[ Page 1629 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Legislative Tour Act (Bill M 212) Mr. Veitch.

Introduction and first reading –– 1629

Oral questions

Kickbacks to supermarkets. Mr. Levi –– 1629

Stay of proceedings for Labour case. Mr. Gibson –– 1630

UBC teaching hospital. Mr. Cocke –– 1632

Matter of urgent public importance

Railcar shortage in B.C.

Mr. Barrett –– 1633

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Human Resources estimates.

On vote 152.

Mr. Lauk –– 1633

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1634

Ms. Brown –– 1634

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1642

Ms. Brown –– 1644

Mr. Macdonald –– 1646

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1647

Mr. Macdonald –– 1647

Mr. Gibson –– 1648

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1650

Mr. Barnes –– 1652

Mr. Skelly –– 1654

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1655

Mr. Nicolson –– 1655

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1656

Mr. Barrett –– 1657

Mr. Cocke –– 1657

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1658

Ms. Sanford –– 1658

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1659

On vote 154.

Ms. Brown –– 1660

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1660

Mr. Cocke –– 1660

Mr. Levi –– 1660

On vote 157.

Ms. Brown –– 1661

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1662

Mr. Levi –– 1662

On vote 159.

Mr. Levi –– 1662

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1662

On vote 160.

Mr. Levi –– 1663

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1663

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Economic Development estimates.

On vote 48.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1664

Appendix –– 1665

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. BARNES: I would like to have the House join me in welcoming Mrs. Reid and 35 students from Templeton Secondary School in Vancouver. Also I would like to have the House join me in welcoming Mr. Bruce Eriksen and David Schreck, who I understand are here this afternoon to observe one of their favourite ministers during estimates, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) .

MR. BARBER: At 2:30 p.m. today a group of students from Central Junior Secondary School in the city of Victoria will be attending in the Legislature. Their teacher bringing them here today is Lynda de Rosencoll, with whose brother Michael I went to school. I ask the House to welcome Mrs. de Rosencoll and the students from Central.

MR. HADDAD: Visiting with us today and seated in the Speaker's gallery is Mr. Frank Baynes of Cranbrook. Would the House please make him welcome.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a citizen from Vancouver Centre, a very distinguished fighter for the little people in the city of Vancouver, who is here to watch the Minister of Human Resources go through his paces, Mr. Bruce Eriksen from the Downtown Eastside Residents Association. Would the House make him welcome.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: A civil rights fighter can always afford to be introduced twice.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I ask you to welcome Alderman Sandy McDougall of the municipality of Maple Ridge. I ask you also to welcome two classes of 120 students from Maple Ridge with their teachers Jerry Fowey and Mr. Ken Dockendorff.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, with us today we have two gentlemen, both of whom have in various ways brought to my attention a number of changes they would like to see developed within Human Resources particularly. They've done so rather effectively, and I'm grateful for the contributions they've made:

Mr. David Schreck and Mr. Bruce Eriksen.

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Equal time.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker - because the minister was on his feet, apropos those introductions -the citizens of Vancouver have given me a T-shirt, which I'll present to him during his estimates, which states: "Don't feel useless, you can always be used as a bad example."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, I think that the good humour of the hour is likely appreciated by both sides of the House; nonetheless, we must keep the procedures of the House at least to some semblance of the orders of the day. A further introduction?

MR. LEA: These cross-comments are not called for. But, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the House to join with me in welcoming from the riding of Skeena and the community of Kitimat Jennifer Davies, who's in the gallery today.

Introduction of bills.

LEGISLATIVE TOUR ACT

On a motion by Mr. Veitch, Bill M 212, Legislative Tour Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

KICKBACKS TO SUPERMARKETS

MR. LEVI: To the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in respect to the continuing problem of kickbacks to supermarkets, yesterday on the Barrie Clark show Mr. Murchie of Murchie's Tea and Coffee Limited made a series of allegations in respect to his own personal knowledge of the difficulties he has had and is still having in placing his products in the various supermarkets. As an example, he cited that he can produce tea bags and put them in the market for one cent, and yet Super-Valu, through the Twining Tea Company, are putting them on the shelves at seven cents. Now in view of all this, is the minister prepared to call for a transcript of the radio programme, on which these statements were made and to initiate an investigation into this matter?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I share the member's concern about these alleged practices in

[ Page 1630 ]

the marketplace. I don't know how often I can say this without becoming tiresome about it, but this is a matter for the federal department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and particularly the combines investigation division. I'll be very pleased to advise them of this situation, and ask them to seek a transcript. If a transcript comes to my attention, I'll see that it reaches the appropriate place, but my ministry does not have the authority, legislative or otherwise, to deal with this situation. I wish it did, but it doesn't.

MR. LEVI: As the minister responsible for matters of interest to the consumers, surely wouldn't the minister feel that he could initiate discussions with the various supermarkets in order to obtain a fuller amount of information in respect to these practices, and not just simply say he's going to advise the combines investigation people? After all, one of his jobs is to see that the consumer is protected. Is he not prepared to discuss this matter with the supermarket people in British Columbia?

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, Mr. Speaker, yes, of course I'm prepared to discuss the matter. I rather doubt that it's going to have anywhere near the desired effect.

I presume the member opposite wants not "talk talk" but "war war". I'm only in the position to do the "talk talk!' part. Now if he wants to get something meaningful done, I suggest that he take the suggestions and allegations of which he has agreed to as evidence, and take them to the people in authority, namely the federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs combines investigation branch. They are the people that have the authority to do something about it. I have already written them. My ministry has been in touch with them. If they won't act, there's nothing much I can do about it. I hope they will and I'm sure that the member's influence will do a great deal to bring them to the conclusion that they ought to act.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, to the minister, in respect to his statement about something meaningful being done, doesn't the minister agree that the most meaningful thing that we could do in this province right now is to refer this whole matter to the study committee on agriculture. He is one of the ministers to whom that committee reports. Surely that is the starting place to look into this ongoing problem. That is where we should start. We do have a committee, Mr. Speaker. I'm asking the minister if he is prepared to refer these matters to that committee to open up the hearings again.

HON. I-R. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is that I do not agree that is the place the matter should go. I think the matter ought to go to the area of government that has authority to do something about these allegations. At the risk of repeating myself, that is the federal government Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I don't see any sense in putting it in the agricultural committee when you have somebody that's got the authority and the power to do something if the allegations prove to be true. Take the allegations there and let them do with them as they will. I can say no more on the subject.

MR. LAUK: There are two points by way of a question to the hon. minister on the same subject. In Quebec where the criminal law appeared to fall short, a provincial inquiry into crime and organized crime did a great deal to expose the situation. Would the minister, with that example in mind, at this point indicate to the House whether or not he would reconsider his position about referring the matter to an open public inquiry such as the agricultural committee?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I think that if the situation reached the point where there was obviously nothing being done by the federal government despite a weight of evidence to the effect that they ought to, I would indeed recommend to the provincial government, which I am a member of, that they should do something along these lines. However, we certainly have not reached that point yet.

The situation only came to our attention a week or 10 days ago. We have reported the matter to the federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Let's allow them at least the opportunity to investigate the matter. It would be pure speculation to say what I would do, but I don't cast that thought aside, Mr. Member, and we'll consider that in due course.

STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

FOR LABOUR CASE

MR. GIBSON: Mr, Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Attorney-General, which is urgent and regrettably a bit complex.

The Attorney-General is familiar with the Labour case, about a lawyer who set up a legal clinic for ordinary people in my constituency and had to advertise to make it work - infor-

[ Page 1631 ]

mational advertising. The Law Society jumped on him, and a panel in the last couple of days has now sentenced him to a six-month suspension, recommended, which will be confirmed by the full benchers on the day after tomorrow. If confirmed, that in effect will be the end of his practice for the sin of public informational advertising. An appeal lies to the court of appeal but the law says the sentence takes effect immediately anyway, so it is therefore urgent.

MR. SPEAKER: To the question, please.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry; I have to outline the circumstances.

The counsel for Mr. Labour has filed a case against the Law Society under the federal Combines Investigation Act, saying that the Law Society has exceeded its authority. The Deputy Minister of Consumer and Corporate Services for British Columbia has agreed that the combines law applies, as has the ex-deputy director of combines, speaking for the current director in Ottawa.

MR. SPEAKER: The question, please.

MR. GIBSON: If it does, the Law Society has no right to stop informational advertising. Tomorrow morning, counsel for Labour goes to the supreme court, seeking a stay of that suspension until the combines case is heard. As simple justice, I ask the Attorney-General: will he, on behalf of the Crown, join Labour's counsel in asking for that stay until the combines case is head?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I have to respond to this question somewhat in depth in order that the hon. member and hon. members can receive full information.

First of all, I thank the hon. member for bringing the matter to my attention prior to question period. My information is that the decision insofar as penalty is concerned is, at this point in time, a recommendation only from this hearing committee, which is a smaller committee of the full benchers. Then the full benchers will be reaching their own determination as to whether there should or should not be a suspension.

