and over who is going to get the funding from the Ministry of Human Resources.

I'd like the minister to let the House and the Public know just what he plans to do in the case of Good Hope Lake. I realize that some accounting is necessary, but also what is necessary is the delivery of needed services to that area.

Does the minister plan to go up himself and take a look at the situation to try to resolve the split in the community? Is the minister prepared to continue funding to at least a part of the programme in Good Hope Lake? The minister has had six months to take a look at the situation. We realize there has been some problem with accountability in the past, but the need for services is there. I would hope that the minister would come up with some kind of a positive and immediate approach to the situation before it continues to get worse. I'd like the minister to answer that question.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I appreciate the very good outline given by the member, who obviously has a very good understanding of what is taking place. From the outline given by the member, I think all members of the House can appreciate that it's a very difficult and thorny problem for the ministry. We have, for that reason, assigned Isabel Kimmitt, the assistant to the deputy minister, to immediately make contact with the regional director and to research further some proposals that we've been working on. I'm not sure that they're workable. One of them might be that we develop a make–work programme for the area which I think would provide an outlet for the people there which hasn't previously been available to them.

The problem in that community is that while it appears one way on the surface, it probably goes much deeper than what shows. We're attempting to find a more permanent solution. I can assure the member that it will not be delayed. I think Isabel Kimmitt will soon be travelling there and I will personally be looking at the area. I've been invited to go there. However, my chances of going there may have to wait until the weather gets better a little later on.

MR. BARNES: Just a couple of quick questions, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming one of my colleagues, Mr. Derek Thompson of the family service centre. I'm sure he's watching this important department with interest.

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask the minister if he could indicate whether the thrust of his department is to centralize services rather than to encourage volunteerism and the use of local expertise. I'm thinking specifically of information centres. You note in your vote that information centres and other community–based organizations will be included in the grants that are going to be made available. This is contrary to some of the actions that you've taken. I'm thinking also of the Red Door Rental Aid society which was providing information for families that may have recently broken up, for persons who are on fixed incomes and in need of counselling and are having difficulty because of financial reasons or other problems of mobility – not to mention the former community resource boards that you eliminated. I'm wondering if you can indicate to the House whether or not you regard the services that were being provided by such local organizations as having any validity.

The YWCA has already been mentioned. I'm thinking particularly of the East Pender Y in my

[ Page 2035 ]

riding, and there is also another one at the Britannia complex that has had to close. I realize that some funds are going to the East Pender Y. It's not that the Human Resources department is spending no money, but they're cutting back while the costs are going up. These programmes are really being cut so short that they can't do the job they were set out to do.

It's a kind of spill–off effect that I'm indicating you're cutting off. It's not just the dollars and cents, the bottom line. There are a lot of benefits that just can't be given from the central headquarters and from your department. I have a fear that you are moving away from the local input and opportunities that we have been benefiting from through these small units within the community. That would be one question I would like some comment on.

This afternoon you indicated that no one could be on social assistance who had qualified for unemployment insurance. I had pointed out to you that there was an individual inquiring to me about getting an upgrading programme to the St. John Ambulance programme for a class B first–aid certificate. Now this particular person, a single male, indicated that they are already receiving social assistance of $160 per month. They were told that because they are eligible for UIC, which they haven't received yet and won't receive for perhaps another month or six weeks, they're not eligible for this upgrading programme. The person has said that they are willing to go any place in the province to find work and have indicated that a job would be available if they could get the upgrading that is available. It would cost about $ 100 for the course, and to me that seems to be a fair exchange if someone is in a position to get a job. I'd like for you to indicate whether or not this is the case or if this person would be eligible for sponsorship by the Ministry of Human Resources to take that course. He's been told by a social worker that he's not eligible because of that regulation. Would you like to answer those?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm not sure that I got all of the questions, Mr. Chairman, but the hon. member raised the same question with respect to the person with a class C licence earlier today or yesterday – I've forgotten. I asked the hon. member then and he promised to supply me with the information. I would follow it through because I'm not sure as to what the particulars or the circumstances are, but I would intend to find out immediately.

However, our policy with respect to two weeks only of social assistance for those awaiting unemployment insurance is based on the fact that normally when a person receives his last pay cheque at termination of employment, it should provide him to the time that he would normally again receive his next pay cheque, even though he would not be receiving that pay cheque. In other words it should carry him for a two–week period. We would provide two weeks of assistance following that, if application were made and hardship could be shown. If the Unemployment Insurance Commission did not act as they should, and very often they don't.... I agree with the member. It sometimes takes a month and, as has he, I've heard of cases where it's taken six weeks.

