[ Page 5761 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Community Resources Boards Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 65) Second reading.

Ms. Brown –– 5762

Mr. Veitch –– 5782

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to welcome a most distinguished visitor today. I would like to ask the House to welcome to the chamber a visitor from Ottawa by way of Prince Alberta, Saskatchewan.

The Rt. Hon. John George Diefenbaker, PC, AC, has been actively involved in politics in Canada since first becoming elected to the Alberta Legislature in 1936. He has served with distinction in the Canada~ an parliament in Ottawa continuously since 1940; ~ as Prime Minister of Canada from June 21,1957, ~to April 21,1963; and then as leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition until September 25,1967. It ~ is worthy of note that in the general election of March, 1958, he won the largest majority ever accorded a Canadian Prime Minister - 208 out of 265 seats. Mr. Diefenbaker was made a member of the Queen's Privy Council in Canada in 1957 and in December of that year became a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council in the United Kingdom. Today, he is the only living Canadian to be of that council. He is also an honorary freeman of the city of London.

He celebrated his birthday last Sunday, and I’m sure the members of this House will join me in wishing him many happy returns and extending a very warm welcome to British Columbia to this distinguished Canadian, the Rt. Hon. John Geolge Diefenbaker.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I too would like to join in welcoming the Queen's Privy Counsellor to this august chamber. Since Mr. Diefenbaker is the only Qu n, P -IV Counsellor now left alive in Canada, I want to say to him that in that role, that is the one thing we share an absolute commitment to, and that is to he monarchy. Beyond that, Mr. Diefenbaker is a long-time foe of my particular party, but it is the monarchy that has made us foes in equality and foes in equality of right and responsibility.

Mr. Diefenbaker, I understand you have taken unto yourself the task of discussing Canadian unity, and I welcome that self-appointed task. I wish you well in it, not only as Queen's Privy Counsellor, but as a fellow Canadian who's had a great deal to ~do with building this country to this point, and whom I hope will still have a great deal to do with building the country in the future.

RT. HON. J.G. DIEFENBAKER: Mr. Speaker, I'm very deeply touched by this welcome. To you, madam, and to you, sir, and to all the members of this august body - this parliamentary democracy from the earliest days - were I to express the depth of my feeling at this time, you would not be adjourning at 1 o'clock. Thank you very, very much.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, just having run up the stairs, I apologize to the House for being late.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Tories are always late.

MR. WALLACE: We're sometimes so late we never ever make it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to belatedly Welcome the national figure among our midst today and say that I'm delighted to have Rt. Hon. J.G. Diefenbaker here in British Columbia. He has written chapters. in the history of Canada which will live for a very long time. As provincial leader I'm very proud to, through Mr. Speaker, give you the warmest possible welcome to British Columbia, sir.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce a guest in the gallery. I thought he was there - Mr. Dalton Camp.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure once more today to introduce a visitor to our House. The Member of Parliament for Esquimalt-Saanich, Mr. Donald Munro, has joined us and has accompanied Mr. Diefenbaker to the House today. I would ask all members of the House to welcome Mr. Donald Munro.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery with us this morning are two people whom I'm very proud to have here: my sister Rosemary and her husband, Pat McDonnell, of Hope. They're from that great constituency of Yale-Lillooet. I'm happy to say to this House that they are not a couple of the group who are wearing black armbands this morning. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mi. Speaker, once again I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Dave Schreck, a representative of the Vancouver Resources Board. I'm sure the Minister of Human Resources will be pleased to note that he's available for any inquiries he might like to ask him in the course of debate.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, we do have in our galleries today a number of students, and particularly some from St. Michael's University School, to observe the deliberations of the House this morning. It's also, I think, a great

[ Page 5762 ]

experience for them to see first-hand an outstanding Canadian and great parliamentarian in the likes of the Rt. Hon. John G. Diefenbaker.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Speaker, this is actually an addendum to the hon. Attorney-General's introduction. Accompanying the students from St. Michael's University School for boys are students from the Norfolk House School for girls. They are all together in a law studies group, and they're escorted by Ms. Smith.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading. In order to keep the members in a little bit of suspense, I would suggest we proceed to the bill that is one below 66 and one above 64, and the answer is ...

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Bingo!

HON. MR. GARDOM ... Bill 65.

COMMUNITY RESOURCES BOARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

(continued)

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to take an opportunity to say how pleased I am that Mr. Diefenbaker is here today and to also confess that I am intimidated by his presence because, as he is such a superior debater, it makes me a bit nervous to be proceeding with the debate in his presence.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Yes, we probably should. I would certainly agree with that. (Laughter.) -

Mr. Speaker, I also want to confess that I've never had an opportunity to thank Mr. Diefenbaker before personally for his introduction of the Canadian Bill of Rights, but I certainly have appreciated it.

The first thing I want to do is give a health bulletin: my neck is still aching and my shoulders are still tired, but I'm here.

HON. MR. GARDOM: What does your doctor say?

MS. BROWN: That my neck is still aching and my shoulders are tired but that I should be here.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I usually acknowledge and thank the people who have sent me cables, but unfortunately today the number is over 50 and there just doesn't seem to be any way that I will have the time to read these cables into the record.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Are those your relations?

MS. BROWN: No. As a matter of fact, none of them were signed by either Mr. Milhous Nixon or Mickey Mouse. A number of them were signed by people from the Surrey constituency.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Names!

MR. BARNES: Mrs. Vander Zalm.

MS. BROWN: As well as from Mr. Bill Funk, who, I know, is very familiar to the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) - but he is not here to send him another cable in reply - a number of community resources boards, individuals and people of whom I have no knowledge at all. I do want to say thanks very much, Mr. Speaker, to all of them for the cables and to say that I appreciate this opportunity to share with the minister the fact that the support for the Vancouver Resources Board is not confined, as he said, to a very vocal and small minority.

Mr. Speaker, in debating Bill 651 would like to say that I was disappointed, although not surprised, to hear the Minister of Human Resources say on CBC this morning that he has found the debate boring.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Terribly boring. I hope it's going to be exciting today.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, his statement supports my argument that he knows little and cares less about the people of Vancouver who are served by the Vancouver Resources Board. His statement that the Legislature by sitting is costing the taxpayers $25,000 a day indicates his disapproval of this democratic process we are presently using to debate this bill. Indeed, it should strike fear in the hearts of all British Columbians. A steady stream of erosions of the rights and freedoms of people in this province has been in progress since that government took office less than two years ago. Bill 65 is part of that process.

Complaining about the cost of the Legislature is just another way of heralding a drastic attack on this, one of the last of the democratic institutions still surviving in this province under this government. The threat of retroactive legislation to legalize the questionable actions of some of the members of the government, Mr. Speaker, also suggests that there may be retroactive legislation to end the sort of intensive and in-depth debate in which I'm currently involved. Who knows?

All that we do know is that the killing of the Vancouver Resources Board is not an act in isolation. It is part of a pattern, and we know that the minister

[ Page 5763 ]

responsible has found the opposition's attempt to have his government reverse its decision on this issue not helpful. This bodes ill for all of us.

Mr. Speaker, the minister also indicated that at the termination of this debate he had some important figures to release. I hope that the memos which were read into the record yesterday, and the information which I brought to the attention of the government, as well as to that of the public, serve to discredit any figures coming out of that ministry and, in particular, out of that minister. Those memos indicated how that minister deliberately hides the expenses of its department and hides the staff complement of his department, and how he was chastised by his own members for the inaccuracy of statistics dealing with his PREP programme and his fraud programme.

Mr. Speaker, someone once said that there are lies, damn lies and statistics. I hope that whoever hears any statistics coming out of that ministry again will realize that they are listening to damn lies.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I want to continue discussing the role that the Vancouver Resources Board is playing in alleviating some of the pain of women in need in the city of Vancouver, After that, I intend to take a look at the politics of this decision. If time permits, I want to talk also about immigrants, senior citizens and children, and the ways in which the Vancouver Resources Board has worked with them and for them so that, together, needs could be identified and services designed to best meet those identifiable needs.

I want to start off, Mr. Speaker, by reading a letter which I received some weeks ago from a woman in Vancouver. It says:

"Dear Ms. Brown,

I am a 31-year-old single mother living in Vancouver. My son is 6 years old and has started grade I this year. My husband committed suicide in 1974. We were married for nine years. I am not now on welfare but I have been once. However, I'm one of those people who have benefited greatly from the community resources board in my area."

This letter had a Kitsilano address on it.

"I married my husband when I was 18 and he was 28. 1 had just finished high school and was looking for a job. I grew up in a small town on the B.C. coast and, like everyone I knew, moved to Vancouver the day after I graduated. My husband was a deckhand. He had worked on boats all of his working life and had no other skills. In fact, we met on a boat. I had gotten a job as a dishwasher on a west coast freighter called the Northland Prince. You may have heard of it. Anyway, it's hard work and it's a difficult and disjointed life. The first three years both my husband and I worked on this boat. I decided to quit because we never saw each other. When I was on my way out he was signing off, and vice versa.

"My husband was always a heavy drinker. I never gave it much thought since most of the people I knew had no social life besides the pub. It took me quite a few years to finally conclude that he was an alcoholic. Actually, I never said the word to myself. I always said that he had a 'drinking problem.' I don't want to go into the details of our life together, such as it was, because I'm sure there are enough stories about the miseries involved in families where one or more persons are alcoholics. I do, however, want to give you some idea that there is at least one person who is angry, frustrated and unhappy about Bill 65.

"When I was 24 my husband and I moved to a small town not far from Vancouver. Again, I got a job as a dishwasher working in a hospital, and my husband continued working on the boats. His drinking by this time was becoming intolerable, but I was confused and frightened, and often felt that I was being paranoid and just over-sensitive about it, Sometimes I would think I was imagining things, that I was a nagging and uptight wife, and that if I would just relax a bit life might be better. But it is hard to relax when your husband comes home drunk every night, or doesn't come home at all. Sometimes he would come home at 5 or 6 in the morning and come in the bedroom and sit on the floor beside the bed and lay his head on it. He knew that this wasn't good, too, but most of the time I would end up undressing him and making sure that the blankets kept him warm.

"I had a friend whose husband was also an alcoholic and she was an active member of Al-Anon. Her husband was in AA and he had not had a drink for three years. I went to her in desperation because, as I said, I didn't want to openly admit to myself, nor to anyone else, that my husband was an alcoholic. I was more depressed after talking to her because she was a realist, and she told me there was nothing I could do for my husband until he was ready to do it himself. She encouraged me to go to Al-Anon, where I might meet other women who were going through the same things. I was never an active member ~of Al-Anon and I always thought that my husband was different from the rest of the husbands of the ladies there. Most of them were quite a few years older than I was, and had lived with their men much longer. I thought that they were much tougher than I was, but our commonality was our misery and I found that consoling.

"When my husband found out I was going to

[ Page 5764 ]

Al-Anon meetings he was furious. He made fun of me in public, sneering and calling me ugly names. You may ask why I stayed with him. Remember throughout this story that I thought that I was very much in love with my husband. When I married him I had chosen to live the rest of my life with him, so I was determined to make it work. His taunting became unbearable, so much so that I had to quit Al-Anon.