The other aspect which my friend is talking about is the separate law suit, which, I take it, is under the restrictive trade practices Act, wherein the Law Society is under challenge that their activities in preventing advertising are an undue limit to competition.

Now as I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, advertising is certainly an issue that may very, very well be totally in the public interest, as long as there are some kind of safeguards to adequately protect the public interest from abuse - sanctions or fines or penalties or loss of licence and so forth.

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, it's not a debate, hon. members. I'm just trying to give you some of the facts here. I'd hope you would wish to hear them.

As long as there is a decision as to whether there is or is not unfair representation or misleading items, then we could have effective guidelines and standards, both of advertising and the competence or otherwise of those people doing the advertising. It's a question of balance.

As I said to my friend, the member for North Vancouver-Capilano, the members case is at the time going in front of the full benchers. So it is speculative for me to say today whether they should or should not approve of the suspension. From there, hon. member, there is an opportunity for the benchers, I would presume, and certainly the hon. member, to proceed to the court of appeal. Since the application is not yet finalized, I think it is premature to say whether we would or would not join in the motion, which is under a separate lawsuit, or whether indeed there would be a status to so join, but I would certainly look at the matter to see if there would be status.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have all got to say this: hopefully very shortly we are going to have jurisprudence in this country as to this vexing question. There has been a decision in the United States supreme court that advertising is permitted. I'm sure my friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) would be very, very interested to hear what the Georgia supreme court said. On Friday it cleared the way for lawyers to begin advertising on radio and television, but they must not employ' hucksterism, puffery or belly dancers in their commercials. Now I'm just quoting from the paper. I also fully subscribe to the words of Mr. Arthur Maloney, who is certainly one of the leading criminal lawyers in our country, when he said the public is entitled to know the ability of a lawyer to take on a case in a serious matter. I don't know how they find that out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On a point of order, the member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, this is an abuse of

[ Page 1632 ]

the question period which has hardly ever been seen before in this House.

MR. BARRETT: All he asked was yes or no.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I gave you that answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think it is the responsibility of the Chair to protect the rights of question period itself, not just the members of the House. I think that this is an example of the kind of question that is too involved; it goes beyond the scope of being able to be answered in question period. I think this is an example of this kind of a question and I think we should perhaps avoid that kind of question in question period.

The member for North Vancouver-Capilano on a supplementary.

MR. GIBSON: It is urgent. It's dealing with an application for an injunction tomorrow and this is the last chance to stay that sentence until one knows whether or not the law applies.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The hon. member is incorrect in that....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, only one member can have the floor at a time. Each member must be recognized in order to even be listed with Hansard, let alone be heard in the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: So I'm not accused of advertising, may I make this remark anonymously, Mr. Speaker? The hon. member is incorrect when he says it's the end of the line. The gentleman in question has not yet appeared in front of the full benchers, wherein the full benches may or may not act upon the recommendation. So surely, hon. member, that course would first have to be taken, but, as I said to you, I'm quite happy to look into the situation to see whether it is possible or not to intervene.

MR. MACDONALD: Could I ask the Attorney-General a question he didn't reply to yesterday? In view of the fact that the public, and not just the lawyers, are concerned with this issue, isn't it a total violation of the rules of natural justice that the public interest goes totally unheard on this question and it's just left to the lawyers? Will the Attorney-General institute an inquiry wherein the public will have a chance to express their opinion?

HON. MR. GARDOM: The hon. member is speaking from a position of unique knowledge, not having done anything when he occupied this office, but I'm quite happy to say, Mr. Speaker, that at the present time the Law Society itself is conducting an inquiry, as are other law societies in the country.

MR. MACDONALD: What about the public?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, the public can have their input into that, and I'll tell you exactly where, hon. member. In all likelihood the law exists today to permit it. Now that's my personal opinion only, and I could be wrong.

UBC TEACHING HOSPITAL

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Health. We note that there is a holdup in the education programme at the UBC extended-care hospital because of an internal fight between the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health. I'd like to ask the Minister of Health just how long that fight has been going on.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, there is no fight going on and there is no holdup in the teaching facilities at the University of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you resign if there is?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'll answer the question first, Mr. Member. The teaching hospital at UBC is under construction. Construction is well ahead of schedule and well under budget at this point, and we're very proud of that. Mr. Speaker, I would like also to say that for the first time in the history of this province there is a rational approach being taken in a co-operative way between the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health and the university to develop a rational approach to educational funding for health-related projects.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, because that co-operation is now underway, some people are so dumbfounded that two ministries of govern-ment could even co-operate - because of the past experience, of course, of that previous government - that they don't understand the difference between co-operation and conflict.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On a point of order, due to the government's abuse - as usual - of question period, I'm requesting a 10-minute extension of question period, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

[ Page 1633 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The responsibility of maintaining order in question period is the responsibility of the Chair. The Chair requests from time to time that questions be phrased in such a way as to serve the purpose of question period, and that is to learn answers.

We have also suggested several times to those giving answers that answers must not go beyond the scope of the question. The Chair will continue to try to give guidance in these matters. With co-operation from all members, I think that question period can and will be meaningful.

MR. COCKE: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health did not answer the question. He filibustered. He was talking about the university hospital; I was talking about the extended care hospital. He filibustered to fill up the....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! It appears that the hon. member for New Westminster is seeking to abuse the rules of the House by extending question period when it's not....

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave that the rules be suspended and that question period today be extended for 10 minutes.

MR. SPEAKER: In analysing the nature of the motion, I would say the motion requires leave.

Leave not granted.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave that the rules be suspended and that the question period today be extended for five minutes.

Leave not granted.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance. That matter is the emergency revealed today of the drastic shortage of railway boxcars. The Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia reports that 2,500 to 3,000 carloads of lumber are stranded because of a lumber-car shortage. B.C. Railway reports that it was only able to meet 85 per cent of its railcar demand of 5,600 cars in the five weeks ending May 5 and was about 800 cars short. This deficiency, they say, is continuing during the month. And Balco Industries is considering closing its plant near Kamloops, which employs 885 workers, because of the car shortage.

The closure of the Railwest plant has aggravated this situation, which should be debated immediately with a view to finding a solution.

MR. SPEAKER: Let me first say that I appreciate the courtesy which was extended to the Chair by giving notice of the motion - at least a few moments. I would also ask the House to accept my decision to reserve any final comment on the motion as to whether or not it is in order. However, at the first blush, I think that a couple of things need to be noted, and that is that the same subject was a matter of discussion in question period not too many days ago, to my memory, and therefore perhaps it would fail under the provisions of raising the matter at the earliest possible moment.

Another reason it may fail would be that the estimates of the minister with responsibility in these areas have still not been called to the floor of the House, and an opportunity would be afforded to debate at that time.

However, let me reserve decision and come to the House with a firm decision.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the request to reserve your decision.

In terms of your first point I would bring to your attention a report that has just come to light this morning, in terms of the exact situation rather than specifics. As a result, this is the first opportunity of dealing with that specific report and I bring it to your attention now, through the Vancouver Province.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 152: minister's office, $145,890 -continued.

MR. LAUK: I'm certainly glad that you reluctantly recognized the first member, Mr. Chairman. After the performance of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) in question period I'm wondering whether I should not present this to him, but it's really nip and tuck. That's about the size of it. "Don't feel useless; you can always be used as a bad example, " it says.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I might remind you that committee is not the time for tabling things.

[ Page 1634 ]

MR. LAUK: No, I'm just going to pass it over to the hon. member. Page, would you give this to the hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) ?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering whether the minister is ready to answer some of the questions which were raised last night, or whether the minister has any intention of answering any of the questions at all.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Chairman, no questions have been asked as yet. However, when the questions are asked, I'll be pleased to respond.

MR. LEVI: There were a number of questions asked last night, Mr. Chairman. I asked him a couple of questions. Yes, he's just remembered.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Firstly, I want to express my appreciation for the gift so graciously presented to me by the member for Vancouver Centre. The only thing is, I believe in promoting B.C. or Canadian products and, while I take no exception to Hong Kong, I think our T-shirts should be manufactured in British Columbia or Canada. I take exception that this is an import and it could as well have been a local product which might have aided the economy and in turn would have made it possible for us to provide additional benefits to people who cannot provide for themselves.

Yesterday there was a question with respect to the staff from Island Youth Centre and the Guthrie Centre. I would like to report that these staff members are now working with families and children in their own homes.

The member for Vancouver Burrard is leaving. However, these answers will be recorded so he can refer to them later.

They are employed in serving families and children in their homes, which, of course, is the approach we would like to see strengthened and developed in British Columbia.

A question was posed with respect to the money provided in the budget for computer services and the fact that the amount is substantially greater this year than it was in the previous fiscal year. The answer to that in part is that not all of the services provided to the ministry were charged; some were paid by the Vancouver Resources Board within their particular budget. Also, the BCSC rates were not finalized when the budget was prepared in 1977-78, whereas now we have accurate figures for this particular fiscal year.