MR. BARNES: Six months.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think we should all be pressuring the Unemployment Insurance Commission to correct that grievous injustice, which is hurting a lot of people.

With regards to the Pender Y, this again was mentioned yesterday. I don't have the particulars on the Pender Y, and the other one you mentioned, but once more, this is probably a Vancouver Resources Board project which is considered by them. In many of these I will admit if there isn't a community support.... We've seen programmes which, from all indications, as you're looking at the presentations made by the society and the people working in the society, appear to be great. But when you go to check on the organization, through the auditing procedures we have available to us, you find that the community simply isn't utilizing or using the facility. It's not receiving the community support.

In those cases, I would much prefer to place the emphasis on the type of organizations that your friend there who is visiting you tonight is involved with – the family life type programmes – because we could expand it tremendously. I agree with what the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) said – the family breakups that are occurring in British Columbia now, and probably across the country, are frightening. It's terrible–, it's disastrous. We have to do all we can to assure that we bring some pressure to bear to try and change the direction of what's been happening.

MR. BARNES: Thank you very much for your explanation of the situation. I will get the documents to you, and I hope that perhaps you could see the individual. I think he's in town, in fact.

I'm a bit alarmed, really, at some of the things that you are saying in the House and some of the things that have been happening in the community. In fact, some of the comments you made this afternoon about people, about your co–operation with UCS, that PREP was in the office, and that you're co–operating now.... You're saying that UCS will be pressured so that this person can get some help. Really, that's one of the things that can only happen if you take an initiative, if someone in your position takes an initiative. I'm just a little bit concerned that you're going to forget it. Do you want to say something on this?

[ Page 2036 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I have just a quick response. We are preparing a presentation for the next ministers' conference, which is to be held in Alberta, I believe, sometime this spring. British Columbia has been asked to pull together all information relating to the question that you've raised with respect to unemployment insurance not coming through as it should, and the problems it's creating for people and the Ministries of Human Resources in the various provinces. We are preparing a presentation. We are leading the way in presenting it to the ministers' conference so that it might be properly aired with Ottawa.

We are dealing with Canada Manpower in the PREP programme. That's Canada Manpower. I realize there's a pulling together of Canada Manpower and UIC federally, but our relations are with Canada Manpower.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I have two very quick questions that I omitted to mention when I was on my feet last time. One is about Victoria's crisis line – NEED, as it's entitled. The minister may or may not have the figures at his fingertips but, once again, we have a service here that is working extremely well as a crisis line for people in need. The information I have, as recently as March 10, from Mrs. Edder, the executive director, is that they will not be receiving the funding that's needed to cope with the 1977 inflationary cost compared to the programme in 1976. 1 wonder if the minister has made a decision. In his letter of March 7 to the crisis line he had not stated when the decision was made but said that he hoped the programme would appreciate that, "We have limited funds to supply grants for community programmes." I just wonder if the minister has a decision for the Victoria NEED programme.

The second quick question relates to the disturbing information which appeared in the press a week or two ago. It actually appeared in the newspapers on Friday, February 25. It related to a "group home in Burnaby where one of the persons operating the group home was receiving $700 a month from Human Resources. She is now part of a group of people being charged with operating a prostitution ring. I wonder, without naming names or being specific, what general procedures the department follows before it makes funding available to group homes. The reports in the press indicate that, in this case, the woman concerned was checked out and provided references. One, I believe, was a minister of the church, and another reference was from the RCMP.

Apparently the neighbours living close to the group home were not only concerned about the way in which the home was functioning, but had made their feelings known and had, in fact, been rebuffed because they were accused of simply being racist. I gather certain coloured persons were involved in this whole situation because the complaints were laid against them. I'll just read the press report since the minister is obviously concerned:

"One neighbour, who asked not to be named, said that men and women were coming and going at all times of the evening and night and noisy parties went on frequently until 4 or 5 a.m. 'When we complained, they would just curse and swear and say we were discriminating against them because they were black.' " That's the report from the Victoria Times, Friday, February 25.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I know that this minister can't be responsible for every single house or location that receives his funding, but it would suggest that the preliminary work which is carried out by his department before grants of this nature are approved has some loopholes, to put it charitably. In a case such as this, it's the old story of one failure bringing the system into some degree of disrepute – perhaps to an unfair degree. I do wonder if the minister could just tell us, first of all in this case, how the situation was not rectified when neighbours were making such strenuous complaints. Secondly, are there any changes in the departmental procedures that have been implemented to try and prevent this happening?

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First, I'm sure the member knows – as a matter of fact, he mentioned it himself – that one of the problems with group homes or establishing group homes.... I still think it's a good approach if it's properly controlled. If we propose a group home in Richmond, Richmond says: "Yes, I think group homes are great, but you should have it in Delta." Delta says Surrey, and it's all the way down the line. This is a problem. Very often, too, people object to group homes on their particular street or in that community. Once again, that's a problem.