"I began to isolate myself from my friends, my family and all the people who were concerned about me. I no longer accompanied my husband to the pub. I just couldn't stand it any more. Then the fighting began and got more vicious and more vicious. I was tired every day at work. I was thin, I was drawn, I was unhappy. I decided I was going to make one more attempt, at least to make my life bearable until the day my husband decided to quite drinking. I decided to get pregnant. Maybe that would stop him; maybe it would give him some sense of responsibility. I never discussed this with him because I knew that he would oppose the idea, so I simply stopped taking birth control precautions. By this time, he too, had quit his job. He was drinking more and it was the worst of all possible times to have been pregnant.

"I had a baby boy in June of 1971, but my husband's drinking did not stop. It did not even subside lightly. He tried for one week to go without a drink, but it was impossible. At the end of the week I almost felt that it was better when he was drunk, and when we were fighting every day about everything. I never thought that having the baby was a mistake. How could I? I loved my son and I suppose I used him to fill in the gaping holes in the rest of my life. We needed each other, My husband was afraid of our child and uncomfortable with him.

"By the end of 1972, after the Christmas booze had been drained, and after my husband had disappeared for a week after a terrible row - the last time on which he ever hit me - after eight years, eight drunken New Year's Eve parties, I left him. I didn't know what I was getting into, but I did know what I was getting out of. I didn't care how hard it would be. I figured that nothing would ever be as hard as the last few years had been. I moved into Vancouver, got a job in an office, made arrangements for my son's day care and rented a basement suite.

"It was hard for my son too. I always worried that he was going to grow up with deep emotional problems, and that it would be my fault. I wasn't involved in any social activities. I got up in the morning, took my son to the babysitter; went to work, picked him up, came home, made supper, and put both of us to bed. This was my whole life for two years.

"I saw my husband frequently, but I saw him sober only once before he died. My husband's life was no better after I left him. He was tired of working on boats constantly and wanted to get ashore, but it is rather difficult to embark on a new career at 38 years old when you have no other skills. He realized this, so he decided to enrol in a retraining programme at the Vancouver Vocational Institute to get a master's ticket. At least he would be able to get a job as a skipper rather than a deckhand~ But he was scared.

"This was a crossroads for him, for if he failed the course he would be stuck where he was for the rest of his life; and if he succeeded, it meant he would have to stay away from his drinking. He would have to try to stop drinking again. He was tense. Sometimes he wanted to fail so that he would have another excuse to go on a binge. It is somehow unfair that the last time I saw him was the only time that I saw him sober since I met him.

"In November I got a phone call from the RCMP in Castlegar, telling me they had found my husband. He had hung himself. He was dead.

"I remember a high school teacher once told me that death is painful only for the living, that people do not really mourn the death of a loved one but rather their own personal loss. This is probably true. But when a person takes their own life you have to understand why a person makes a conscious decision to die, and that is painful. It takes a long time to understand and it took me a long time to understand that I was not responsible for my husband's suicide. That is where the counselling and support of the Vancouver Resources Board came in.

"I still believe that had I talked to him, I could possibly have postponed it, but ultimately it was he himself who had taken the responsibility. While I say this with conviction now, I must constantly assert the fact, for as time goes by I am more objective and realize with humility that no one has such power over another human being as to be able to raise them from the depth of despair nor to inflame them with the desire to do so themselves. I also believe that had my husband been given more opportunities in life, things would have been different."

Mr. Speaker, the letter goes on to say:

"I had heard numerous stories about the welfare system, that it was degrading, that people were rude and unkind, that it was charity, and

[ Page 5765 ]

that no one ever let you forget you were sponging off someone else in society.

"But when I went to the Kitsilano. Community Resources Board to apply, I found that either everyone I had talked to was wrong or else things had changed. Everyone there was pleasant. The office was clean, there was no hostility, and everything was comfortable. The social worker I spoke to did not ask a lot of embarrassing questions as I had expected but only questions trying to find out my financial situation, where I lived, information about my son, and so forth. Even so, I was uncomfortable throughout the interview, because every time a person walked by and looked in the window I felt guilty. But I would remind myself about the rent and the money that I didn't have to pay it. I also told myself that this is a civilized society and intelligent people understand that welfare recipients are not always a bunch of no-good, lazy bums.

"I only collected welfare for a short time, for luckily I was able to find a job. But the community resources board really facilitated a change in the direction of my life, for I was not in need of money only-, I was in need of society. I needed to participate in something social for myself and also for my son. Through t h e resources board and the Kits Neighbourhood House, I began to participate. I had lived isolated for so long that it was quite a while before I overcame my shyness. I also felt that these activities were for destitute people only, and I didn't want to appear destitute. I found that they weren't. I have met a lot of people in the last year.

"I'm not going to say that my whole life is now as easy as pie. It is still hard being a single mother, having a child and living on a low income. I will in fact be making more money, or at least it would be less of a financial burden, if I were on welfare. But people don't collect welfare because it is easier than working; they collect welfare because they can't, for one reason or another, work. Resources Board does much more than distribute welfare cheques. It has become, through the community resources board, a very important part of the lives of a lot of people, of their social lives - people like me who for years have lived in Vancouver, worked here, but have never really been a part of the city or its community. It has let all of us who thought that we were the only people with a problem meet each other and try to deal with those problems which are in fact so common. It has given us the opportunity to feel that we do have some control over our own lives, that we don't have to depend on the government and on society generally to continually give us handouts. It has made me and, I know, many people feel actively involved and convinced that we can give as well as receive."

Mr. Speaker, the letter goes on and on talking about the various ways in which the Vancouver Resources Board - because that's the only resources board with which this woman is familiar - has been a source of support to her and her 6-year-old child during this very difficult period of her life. It's one of the reasons why I think, despite the facetious statement made by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) , that so many people in Vancouver are wearing black armbands, if not openly, at least within themselves, at the thought of the Vancouver Resources Board being terminated as a result of Bill 65 and the decision of this government.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back and talk about some statistics applying to women in this woman's position because she's not unique, she's not rare. In fact, the statistics for Canada show us that 13.2 per cent of the people in this country living in families are single, female-headed families. In other words - I'll do that over again - families headed only by women constituted 13.2 per cent of the low-income families in this country in 196 1.

We found that in 1973, that figure had been raised to 28.7 per cent, and that in fact it had doubled since 1976. By 1973, there were three times as many families living in poverty which were headed by females as there were female-headed families in the population in general. This reveals a great over-representation of female-headed families in poverty. That statistic, Mr. Speaker, comes from the review of the Canadian Council on Social Development.

Mr. Speaker, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women tells us, at the beginning of its chapter on poverty, a number of really frightening pieces of information when we start to look at the area of women and poverty. It says that 708,300 low-income families were headed by women. It says the number of children also adds to the difficulties which poverty presents for women when they are burdened with pregnancies and the care of large households.

"Poverty affects all members of the family, but often it is the wife and the mother who is subjected to the greatest stress. It is her immediate responsibility to cope with crowded, inadequate housing and limited budgets. Frequently she gives priority to the needs of her husband, who must present a suitable appearance to the outside world, and to the children, whose future depends on the care she can give them. Her needs come last, and she may be the last person in the family to receive medical or dental care, to have new clothing, or to enjoy any recreation outside her home. If

[ Page 5766 ]

she takes a job to increase the family income she probably earns very little and usually she cannot afford to pay for household help, so she must do the housework in addition to her outside employment."

Although this report, Mr. Speaker, is eight years old, and the government has recently given funding to the Vancouver Status of Women for a review to be done of any of the recommendations that apply to the province, the statistics, as I pointed out to you earlier, show that the situation is getting worse. It is not getting better. Indeed, the statistics between 1961 and 1973, when there was an increase of 300 per cent, to 1977, when the last figures came out for the gap between earnings for men and women, show that the gap is widening and that the needs of women are becoming greater as a result of unemployment and the economic situation, and the social problems attendant upon this certainly are increased.

The Vancouver Resources Board, Mr. Speaker, addressed itself to a number of these areas and I'm going to be talking about some of the areas -Daycare, Transition House, Post Parturn Counselling, Family Place, Women's Health Collective, and a number of other areas - which were funded through the Vancouver Resources Board to help women deal with the reality of poverty and its attendant pain. This service, Mr. Speaker, is a service that's going to be jeopardized when Bill 65 becomes law.

I want to read a carbon copy of a letter that was sent to Mr. Bennett. I had it typed out because the carbon didn't come out very well. This is what it said: "Dear Mr. Bennett;

Being on welfare has made me very aware of dear Mr. Vander Zalm. I can't understand how he expects to run the VRB. In my opinion, he can't see down this far from his throne. He was brought up on pork chops, not on hamburger, so how does this man know our needs? They call him a Robin Hood in reverse. I call him a can of Raid and us welfare recipients the mosquitoes.

"The things he wants to probably close are the things that are most important to us - the family centre that takes children out of small apartments so they can play and be with other kids, and their parents can go to discuss problems and meet with other parents who have similar problems. We need these centres and the people who work in them.

"Also the mothers' help. I have three hours a week to be away from my little girl; and being a single parent, I need this. You can't imagine what it's like to be alone with a child 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We all need a break.

"If you take away all of the things that we need so desperately, then pray tell how you can call yourself human. Being a welfare recipient has made me feel degraded and low, and for this, I thank Mr. Vander Zalm. Believe me, this injustice you're allowing this man to do to us is cruel. Hopefully, you will put a stop to his insane ideas before it is too late. Put him on the side of the stick for awhile, and I would bet that he couldn't survive."

It is signed by someone who lives in an apartment on Fraser Street in Vancouver.

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting, as I was going through some notes of the debate on Bill 49, which was another infamous welfare bill which was debated on the floor of this House, that I noted the Premier of the province at that time was not in the House for that debate either, even as the Premier of the province at this time has not been in the House for this debate. So I guess what we're looking at is history repeating itself.

Here is another letter from someone that says: "Dear Mr. Bennett:

I am concerned about the VRB situation. I am on welfare and have a baby daughter who goes to the Mount Pleasant family centre, which is of great assistance to me and ideal for my daughter.

"If Mr. Vander Zalm gets his way, the family centre will have to close. These family centres are a necessity to many children, not their parents, and these places are great places for children to develop, which is much needed in all communities. I hope you will take this into consideration.

"Thank you."

It's signed by someone by the name of Hope Bell.

Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to bring a couple of examples to the minister's attention in the hope that this, at least, he will not find boring, and that the next time he's interviewed on TV he will not say that he finds the information dealing with the people who are going to suffer as a result of his decision boring, and that he will think about them for a change instead of threatening the Legislature because of its cost of $25,000 a day.

For the purpose of this debate, Mr. Speaker, I have had a number of those letters typed so that I could read them more clearly. The letters are all on file and I would be very happy to file them with the House, if that is the minister's wish.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, not at all.

MS. BROWN: What did the minister say?

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't want them filed.

MS. BROWN: He doesn't want them filed. Maybe he will listen anyway.