I believe those were all the questions.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I had asked a couple of questions about the Community Care Services Society, which was being used as a front organization.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The Community Care Services Society committee has provided a particular service to not only my ministry but other ministries, and not only this year but previous years. It was particularly used also during the years when the member posing the question was a member of another government. As a matter of fact, the records will clearly indicate that in the hiring of co-ordinators for handicapped services, there was a greater use made during the year 1975 than there was during the years 1976 and 1977. So I think perhaps it's a matter of clarification for the member; she would get this clarification if she would compare the record for the last year over that record available for the year 1974 and 1975.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I think the thing that the minister failed to recognize is that the figures and the practices of that committee were not hidden at that time. The money funnelled through that society or the practices of that society were not hidden. It was possible to look at the estimates and get an accurate picture of everything that was going on in the ministry. That is no longer true. What I'm referring to is the way in which the information has been manipulated.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, just again a quick response. It has not changed from what it previously was. It is a part of the budget of the Ministry of Health as it was in 1975,19749 1973 and before then. It is so in 1977 and 1978 and hopefully will continue to be. It's very accountable. It's there for everyone to see if they would care to look.

MS. BROWN: This is precisely what I am saying: the Minister of Human Resources is hiding Human Resources' expenses under the budget of the Minister of Health, as he hides some of those expenses under the budget of the Minister of Finance and some of those expenses under the budget of the Minister of Education. This is precisely what I am saying: we do not get an accurate reading of that ministry by looking at the estimates for the Ministry of Human Resources. In fact, those figures are being hidden; funds are being funnelled through other departments; costs are being hidden under other departments; people are being hired under other departments.

That is increasingly so to the extent that

[ Page 1635 ]

the B.C. Teachers Federation, for example - as I read into the record yesterday - is beginning to investigate the shifting of costs on to Education that should belong to the Ministry of Human Resources. A battle is going on now between Health and the Ministry of Human Resources as it applies to long-term care and the kind of funding for drop-in centres for the Mental Patients Association and for Cross Reach, a senior citizen's service. These kinds of things are now being shifted on to the Ministry of Health. The Health budget shows it as part of its budget; the Human Resources budget doesn't show it as part of its budget. Human Resources can stand up and say it has underrun its budget.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The amounts of moneys that are administered through the committee do show in my budget. As a matter of fact, in the estimates on page H 222, vote 155, the Handicapped Guild is 625,000. This then is paid to the committee which in turn administers the funds.

It's only, I think, demonstrating again very clearly the enormous co-operation that exists between ministries within this government. It's never perhaps been quite so good and we're very proud of this fact. We also, through Human Resources, provide a number of programmes in the educational system. Once more, it's not a matter of where it's shown in my budget but if perhaps it is being funnelled through Education, I'm very proud of the fact. I don't really mind as long as the people receive the services. 1 think that's what counts.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, what counts is that we have an honest accounting of the spending estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources, and that the ministry does not take credit for money that is being funnelled through Education or being funnelled through Health. It's not that there is better co-operation with the. Ministry of Health now than there ever has been. It's just that you've never had such a patsy as the Minister of Health who would allow you to shift off all of your responsibilities onto him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you are well aware....

MS. BROWN: I withdraw the word "patsy." You've never had such a "lucy" or a "bobby" as that Minister of Health that it's possible for you to shift off your responsibilities and your funding and your cost onto that minister so that your estimates and your budget can be bragged about in terms of underspending. That's the issue that I was raising, Mr. Chairman.

What I would really like to discuss with the minister today is this draft personal and financial contributions policy which he has told us is being discussed but in fact has not yet been adopted by his ministry. Although I suspect that it is a fait accompli, I am nonetheless going to try and discuss the issue with the Minister of Human Resources in the hope that maybe he will reconsider his position on this kind of issue. My experience as a counsellor as well as a social worker shows me that there are some inherent problems involved with this whole business of fee for service in the area of services to people. I recognize, as the minister says, that it is not going to apply to the very poor who will be subsidized by his ministry but it will in fact affect the marginal. The working poor are the ones who are going to be affected by this.

Mr. Chairman, this is such a serious issue that I have spent some time and given the matter some thought and I would like to share that with the minister now.

First of all, the device of user-pay or fee for service, as proposed by the Ministry of Human Resources, is based on a fundamental misconception of social service in general. It is a callous disregard for the practical consequences of such a proposal. The theorizing, conscious or unconscious, behind the proposal, is faulty. The practical effects of its application will be detrimental and even disastrous, not just to the people in need of that service themselves, but to all of us in the province of British Columbia.

This semantic misconception of users as beneficiaries is one that I want to discuss with the Minister of Human Resources, because the minister erroneously assumes that the clients of social service programmes in our community are the only ones who benefit from the service which is provided. This is incorrect. This is an incorrect assumption and the minister bases his decision around this area. The clients of social services have never and will never be the sole beneficiaries of the services provided by the department. Social welfare systems have never been conceived of in this way and they should not be conceived of in this way. The beneficiaries of adequate, decent and constructive social services have always been and should always be both to the individual and to society as a whole. The fee-for-service principle, therefore, narrows and restricts the benefits to the single, isolated consumer of the services. This is an incorrect assumption that the minister is basing his

[ Page 1636 ]

decision on.

The individual who benefits from a particular service such as family counselling is not alone in sharing that benefit. The individual contributes to the improvement of the entire family situation. You cannot isolate one person out of the unit and say that individual is benefiting and therefore that individual should pay.

Everybody in that unit benefits from the improvement of that individual within the unit and the kind of problems that they have. The individual in turn contributes to the improvement of the entire family situation. The collective relationship within the family group and the resolution of troubles in addition benefits the local community - all of us - who share that community with that particular family, both in the short run and in the long run. In effect, every member of society benefits from the resolution of any individual's difficulties. It doesn't make sense, therefore, to penalize the one individual with the difficulty and say: "You pay a fee for this service because you are the only person who will benefit from it." That is not the way in which social services should be conceived.

That, Mr. Chairman, is why the community, as represented by the government and social service system, has not only a duty but an interest in assuring that services are available on one basis and one basis only, and that is on the basis of need - not on any other basis, simply on the basis of need. It is not to build character; it is not to do any of these other things. It should be delivered simply on the basis of need, and certainly not on the basis of either willingness or ability to pay. The introduction, therefore, of fee for service means that all of us are seeking to obtain something for nothing. Inherent in the minister's proposal is an abdication of his responsibility.

Further, any change in the provision of social services which tends to limit those who have access to the services on any grounds whatsoever, but especially on the grounds of either ability to pay or willingness to pay, is an anti-social act. It is an act of social pathology since the initiator is consciously and arbitrarily doing damage to the ability of society to remain integrated and to act as a community. And this is something that the minister never takes into account - the fact that we are a community. He's continually scapegoating individuals; he's continually scapegoating groups in our society. We are a community, and the Ministry of Human Resources has to operate on the basis and the full assumption that, as a community, we have responsibilities to and for each other. And that is violated by this concept of fee for service in this particular area.

Mr. Chairman, there is a second vagary, a semantic problem with the whole concept of fee for service. Even when we introduce the refinement of degree of benefit to the service, we find that the distribution of benefits is broader than the single individual, broader than the benefits accruing to the primary recipient, to the individual client. It is clear that the direct providers of the service and the client do have a bond, do have a link. It is not a link of money and should not become so; rather it is a joining together in a mutual process of learning and problem solving. That's what goes on between counsellor and client; that's what goes on between the deliverer of a social service and the recipient - a learning and problem-solving together; that's what's supposed to take place. The process of mutuality is evident, even in the provision of hard services, and surely the ministry has to take that into account.

For example, people who ride the Hydro bus, Mr. Chairman, pay 35 cents to ride into downtown Victoria or Vancouver to shop. The person riding the -bus pays a fee for that service, which I will remind the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Bennett) is a contributory factor in some of the problems we have with automobile traffic pollution. The bus rider pays a fee for the benefit of being able to ride downtown to do shopping. The downtown merchants, who benefit from that person being able to get downtown, pay nothing.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: They pay taxes, don't they?

MS. BROWN: Well, I'm glad you have the Attorney-General to coach you, because in fact the person who rides the bus pays taxes too.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Right.

MS. BROWN: Okay, so we're going to discuss taxes. All of us pay taxes, Mr. Minister.

Despite this, the major beneficiaries of the Hydro service are the stores who receive the customers who come down. The Hydro bus system, Mr. Chairman, is as necessary to them as, say, rainwater is to the farmer.