We've received, and I've personally received, many complaints – at home and otherwise – from people living adjacent to group homes. Sometimes the complaints are well founded and other times they are not. It is a problem and something that we've got to really tackle.

We must, I'm sure, as all of us here agree, be much more careful in the assessment of the group homes. The one referred to in Burnaby was actually a foster programme. It was, as the member pointed out, checked out through the various agencies and with the RCMP and the church. It was a foster home. We were about to enter into a contract at $700 a month as a group home, but the contract was never completed or entered into so no moneys were paid on

[ Page 2037 ]

the contract.

Immediately when this was discovered, it goes without saying, the services of that particular home were discontinued. But I was concerned enough that I met personally with the social worker involved in Burnaby not only because I wanted some first–hand information regarding the particular problem but also for assessing all group homes in future.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: One more answer, Mr. Chairman. With respect to NEED, they were funded last year to the extent of $26,000. 1 assume one of the problems is, as the member pointed out, that their costs are going up and they are needing more money. These grants have not been considered by the minister as yet. The regional director will have a recommendation and it will be in the hands of the deputy now or soon. We will be going over it after our estimates are finalized.

Vote 189 approved.

On vote 190: income assistance programme, $193,920, 046.

MS. BROWN: I took the liberty of doing some calculations on the Minister of Human Resources, and I discovered that as a male adult below the age of 65 with one wife and four children, the minister would be eligible for $515 a month in income assistance. Correct me if I am wrong.

According to the Vancouver health department, Mr. Chairman, his family's nutrition needs would be $380.96, which would leave him $134.04. As one adult male below the age of 65, 1 think, with one wife and four children, you would be eligible, Mr. Minister, for $515 in income assistance for you and your family. I wonder if the minister would tell me whether his family would be able to survive on that or not. Briefly.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, Mr. Chairman, I am sure my family could not, and I certainly hope that I would never arrive at that situation. I don't wish it on anyone else. I am hoping that we can see the day when all people might be afforded more means so that they can also enjoy the better things of life. It would be tough on $5 15, especially since my rent is very, very high. But I would, of course, be entitled to about another $230 on rental overage which....

MS. BROWN: Not unless you are handicapped.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, I would be entitled to a rental overage which would raise my income to $745. There wouldn't be any deductions, of course, which is a help. I would be grateful for that.

I'm concerned about this, and I assure the member that I am concerned about the fact that a father and mother with four children would be receiving only, say, $745 or thereabouts, including the rental overage. I am equally concerned, and I am sure the member is, too, for the person who is working and earning $800 or $850 and who has all the expenses of working as well. We have to be concerned not only about the fact that they are on income assistance but the fact that there are people in society who must attempt to get by on a very small income, whether it's from their own earnings and hard work or whether it's because they, unfortunately, must turn to income assistance.

MS. BROWN: All I am asking, Mr. Chairman, is when you are going to raise the rates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps if the members would recognize the Chair occasionally....

The Chair now recognizes the first member for Vancouver–Burrard.

MS. BROWN: It's always a pleasure to recognize the Chair.

When are you going to raise the rates, Mr. Chairman, through you, to the minister? Just give us a date. I know you are trying to work out a system where single people get different rates from families or whatever, but tell us.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: One of the anomalies is the fact that so many of the single people, especially if they are unemployed and possibly have an arthritic condition or what–have–you, are 40 years of age and over and find it extremely difficult to get by, are somehow lumped into one large category of single people. I think we've recognized this and we must move to change it quickly ...

MS. BROWN: When?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: ... because as each and every day goes by these people find it very difficult, if not impossible. We are looking at all of their rights in the income assistance programme. I'm thinking that within the next 60 days, or maybe sooner, maybe we will be prepared to announce the changes.

MS. BROWN: Sixty days. Thank you.

MR. WALLACE: I just want to add my strongest support to the member fox

[ Page 2038 ]

Vancouver–Burrard in her request to the minister to introduce these increases just as soon as possible.

There is one area I want to touch on very quickly and it's not easy because it's a very complicated problem. I wonder if the minister could bring us up to date on this whole question of the enforcement of alimony payments by husbands. I haven't the time now to give you details of a typical case where the decision of the judge was that the husband should pay the wife $450 a month. That was the settlement in March, 1975. Over the course of the last two years, the wife has had a few partial payments that don't come close to perhaps 10 per cent of the total, and she's on welfare. The tragedy is that she has incurred considerable legal expenses in trying to get the husband to pay.