[ Page 5767 ]

MR. BARRETT: It's not successful people you're talking about.

MS. BROWN: No, I'm not talking about successful people at all. And though a number of successful people in Vancouver have spoken out in support of the Vancouver Resources Board and have joined the battle to try and fight to save that board, the people I am speaking about are not successful people, that's true.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What's your measure of success?

AN HON. MEMBER: You know what it is: those who are deserving.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: They may be very happy in their own way.

Interjections.

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

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the minister says that these people may be very happy in their own way. If they are happy in their own way, I'm wondering why they're writing these letters saying that they are not happy. Is the minister saying that these people really don't know when they are happy? Is that what he's saying? They are saying that they're not happy and he's saying that they may be happy in their own way. I'm not quite sure what it means: in their own way., ,

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You can't judge success.

MS. BROWN: Oh, I see. They are not capable of the equality of happiness that rich people have. I see.

MR. BARNES: Besides, they might be deserving.

MS. BROWN: Right, and they're not deserving. That's right.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Yes, in their own little way.

MR. BARRETT: And they should be happy if they're not, because he's here to protect them.

MS. BROWN: Sure. And when he cuts off the Vancouver Resources Board and takes all of these services under the bureaucratic wing of his department, which is still incapable of even putting out an annual report, then they will be even more happy in their own way because they will be writing more letters saying how unhappy they are. The more they say they're unhappy, the more it means that they're happy in their own way.

MR. BARRETT: They should be humble and thankful.

MS. BROWN: That's right, because, after all, they're not deserving. This is a woman, Mr. Speaker, who is a mother on her own and has raised three children on social assistance. She is now middle-aged, and I certainly identify with that. She says:

"I think it is a lot better now than it used to be for people on welfare and their kids. In the old days of Gaglardi, the social workers meant well but they had to fight hard, just as hard as we did, to get things for their clients that their clients needed, such as better rates for people to live on and special needs and social allowances that we did not have in those days.

"It was almost impossible to get special needs. If you needed a bed or some clothing for your kids, you would ask for it and it usually would take a long time to get it through all the red tape. Then sometimes you would be turned down.

"People get more individual service now. There are no lineups like there used to be. You get a chance to talk about your problem. You get to see your social worker and she listens to you because she now has time.

"The community benefits by the Vancouver Resources Board, too, because people elect their own kind of people to the board and they have a lot to say as to what goes on in the welfare department."

That really is the crux of the matter: when the speaker says that the members of the board are elected and they have not been able to cut their political umbilical cord, that's precisely what he is saying. The elected people now have some say about what goes on in the welfare department. She says:

"I have noticed a lot of changes in the community too. There aren't as many problems around and we can get help through the resources board, rather than having to go all over the community looking for it."

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that the minister says is that he's cutting out the community resources board because he wants people to deal directly, as I've said before, with their MLA. I want the record to show that it is certainly much easier for MLAs to give

[ Page 5768 ]

service to their constituents when they have the community resources board to which to turn for advice and guidance and counselling and recommendation. It is a very, very valuable resource which the MLAs in Vancouver - or in any other area where there's a community resources board - will be losing with Bill 65.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I forgot to mention when I read that letter about Family Place was that the minister himself, through his department, has been putting pressure on the Vancouver Resources Board to close down Family Place, because he does not understand or does not approve of the kind of services that Family Place gives. As that woman's letter pointed out, she recognized that Family Place was there to serve her child, not her. Family Place serves children. Day care is for children; it's not for parents. That's something that the minister has never seemed to be able to comprehend.

Mr. Speaker, this is from another woman who has raised four children. She was on welfare, got off welfare and who is now herself a foster parent. She says:

" The Vancouver Resources Board is a big improvement-, there is better access to social workers now. You can phone up your financial worker and get hold of her right away. It is not like the old days when you had to go through two or three people before you could get to your worker, and she had to check with two or three other people and it would take several days before she could find out whether you were eligible for what you were requesting at that time."

Do you remember those days?

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: That's right. You were always being supervised; remember that? And the supervisors were being supervised.

MR. BARRETT: Bureaucracy took all the money. Central control.

MS. BROWN: That's right. Right here in Victoria. You couldn't move without a directive from Victoria. It didn't make any difference what the community wanted or what the community needed. Victoria was the only place that would make the most minute decision on anything.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: That's right. The superintendent of child welfare found the situation intolerable. Those children who were battered and scarred under that system are the ones who are going to be moving into the containment centres that they're building for them.

MR. BARRETT: All over again - history repeating itself.

MS. BROWN: Yes. That's what's happening, Mr. Speaker, again, this woman pointed out that you don't have to stand in line for cheques the way this used to be, and she said it used to be a really bad scene.

"Everything seems to be set up better, seems to be more efficient and there is no waiting. It used to take us ages just to get the okay for a dental form."

I have personal memories of those dental forms, because as a worker at the Children's Aid, there were a number of the children on my caseload whom I had to take to the dentist, because they were living in foster homes or whatever. I know what it is like, Mr. Speaker, to struggle through those dental forms and wait for the okay and the red tape and the hassles that the social workers had to go through, to say nothing of the hassles that the foster parents used to have to go through, and all the parents of children on welfare who needed dental care. Mr. Speaker, she goes on to say:

"It is nice to have an office close to where you live and to feel that the workers there are your friends, whom you can go to for help."

Again I can draw from my own experience of working at the Children's Aid, when my caseload had children on it who were in foster homes in West Vancouver, North Vancouver, Burnaby, Coquitlam. The office was on West 10th and we had to spend most of the day driving.

Mr. Speaker, would you call for a quorum count, please?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There's nobody on your side, Rosemary. They've all deserted you; there's no opposition left. You're all alone, Rosemary.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, there are not nine people in the House. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker - I would like a quorum count.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You're all alone, Rosemary. They've left you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard wishes a count of the House?

MS. BROWN: Yes.

MRS. JORDAN: I hope it's noted that there's not one NDP member in the House.

[ Page 5769 ]

MR. SPEAKER: It's obvious, hon. members, that a quorum is present. The hon. member continues.

MS. BROWN: Before there was the call for the quorum, I was commenting on this foster mother's letter, which stated how nice it was to have an office close to where you live, and to feel that the workers there are your friends and that you can go to them for help. She goes on to say: "It didn't used to be like this. You had to go to a central office and could never get through on the phone because it was always busy." We remember that, don't we? There were never enough phone lines going into that Children's Aid office. The government just wouldn't put enough phone lines into it,

MR. BARRETT: Phil was too busy.

MS. BROWN: That's right, It wasn't any better under Black either, if you can remember.

The letter goes on to say:

"Social workers have more time for people now than they did before. I find there are a lot more services for my children too, and that they're very helpful. For example, I have one child that has a learning disability and we have a tutor that has gone to no end of trouble to help her. She goes to the school and checks everything out with the teachers, and then comes home to help both the kids and me to know how to handle the learning disability. This is very important at this age, and I could never have got this kind of help before.

"Now I know that the tutors are very seared. They have told me they're going to lose their jobs, and we know that there are many more kids who need this kind of help."

I t's interesting, Mr. Speaker, this learning disability, this dyslexia thing, because in fact a child who comes from a family with a lot of money can afford this kind of tutoring. But children in foster homes and children from families in receipt of welfare need this service of special tutors to help them through. They're going to lose that, because that's one of the areas that the minister has been putting pressure on to have terminated.

In the area of unemployment, I mentioned to you, Mr. Speaker, the whole business of the resources board going into training programmes, retraining and vocational training. Yesterday I told you about the drop-in typing programme at Britannia School. I actually did get a letter from the students at the school. It says:

"Dear Ms. Brown:

"We understand that you are going to be supporting the Vancouver Resources Board with much of your time and effort in the next while. Perhaps you could mention our programme at Britannia. The class is called 'Drop-in Typing.' It is available to us from 9 to 11, Tuesdays and Thursdays. Our average attendance is about 30 or more. Over the last year, over half of the people who have attended have found employment after a typing brush-up and encouragement from the rest of the class. This programme was started by the Vancouver Resources Board for people who want to learn or brush up on their typing to get used to the pressure of work again."

This is one of the things that we often fail to take into account, and as the memo pointed out yesterday, certainly PREP fails to take it into account. There is a transition period for people who have been unemployed for a long time, whether they are at home having children, or taking care of the family and then re-entering the market, when they need to become more accustomed to working out in the job market again. This programme deals with it.

The students go on to say: "We come for different reasons but we all need this programme to continue. Our teacher is a person who can really help us with her drive and sensitivity." It is signed by a number of students.

You know, what is really interesting is the amount of interest the members in the government benches are showing in this debate about ways in which the Vancouver Resources Board help women in the community who are in need. But in any event, you're listening, Mr. Speaker, and I want to tell you that the Britannia drop-in typing programme is just one of a series of adult education and training programmes which was started and continues to be sponsored and supported by the Vancouver Resources Board.

There's a West End typing and life skills programme for women. Again, operating on a very small budget, they manage to help a large number of people. There's the Marpole-Oakridge area, which also has a retraining programme for women which the women in that find very valuable and are using.

Mr. Speaker, when the women's movement raised this issue with the minister about the right to control their own bodies, the right to a non-sexist education, the right to 24-hour child care, the minister's response, if you'll remember, was that women make the best cooks and housekeepers and should be encouraged in that role. The minister, of course, failed to recognize the statistics of the large number of women in this country, not just in this province, who are single parents, who work because they have to, Mr. Speaker, and have no option. So I want to give him those statistics again.

Of the labour force in the province of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, more than half of the total labour force are women. It goes on to say that of the 951,000 paid workers in this province, there's a total of 353,000 or 34.6 per cent, who are members in

[ Page 5770 ]

good standing in a union, who are working in the province. It also takes into account that the number of people who are not in unions and who are low-wage earners make up 57 per cent of that worker population, and those are females. Another 57 per cent of the low-wage earners in this province are people who are female and who work because they have to, because they cannot live up to the minister's requirements that they make good cooks - I think that was the statement - and that they should be encouraged to stay at home. They have to work. As all those women whose letters I read to you pointed out, they were not working, Mr. Speaker, because they particularly wanted to; they were working because they had to.

In addition, there are a number of women who work because they want to, because they have skills and they have ability, and they have something to contribute. They should not be deprived of this right. For the minister to base his child-care programme and to try to force closure on Family Place and other community resources like that which are sponsored by the Vancouver Resources Board because he thinks that women make the best cooks and housekeepers and should be encouraged in this role is a sexist one at best and a destructive one at worst.

The Vancouver Resources Board has recognized some of the special needs of women today. The Vancouver Resources Board has provided money for essential services such as an out-of-school child-care centre, pioneered in Vancouver; youth workers, which I mentioned earlier; neighbourhood houses; transition house funding, which started in Vancouver. All of these services add up to make life a little more tolerable, and that is why the women's movement and the women in Vancouver oppose the abolition of the Vancouver Resources Board.

Another letter, Mr. Speaker, which I received -and this person doesn't want her name to be used -again is a single mother, with a teenage son.