But let us examine a service with an ambiguous set of beneficiaries, which is even closer to the matter at hand. A person with a broken arm who enters hospital is likely to be treated by an intern working under the supervision of a doctor. The patient is the user of

[ Page 1637 ]

the intern's medical skills, but, at the same time, the intern is using the patient in order to improve her or his medical skills. Surely they're both beneficiaries. Surely, Mr. Chairman, there is therefore something inherently unfair in a system in which the victim pays and the beneficiary rides free. And that's what is going to result from the implementation of this user-fee concept which is being pressed by the Ministry of Human Resources -it is a victim who is going to pay, not the beneficiary. The only logical solution to this is to take this into account and to recognize it in the case of social services especially.

With those involved in family counselling, dispensed through the Ministry of Human Resources, the mutual process is highly reflexive. The quality and success of a service like family counselling is heavily dependent upon the depth, breadth and practical feedback obtained by the professional person in the course of his or her work experience. That is to say that the process of social work is a constant learning process, it's a dynamic process, it never stops changing, it's not a static thing that one goes through.

The difference, for example, between a graduate of a school of social work and a social worker who can be called a master social worker is not a matter of degree or even a matter of credit. It's something that comes out of the breadth of experience, something that's developed as an understanding of work experience. That's the difference between the two.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Hear, hear! We'll underline that in Hansard.

MS. BROWN: Sure. Look, I'll make all of my notes available, Mr. Minister, because I did put a great deal of time and thought into having this discussion with you, because we've never had an opportunity before, you and I, to talk about this user fee thing.

Mr. Chairman, the gradual development of a perspective which allows a professional to understand the community context within which a client operates is the gradual learning process which allows a social worker to become truly inter-disciplinary in understanding and approach. To put it very succinctly, the social worker who does not understand the culture and the neighbourhood in which she or he works is not nearly as effective as the one who does. It is clear then that both the client and the professional have a mutual interest as well as a social interest, which I mentioned earlier, in assuring that the services delivered are as universal as possible, that they are accessible to everyone who needs them. That's what universality is all about.

Any restrictions whatsoever on this quest for reflective improvement of services is not only unprofessional, but it is weakening. It weakens both sides, both people involved in the process. A fee for service is nothing more than a closing of the door, a filter by which the system is self-limited and restricted; that's what a fee for service is. The fee for service is contrary to the kind of involvement that must take place between the social worker and the person receiving the services of that worker. It is an arbitrary restriction, a limitation of benefits which cannot do other than ham the social services, the society and the individuals involved - all three.

The fee for specific services, Mr. Chairman, has a third flaw. I've outlined two flaws, now a third flaw. It confuses social problems with personal problem . It confuses problem whose origins are social in nature with problems that are individual in nature - that's its third flaw. I tire of trying to explain to the minister that there really is a difference. I tire because it is so clear, yet the minister seems to be unable to deal with it. The ream of statistics, the volumes of information which make this case are readily available to the minister and I would suggest that he avail himself of this material. A proposal which not only blames the victims of social and economic injustice, but now intends that the victims in addition shall pay a price simply because they are the victims is unfair indeed. It truly is unfair.

The minister confuses the responsibility of the individual to strive for personal wellbeing with the negation, the denial, the crossing off of existence of social and economic causation. People are not poor, Mr. Chairman, because they want to be, because they're lazy and because they are shiftless. There are social and economic reasons sometimes that contribute to their poverty or that contribute to their need for services. When the minister talks about charging a fee because that builds responsibility in an individual, the minister is confusing the economic and social causes for the individual's problems with personal ones. You're not born inherently inadequate; that's what I'm trying to say to the minister.

The fee-for-service proposal is aimed specifically at the working poor, because as I said before, people who have no income are subsidized by the ministry. It is aimed at the working poor, those people who are a functioning part of our society, but at the same time are some of society's most obvious victims. It should be evident to every member of this House that problems like alcoholism,

[ Page 1638 ]

f family disintegration, social dislocation and mental disturbances have some relation to a person's economic and social environment. They do not exist in isolation. There is some relationship between those problems and a person's economic, and social environment.

It should be evident also, Mr. Chairman, even to the Minister of Human Resources, that in times of high unemployment, in times of economic crises, the maldistribution of wealth and economic depression puts additional pressures on families and individuals. There's additional stress on the family unit during those periods; there's additional stress on individuals during those times. These pressures which always exist in our society do result in additional social problem , difficulties and disorientations that are brought to the doorstep of the Ministry of Human Resources and are in part a consequence of the ill health of our society as a whole, not of the individuals.

I cannot stress this too often, Mr. Chairman, that individuals cannot always be blamed for the situation in which they find themselves, because there is a direct relationship between the personal and the political, between the individual and the economic life of the community, and the Ministry of Human Resources, in particular, has to take that information and knowledge into account.

It is a matter of debate, Mr. Chairman, whether these economic and social failures, the inadequacy of the labour market and the market system as a whole are the responsibility of a few individuals or of the system and the way in which it inevitably functions. But whether we blame the malefactors of great wealth or whether we place the blame on the inherent functioning of a system, it is nevertheless clear that the victims in the personal and individual sense cannot be held totally to blame for their situation. Victims are victims. They're casualties, that's what they are. They are casualties of our system. They are casualties of what we, for want of a better name, sometimes call "acts of God, " but they are casualties, nonetheless, and they should not be blamed and they should not be penalized in addition to their role as victims. To make them pay in addition is an insult both to morality and to sound public. policy. It just does not make any sense.

Yet this is exactly what a proposal of fee for service to people in need is going to do. The inadequacies of government policy and the labour market are now being personalized, being turned into the inadequacies of the individuals who have failed or have proven that they cannot cope with the system over which they have no control. That's what the fee for service is all about. The powerless are going to be made to pay. Those who have been bent and broken in part by the economic system are now going to be kicked in the face and told to pay up. If they want help, they have to pay. If they didn't need help they wouldn't need the service in the first place.

When the unemployed breadwinner comes home in despair and ends up quarreling with his family, the family starts to disintegrate under this process. This government is now going to say to that family: "We will help you. We will counsel you provided you pay. You might pay a tribute to us through the family counsellor for failing to be other than a victim." It is cruel beyond belief, Mr. Chairman. The foundation of this proposal is cruelty. It is malicious and misguided cruelty.

The fees proposed by the minister must be seen in another light as well. The fees are a thoroughly alien factor, an unnecessary and unrelated intervention into the process of social services. The provision of services is a process which takes place between and among people - between counsellors and families, between social workers and clients. A fee is a thing which is placed between them, between this interaction. It is a cash barrier. It is an obstacle. It is a moat between need and help, between difficulty and assistance, between problems and support. That's what you're doing when you introduce the concept that now you have to pay for this service. It is an intervention, the introduction of something both alien and alienating in the process. One of the more idiotic aspects of the government's proposal is that it puts the cart before the horse, because what it is saying is: "First you pay, then we'll solve your problem. You have a problem? First you pay, then we'll solve your problem."

As any family counsellor or any social worker can tell you, one symptom of difficulty between individuals is an inability to function economically. Lack of a job, lack of money, lack of the ability to provide for themselves and those dependent sort them, financial mismanagement - these are often symptoms of deeper problems in the family. The ability of the individual to keep a job, to manage a budget, to spend wisely, is sometimes a superficial sign of the health of that family.

Yet this policy, which is being discussed in this ministry, which is going to be introduced, which indeed may even be a fait accompli, demands that payments be paid by people who have demonstrated that they are not living in a healthy family, that the family is indeed not healthy. The clients pay or they can con-

[ Page 1639 ]

tinue to be in debt. The family pays or it can continue to disintegrate. The fee will hang over their heads like a sword. The fee will increase the tension and the pressure rather than reducing the tension and the pressure. It will disrupt the entire process. That's what that fee is going to do to minimize the chances of success even for those who enter programmes. Of course, it will retard many from actually seeking the help that they both need and deserve.

The ministry is asking people to become economically efficient even before they receive this help. It is asking that they become economically efficient even when it is obvious that their lives are already chaotic and troubled. It is the philosophy of the pay toilet, Mr. Chairman. It's an aspect, again, of the cruelty of this measure.

Further, it is a proposal based on a rigid conception of human nature, a human nature shared by the minister but not shared by the kinds of people who frequently enter the human resource system. The model upon which this programme is based is nothing elaborate. There is nothing sophisticated or even progressive or even intelligent about it. As I said before, it is a philosophy of the pay toilet. When the NDP became the government in 1972, if you will remember, one of the first things we did, as the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) said, was to get rid of the pay toilet. Now we find that the Ministry of Human Resources under this minister see dedicated to go back along that route.

Mr. Chairman, in addition this proposal shows an ignorance of the field of social service and the changes that are taking place in it, because the field has been changing. The field of social work today is not the field of social work that it was 10 or 15 or 20 years ago. The introduction of individual fees for service is ill-suited to the kinds of services which professionals have been developing over the past 10 years. The fee-for-service idea is consequently an intrusion on the emergent practice of many areas of Council selling and help. The whole area, for example, of feminist counselling which is growing out of some of the experience of counsellors and psychologists and social workers in this area is a whole different way of people relating to each other, and is going to be affected in a detrimental way by this kind of policy.