To cut a long story short, they finally seized his car. He paid $1,625 to get his car back, and all of that money went to pay the two lawyers involved – acting for the husband and the wife. The wife didn't get a single dollar out of the $1,625. One of the consequences to society is that you and 1, Mr. Chairman, as taxpayers are going on paying taxes to provide welfare payments to this woman when her husband is already defying the courts of this province to the extent of $450 a month,

We hear so often that the problem in enforcing payments is that the husband takes off to distant parts – eastern Canada or Arizona or wherever. But here is a glaring example of the man working and earning and making a very good living right here in British Columbia. This case is now two years old and they have seized the husband's car twice. They've realized something around $1,000 or more dollars twice and each time the wife has not seen any of the money realized from the seizure of the car. The situation seems to be very much a vicious circle.

Apparently the lady went to get legal aid several months ago. The lawyer who had already taken most of the proceeds from the seizures of the husband's car refused to release her file because there was still something of the order of $600 owing on his legal bills.

Now whether there is a problem here in the legal procedure or not, the fact is that this woman is on welfare. Yet the courts said two years ago that in the eyes of justice her husband was well able and should be paying $450 a month to support her. Who is putting up the $450? You and me and every other taxpayer in British Columbia are. I'd like to know what progress the minister is making in this regard.

I have a newspaper clipping from the press in December, 1976, that says the taxpayer is paying an average of $ 10 million a month for child maintenance that is the responsibility of someone else. That figure was quoted in the Vancouver Province on December 30. 1 wonder if the minister can tell us what plans or initiatives he's taking to try and enforce what the courts of this land are recommending. The degree to which responsible husbands are neglecting to pay what the courts have awarded makes a whole farce of our court system. I'm not overlooking the difficulties here. I'd like to know to what degree the minister and the Attorney–General are working on this together, because it's obviously a responsibility for both of them. But what is the situation to date?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased that the hon. member for Oak Bay raised this particular point because I have spoken many times in defence of section 16 of the GAIN legislation, which has not been proclaimed as yet. It was intended to provide a far more active programme to obtain maintenance from errant husbands, particularly.

It is a real problem. As a matter of fact, we are aware, too, that there is legislation at present. But in most instances, the most that is awarded to the wife by the judge is the $ 100 that the woman is allowed to earn over and above the income assistance given her. It's a tremendous problem. Furthermore, we, as taxpayers, are very often, through our rental overages or assistance with mortgages to these people when they land in the welfare scheme, paying a part of a mortgage on a house which is in her name and in his name! Ten years from now, he may end up with a free asset, paid for by the taxpayers. It's completely ridiculous. We've got to move to change it and we must move quickly and vigorously.

We've had a pilot programme going on in Victoria for two months. It's been a tremendous education for people from the Attorney–General's department and the Ministry of Human Resources. With existing orders only, they've found there were $500,000 worth of arrears right here in Victoria, most of which are no more than $100 per month. There was $500,000 worth of arrears there. We have found that even through promoting a conciliatory programme and counselling, we can improve the payments by up to 60 per cent. We are now attempting also to bring about a change in the regulations which would give us the opportunity to assure that where a mortgage payment is made on behalf of an errant husband, there is a claim to collect so that he cannot get the asset for himself.

From the findings of this particular, pilot project in Victoria which is carried out by the Attorney–General's department and the Ministry of Human Resources and which ends on March 31, we will develop a much better programme.

Vote 190 approved.

On vote 19 1: special programmes for the retarded, $39,407, 911.

[ Page 2039 ]

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, we've spent a great deal of time on this debate castigating the minister and I would like to at least finish up the debate by commending the minister for including an increase of $2 million to Woodlands School. The situation that society so often adopts towards the retarded is: "out of sight, out of mind." Despite the fact that there has been a tremendous amount of recurring publicity about the problems at Woodlands, I think that we can have some optimism that the minister recognizes the very inadequate facilities at Woodlands and the lack of staff. I just want to refer very briefly to the statement that was made by Dr. Pauline Hughes, the executive director, who said that the school's role should be a backup in situations where there were no community resources available to assist retarded individuals. She said: "It should not be used as it has sometimes been in the past as a lifetime placement centre. We feel a child is going to develop much better, whether retarded or otherwise, as part of a family unit."

I wonder if the minister just very briefly could tell us the particular ways in which the extra money will be used. I realize that there is a high utilization of hours of staff time per patient in this kind of facility and that, as I understand it, 90 per cent of the budget at Woodlands is the payment of salaries. So I wonder if the minister could tell us just very briefly the main areas in which the added funds will be used.