"I'm writing from my own personal experience with the Vancouver Resources Board to state how necessary I think they are in this day and age. My son is a normal boy, which presents some problems for me at times, and I can't tell you what I would have done without the help I received from the VRB people when we had nowhere to turn."

This comes from Knight Road and so I'm not quite sure which of the boards would be responsible for this.

I may have been forced to quit my job and go on welfare if they weren't there to help. They helped my son get a job to fill in his time, and they've come out in the middle of the night at times when I've needed them to help. My son likes sports and one worker takes him to games and is getting him into sports now - he could do that and work too. As I stated earlier, I am a single mother with no one to share my responsibilities with me except the people at the VRB.

"On occasion I had to take my son to the emergency ward very late at night and my social worker was there to meet me, helping with the other children. If you do away with the VRB I am sure you are going to see more of our youth in trouble and in jail, and single working parents quitting their jobs and going on welfare because, as you know, it's a full-time job raising a family at the best of times. By that I mean with two adults, and one at home all the time, and sufficient income to pay for your children to be in sports, et cetera, to keep their minds occupied so as to not get in trouble out of sheer boredom.

"My son and myself keep in close contact with the people at the VRB and they help us more than anyone else. If you close it down then I am under the impression that you do not care for the youth of our country or the average working person at all. If you want our children to grow up as responsible citizens, don't deprive them of a very important source of understanding, guidance and help that they get from the VRB. My letter is written from experience, not hearsay. Thank you."

Mr. Speaker, as I have pointed out, and as that woman did in her letter, a number of the ways in which the....

MR. WALLACE: Somebody else sending you roses.

MS. BROWN: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say thanks to the donor. I really appreciate it. I don't know who discovered I have a great passion for roses, but I really do. Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't want to go away without mentioning the Killarney Life Skills programme because that is certainly one that has turned up in a number of letters which I've received from women talking about assistance they've received. This letter says - and this women has asked me not to use her name:

"About seven years ago I left my husband, who was forever beating me. When I went applying for welfare they always used to make me go back to my husband in one way or another. Two years ago I went to the VRB and they did not give me any kind of hassle, although they encouraged me to go to family court to get support and to try and secure a legal separation. When my children were younger, they always used to say 'you have to have maintenance from your husband, and your

[ Page 5771 ]

husband has to visit with your children.' This time I even got Tecla to go to the family court with me to say that Arnold was not ready to visit my kids. This was really nice.

"Of course, I was not on welfare when I went back to my husband but I had my husband in court about once a month for beating me. Once they sent me to a Salvation Army home because they said it was the only place I could live if I was not living with my husband. It was so bad. They kept sending me back to him. It's the same workers, so it has to be the system that has changed and made the difference. I don't want to see that system done away with."

She asks that her name not be used.

Mr. Speaker, one of the women who went through the Basic Ed training programme wrote a poem on education and she said:

I picked up the newspaper But all I could read was And, This, Is, The and That, So I hung my head in shame. I went to apply for a job The other day. They handed me a paper and said, Fill this out, But all I could read was And, This, Is, The and That, So I hung my head in shame And walked out. My child came running up to me Asking, "Mommy, what's this word?" I didn't know how to read, nor what it meant, So I hung my head in shame. Education can give you the ability to Read and write. Education can also give you self-pride And confidence within yourself. With education you have the ability to do Any job and do it right.

Mr. Speaker, this poem was written by a woman who graduated from the Basic Education programme sponsored and paid for by the VRB. As you can see she is now saying a lot more than "And, This, Is, The and That."

Just a quick rundown of the list of women's programmes funded by the Vancouver Resources Board:

The Co-op Homes for Single Parents received $48,152.

Big Sisters received $18,720.

Family Place, again, of the VRB, and under constant pressure from the minister to close, received $55,618.96. Despite the fact that people who use Family Place and a number of other people keep saying what a valuable resource it is and it should be saved, Family Place knows that when the VRB dies it dies too.

Mount Pleasant Family Centre received $24,530. The One-Parent Project got $160.

The Single-Parent Student Group got $240. Native Orientation for Women got $250.

The Kitsilano mother and tots group got $104.

The Women's Health Collective, both of Kitsilano and Mount Pleasant, got $11,000.

Also included in the special services of the resource board are services for women such as Transition House, daycare and post partum counselling, and I'll talk about those a bit later.

Mr. Speaker, there is a letter here addressed t2 Mr. Gerry Strongman from a member in his riding, and a carbon copy was sent to me. Here she is dealing with Mr. Strongman's feeling that he has to support Bill 65.

"In your letter you state that the decision was arrived at after many months of consideration. Why then were the public not consulted in the earlier discussion period?

"More particularly, as a single mother with two children presently receiving financial assistance, I am overwhelmed to learn that such vital decisions affecting my life so completely can be made without my consideration.

"How can this proposed changeover afford a superior delivery of service? The centralization of power is what we had before the VRB was established. Many of us remember all too well the humiliation and terrible degradation of standing in endless line-ups with tired, hungry children while we waited to see a social worker who nothing about us and was far too over-burdened with work to care. The VRB changed all of that."

I notice the minister is paying attention. If you'll remember, in his opening remarks he said that the city of Vancouver should take the blame for that because the responsibility for delivery of services at that time rested with the city of Vancouver. It was because we recognized that even when the services come from so close as the municipal government, it is not still close enough, that the resource board concept was designed. Not even when they come directly from the municipality is it close enough. That's why it is broken down into community and into neighbourhood.

We understood that, and that is why it was taken from the city and placed right at the level where people are themselves - at the community level, at the neighbourhood level. I recognized from your speech that you didn't understand that, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister. This is why I'm explaining to him now that nobody is saying that he should go back to giving it to the city or giving it to the municipality. What we're saying is that the community level where people decide for themselves

[ Page 5772 ]

is where it works. That's what all of these letters are saying. That's what all of the telegrams, all of the phone calls, all of the briefs you've received are saying: at the community level it works; it's more human; it's more efficient; it's more accountable. It's doubly accountable. It's accountable to you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, and it's accountable to the community as well. There is no better system, and that is why we cannot understand a political decision to destroy something that works.

Mr. Speaker, there are numerous letters here from everywhere. A mother of two preschoolers wrote the Premier to say how upset she was. She discusses how before the Vancouver Resources Board came into existence it was like an obstacle course, frustrating and humiliating, dealing with the welfare staff and the welfare community, and how due to the facilities of the VRB she has improved her standard of life and begun retraining and a development programme that will help her to get off welfare, and work on a full-time basis eventually.

In an article, Mr. Speaker, Gus Long, of one of the anti-poverty groups, in talking about poverty as a social disease, tells us that poverty is largely a woman's problem. Of course, through being a woman's problem, it becomes a children's problem because half of all the people on welfare are children or dependents, who are mostly children. So when you talk about chopping people off welfare, she says, you're talking about chopping kids off welfare.

She gives us statistics that in 1974 there were 119,500 people in receipt of welfare in B.C. Of this number, 26,000 were family heads, mostly single mothers; 62,000 were dependents, mostly children; and 18,000 were single people. This figure also included a lot of young adults who were just a little bit out of childhood themselves. She goes on to talk about the 13,000 people who are unemployable because they are handicapped for one reason or another.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, things like the Vancouver Opportunities programme and other programmes that are sponsored and supported by the Vancouver Resources Board stand in jeopardy today as a result of Bill 65.

Again we go back to the pamphlet issued by the Salvation Army. Fifty-three per cent of all families in poverty are headed by one parent. It goes on to say that in most of these cases that parent is a female. It deals with the statistics that 300,000 Canadian families have one parent. In 261,230 of them, the parent is a mother. What are we doing about this?

The Vancouver Resources Board has tried to address itself to this in its support, as I've pointed out to you, Mr. Speaker, of day-care facilities, of retraining programmes, and in those instances where the family is together but there is so much violence in the family, the Vancouver Resources Board is sponsoring the Transition House, which is a refuge, as you know, for battered women. There are innumerable statistics here, Mr. Speaker, about Vancouver - 12.52 per cent of the families in Vancouver being headed by women. Although these statistics are not unique to Vancouver, in order to stay in order in discussing this bill I'm only dealing with Vancouver, but I want to assure you that the Canadian statistics are just as bad. Specifically, though, something is being done about it in Vancouver. The Vancouver Resources Board has risen to the task and is trying to do something about it.

There again, I have a number of letters which I'm not going to read, Mr. Speaker, because time is running out for today and I still have a number of other points that I want to make. I also want to mention the Time Out or the Mom and Tots programmes of Kilsilano families because it was one of the ones about which I received a number of positive letters from people saying that they relied very heavily on it and it had certainly changed the direction of their lives.

These are the reasons, Mr. Speaker, why groups like the B.C. Federation of Women have come out in complete support of the Vancouver Resources Board and in total opposition to Bill 65. This is why the Vancouver Resources Board is supported by groups like the Vancouver Status of Women, the Kitimat Women's Organization, Quesnel Women's Group, Williams Lake, Cranbrook, Prince George - you name it, Mr. Speaker - SFU, UBC, Campbell River, Comox. This has nothing to do with people just living in Vancouver. Right around the province these groups are coming out in support of the kinds of ways in which the Vancouver Resources Board has been addressing itself to the needs of children and to the needs of women, and trying to meet it. They're concerned, Mr. Speaker, for the fact that those services are in jeopardy as a result of Bill 65 and that, in many cases, they will disappear when Bill 65 becomes law.

Mr. Speaker, I want to move from talking about some of the services to women and go on to another issue. If there is still enough time, I want to go back and deal in detail specifically with daycare, Transition House, post, partum counselling, and the Mount Pleasant Family Centre. Because I'm trying to hold the minister's attention since his comment about how boring he finds the whole procedure, I'm switching around and now I'm going to talk about the political crisis of the Vancouver Resources Board.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen how the proposed action of the government is part of a pattern of centralization and how this centralization affects the community in a number of ways. I'm still dealing

[ Page 5773 ]

with Bill 65. Now it is time to look at the political aspects. The decision to dissolve and disband the Vancouver Resources Board is, of course, a political decision.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): On a point of order, I'm sorry to interrupt the hon. member in her speech, Mr. Speaker, but I've just been informed that approximately 20 minutes ago there was a division bell rung for lack of quorum. I wish to inform the Speaker that the division bells are not ringing in the official opposition's caucus office. There's a bell right outside my office, Mr. Speaker, and the bell did not ring. If it had, I would have immediately, upon hearing it, rushed into the House for fear of missing a vote or something. Having brought this to your attention, Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if you could take some action.

MR. WALLACE: Get the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) to fix your bell. It's his fault.

MR. NICOLSON: Could you possibly have someone from Public Works see what could be done with it? Failing that, perhaps some attendant could go through sort of as a town crier, Mr. Speaker, crying: "Hear ye, hear ye! A division having been called, all good members return to the House."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. member. It's not necessary to interrupt the hon. member in her speech for this, but we will take it under advisement and see that it's repaired.

MR. NICOLSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, that was a very serious problem that my colleague brought to your attention. I certainly would not like anyone to miss an opportunity to vote on this bill as I'm anticipating that a number of the government members are going to vote in opposition to it.