In all of the many fields associated with social service, be it psychiatry, social work, family counselling, feminist counselling or whatever, there's an increasing recognition that problem are rarely totally individual and that solutions to problem cannot be effectively resolved even by years of counselling. There is a need to deal with problems in the group or in the family context. Those who seek help are often merely only the symptom bearers in that particular unit. When Johnny goes to seek help, he is often seeking a way to deal with the problems which are shared by the other members of his family unit. The individual's malaise is simply sometimes an SOS - a signal that something is going wrong within that family unit, not necessarily that something is wrong with that individual within that family unit. Quite often the person who seeks help is not even the individual who necessarily needs help in that unit the most.

The individual who comes for help is often seeking a way to alert other members of the family that they too have problem , that in fact there are many problems in the family. Alcoholism, child abuse, spouse abuse, drug abuse, delinquency - these are all problems which usually surface in one person but that does not mean that that is one sick person in the family. It may be an indication that we're dealing with a sick family, and that person is only the one bearing the symptom of the sickness of the family as a unit.

Doctors have known this for some time. A family problem often presents itself as an illness in only one member, but no amount of medicine will cure the individual until that family and the problem of the entire family has been dealt with. Evidence suggests that this is very much more common than previously believed.

Who is to pay the fee? Whom do we charge -the person bearing the symptom, the family? Or do we try and proportion it out and say who benefits the most? Is it the individual, all of you in the family? Do you split it? Do you share it? Is it the community? Who? How is it done? In a practical way, the fee-for-service system can hardly be applied and never is applied fairly in any event. It is for this reason that a system of universal guaranteed assistance is both the least expensive and the most practical way of dealing with this.

Anyone who knows a divorce lawyer or family counsellor can explain to you that the hard realities of money and possession often - in fact, usually - exacerbate the divisions within the family. Divorce lawyers, indeed, get rich dealing with squabbles over the division of property in our society in which private property is so important.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, time under standing orders has expired.

MR. COCKE: I'm so interested in this debate

[ Page 1640 ]

that I think I would like to yield to the member.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm really disappointed that the Minister of Human Resources is not waiting to hear me conclude my discussion on this topic.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'd love to hear it.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MS. BROWN: By adding a fee, a question of money to problems, one is likely to add the straw that breaks the camel's back. The question of who will pay the fee will become a divisionary conflict on top of all the other conflicts in that unit. In situations where only one person has an income, that person will become the arbiter of who shall or shall not be able to get help from the Ministry of Human Resources. I'm sure you can see situations developing: the wife who wants to go to see a family counsellor; the husband who says, "I won't pay." The problem is unresolved; the bitterness and hostility is increased; the chances of a bloody conflict may result. The probability of the family staying together are decreased and may even be irrevocably damaged by this discussion. If the fee for services is introduced, I can assure you that it will become a contributory factor in the disintegration of many, many families. Rather than strengthening the family unit, this proposal will serve to aid its destruction.

This proposal is counterproductive, and I cannot say that too often. This proposal is based on an erroneous assumption, and it's a destructive proposal. This programme, if implemented, will direct and drift towards all kinds of unintended and possibly intended results. Before we finish considering this proposal, therefore, we should examine some of the probable results.

This proposal is blatantly a disincentive to utilize services, and I don't think that the minister will deny this. It is a disincentive which will affect some groups more than it will affect others -

It won't be a disincentive to the rich; they've never used it anyway. When they need counselling they have been quite prepared to go off and pay the high prices that they have to pay wherever they have to pay them in order to get it. It won't be a disincentive to those who are poor because, as I said before, the ministry will subsidize them. They are alienated from society in any event and they don't use the Ministry of Human Resources in this way. It won't be a disincentive to those who will still be able to draw upon public support for payment of the fees. Undoubtedly it will be a disincentive to those who want services but who find that they cannot afford the additional cost.

Therefore it will primarily be a disincentive to the working poor, to those whom a calculation will often have to be made between assistance to alleviate a problem and having a decent meal. It will be a disincentive to those who rationally understand the roots of their particular problem as being financial, but who cannot cope with the symptoms. Those people will make the rational decision to suffer as the lesser of the evils, and this a hell of a way to help people.

It will, however, conform to this government's overall policy of taking a dollar and giving a dime. It will be recalled that at the First Ministers' Conference the Premier's paper promised the Canadian public that British Columbia would provide worse services in order to avoid competing with the private sector, and that the public service, including the Ministry of Human Resources, would not be competitive or superior to the worst provided by the private sector. Thus by adding fees, the government proposes once again to provide less for more. The system provides a convenient negative control by the government.

By simply raising fees it will be possible to deny services to some people; it will be possible to avoid even a discussion of policy; it will be possible to transform or disguise policy decisions simply by increasing fees. It takes decision-making and public responsibility out of this chamber and out of the light of public scrutiny. It transforms accountants into social workers and gives them the power over the social service policies of this province.

It will create a complicated set of consumer-interest problems by transforming a service into a market commodity available through a contractual relationship between the purchaser of the service and and the purveyor of the service. We will create ipso facto all the difficulties with which the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, for example, is struggling at this time.

For example - and I would appreciate it if the minister would listen to these examples -if a family pays the Ministry of Human Resources to keep the marriage together and the counselling fails, will the family have the right to receive their money back? In the marketplace this would be considered the fair way of dealing with it.

Another example: if the counsellor decides that a child's autism is not due to mental

[ Page 1641 ]

deficiency but could be the result of some other factors in the family unit, and directs the family to a counselling programme, who will pay? If the service provided is different from the service offered, who will pay? If it is discovered that a problem is only one of several, what happens then? Is the fee increased? Is it tied to the number of problems? Is it done on a sliding scale like 50 cents for the first problem and 10 cents for every additional problem? How is it going to be dealt with?

If the social worker determines that a family problem is a direct consequence of an economic factor - say, for example, a layoff at Crown Zellerbach - who will pay? Will Crown Zellerbach pay? Will the Ministry of Labour pay? Will the Ministry of Economic Development pay for not being able to create employment? Or will the person who has been victimized by the layoff be asked to pay in addition for this counselling?

If it is determined that the person seeking help is truly mentally disturbed, can that person be held financially responsible for a service contracted in a state of insanity?

If it is determined that the best way to deal with the problem is a team approach or a family approach, will the Ministry of Human Resources stand in the way of the best treatment? If the consumers of services determine that they can only obtain services of an adequate nature by banding together to form a consumer action league, will the Minister of Labour stand in the way?

The deeper you dig, the more you see this proposal as simply the tip of a very troublesome iceberg. It becomes increasingly clear that the ministry has not given this matter very long and very careful thinking.

There are other consequences to this proposal as well. The first one has been mentioned by the social workers themselves: namely, the overloading of services. The tendency will be to increase the number of services performed and a consequent reduction in the quality in order to bring in more fees and add more revenue to the ministry's pockets.

The other consequence could be a competition for scarce services. Many of the more specialized services are in short supply in this province. We know, for example, that the only city in British Columbia that has a decent child abuse team is Vancouver. This program will turn the distribution of such services into a competition. The victim will be struggling to compete for the services and, obviously, those most in need will have the least chance of winning because it will go to the ones who can best afford to pay. It will certainly encourage an increase in cost of services, either in the form of one of the Ministry of Human Resources increases or under the cover of black market distribution.

Mr. Chairman, there is another consequence I refer to as expropriation of the poor. The very poor and the working poor will be encouraged to give up scarce possessions to go to the hockshop to find money to pay the fees which are needed - which they must have - if they will get the service. Thus the Ministry of Human Resources will be directly responsible for the expropriation of the poor, for forcing people to give up the already tenuous hold they have in our society.

And the fourth consequence, Mr. Chairman, for the working poor is that the term "help and assistance" will finally become associated with cost and penalty. The treatment of health as a penalty is certainly un-Christian in its implications; it is clearly a blow against the very values of our society.

And, Mr. Chairman, I want to repeat that this proposal is clearly a step toward the marketplace. We're going to see the first step toward the creation of a private marketplace in social services; it's finally arrived. Social services have now entered the private sector, the private marketplace, with everything that that implies. It's no longer the universal responsibility of our society or of our community; it has now become part of the private sector; it's going to be moving out of the public sector and we can all abrogate our responsibilities toward each other. Clearly the reasoning behind this policy cannot be the betterment of society, it cannot be the protection and assistance of people in need. Rather it is an overture toward the introduction of an entire new area of private accumulation of wealth and appropriation of wealth. It is the first step toward turning basic social services into purchasable commodities, toward the marketing of human misery - to find a way in -which a few can prof it from the misery of people and families. As an advocate of the family I can see nothing more evil than this. We're going to turn people's most difficult and painful problem into profit.