I would say also that I am very pleased to see that the budget for Glendale Hospital here in Victoria is to be increased from $6 million to $9.9 million. So while we've perhaps been very critical of the minister in many areas, it's rather pleasant to be able to wind up the debate on his estimates on an optimistic note regarding the extra funding that this government is prepared to make available for the retarded in British Columbia.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate those kind words on the last vote. Also on the last vote, I want to take the opportunity of introducing a fellow who is now here visiting tonight and who has been a tremendous help to me in the very beginning and through some very trying months, Mr. Jim Sadler.

One of the things we've done in the area of the institutions is that we have lifted the freeze on the salary complement so that they can now hire up to the full level. There is no freeze in these institutions, so that accounts for some of the increase because they're....

MR. WALLACE: How many staff?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: In Woodlands alone they're bringing in, I believe, an additional 50 staff. So we're looking at increased staff in all of these institutions. There are some moneys in here for improvements as well, although I should point out.... I wish I could announce it tonight because that would really be positive. I visited a group home in Saanich where I met the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) . I was very impressed with that concept. As a matter of fact, I'm hoping that we might expand on that. We've already verbally approved another I I such homes in Victoria and Vancouver, but I'm hoping that we might expand it far more still in keeping with the expansion of the achievement centre programme so that we can care for more of these people in the community and give them the opportunities that are otherwise kept from them.

Vote 191 approved.

Vote 192: Burns Lake Community Development Association, $206,800 – approved.

On vote 193: building occupancy charges, $10,195, 25 5.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke–Slocan): Two brief questions, Mr. Chairman, to the minister regarding vote 193. Can the minister tell me how much of the rental accommodation is rented from Crown agencies and from the private sector? Can the minister also tell me the cost per square footage for the accommodation which is entailed in this vote?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I do not have that information available to me now.

MR. KING: That's fine. I'll leave the other question until the next vote.

Vote 193 approved.

On vote 194: computer and consulting charges, $599,000.

MR. KING: Can the Minister of Human Resources advise the House as to whether or not this cost estimate for computer services was developed by his department or provided to him from the computer branch of Transport and Communications?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: This was provided by the computer division and will be billed quarterly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. KING: Could the minister then tell me what the formula is for the computer branch foisting this arbitrary, artificial figure upon his department?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I've

[ Page 2040 ]

been so busy with Human Resources that I've not been able to get acquainted sufficiently with computers, unfortunately.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, just in closing yesterday, the Minister of Human Resources mentioned that the reason he did not approve the affirmative action programme for the Vancouver Resources Board was because he didn't understand it. The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) promised to make the information available to him. I wonder whether he'd be willing to accept it now.

Also, I would like to bring to the minister's attention the fact that someone who's been very helpful to him through his most trying times has been sitting quietly in the gallery all day while he's been conducting his academy award predominance. I wonder if the House would join me in saying "Hi, to poor Mrs. Vander Zalm.

Vote 194 approved.

ESTIMATES: PROVINCIAL SECRETARY

(continued)

On vote 19: minister's office, $155,690 –

continued.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to start off at this time of the evening with some very specific questions to the minister. Some of these questions she has been forewarned about, because they've been sitting on the order paper for a considerable length of time.

Specifically, I'd like to ask the minister, with reference to the infamous 1976 budget speech, if she has her information now on the questions which I placed on the order paper asking how many copies were printed of the original budget speech and their cost. Secondly, how many copies were printed where the change was made only on page 35, and what was the cost per copy? I'd like to know how many of those were finally distributed. That question has been there a considerable length of time, and I would hope that maybe by now the Provincial Secretary can answer this question.

I also had a question on the order paper to the Provincial Secretary asking if the government pays any part of the expenses of the state ball. If your answer is yes, could you give us some idea of the total amount paid or to be paid by the government for the 1977 state ball? As we all recall, the Provincial Secretary announced with great fanfare that it was going to be held because the state of the economy had improved so much, despite all the statistics which gave no evidence of that whatsoever. If anything, it has certainly declined.

I would also like the Provincial Secretary to inform us if the present government paid Mr. Lillico any money for services rendered prior to his appointment as information officer to B.C. House.

These questions, Mr. Chairman, have been there for a considerable length of time – some not as long as others – and I would hope by now that the Provincial Secretary, who I know is a most efficient minister, could proceed and continue with that efficiency tonight by giving us the answers to those questions.

I have one final question which was not on the order paper but on which I would appreciate an answer. I doubt very much that this would take too much time. As I understand, the Provincial Secretary recently hired a Mr. Michael Warwick to investigate the operations of the government air service. My question here is: what are his credentials? What salary is being paid? What are his terms of reference to investigate the government air service? Perhaps you can tell us, in giving the terms of reference, what the whole purpose of this is.