The decision to dissolve and disband the Vancouver Resources Board, as I said before, is a political decision, politically motivated, and will have grave political consequences. You know, it's a good thing, Mr. Speaker, that my voice is getting stronger as I go along because I'm having a heck of a time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could we have some order in the House, please? I'm not sure whether the Speaker's hearing bells or hearing just a noise across the floor. If we could have some order it would be greatly appreciated.

MS. BROWN: However, Mr. Speaker, in order to understand exactly what is happening, I would like to suggest that you and I take a backward glance into time. The old adage that those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it applies in this House as it does elsewhere. As I mentioned before, the debate on Bill 49 was in many ways like this bill that we're now having in Bill 65. 1 don't know how many people know that Bill 49 was that infamous piece of welfare legislation that was going to make the then minister of welfare, Mr. Gaglardi, have complete control over everybody's lives. The eruption in the community over that bill was certainly similar to the eruption in the community over this one. That bill certainly contributed in large part to the defeat of the Social Credit government in 1972, and hopefully Bill 65 will do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I beg your leave for a moment to look back at the time when the names of Bennett and McGeer were household words in Canada, back to the dirty '30s, back to the Great Depression. The little history lesson I'm going to offer is by no means irrelevant. The politics of poverty in the 1930s is not much different from the politics of poverty, 1977. The kinds of political decisions mad ' e for or against the poor during the Depression, and the consequences of those decisions which led to greater poverty and greater social instability, are in many respects similar to what we find happening today.

You will recall that during the 1920s.... I know that you can't recall; lie's just a kid. But maybe you heard about it, Mr. Speaker, because....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm ageing more as the debate goes on.

MS. BROWN: We all are, Mr. Speaker, believe me. But I know that you've heard it, because one of the things about people who lived, through the '20s is that they've never forgotten it. They've certainly talked about it, and they continue to talk about it as long as they live.

But anyway, Mr. Speaker, during the '20s, Canadian business and government leaders believed in a highly profitable future. There was a heady belief that the combination of great natural resources, an expanding world market and a plentiful supply of cheap, easily exploited immigrant labour would propel the Canadian business class to greater wealth.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, how is this relevant to Bill 65? Would you kindly relate it?

MS. BROWN: I thought, Mr. Speaker, that I had done that when I said that the decision to cut the Vancouver Resources Board through Bill 65 is a political decision. I'm trying to show you the political ramifications of an early decision exactly like this which was made, and I ask you to wander with me through time.

[ Page 5774 ]

Then as now, Mr. Speaker, the greed for profit was insatiable and every effort was expended to ensure that labour and government played the appropriate subservient and subordinate role in assuring that nothing would stop the flow of profit. The role of labour, as we know, was to work hard, to remain docile and disciplined, and to hope that some of the crumbs that would fall from the table of prosperity would land in their lap.

The role of government was much more positive. It was to have an important negative role, and that was to ensure that the accumulation of profit would be unencumbered by any significant outbreaks of discontent, and to ensure that working people remained divided and helpless in the face of great concentration of wealth. Equally important, Mr. Speaker, was the government's role in maximizing the accumulation of wealth and providing, wherever possible, those resources which would assist private enterprise. This is to say, government acted then, even as they're doing today, politically in the interest of business whenever it was possible.

Somewhat later, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to analyse in greater detail the specific ways in which the government assists the rich to get rich and to get more powerful. But for the moment let me say that to government was delegated the task of providing the basic infrastructure for economic development. The majority of people were taxed in order to provide this infrastructure; the primary benefit of that would go to those who exploited the resources. Roads, railways, public facilities, education - all were constructed with public funds. But the resources which were then exploited were for private property. Then, Mr. Speaker, as now, the job of government was to tax people in order to benefit the rich and to ensure their continued wealth. Some strange, convoluted economic theory seemed to say that rich people made a rich country, and the important thing was to keep the country rich.

But one of the problems, Mr. Speaker, as you will remember, was that the demands of business were so great that it forced governments, especially provincial governments, to spend more money and more money, and to go deeper and deeper into debt. The economic experts of the '20s were not particularly worried by these increasing burdens on provincial governments. They told us that it was expected that as the economy developed, tax revenues would increase and eventually the provincial governments would be able to retire the debt. The provincial governments believed these theories and they too counted upon picking up a few choice crumbs from the profits of the business class.

Well, we all know that that optimism was unfounded. For a variety of reasons, the capitalists of Europe and North America, as well as their theorists, miscalculated, and in 1929 the system broke down.

The collapse of every capitalistic economy in the world occurred with amazing speed. Relentlessly, more and more working people were thrown out onto the street, and the cycle of crisis deepened. Misery, dislocation, even starvation became widespread.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, it's very interesting, but I don't think that this is even remotely connected with the relevance of this particular bill at this point in time. I would call to your attention standing order 43.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think it's important, when we are in principle, that we understand that the debate must deal with abstractions on occasion as well. When the member makes abstractions they are related in the member's terms to the general principle of the bill. It's very, very difficult, Mr. Speaker, to make an absolute ruling under standing order 43. Although I recognize your concern, the fact is that when a point of order is made, there is leeway to back up on abstractions towards that point.

So I think that the member's direction should be viewed with some caution by the Speaker. I think that she has shown that a wide variety of abstractions have been directly attributed to the principle of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. That will have to be decided by the Speaker from time to time as the member progresses. I'm simply asking her to relate her remarks to the principle of this bill and make them understandable to the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, that's very good. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's costing $25,000 a day for a speech on socialism.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the comments that I'm making on this part.... Whatever the minister might say, I'm not giving a speech on socialism. I'm talking about poverty. I'm drawing historical parallels to show how the government of that day made the same mistakes that the government of today is making. As I said earlier, those who do not learn from history are doomed to relive its mistakes, and I am trying to prevent this government and this minister from making those mistakes.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: And the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is wrong; he does have to have me to tell him about it, because obviously, nobody else has.

So I will continue, Mr. Speaker. People were

[ Page 5775 ]

staggered to learn that there were almost one million people in this country who are out of work. Those who created the crisis began to worry that discontent would find'a political expression. The rumblings in the Prairies, where the Depression was accompanied by severe drought, suggested that out of the chaos created would come a determination by the majority of people to find a different and better way of doing things.

Mr. Speaker, we of the opposition trace our roots to this protest against the weakness and ineptitude of that system, just as that government in Social Credit did. Unlike them, however, we have kept faith with the principles and policies which grew up in those terrible years.

Mr. Speaker, the governments of Canada - federal, provincial and municipal - faced a real dilemma at that time, even as they do today. They had followed the advice of business and had supported them in every way, and now it had come to nought. The economic system was bankrupt, even as it is now, and with it, the governments themselves were facing bankruptcy, even as, we are told, the federal government is now.

The municipal improvements, which found expression, for example, in the Vancouver city plan of the mid-'20s, were now only costly debts. The shops of merchants which lined the newly paved streets were boarded up. The sidewalks were not covered with the sound of commerce, but the shuffling of the poor. The extension of sewer and water to provide housing developers with basic services were now simply lines leading to unrented and unsold houses.

Without stopping to analyse what had gone wrong, why it had gone wrong or what could be done about it, governments at all levels then as now began to act out of desperation. They acted on the promptings of old rules and old habits, without stopping to consider that these rules had created the very dilemmas which they now abhor. That, I'm afraid, Mr. Speaker, is what this minister and this government are doing again with the introduction of Bill 65.

Business continued to extract profits as hard and as fast as they could. To do so, they threw more and more workers out on the street. Governments tried to balance budgets by cutting back on expenses. They told their people then, as we're being told now, to tighten up the belt. People were the ones called upon to make the sacrifice, then as now, Mr. Speaker - not business and not industry.

The poor were told then, as they are now, that they are poor because they are shiftless and they are lazy. They were sent in search of jobs then, as they are now, jobs which did not then exist and which do not now exist, despite all the shovels the Minister of Human Resources keeps insisting he is going to put in their hands. Then, as now, they were told to go out and cut cordwood.

We find that the poor were castigated and berated, then as they are now, for being a financial drain on the municipal and provincial treasury. Nothing has changed. That government has not learned from history and we're doomed to go through a repetition of the mistakes made then.

The politics of poverty in the '30s had two main elements. In the face of the rising tide of discontent and the growing understanding of thousands of people that the old system was just not good, but actually replaceable by a different system, the establishment began to think of defending itself. However, it was recognized that the sheer cost of creating a police state was too high.

The level of violence did increase during the 1930s. Most of it was done outside of the scrutiny of the press - the beating up of labour organizers; the pushing around of the unemployed; the informal but painful disciplining of anyone who questioned what was going on. It was also apparent then, as it is now, that massive doses of violence are counterproductive. The treatment of marchers in Regina only hardened political feelings and only made more and more people recognize the need for change.

Mr. Speaker, one did not have to be very bright to understand that virtually the only power available to the poor and the unemployed was some kind of organized power, because the poor did not have money and they did not have positions of power. The only thing they could do was join together. There were a number of ways in which the poor and the unemployed could organize. The government did then, as it is doing now, everything in its power to stifle and prevent that coming-together and that organization.

I'm not going to reflect on the amendments to the Labour Code except to say that that certainly is one way in which this government is once again repeating history by trying to stifle that coming-together and that organization of unorganized people and unemployed people. Bill 65, Mr. Speaker, is certainly one way of this government destroying a system that allowed people direct input into decisions affecting their lives.

Then, as now, the prevention of organizing by those who need organizing most was conscious government politics. A second form of organization among the poor was political. Many people saw clearly, Mr. Speaker, that the government was incapable of dealing with people's problems, and were determined at every level to organize so that their voices could be more effectively combined. Here too, the basic strategy of government and business was to prevent this from happening.

In Vancouver it was apparent at that time that the existing ward system of government meant that working people had a real chance of electing

[ Page 5776 ]

representatives who would voice the concern of the poor. That is why the then mayor, Mayor McGeer, engineered the abolition of the ward system. The subsequent enlarged system was an effective tool in retarding the growth of progressive politics at the community or municipal level. Mr. Speaker, we are seeing it happening again with the destruction and the dismantling of the Vancouver Resources Board. When the poor and the unemployed organize to protect themselves and to press for improvements of the meagre relief system, the government once again acts to divide and rule.

The first principle of the politics of poverty as inherited from the governments of the '30s is to prevent the organization of the poor, in any way possible. This is a lesson that the present Minister of Human Resources has learned very well.

The historical episodes that 1 have just described represent the attempts by government to manage and restrict the demand for jobs, justice and security. Keeping a lid on demand was a conscious policy in the '30s - dividing, crushing, threatening, or deflecting. But the government also faced another problem, and that was supply. The economic dislocation was so severe during the Depression that governments were forced by necessity to provide some relief, and of course they protected profits as much as possible. Of course they concentrated on using outworn tools to put the economy back together again. But nevertheless, they had to provide relief. They had to do it. They had to put money in the hands of the poor because the economy needed it, not because they were concerned about the poor.