Mr. Chairman, I am not alone in my response and my recognition that this is what this particular policy is going to do. Even the media - most of whom, as far as I know, have no experience in the field of counselling... I want to refer to the editorial on page 13 of the May 5 issue of The Province: "Price Tag on Children's Rights." It raises the same issue, that the children of this province are going to be the ones who are going to suffer from this placing of a price tag on valuable ser-

[ Page 1642 ]

vices which are needed by families when they are in a period of stress or in a period of disintegration. Indeed, this fee for service is tied to counselling surrounding alcoholism, child abuse, spouse abuse, delinquency and family breakdown. These kinds of problems -when people are most vulnerable, Mr. Chairman - have now got a price tag attached to them, and the Ministry of Human Resources is depriving us of our community responsibility to people in need by taking this service out of the public sector and turning it into a private and economic matter. We're now going to be trafficking in human miseries and we should be ashamed and we should not permit this to go through.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate that there has always been a fee for service, and the policy was stated very clearly once more in 1975 by the previous Minister of Human Resources (Mr. Levi) . The thing is it's not been applied equitably or equally - in other words, there wasn't a firm policy. The overall policy was there, but it was applied in some areas in full, in other areas only partially and still other areas not at all; it was inequitably applied. That's why it was being considered - by staff particularly - during these last several months, to see if perhaps we couldn't bring some reason into a process which had been rather chaotic.

Also, the fee for service has been in effect by private agencies. As a matter of fact, United Way in particular makes it very clear that any of the agencies they fund must have some fee for the service they provide to people who can afford to pay.

I fully realize that there is a considerable difference between what the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard has stated and what I would tend to support. There has been no position given by the minister as yet. All of the things that we've seen are in response to a policy paper suggestion which was circulated by the deputy minister's office.

However, the member for Burrard would like to see everything free to all people, regardless of whether they can pay or whether they can't pay. I think she's made that very clear. I don't prescribe to that particular philosophy. I think that people should have the opportunity and I think it provides them with dignity, if they can in fact contribute at least to some of those services.

As I said, no position has been established as yet by the ministry. I appreciate the opportunity we are having now of receiving considerable input from various quarters before a firm policy is established. But parents, I think, should be responsible for the normal care of their children. I think people want to be treated equitably and they have not been treated equitably to date. We have improved the subsidies considerably. They are better than ever before and certainly our income test is the best that we've ever seen. Under the NDP a couple and two children, one of them working, earning net after taxes and all other expenses $800 a month and requiring a homemaker service equal to $180, was required to pay the full amount - 100 per cent. Under our policy that same family unit of four making net $800 per month is only required to pay $10.

So I think we have improved the system enormously. I think certainly, while the member has made no reference to that, it is being well recognized by all of the people I come in contact with daily. We have heard some name calling here and I've been called a number of things over the last several days now. But I think what really matters is not the names you call me, hon. member, but what the people out there who are paying the taxes daily and who are in receipt of the benefits think of what we're doing. That's what really matters. I don't particularly care what you call me. You can call me a monster. You can call me everything you called me yesterday because that appears to be your style. It really doesn't faze me too terribly much, as long as the people who pay the bills daily, those who pack their lunch bucket day after day to earn a living and pay the taxes say: "Vander Zalm, we like what you're doing. Vander Zalm, you're helping to make a more accountable system." That's what really matters, hon. member. That's what counts in the end.

You also mentioned that services should be provided on the basis' of need. I think you should be aware.... Certainly you've been here long enough, and I think you've been a part of public activities for a good while, to recognize that very often needs are infinite. They go on forever. Taxes are not infinite. There's an end to what people can pay. There's an end to what people can afford to pay and there's an end to what we should expect people to pay. There's a limit.

Particularly for those who can afford to pay.... You've admitted we're not proposing in any of these changes which might come about to charge people on welfare or low income. We're talking about people who can well afford to pay and who are not paying. I am reminded again of the example brought to my attention by a social worker in Surrey who came to me and said: "One of my cases is a 15-year old foster child, a boy. His father is a real

[ Page 1643 ]

estate salesman in a neighbouring municipality and drives a Lincoln Continental. I, as a social worker, wanted to see the boy enrolled in a hockey team so I approached the father with the Lincoln Continental and said: 'Could you not buy this youngster that I am responsible for in the foster programme a pair of skates and a hockey stick?' The father said: 'Come to me when the government runs out of money."

You think this is a good attitude? You want that to go on? I don't. I think such an attitude has to come to an end.

I can give you the details if you wish and you can contact the social worker yourself in Delta who came to me and said: "I was approached by a mother who didn't want to have anything to do any more with her 15-year old son, because she was incapable of handling him."

The social worker began to question the mother and said: "Okay, what do you do?"

She said: "I work for a law firm."

"What do you earn?"

"It's none of your business."

The social worker said: "Well, look, you want us to provide for your son. Give us some of the details. We'll work it out together."

Finally the mother said: "Yes, I make $12,000 a year."

"Where is your husband?"

"Well, my husband - we're divorced. We're no longer together."

"Well, where is he? He's the father of your son. "

The mother said: "Well, he's a lawyer too on Vancouver Island."

"What are his earnings?"

Of course it happened that his earnings are well beyond $30,000 a year, so the social worker said: "You know, I think since this is a partnership, since we're not trying to be big government parent and you've come to us to provide for your son and we want to do so, how about you contributing $50 per month?"

The mother said: "No way, I don't want anything to do with it. It's ridiculous. I pay taxes. Why shouldn't I get this service free?"

The social worker became a little upset and said: "Look, all people pay taxes. You're requiring us to become involved in a service needed by your family or a member of your family. You can afford to contribute. Why don't you?"

The mother said: "I pay taxes. I won't; I refuse to."

And the social worker said: "Look, we'll take action under the Protection of Children Act and you will pay the $50."

The mother said, "I won't, " and went to see her lawyer, which was convenient for her because she works for a law firm. The lawyer in the law firm fortunately advised her that it wasn't worth her fighting it, and that she should pay the $50.

The reason the social worker wrote me about this is not because she was so proud of having accomplished a contribution of $50, but because of what happened in that particular instance. That's what made that social worker happy and I think she's a wonderful social worker. I'll back her to the hilt.

What made the social worker happy is that apparently in the process the mother said: "Well, if I'm going to be contributing $50, 1 want to sit down with you and I want to know just exactly what the social workers in Delta will do for my child. What are you proposing? What programmes? Where is he going to be?"

That was a very positive move. The mother took an interest ii, what programmes we would provide for her child because she was providing or paying at least $50 toward the cost.

Also, the mother said: "Look, it's not only my son; it's also my former husband's son and he should be contacted."

The social worker made contact with the former husband. What came from all this is that now the husband, who hadn't talked to his former wife for four years, suddenly felt that perhaps since they were both required to con tribute for the maintenance of his son, and he didn't know that his son was in trouble.... He began talking to his former wife. Both of them began talking to the son. It seems as if we brought a family back together because we said: "Look, if you take a particular action, there might be a consequence." That was the first time that anyone had ever said that, because previously it was always: "Oh, you want us to take care of your kid? We'll take your kid. We'll plunk him over there or here, and you won't bother us as to what we do for him because you don't pay a cent."

Suddenly, somebody said: "You take an action; there may be a consequence." Everybody took an interest and we brought it all together. That's responsible. That's a wonderful way to go. I think that social worker and what she did ought to be held forth as an example for all social workers everywhere in the province. That's positive. That's good stuff.

You also mentioned buses. You said: "'Hey, look, everybody benefits from the buses." But that's a poor example, hon. member, because when people take a bus ride, they do pay 35 cents. They do contribute. Because they contribute, they don't take trips unless they need to. They don't simply get on a bus and ride about. They do contribute something. That wasn't a good example.

[ Page 1644 ]

MS. BROWN: That's what happens when you talk, when you don't listen to what I'm saying and don't understand what love said. That was not what I said.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You mentioned the example of the person in the hospital. Again, the person in the hospital does contribute.

MS. BROWN: That's what I said.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The person in the hospital pays the $4 a day. There is a contribution, and that again certainly, I think, makes the programme more responsible. It's not the income from the $4, nor is it the income from the $50 that the social worker contributes, but it's to build a more responsible approach to providing services to people.

You bragged about the fact that previously during the NDP you somehow also lost sight of the fact that you did not have as generous an income testing. You lost sight of the fact that there was a charge for service to some but not to others, depending on the social worker. But you also lost sight of one of the very important programmes that I think spells it out for all British Columbians very clearly. I think that programme is as applicable here as it is within other ministries or throughout government. It demonstrates clearly where this government wants to go and how, and I think it is certainly receiving the support of all people in this province of British Columbia - and that's the long-term care programme.