Those are my first questions and I would appreciate some answers.

MR. SKELLY: My question, Mr. Chairman, concerns the Indian Advisory Act, over which this minister has jurisdiction. I understand that the minister appeared before the Indian Advisory Committee with regard to the First Citizens' Fund and informed that committee that applications would no longer be accepted by the Provincial Secretary's office, nor should they be accepted by the Indian Advisory Committee for Indian economic development projects. The reason she gave for that was that so many of those projects were failures, and even if the committee did approve Indian economic development project funding, her office would veto that.

I'm not sure if it was the Provincial Secretary herself or one of her representatives who did appear before that committee, but I understand that the real reason was that some Indian economic development projects have been competing with companies operated by Social Credit members in certain areas of the province and these people made representations to the minister. That is why she called upon the Indian Advisory Committee to veto economic development projects. I'm wondering if the minister would care to explain that.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just want to touch very briefly on the tourist industry and say that I'm very pleased the minister is working so hard to try and rectify some of the problems we've encountered recently.

There are two particular aspects of the problem and I'd like to know where we're at. The first one relates to the very serious problem resulting from

[ Page 2041 ]

legislation in the American congress to the effect that they have limited the deducibility of convention expenses by American citizens coming to Canada, or any other country outside the United States for that matter. The latest statistic I have is from the federal House on March 10, when Mr. Stan Darling, the member for Parry Sound–Muskoka, asked Mr. Chretien, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, just what we were doing at the federal level since, of course, it is essentially a federal problem. The figure quoted at that time was that more than $12 million worth of convention business was involved. Mr. Chretien, replied that this was a matter for the federal authorities in the United States but we were continuing to make representations to have Canada exempted from this legislation.

I wonder if the minister could tell us what the province of British Columbia is doing in concert with our Canadian federal government to try and stress the importance to Canada of this restrictive United States legislation. I think the House might be interested to know, and the people of Canada might be interested to know, that we have a tourist trade deficit with the United States amounting to $470 million during the first three quarters of 1976. It was felt that within that kind of context we should be in a fairly strong position to persuade the American government to exempt Canada from the provisions of the new legislation regarding deducibility of convention expenses.

Of course, the second point will be no surprise to the minister when I ask her about the ferry rates in British Columbia. While I recognize that she is not responsible, Mr. Chairman, for the ferry rates, I think it would be completely unrealistic to talk about travel and tourism on Vancouver Island without talking about the contributory factors which have, to some degree – and we can all argue by how much –influenced the serious reduction in the utilization of the ferries. The most recent figures for the month of February, which could hardly be called a tourist month, Mr. Chairman, show that the number of vehicles carried declined by 26.7 per cent and foot passengers declined by 21.6 per cent. Of course, although the revenues have increased because of the doubling of the rates, it's very obvious that we are deriving a larger amount of revenue from a smaller number of passengers and automobile operators.

I know we haven't got the time, and it isn't really particularly relevant to try and determine just how much the ferry–rate increases contributed to the specific decline in utilization, but I think, Mr. Chairman, that any fair and objective person would admit that when you suddenly double rates there is bound to be a depressing effect on the number of people who are prepared to use the service. It's rather ironic that up until a year ago we were all complaining about the line–ups at the ferries and wishing that the government would do something about the line–ups. Well, they certainly did something about the line–ups – they doubled the rates and cut utilization by somewhere between 25 and 30 per cent.

I thought it was rather interesting just the other day as I drove out to the ferry. There is rather silent evidence of this sudden change in the utilization of ferries in that temporary toilet facilities were set up about a mile from the ferry terminal to give recognition of the fact that in the very busy summer months with long lineups such facilities were required. Now these facilities are standing there as rather silent evidence of the fact that the utilization of the ferry system is suddenly being very abruptly and dramatically reduced.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, your line of questioning might better be asked under the estimates for the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) .

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I recognize that and I'm not about to continue on that line of questioning. I'm simply saying that this minister is responsible for doing what she can to not only maintain a healthy travel industry but perhaps to try and enhance and increase it.

While she has not the direct responsibility for ferry fares, it has proved to be such a significant factor in reducing tourism on Vancouver Island and creating real hardship for many people in the tourist industry, that I feel it is reasonable to ask her what her opinion is and what she believes she can do in concert with her colleagues in cabinet to correct that particular problem facing the tourist industry.