The strategy they chose to use, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to describe as the open-sieve method of welfare. This open-sieve method can be characterized as follows: each level of government, from federal down to municipal, attempts to live within an ordinary business budget, with expenses always to be kept to a minimum. At the same time, each level of government was being forced to spend some of its money on relief. Each level of government was being forced to develop some programme, but each individual programme was like a sieve designed to shore up a few, but allowed as many people as possible to drop through to the next level of government. Thus the federal government provided some relief expenditures. Their costs shot up between '30 and '31, then levelled off until the middle of the decade. This meant that as conditions grew worse and worse, the burden was placed on the provincial governments, who, as I mentioned earlier, were not in good financial shape themselves. Consequently, their relief programmes and projects were no more effective than the federal government's, and again the system worked like a sieve. A few people were assisted, but many fell through right into the laps of the municipalities.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, while this may be a very good history lesson, I am having trouble relating it at this point in time to Bill 65.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I am again telling you that history is repeating itself, that we are living through Bill 65 the mistakes made by the governments in the '20s and '30s. That's what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to get through to the minister that this is a time to use new, innovative ideas, not to repeat some of the old, outworn solutions to problems. That is the link between Bill 65 and what I'm saying.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And in so doing, you would relate to the bill.

MS. BROWN: Yes, I am relating to the bill.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I sit in this House day after day, and as I've stated to the member, I want to hear information relative to the bill. I think it's an insult to the people of British Columbia when we as taxpayers are paying $25,000 a day to keep this place in business to listen to a lesson on politics with respect to socialism in the world. I think it's an absolute insult.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. minister, when the member is out of order, the Chair will attempt to bring her back into order, and that is the duty of the Chair.

MS. BROWN: This is the first time that I've heard a member of that government make a link between the Great Depression and socialism. I hope this means at least they're beginning to learn something anyway, because it certainly has something to do with economic structures.

In speaking to the principle of Bill 65, Mr. Speaker, for your benefit may I repeat that it is possible for me to talk about Bill 65 and show the minister where a political decision that he's making to destroy a community resources board in Vancouver is repeating history in terms of the wrongness of its decision. That's all that I'm trying to do. If the minister would listen to what I'm saying, rather than becoming defensive about the information which I'm trying to give him, he'd probably learn something.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I may have to ask you at some point in time to turn to a different line of debate in that if it does become tedious, and you make the same point over and over again, that is expressly forbidden in our standing orders.

MS. BROWN: I'm not going to become tedious, Mr. Speaker. I'm just going to say that once again

[ Page 5777 ]

today we have a million people out of work. That's the final link I'm drawing with that experience. Once again we see that governments are responding in the same old time-worn ways, and that's what Bill 65 is all about.

MR. KEMPF: How are you going to stop her, Dave? You only have half an hour to get this weekend trip.

MS. BROWN:. The member for Omineca is beginning to get nervous again. Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that it's upsetting the Minister of Human Resources. I'm not going to continue to do that ' except to say that certainly the political decisions made by the federal, provincial and municipal governments at that time - like the political decisions made by those three levels of government now - are repeating the mistakes made by the past. Certainly I'm hoping that he will not persist in carrying through Bill 65, destroying the option that the people of Vancouver have to deal with the crisis of unemployment themselves, to recognize the needs through the Vancouver Resources Board at a local level, and to respond to them at a local level.

The people are going to be deprived if Bill 65 goes through. If Bill 65 goes, through, it will be a repeat of history, a history that was proven to be wrong. If the decisions made in the 1930s had been correct, we wouldn't be experiencing the dilemma that we're experiencing today. We would not today, as we did then, have a million people out of work. We would not in this province have the high unemployment today as we did then. Certainly the attitude to welfare that the minister is voicing continually in public is very similar to that voiced about the poor in those days.

MR. BARRETT: I don't think we have a quorum.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Speaker will ascertain.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Hon. member, I believe we do have a quorum, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I do believe we do have a quorum.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, do you recognize the fact that you are also counted in the quorum? Because we're 10 at all times, we're never less than 10.

.MR. BARRETT: Are you challenging the Speaker's ruling?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, hon. member, that is correct under our standing orders, thank you.

MR. MUSSALLEM: May I ask the Chairman, so we don't go through this charade again, that we make a careful and proper count?

MR. BARRETT: Are you challenging his ruling? What's the point of order? Is he challenging your ruling?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the member for Dewdney keeps interrupting me and I've only got an hour to get through a lot of material. So I'd appreciate it if he'd accept your ruling in future and not continually challenge you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MS. BROWN: I'm not ashamed, Mr. Member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) to admit that I'm looking forward to the weekend. I'm not ashamed to admit that.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: That's right. But then I'd have a different clientele than you, don't I?

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, I find rather incongruous that the wealthy lady from Point Grey should be so concerned. Her concerns that we should be subjected to her lessons concerning the Depression and her identification with the labour force, and her suggestion that it's only labour and the poor that are problems during the Depression are likewise incongruous.

I'd like to point out that not only labour and the poor are problems during the Depression. I would like to point out that it is not only labour and only the poor who have problems. Even she in all her wealth is going to be in the soup line should a depression come again and should history repeat itself.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please be seated. That is not a point of order.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, he's a new member. Is the member predicting there is going to be a soup line in this province if that government continues in power much longer? Is that what he's predicting? That's what he's saying. He's saying all of us are going to line up in the soup line.

MR. LOEWEN: On a point of order, it was the wealthy lady from Point Grey who was suggesting that history was repeating itself. I suggest that she will be lining up in the soup line should that be the case.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is not

[ Page 5778 ]

appropriate to make speeches on a point of order. It will not be further tolerated by the Chair.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, let the record show that we have received a warning from that government that we will all be lining up in soup lines if it remains in power much longer. I certainly hope that the people of this province will take note of that.

Mr. Speaker, the government knows it must be careful to prevent people from getting together in any forum to discuss their grievances. That is why the Minister of Human Resources has been able to beat his cabinet and his caucus into submission in supporting Bill 65. It is no secret that many of the Vancouver MLAs in the government are, in fact, troubled by its seemingly vicious centralization, it's destruction of a well managed, well run and beneficial social service structure.

I must want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I wouldn't want the government members to think that I don't hear their heckles. I do. It is just that I have a lot of material I want to cover, so I would rather not participate in across-the-floor debate with them, but get on with the task that I have before me. I just want you to pass that on to them.

Mr. Speaker, everyone now accepts that the real reason the government wants to dump the VRB is not because it has been mismanaged. That fact was certainly demonstrated with the memos which I read into the record yesterday to show the level of mismanagement within the Ministry of Human Resources itself and even some of the questionable policies used by that minister in his ministry in terms of hiding figures and creating unreal figures. In fact, it is because the government fears that it has been and will continue to be managed too well.

The government fears that the Vancouver Resources Board will become a sounding board for the rising tide of discontent with the existing economic policies of the federal and provincial governments. This government fears the people. It fears hearing that people are sick and tired of a sick and tired economy which only seems to benefit a few while many are facing more and more stringently restricted incomes. It is afraid, Mr. Speaker, to hear that people are tired of seeing them take from the poor and the old and the handicapped and the young to give to the rich.

It is afraid of the rising shouts of, "out, out, out, " so the Vancouver Resources Board is going to be eliminated, because as a body in direct contact with the community it would tend to be the first to raise a voice of protest. It would begin to talk about some of the things that would be coming down. It would speak for the people and help the people to speak for themselves. It is ironic, isn't it, that the board is being abolished because of the fear that it will do precisely what it was established to do. Because the previous government recognized the need for direct contact between the community and services, recognized a need for an early warning line, the community resources boards were there to signal. When all was not right, when things were out of kilter, we could respond quickly and positively as a government.

The boards, Mr. Speaker, after a shakedown period, began to function smoothly. The lines of communication were open and active. The boards directly communicated with the minister and the present government. They got the message and the axe fell.

Poverty is political, and this government is playing politics with the poor. This government is following the same policies which led to the social conflict of the '30s. This government has no more understanding of reality than Marie Antoinette. There's no difference between the phrase, "let them eat cake, " and the phrase, "let them sell their cars."

This government is trying to evade its responsibilities while at the same time stifling those who would assume responsibility for themselves. In this context, Mr. Speaker, we therefore see that what is happening to the Vancouver Resources Board is not simply an issue between the people of Vancouver and the government, which cares nothing for the people of Vancouver, but that it is, in fact, a provincial problem.

As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, in the '30s the provincial governments tended to pass the burden on to the next level of government, on to the municipalities. Well, I believe that every major and every municipal councillor and every person concerned with local government in this province should pay very close attention to what is happening to Vancouver now, for the writing is on the wall. Bill 65 is the writing that's on the wall. This government has begun to shirk its responsibilities and this government has begun to place more and more of the burden on the municipalities. I hope the UBCM will take note.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the mayor of Vancouver, Mayor Volrich, was wiser than he knew when he supported the continuance of the Vancouver Resources Board. But if conditions worsen, as there is every reason to believe, the city of Vancouver is indeed, as the member for Burnaby pointed out, going to be setting up soup kitchens before long. But they won't be serving soup or hamburgers; they'll be serving Vander-burgers.

Mr. Speaker, I want to again, in speaking to Bill 65, and again in drawing your attention to the way in which history is repeating itself, read to you from the Hansard of March 21,1972, a statement by one of the Vancouver MLAs:

Mr. Speaker, I just want to speak very briefly on this bill to indicate the dismay of the Liberal Party at yet another instance of the rather cruel streak that

[ Page 5779 ]

seems to run through our social policy in British Columbia.

So much is made of the good life here in our province. Vast amounts of the taxpayers' money are spent by those in power advertising the riches of British Columbia, the successful budget - Time magazine, the eastern press - the bragging about the surplus finds which the government has accumulated. All of this is going on at a time when the government is standing up, demanding that the taxpayer be protected, playing upon the ill luck of those who have chronic disease, those who are unemployed, those who are on the poverty line....

I've sat here in this House for 10 years now - I said nine the other day and I had forgotten that this is really the 10th year. Mr. Speaker, I have seen no change in philosophy during that time. I think the Social Credit government has always been arrogant, I think that the bills it has presented have always given far too much power to ministers and particularly one minister, the minister who is never in the House when critical bills like this are being discussed - and of course I refer to the Premier.... It goes on, Mr. Speaker, to say:

More people in politics and in business in every aspect of our lives in British Columbia must begin to speak with some compassion, and reveal this streak of cruelty for what it is. Because we have wealth in this province, there is no question about it. The government has wealth - there is no doubt of its huge surpluses.... But the disparity grows ever wider because there is huge unemployment of this province.

There is a large proportion of our population who are elderly and retired, and there are those who are too ill, or otherwise handicapped, and kept out of the work force.

And, Mr. Speaker, he goes on to talk about again the streak of cruelty that keeps this government from helping those people and allows them to bring in what was then Bill 49.

Mr. Speaker, the speaker of those words was the then member of the Liberal Party, the member for Vancouver-Point Grey, the now Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) . I would like, Mr. Speaker, since he is not here to speak for himself about Bill 65, to read these words of his into the record, because indeed nothing has changed since then. The same cruel streak which he found running through the Social Credit government in March 21,1972, when they tried to introduce Bill 49 on the floor of this House, still exists today.