Under the NDP, people were required to pay up to $1,000 per month if they needed to go into a private hospital or a nursing home - up to $1,000 a month - until they became destitute, until they lost all their assets, their holdings, everything they ever had and saved during all those working years. When that was frittered away because they had to pay high prices to some long-term care institution, then they were on welfare and then the NDP government would provide them with the help. If they could once make them destitute they would provide the help. The Social Credit government said: "All people pay $6.50 a day. You have the dignity of contributing, but you won't go destitute." I think that certainly is a good example of the difference between the approaches taken by your government, hon. member, when they were in power, and by this government, which is seeking a more responsible approach to providing services to people.

I hope that I have now convinced you that while we're only now talking about parental contribution, while it's only a proposal at this time, it has a great deal of merit in that people become involved, in that people know the consequences of their actions and they do participate, in that government doesn't step in like a big parent and take over and apprehend and shove kids into treatment homes or group homes or foster programmes, but that government instead becomes a member of that partnership and says: "Okay, father or mother, or both, you need a helping hand. We're here to help - not to take over -but to become involved in this particular problem and help you."

That's the difference. It's working, and I think it's going to be wonderful. I'm sure a year from now, hon. member, when you stand up again in your place to speak on the budget come 1979, you'll say: "Hon. minister, I take back all I said. You're winning, we're winning, everybody is winning because we now have for the people of B.C. a programme of benefits such as we've never had before." That's what matters, not what is politically good for you or for us, but what's good for those two and a half million people. There are only a few of us in here; it's for those two and a half million people.

That's what matters - the children, the adults, the handicapped, the elderly - not us here. We're being paid well for sitting in this Legislature. Every time you stand up and speak it's costing plenty. No one complains. We're all being paid plenty. Someone said it is costing us $50,000 a day to sit in the House.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) says $60,000 a day.

MS. BROWN: Is that why you're filibustering your estimates?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's a part of the process and I'm not complaining. But what I am saying is that while we're being paid, let's not lose sight of the fact that it's not a matter of winning points for political reasons, but that instead we do what's right for the people of B.C.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond very briefly to some of the issues raised by the minister.

First of all I want to say that love certainly learned one thing, and that is that either he doesn't hear very well what is being said to him or he certainly does not understand

[ Page 1645 ]

it. As I explained in the beginning of my statement, I very carefully and very conscientiously and in a very rational way put the argument to him about the detriment of this particular policy on people. There was no name-calling, there were no political points being made. Instead, the minister stands up and does not respond to any of the content of what I talked about. It is very clear that he either didn't hear or he didn't understand, so I am just going to put that aside.

However, he talks about the fee for service and the inequities that used to exist before. There was a deliberate reason why some services were not attached to a fee, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister; it was not accidental. There was a reason for it, a recognition that to tie a fee to those services would be detrimental in terms of the people who needed those services. It wasn't inequities, saying everybody has to pay the same way. The decision was based on the service involved. That's what the decision was based on, and you are now removing that, and those kinds of services which everyone must have access to, not regardless of whether they are able to pay, but whether they are willing to pay. The removal of that universality is what is detrimental. It has nothing to do with inequities and the fact that there did exist fee for service in some areas before and not in others. The areas that didn't have a fee for service attached to them.... There was a conscious decision made about that. It wasn't accidental.

As for the two examples that you raised about the child in Surrey whose father drove a Lincoln Continental and wouldn't buy him a pair of skates, what if, instead of a pair of skates, that child had needed some kind of specific service out of your ministry? Would you have refused to deliver it because the child's father drives a Lincoln Continental? Who is hurt, the father with the Lincoln Continental or the child? It is precisely that kind of case that I'm talking about when I say that the fee for service is a detriment.

As a social worker - through you, Mr. Chairman to the minister, who has again stopped listening - one of the first things you learn when you go into a family in crisis is that you first have to convince that family that they need the service. On many occasions you find out about the conflict or the problems that that family is having through the way the child shows up at school, either with bruises all aver his body or her body, or not being properly clothed or not being properly fed. And you go into that family and you have to convince that family that they can benefit from counselling. The fact that the father may drive a Lincoln Continental is incidental if that family says: "I am not going to pay for this service." It's incidental, and for you to decide at that point that because the father drives a Lincoln Continental, the child must be deprived of service is cruel and immoral. That's precisely what this fee for service is - it's an [illegible] policy that you're embarked upon.

When you talk about the delivery of social service in this province, and about how there used to be a time when the social worker would say: "if you don't want this, you don't get that. Apprehend the child. Take care of this, take care of that." It's an insult to every social worker in this province, many of whom have worked for years before you came along, Mr. Minister, and have a better understanding about the delivery of service to people in need than you will ever have. You owe every social worker in this province an apology for those gratuitous statements you just made about the kinds of delivery of service before you introduced your immoral fee-for-service plan.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to be discussing long-term care with this minister. He is trying to take all of the credit for it. It is going to be discussed with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) , who is responsible for it. I am discussing fee-for-service policy with this minister and he is not going to change the argument by trying to take credit for the long-term care programme, because that is under the Ministry of Health. It's another example of that minister not only shifting responsibility, not only hiding his costs and hiding his policies under another ministry, but also trying to take credit for what other people do.

I just want finally to read into the records a letter which was received in the mail today from the Neighbourhood Services Association of Greater Vancouver which, I think, is interesting, because the minister used the Neighbourhood Services Association as an example in his response to me. This is a carbon copy of a letter sent to the Minister of Human Resources on May 17, and it says:

"Dear Mr. Vander-Zalm.

"The social issues committee of the board of governors of Neighbourhood Services Association has become most concerned about the proposed fees to be charged, based on an income test, for various services formerly provided by the Ministry of Human Resources without charge.

"While we fully support the concept of

[ Page 1646 ]

self-reliance and family responsibility, we feel that services necessary to help people accomplish mature independence should be available to those who need them."

"Need them - that's the word we're talking about, "need."

"In our many years of experience in working with problem-burdened and troubled families and individuals, we have not found that payment for a service enhances the ability of persons or families to make use of the service."

And that's a simple fact that that minister just doesn't seem to be able to grasp.

"Rather, there is great difficulty in first acknowledging the need for help in managing one's family or personal situation and subsequently accepting help from a community agency." That is the reality.

"The possibility of having to discuss income and finances and then to pay a fee, can be the deterrent which prevents people from seeking the help they need. And the instances where family or juvenile problem have reached the courts, counselling or other services may be required by the judge. Requiring payment for service in such circumstances can hardly encourage willing participation of the family or individual in the counselling or other service programmes. It seems that fees for services will affect a limited segment of the population - the working poor and lowincome people. Social assistance recipients will not be required to pay fees and upper-income persons are likely to choose psychiatric counselling, which is available under medical insurance coverage anyway.

"We feel that the proposed fee-charging for Ministry of Human Resources services will not achieve the purpose for which it is designed and will cause further distress to troubled persons and families. We strongly recommend you reconsider this approach to the provision of social services."

It is signed by Hugh B. Smith, president, Neighbourhood. Services Association of Greater Vancouver. This is not a politician; this is not someone who has any political axe to grind. The Neighbourhood Services Association of Greater Vancouver has been contributing to the delivery of social services in this province for many years, and will continue to do so for many years after all of us in this chamber are gone. They work with the people who use these services. They are stating, in conjunction with other social workers and, as I said, even with the media, many of whom have never been social workers, that there is no relationship between paying for a service and benefiting from it. The minister does not seem able to grasp that simple fact.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I was going to get up on a simple question. I'll try and remember that at the end.

I want to compliment the first member for Vancouver-Burrard in what she's saying. I'd suggest the minister look at it from a slightly different point of view too. Is the minister practising good public economy, good business sense in toying around with and probably about to implement an increase in deterrent fees to those who have social problems, particularly the underprivileged and the poorer people in our society? What's it going to cost the province in the long run if you do impose deterrent fees?

Now the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) there wouldn't think, with the B.C. Development Corporation or his ministry, of charging a businessman for sending somebody in to help him with his accounting practice or give him a market study. He doesn't want to discourage people from using that service. In the educational field, vocational counselling in the high schools is free because you want to encourage people to use that service. It's going to be dollars in pocket for the province in the long run if that young person makes a good vocational choice.

There are countless other examples. In a labour dispute, would you want to charge for the conciliator who comes from the Ministry of Labour? Maybe they will say: "No, we won't bother; we're not going to bother with a conciliator because there's a fee attached to it." There's a public interest and a dollar interest for all of the public in making that service available.

But when you come to the poor and underprivileged sections of the society, you say: "I'm going to impose a deterrent fee." It may be a troubled family that a year down the road is going to have a battered child. It may be a troubled family that is about to break up, and with some counselling and assistance that family can be saved and they don't end up in Riverview. You can take an extreme example, but people do end up in Riverview from social problems they can't cope with and financial problems that prove to be too much for them because they didn't have that little bit of help in terms of prevention. Of course, in the

[ Page 1647 ]

whole field of juvenile delinquency, what does it cost society to see a young person take a wrong turn in narcotics or petty crime, leading to bigger crime? Ultimately society ends up paying over a period of 10 years, say, $50 a day or $60 a day in jail.