One of the other interesting statements that was made the other day was that the restaurant association in Victoria believes that the absence of a fall session of the Legislature last year resulted in a reduction in restaurant business. I wonder if the minister would care to tell us whether she's going to try and persuade the Premier to have a fall session in 1977. It was stated that MLAs go cut and eat a lot and many people come to Victoria to meet with ministers of the cabinet during a session. It surprised them the degree to which that was noticeable, mainly because of its absence in the fall of 1976. Once again, the minister doesn't call the House into session but I wonder if she has any thoughts in that direction.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, in response to the question from the hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) which she repeated from the order paper, I am advised by my ministry that those answers will be filed next week. They are being prepared for answer so she will be able to read them on the order paper.

[ Page 2042 ]

The hon. member asked regarding Mr. Lillico. The answer to that is that he was not on the payroll prior to his appointment to British Columbia House in London.

The appointment of Mr. Michael Warwick. Mr. Warwick is on contract with the Ministry of Transport and Communications. Because of his background and expertise in air traffic and air services, he has been loaned to us for some counsel regarding our air services. If you'll recall, the department was taken into the Provincial Secretary's ministry at the reorganization at approximately October 29–November 1. At the time Mr. Warwick was asked to report in conjunction with Transport and Communications as he was doing some work at that time when that particular area of responsibility fell under that ministry.

In response to the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) who asked about the Indian Advisory Act, I'm really surprised at the charge that he made on the floor of this House. I would like to just say – and I hope he will accept an hon. member's word in this House – that what he has related as the reason for my concern about the economic projects in the Indian Advisory Act and the First Citizens Fund, and the way he explained it within his questioning this evening, is a complete fabrication. I know that he is repeating what someone has said to him, but I want him to know – and I'm sure he'll accept from me, Mr. Chairman – that it is a complete fabrication.

First of all, I know nothing at all about what his information is regarding some so–called Social Credit members or people who own a business or businesses that are being competed with by the native Indian people. I will certainly share with you what I shared with the Indian Advisory Committee. Perhaps, I think, rather than try to undo the fabrication which he left on the floor of this House – and I'm not attributing it to him, Mr. Chairman, but to what he has heard and related here – I think it best to tell you what I did state to the Indian Advisory Council.

As you know, in past years there have been many grants made through the First Citizens' Fund. I would like to pay tribute to those members of the Indian advisory committee and those who have served over the years. As you know, they are all native Indian people. They are very concerned about the responsibilities that they have, and they take their work very seriously. In the past few years there have been many grants given, which have been those grants such as the hon. member would be interested in, such as auto repair businesses, construction businesses and that sort of thing.

In taking on this responsibility as Provincial Secretary, I found that at no time during the many long months and years that this has been a practice, had there ever been an assessment done which gave some sort of a report to the people of British

Columbia that would assure them that there was no risk taken. There was, in fact, really no strong evidence within the ministry that we even knew what the mortality rate was in any of those businesses. So when I met with the committee, I shared with them my anxiety that perhaps we should delve into the whole ideal of economic development.

First of all, we recognized that there is a BCDC in the province, which is set up for that kind of thing. It has the expertise to go into organizations and so on to make sure that they would be a viable organization to fund. I did share with the same committee that same day my feeling that if the organizations could not get funding through those channels, then the Indian Advisory Committee would be a proper place for them to apply for starting up projects. But it was never meant to be set up as a business development organization. I think the member would perhaps agree with me on that.

I have attended with that desire. I have asked that same committee to make an overview of all of the economic development programmes that are going on now and have gone on in the past available to me. I feel that in custody of taxpayers' funds and the distribution of those moneys, we must always be very careful of where those moneys go. Because that has never been done before, that has taken a long time. I did suggest to the committee that until we did have an overview, and until we could make an assessment – and they could bring some terms of reference to bear where the advisory committee, too, would have something to go on – we should really look at each area.

I want you to know that, since that meeting with them, we have funded some. I have not cut off economic development because they have assisted me and advised me. They have told me that they have looked into it very, very carefully.

In response to the hon. member for Oak Bay, I'd like to tell him that it has been my observation and I have checked with the B.C. Ferry Corporation – I would not like to evade the question – but I do want you to know it really should be asked under the other ministry. In my particular responsibility for tourism, it has been the report of the B.C. Ferries Service that domestic travel has been affected, but that visitor travel – that you're speaking of as tourist travel – has not. In an address to the Victoria Information Centre, I said it is unlikely – and I still believe this and the figures from B.C. Ferries Service will certainly back this up – that anyone would visit from say California, or vice versa, that a tourist resident of British Columbia would get to Disneyland and because they had increased the rates, would stop and turn around and come home. These are not the people who are coming into British Columbia and turning away at the ferry service. I just wanted to share that with him. I hope you will ask that question under the other

[ Page 2043 ]

ministry.