Mr. Speaker, again speaking for that Vancouver MLA who is not here to fight on behalf of his constituency, I would like to read into the record that he said:

Mr. Speaker, we must have a change in philosophy and direction in this province. We've got to rub out now and for all time this streak of cruelty which is a curse on British Columbia and which is emphasized by this particular bill.

Compassion has gone out the window in British Columbia, and the general public, those who are rich, are invited to support a government who is cruel to those who are poor.

Mr. Speaker, those are fine words; and I know that if it had been humanly possible, the member for Vancouver-Point Grey would have been here to say these words himself in support of his constituents. As the minister pointed out in his speech last Friday, t here are resources boards in his particular constituency, and there are people there who use and benefit from these resource boards who are going to suffer as a result of Bill 65 being terminated.

So I would like to join my voice with that of the then member of the Liberal Party, the now Minister of Education, in saying that we must have a change of philosophy and direction in this province. We've got to run out now and for all times the streak of cruelty which is a curse on British Columbia and which is emphasized by this particular bill.

I want to associate myself with the remarks of that member who said compassion has gone out of the window in British Columbia, and the general public -those who are rich - are invited to support a government which is cruel to those who are poor. Mr. Speaker, he went on to say that that particular bill was no break from the past. Certainly Bill 65 is no break from the past.

Mr. Speaker, again speaking on behalf of the member for Vancouver-Point Grey and associating myself with his comments, I want to point out that on April 3,1973, he stood up in this House and said:

Although I do not agree with the economic philosophies of the present government - meaning the NDP - and everybody recognizes that I'm a free enterpriser, I will say that if there is anything that has discredited free enterprise in the province and a government that carried the banner of free enterprise, it has been the denial of human dignity and human justice.

Mr. Speaker, that is what is happening again today, because Bill 65 is indeed one more way in which this government is going to deny the citizens of Vancouver human dignity and human justice.

At that time, the member for Vancouver-Point Grey said: "I hope that the Social Credit will not reconsider what their responsibilities have been over the year and will have just a little bit of conscience and penance for their record." Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that the government will reconsider its position on this bill. Despite the fact that the minister has remarked that the debate has been boring, I hope that he has heard it, nonetheless, and that he will consider his position on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, there was someone else, on February 4,1973, who spoke on the floor of this House. That

[ Page 5780 ]

person said:

I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, with candour, that when I first came to this House I was not as familiar with some of the problems of welfare as perhaps I am today. I remember the shock and disgust that overcame me one evening when members walked out of this chamber to find in the rotunda, sitting on the floor, mothers - single mothers - some with children, who didn't have the money to care for their children and to provide them properly with clothing and accommodation. They came to this building in protest.

I can protest against the policies and the programme of the former administration as it affected them. I remember at first just wondering what was taking place and then, as we talked to these mothers, to find that their allowance under the then Minister of Welfare, Mr. Gaglardi, was such that for the last seven days all they could feed their children was beans - that's all; to find that if they took a job to try to improve their lot, to feed their children, they got taken off welfare and they lost their allowance.

Mr. Speaker, nothing has changed. The same thing applies, of course, under this minister. He went on to say:

... for showing initiative, as the Premier says, to try and raise themselves and their families out of the desperate grip of poverty. Were their prayers, their requests, answered by the former administration'!

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, what also occurred on those nights. In the gallery, on the third floor, there were plainclothes members of the RCMP photographing those mothers because it was suspected by the government that they were subversive. That's the kind of treatment that they received from a Minister of Welfare who called those people "bums." I want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the person who introduced this bill, Bill 65, is another minister of welfare of that same government and he too, calls people in need, people in receipt of welfare: "bums." "The hypocrisy of the Social Credit Party campaign, Mr. Speaker, in the fall of 1969 is being repeated, " and he goes on and on. That, Mr. Speaker, was Mr. L.A. Williams, the member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound. Again I'm speaking on his behalf because he's not in the House.

Mr. Speaker, again speaking on Bill 65, and on behalf of the member for Vancouver-Point Grey, he stated: "I don't think that we've ever had in the history of Canada a record of meanness and penury that could begin to match what went on.... He was talking about the then Social Credit government. He talked also about the jurisdiction and the rights of people, of the individual, which were being denuded as a result of this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, speaking of politics and social service, governments or individual politicians who do not stand on a clear platform and have a clear set of principles are constantly faced with a serious political dilemma when any contentious public issue is raised or when there is a call for some public action in the press, in the government, in the community.

The politician who has no programme is forced to look for a solution which will placate public concern without jostling any groups on whose support he or she relies. The politician who is without firm policy guidelines is the victim of the fluctuations of the interest groups which elected him or her. Such politics, Mr. Speaker, create a built-in bias against the appearance of any new or suddenly active group which is not accounted for in the individual politician's electoral calculus.

The task in any political proposal, Mr. Speaker -again, this is very clearly related to Bill 65 - is to find a course of public action which minimizes conflict and reflects the broadest possible agreement among those alerted by the issue. Since social service programmes bring into focus the needs and demands of the poor, minorities or groups which are not part of the middle-class census, they always create great difficulty for the opportunist politician.

One way to minimize the risk, Mr. Speaker, is to rely on the very consolidated expertise which I mentioned earlier. For one thing, experts are, in fact, experts at transforming hot political issues into cool technical matters. This certainly assists the politician in reducing the potential for political conflagration. Thus, the hotness of a political proposal is often the measure of the degree to which responsibility and authority will be vested in experts. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this is a partial explanation for the minister's decision to eliminate the Vancouver Resources Board.

The Vancouver Resources Board violated several principles, which would not cause a pragmatic government like the NDP any difficulty, but which could create inevitable difficulties for an opportunistic government like the Social Credit. First of all, Mr. Speaker, it did undercut the consolidation of expertise. It did so by a major restructuring, which meant that old rules had to be redefined. It introduced greater non-expert control over programmes, even giving ordinary citizens the chance to participate at the local level. It made authority more accountable to the public and it was the practice of the Vancouver Resources Board to be sceptical of the credentialed expertise and more willing to consider practical performance and standards.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, it made it much more difficult to utilize the distribution of benefits as a control mechanism. The kinds of delivery systems which were developed in the Vancouver Resources Board exhibited a relatively higher degree of checks and balances within the bureaucracy. Social worker teams and task groups do have a certain minimal

[ Page 5781 ]

checking of individual abuses. The potential for individual empire builders was reduced. In addition, Mr. Speaker, constant public scrutiny also made bureaucratic blackmail more difficult, and the raised level of consciousness on the part of public and client alike meant that criticism became a more functional aspect of the whole system.

Thirdly, the implementation of programmes did not require the same degree of expertise, since many of the programmes being developed had true grassroots origins. I think, Mr. Speaker, that I indicated this when I talked about the drop-in typing programme for the women in the Britannia complex; the Family Place, Transition House; programmes like Mosaic, which were developed for immigrants and developed to meet their needs. These were all grassroots programmes which were developed at the grassroot level by the community itself.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 82, an hon. member of this House rose in order to ascertain from the Chair whether or not the order had been followed in this particular bill. Just to refresh your memory, Mr. Speaker: "When a bill is read in the House the Clerk shall certify upon it the readings and the time thereof. After it is passed he shall certify the same with the date, at the head of the bill." I understand that it is to be reported to the House of Commons,

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, if we now have knowledge that this particular order has been adhered to, as we've spent a great deal of time in debate on this bill. It would be very unfortunate if this debate were to be out of order by virtue of the fact that the bill had not been properly certified. While it doesn't say this in standing order 82 specifically, the understanding or the interpretation of this ruling is that there has to be a notification of this in Ottawa and in the House of Commons, I would appreciate hearing it, as this was brought up some days ago.

MR. SPEAKER: There is indeed a provision in the House of Commons in Ottawa, but it is not applicable to our House. The rules and customs of our House are being adhered to. The bill that is before the House is properly before the House.

Any more of the type of interruption which is taking place repeatedly will have to be considered in the light of our regulations regarding an abuse of the rules and the practices of the House.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): Drag yourself to your feet and carry on.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I think I was talking about the implementation on programmes which did not require the same degree of expertise, since many of the programmes being developed had true grassroots origin. I believe these small gains would be much more difficult to maintain or extend under a system which is organized and dominated and controlled from Victoria.

Again, I want to express my sorrow of this fact, because a number of these programmes are obviously very useful to the citizens of Vancouver. It is a tragedy that they're going to lose them.

There are, of course, a number of problems which remain and are certain to remain in the area of delivery services. We must always be on the lookout for benefits of a kind which isolate low-income or others from major roles. We must always be sensitive and critical of programmes which prevent the powerless from uniting or of getting together.

Mr. Speaker, without money, power really depends on organization. All too often, the delivery of services has the intended or unintended effect of isolating people from one another. Often the recipients of social services are eligible primarily because they do not have a role. They are eligible because they have non-roles. Consequently, people receiving benefits cannot associate their status as clients with any set of common rights and obligations derived from other major social roles.

Mr. Speaker, the tendency for clients to presume that they have no rights, legal or effective, is quite prominent. Since most benefits are distributed on an individual basis, it is very difficult for recipients to organize in any important way. The Vancouver Resources Board spoke for this particular group,

Mr. Speaker, the right to bargain collectively has never been accepted in the field of social service delivery, although we recognize it in the field of jobs. It works quite well. Trade unions do not I generally make excessive demands....

MR. LOEWEN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker, as a Socred member who is very concerned about other people, I was just wondering if we could have a short timeout so that Dr. Scott Wallace could check the member's health. She is obviously appearing very weary and I think we should have a short period where we could make sure that she is all right.

MR. SPEAKER: The point of order is one in which the Chair and other members of the House might be appreciative of and express sympathy for. Unfortunately, it is not a proper point of order.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I was worried that he wanted the time out to take my measurements.

MR. BARNES: An ulterior motive.

MS. BROWN: In any event, Mr. Speaker, I'm really looking forward to Friday. Oh, Friday is here.

[ Page 5782 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: That's today.

MS. BROWN: Trade unions do not generally make excessive demands, yet we assume that welfare recipients do. The question that we have to ask ourselves is: why?

Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby was correct - I am tired. Mr. Speaker, I have been instructed by my caucus to terminate the debate because of exhaustion and I'm going to do so now.

Mr. Speaker, in doing so I want to say that I do not accept that this debate has been an act of futility if it has served to bring home to the people of this province that when the needs of people are placed in the balance with the collective ego of this government, the scales tip in favour of the government, and the people lose. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the Vancouver Resources Board has been tried at the bar of Social Credit justice and has been found guilty - guilty of honesty and of openness, guilty of compassion and of caring, guilty of efficiency, accountability and of integrity. But most of all, Mr. Speaker, it has been found guilty of placing the control of decisions over their lives in their own hands. For a short while, Mr. Speaker, as a result of this experiment, people had power. This is a crime at the bar of Social Credit justice, and for this the Vancouver Resources Board has been sentenced to death.

I just made some notes to myself, Mr. Speaker, that said that I should not terminate this debate without thanking you for the even-handed and fair way in which you have dealt with me throughout it, and without thanking my colleagues and all those people who, through their letters and cables and flowers, gave me the sustenance.

I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I tried.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): It's certainly my pleasure to rise and speak in this debate. I want to congratulate the previous speaker. I don't agree with her philosophically, but she certainly has spirit and for that I wish to congratulate her.

I listened, however, Mr. Speaker, for several days to a wonderful discourse on history. I think at times the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard took us back to the 18th and early 19th centuries. Then she progressed, Mr. Speaker, if that is the word, up to the time of the great Depression, which affected not only the lives of people in Canada, but those in the United States and, in fact, most of the world. It was only brought to an end by war and the horrors of war that accompany such things.

However, what the hon. member failed to realize, Mr. Speaker, is that the rules that were prevailing during the time of the great Depression are not prevailing today. At that point in time, people would have bought and would have been working, but there was no money. There was nothing in the system. In short, Mr. Speaker, the customer was not in control. Our great system of enterprise in North America only works when the customer is in control and is able to pay taxes, to send money to government for the aid of people who cannot help themselves.

I see the Vancouver Resources Board as something very different. I see it, perhaps, as an honest attempt at a point in time of history to draw together many aspects of welfare and human resources in Vancouver. Perhaps it was a bold attempt. However, what happens in organizations of this type, not unlike that of government and other areas, is that these organizations tend to be taken over by bureaucrats, and when any changes are attempted from outside to be affected upon by such an organization, the bureaucrats rise up in arms in very enlightened self-interest.

I've watched the galleries over the last week. I've talked with people in the hallway. I've had people in my office. I've talked with people who have great concerns. I've also talked with people who have no concern, in my opinion, other than that of protecting their own advantage and their own position of employment.

I've noticed people sitting in the galleries and I've taken the time to check out their salary schedule. I found that it runs somewhere around the $35,000-a-year mark. I'd like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, in this House: if the people out there require assistance and succour from these people, what are they doing sitting here in the galleries? Why aren't they out working in the field? I have a great deal of concern for people. I came out of that Depression and was a product of it. We used to say that we didn't have to worry about the wolf at our place, because it moved into the house and raised a batch of pups under the stove.

Depression was always there; it was omnipresent. But I don't remember us ever grouping together and becoming some sort of a bureaucrat maze so that we could find some way of feathering our own nest while the other people down the street needed looking after. We didn't go to Ottawa or Toronto or Victoria or anywhere else and sit around. We helped each other, and that's supposed to be what welfare is all about. Somewhere along the way, the socialists seem to have gotten the opinion that you have to be a socialist to have a social conscience. Well, I'm here as living proof that this is not so.

My philosophy in life is very simple, and I can relate it to Bill 65 and the need to get rid of it. I want social reform without socialism and I want good government without big government. As I said in the opening speech of the House when I had the privilege of responding to the Speech from the Throne, government aid sometimes is a process whereby one gives oneself a blood transfusion from the right arm

[ Page 5783 ]

to the left and spills three-quarters of it on the way over. The spillage is effected by people sitting around this gallery, drawing well over $100 a day of the taxpayers' money.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's $200.

MR. VEITCH: Yes, $200 in some cases ... ostensibly protecting people, but sitting here protecting their own interests. Once again, Mr. Speaker, if they're going to protect people, they should be back in the hustings doing their job. If they're not needed, they should be fired and let other people get on with the job.

I hardly believe that one person in the city of Vancouver, or indeed in British Columbia, with great respect to the honourable and gallant first member for Vancouver-Burrard, has been helped by this debate. I believe the hon. Minister of Human Resources said that it was costing the people of British Columbia $25,000 a day. I've been doing a little arithmetic -and I have some experience in that area - and it looks to be more like $40,000 a day. I see no reason to continue this type of debate, spending $40,000 a day to protect a few mandarins who do not even have the intestinal fortitude to be back there on the job where they should be.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. Minister of Human Resources stood in his place at the opening of this debate, he said that there was a question of accountability. I have a little thing here on accountability, and I don't want to make any big deal out of it.

A fellow came into my office a few months ago from Vancouver and said he didn't like what was happening in a home next door to him.

I said: "Well, John, what's happening?"

"Well, " he said, "the Vancouver Resources Board are going to take over a house. They're going to rent it from a gentleman" - whose name I won't mention - "and they're going to pay him $9,600 a year. They only have a one-year lease on this building. They're going to take in people to talk to them about I don't know what for six or seven hours a day."

So I set about finding out what it was going to cost to set this place up. By the way, there would be about 16 young recipients, I think, had this project gone ahead. Fortunately it was stopped. So I found that it would have cost approximately $150,000 in wages, $100,000 in renovations, and $40,000 in miscellaneous equipment that could not be removed. We add that to $9,600 in rent. That comes to $299,600 for one year. Now that's some house for 16 people. Accountability!

AN HON. MEMBER: It must have been a big house.

MR. VEITCH: I checked that out as well, It appears that the gentleman purchased the house for the mortgage - $60,000. Accountability? By any standard, if those individuals who were going to make that sort of a decision were in any sort of private industry, they would be run down the road, Mr. Speaker, right now. And that's what should happen to them.

However, that is not happening to them. As the minister pointed out, they're going to be brought in to the public service. Their salaries, their working conditions are all going to be red-circled. Mr. Speaker, for any one who doesn't know what that means, you simply say that that individual's; salary and schedule and benefits are going to be held at this level until all these people who are down here catch up to them. No one will suffer.

But what gets me is how a social worker, working for the Vancouver Resources Board, after one year can have a month paid holiday while someone down here in the civil service has to wait several years to catch up to him. I don't quite understand that. I don't think there was any accountability when they sat down with themselves to negotiate with themselves. That's another reason why this thing has to be done away with.

And it goes on and on and on, Mr. Speaker. There's a story that I checked out of a woman who was, supposed to be receiving about ... I think it was $726 a month, and who had managed with the aid of her social worker to turn this into $30,000 in a year.

MR. KEMPF: Whose money?

MR. VEITCH: That's $30,000 of the people's money, hon. member - money that could be spent for people who are really in need. It goes on and on and on.

I don't believe the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard was defending that sort of thing. I think she simply has her political biases in such an order that she fails to see anything else out there. That's continually been the problem with the socialist government. They go on and on and on, spending just like they're turning on the tap. They don't realize that somebody out here has to bleed and pay for this stuff. They build the bureaucracy up until the bureaucracy becomes more important than the people they're supposed to be helping. Now if that's socialism, I don't want it. I don't want it at all, Mr. Speaker. That's enlightened self-interest; I don't like that.

I believe it was Fritz Bowers recently....

Interjection.

MR. VEITCH: Hon. member, we're not discussing the gift tax Act, but I'd debate that on any forum, at

[ Page 5784 ]

any time, at any place you want to name, sir.

Interjections.

MR. VEITCH: Some of us fail to realize, hon. member, that it does take a productive segment in society to pay those other people who are not productive, and that includes politicians when they stand for hours and hours in the House, spending $40,000 a day of the people's money that could easily be going to help people who are in real need.

MR. BARNES: Millionaires.

MR. VEITCH: I don't think I would fall into the category of being in there by any standards.

Interjections.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, it was recently pointed out that the number of employable welfare recipients in Vancouver has increased since the provincial government took over the city welfare department. This was pointed out by the city council's finance and administration committee. Alderman Fritz Bowers cited figures for August, 1974, received by the city finance department in October of 1974. They show 7,606 male employables on welfare in the city, compared with 4,373 for the same month in 1973 - an increase of 69 per cent in employable people. Now the total caseload was up by 15 per cent, from 16,450 to 21,305. Bowers said the increase was predictable because government decided that strict enforcement is inhumane. In other words, accountability at that point in time was inhumane. I think it was described in other terms; they called it a "bookkeeping error" back a few years ago. I think it was $110 million. Anyway, that's inhumane. They take people's word that they haven't got a job.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I've always believed that social assistance was there for people who could not help themselves, not for people who would not help themselves. I don't believe, somehow or other, if we're going to look after people who are really in need.... I'm the first to admit that they're not looked after as well as they could be because there are too many fingers in the pot. You just can't spend all of the gross provincial product on looking after bureaucrats and then go to the Arabs, or someplace else, and borrow money to pay for those other few people who are just there to keep the bureaucrats going. However, there are political parties - and one of them was government for three and a half years -that seem to have that philosophy. They call it socialism. I don't even believe it's socialism.

The Vancouver welfare staff increased by 100 after the inauguration of the VRB. Now I would have to ask the hon. minister whether that was 100 bureaucrats, or what. I would seem to think that there have been almost that many around here in the last few days. Other major categories showing an increase over previous years were: single female employables, up from 1,465 to 1,733; married employables, up from 1,203 to 1,881; other married employables, up from 4,047 to 4,161. It seems to show us, Mr. Speaker, that when we open the flood gates to the people's money, there are always people there with their hands out who will move in.

I'm going to read to you, if I may, from a copy of the Vancouver Province, April 18, 19 74, page 10. The headline is: "Welfare Services Said Deteriorating." It says: "Two groups representing welfare recipients charged Wednesday that social assistance services had deteriorated since the provincial government began pushing its community resources concept."

You'll note, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members, that the number of people employed in the service didn't deteriorate but the service itself deteriorated. The groups - people on welfare and federated anti-poverty groups - made the claim in a brief presented to a meeting of the Vancouver Resources Board. They suggested that the provincial government has been engaged in a wasteful preoccupation with making the resources board concept work since introducing it last October. The brief, which also called for an increase of about 20 per cent in social assistance payments, was adopted by the Vancouver board as a working document.

Speaking for both groups in presenting the brief was Irene Cavilaro. The brief said: We are finding that welfare services are deteriorating and we traced this to one simple fact: the energies of the Department of Human Resources are directed toward making the concept work rather than looking after people."

MRS. JORDAN: When was this?

MR. VEITCH: April, 1974. 1 believe it was the NDP at that point in time, hon. member. The Vancouver Province, April 18,1974, page 10. . . . That section of the brief was not discussed before adoption by board members. The section also said:

"Here in Vancouver, along with the bureaucracy that already exists, we have at least 163 board members, plus 14 managers and their staff."

That's a pretty big board - 163 on the board.

Someone came in once to Hugh Curtis - not the same one, it was Hilo Hugh Curtis - who was, at the time, president of General Motors. They said Lindbergh just flew the Atlantic and they said: "Try doing it with a committee. Try doing it with 163 on the board." I say that this must have been sloppy and highly inoperative.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a pile of lumber.

[ Page 5785 ]

MR. VEITCH: It's a pile of lumber, hon. member.

It's a few cunits of bureaucrats.

"If welfare services were operating at any acceptable level, community boards composed of both at-large members and recipients could add much to the operation of the welfare support system. With things as they are, the whole concept of community resources boards seems to us to be both premature and a major cop-out on the part of the provincial government."

They were speaking of the socialist government at that point in time.

Mr. Veitch moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:52 p.m.