In response to your request for information on the bill which has really been a worry to all of us in Canada, I think.... This is an anti–convention bill, otherwise known as HR1065, I believe. At any rate, just this afternoon I received a telegram from the Hon. Don Jamieson, Minister of External Affairs. I'll just share this with you because I think it is really in response to all of the work we have done. I'd like to tell you that we have done a lot of communication with Ottawa.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We have done a lot of communication with other provincial jurisdictions and they have responded by also communicating with Ottawa. Recently we have had a telegram and letters going to the Prime Minister of Canada prior to his visit to President Carter. This telegram is in response to this. It is signed by Don Jamieson and it reads:

I certainly share your concern about the effects of the new USA tax reform legislation on the Canadian travel industry. on January 21, a diplomatic note expressing our concern was delivered to the united states government by our embassy in Washington. the matter was also raised by the prime minister during his recent meeting with president carter so that our concern has now been registered at the highest level. i am therefore hopeful that this issue can be resolved before long.

I would like to say that I have just today received a note from the convention manager of the Vancouver visitors and convention bureau:

"I have just returned from eastern Canada and during my trip there held many conversations re the U.S. tax legislation with Canadian government representatives and representatives of convention bureaus throughout Canada.

"It is my opinion after these conversations, and after reviewing some of the correspondence that has taken place, that your initiative in forcefully bringing this problem to the attention of the Canadian government and your continued concern was the main reason that the federal government has expressed Canada's concern to the U.S. government in the form of a diplomatic note and, as I understand it, in discussions between the Prime Minister and President Carter."

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say to the member that the amount of money that Canada spends, just in purchase of aircraft equipment and aircraft materials, is exorbitant. I hesitate to quote the figure, but I will make it known to the member by sharing with him a copy of first correspondence –last November – with the federal administration. I'm guessing, but I believe somewhere around $400 million goes out of Canada just in the purchase of equipment and so on for the major airlines in this country.

I think it would be of very great interest to the U.S. to continue to have as good a relationship with the country as we have enjoyed. It has been historic and traditional, and I believe we would be listened to by Washington.

MR. SKELLY: I'd like to thank the minister for her assurance that the things I did hear from Indian people, who had expressed some concern that Indian economic development funding was going to be cut off as the result of representations made to the Indian Advisory Committee by that minister, are not a fact.

The minister mentioned BCDC and other funding vehicles for Indian economic development, but most Indian groups don't have access to those funding vehicles because of their lack of equity.

Non–status Indians, on the other hand, have almost no other source of funding except for the First Citizens Fund to get into economic development projects. They don't have access to the federal Indian Economic Development Fund or special ARDA or that type of thing. So the First Citizens' Fund is one of the major funding vehicles for those kinds of groups. I welcome the assurance that she is not cutting off those people from Indian economic development assistance.

I think the Indians themselves would welcome an overview of the type of projects that have been going on. Even where there are economic failures in some of those projects – and there have been a number –there are successes that can be measured along the way. The Ehattesaht logging co–operative in my riding is one of them. It started off basically with First Citizens funding of $50,000. While the project is no longer in existence, a lot of people did receive training and did receive valuable benefits along the way as a result of the Ehattesaht logging co–operative operation. People received training for drilling and blasting, driving logging trucks, operating equipment and this type of thing. The project itself was not successful, but for the people involved in the project who did receive training it was a success. It's hard to measure, but it exceeds the amount of money that was made available by the B.C. Development Corporation.

The House resumed; Deputy Speaker in the chair.

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

[ Page 2044 ]

Presenting reports.

Mr. Mussallem from the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills presented the committee's first, second and third reports which were read as follows and received.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: Report No. 1, Mr. Speaker. Your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

The standing orders have been complied with relating to the respect of petitions for leave to introduce the following private bills:

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act, 1907; An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter; Society of Industrial Accountants of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1977.

Your committee recommends that the respective petitioners be allowed to proceed with said bills.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Report No. 2, Mr. Speaker. Your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

The standing orders have been complied with relating to the petition for leave to introduce a private bill intituled An Act to Incorporate the Institute of Accredited Public Accountants of British Columbia, except for late filing, but with respect thereto, the petitioner has paid double fees in accordance with standing order 98 (3):

Your committee recommends that the petitioner be allowed to proceed with the said bill.

All of which is respectfully submitted,

George Mussallem, Chairman.

Report No. 3. Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

The standing orders have been complied with relating to the petition for leave to introduce a private bill intituled An Act to Amend the Trinity Western College Act, except for late filing, but with respect thereto the petitioner has paid double fees in accordance with standing order 98 (3):

Your committee recommends that the petitioner be allowed to proceed with the said bill.

All of which is respectfully submitted,

George Mussallem, Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:52 p.m.