I'm telling the minister that what he's proposing is just bad business sense. If that argument appeals to the bottom-line govern ment, they should think about it. It's bad dollar sense not to extend that kind of help in social service in terms of prevention before it is too late.

You'd say: "I won't charge those on social welfare." Good. But there are lots of people who are leading lives of poverty who aren't on social welfare. They're working; they don't have extra money to pay for fees for social services. They just do not have that kind of money. They are the working poor, and they are the ones that these services must be freely available to if only we think in terms of the welfare of the economy in the long run, production, saving social costs in help, and the justice system further down the line.

Now I want to ask this question, and I didn't hear the answer clearly last night. Maybe there is a simple answer: does the Minister of Human Resources take into account an award made under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act for the purpose of computing that persons entitlement under GAIN legislation? It's a simple question. What is the answer to it? I don't know.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The circumstances certainly are considered in each and every instance. We now, for example, have a situation in the province where someone received an award; I believe the amount was something like $30,000. The injury was near-blindness; or perhaps the person is blind, I'm not sure. But in this particular instance, what we would do is make a recommendation or receive a recommendation from the people involved with the person, the people in the local area, and we might recommend that, for example, if that person doesn't have a home, the money be used to acquire a home, which is something that they can use in an ongoing way, rather than them disposing of all of the income in order to qualify for income assistance or handicapped person's allowance. In other words, we try to work out every situation depending on the amount, the circumstance and so forth.

If, for example, a person is entitled to have assets to the tune of $2,500 and they receive a settlement of $4,000, they can keep at least that $2,500 if they do not have other assets to bring them up to that asset level. Then we'll consider special needs and the likes. I think you have to look at every circumstance on its individual merits and that is what is being done.

On one other comment in regard to statements made by the hon. member, when we provide services to people there are a lot of considerations. In providing services, one of those considerations which I think has been often overlooked is that we shouldn't always attempt to impose a service onto people without them participating and having some say in the type of service they feel is best. As the hon. member pointed out, because a person has any number of degrees doesn't always qualify them to make decisions with respect to a person or a person's family. If we can give the individual the opportunity to be a part of that process and a part of that decision making, we all stand to benefit.

MR. MACDONALD: I totally disagree with the minister taking into account awards made under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, in effect reducing their income because they have received that award. The purpose of that Act is to help the victims of crime in two capacities. Sometimes it is somebody who has come to the aid of a police officer or helped somebody who is about to be the victim of crime, and they have received an injury. Sometimes they are the direct victims of crime. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is merely saying this: "With a little bit of money we are going to try to compensate you in part" - and these awards are small - "for what has happened to you, and as best we can to put you back to where you were before, not ahead of where you were before." You are still usually far behind.

It's a deterrent. Why should somebody come to the aid of a police officer and get beaten up in the process? If they are on assistance, they say to themselves: "I may get partial help for what's going to happen to me on taking a risk. But the Minister of Human Resources is going to take it away from me and put me farther behind than I was. "Again, that's deterrence. You are deterring people.

I say these criminal injuries compensation payments, which attempt to make the person whole again and put them back to where they were before, should not be deducted in any way. Surely that is an abuse of the whole concept of justice, if there is any justice in terms of your GAIN legislation. It's an abuse of that concept. I think it is another example of this government using very poor common business sense and perpetrating an injustice. There is no point in having a criminal

[ Page 1648 ]

injuries body sit and determine what we can do to help put this person back a little bit in terms of where they were before, and then having the Minister of Human Resources come along and strip that away even in part. You shouldn't do it, Mr. Minister. You know that perfectly well. One arm of government is giving in trying to help a victim of crime, and the other am of government is stripping it away from them, even in part. You let them keep some. That's wrong.

It isn't a charitable system. Is there no justice in that system? If you are poor and underprivileged, the justice principle or equitable principle is not available. The equitable principle is that they have been partially compensated for what happened to them in crime and they should be allowed to keep it, and under no circumstances have that deducted from any cheque they receive from some other am of government.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I certainly concur with the member that it's a very difficult area. We have had our go at it a number of times. I will concede that I don't think we have the answer in total as yet. Probably the question ought to be posed that this criminal compensation, I suppose, in part is a form of insurance too. Sure, it's provided through government, but it protects us in case of a criminal act. There is that type of insurance and there is the other type of insurance which a person can purchase or which perhaps may be coming to you through an ICBC claim or whatever. It's not only the one. There are a variety of considerations in this particular policy.

The problem we have, hon. member - and hopefully you can help us; we would certainly seek anyone's advice - is where do you draw the line? Do you draw the line at $1,000, $109000, $30,000 or $50,000? That, I guess, is the one difficulty we have been unable to resolve as yet. But we would seek any advice that you can give and we will accept it as advice, not so much as criticism but as advice, which we can certainly use and which we welcome.

MR. MACDONALD: I thought there was a limit on it, but most of these awards are small. Let's say they receive a big award because they lost an eye or they've lost their sight for life or they've been raped and there is a dramatic change that is going to affect their whole life. That is what that money is for and it should not in any sense be taken off their minimum income. I think it is just totally wrong.

MR. GIBSON: Following along briefly on the subject raised by the hon. first member for Vancouver-East and the minister's request for advice as to how awards under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act should be handled for purposes of GAIN, I'm quite prepared to give him my advice which is that those awards should be totally overlooked. I want to give the minister a perspective on it. Let us assume that a person before had 20-20 vision. That was an asset they had. It was a human asset, a physical asset, but it wasn't taken into account for the purposes of administering the GAIN regulations. Let us suppose their vision was lost under circumstances covered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act - a tragedy. I don't know what the monetary award might be, but there's no circumstance in which I can conceive it as being adequate to truly compensate a person. They've lost one physical asset - their sound eyesight - and received another asset, which was some poor financial compensation. There's been no increase in assets there, and I think the minister should completely exclude that from any calculations whatsoever he has in approaching GAIN. In a sense, it has to do with an involuntary thing. The person didn't get injured voluntarily and it should be excluded.

Mr. Chairman, more generally on the question of fee for service which, I think quite properly, has been the focus of the debate on these estimates this year. The Minister of Health is fond of saying that the best expenditure in medicine is preventive medicine. I agree with him. I think that is true in social services too.

I think the minister is being just a little bit spurious in telling the committee that needs are infinite and tax revenue is limited. People don't need infinite housing, they don't need infinite shelter, they don't need infinite education and they don't need infinite medical care. These things are definable. In our country and in our province we've gradually, over the years, come to the conclusion that there's a kind of minimum standard beneath which Canadians will not be permitted to fall insofar as the state can financially do anything about it. That's what's meant by need. I think it's quite a clear concept.

The justifications that were given for the circulated policy by the minister about the real estate salesman with the Lincoln Continental who wouldn't buy skates for his child, or the mother in the family unit that between them the mother and father had a $42,000 annual income but didn't want to pay' $50 a

[ Page 1649 ]

month, are very particular cases that the minister may bring before us, but I don't think they reflect the ordinary situation to which these proposed rules would be applied.

The minister refers to the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard's analogy about bus trips and he says: "Because there's a charge, you don't take a bus trip unless you need it."

Taking a bus is a voluntary action but, Mr. Chairman, being handicapped isn't a voluntary action. Those are just the unfortunate circumstances of this world. The question of how you came about the particular need or disability is one that I say the minister must take into account.

I want to talk about this particular piece of paper that's been introduced into the House dated March 29, Draft - Personal and Financial Contributions Towards Services, that was circulated in the ministry by the deputy minister. Now the minister said it was circulated for consultation. That's well and good. It's a good thing to consult with people in the ministry, but why was it only in the ministry? Why wasn't it given out to the general public to give everyone a chance to comment?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It was.

MR. GIBSON: It seemed rather difficult to get hold of, Mr. Minister. It may have been given to some specialized agencies, but it certainly wasn't sent around on March 30 to members of this assembly.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, not to members of the assembly.

MR. GIBSON: No. and it should have been sent to members of this assembly who have some right to comment on these things. We wouldn't be able to have this whole comment during this debate on your estimates unless somehow this thing had surfaced, unless somehow this piece of paper had found its way into the hands of members of the opposition. It's a very important debate and the minister says he wants advice on these things. In the name of all that's holy, why doesn't he seek that advice by circulating these kinds of things to us as well? Because he will get some advice on it.

The minister has been saying that this is just a document, it's not a position established by his ministry.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Right.

MR. GIBSON: Well, that's fair enough. But at the same time, he's asking us to vote in these estimates hundreds of millions of dollars and he's asking us to vote those hundreds of millions of dollars without saying there aren't some positions established. I want to establish a few positions perhaps, at least with respect to the handicapped under this legislation.

The essence of this memorandum.... I certainly won't quote the %hole thing, but it speaks of the maximum financial contributions per family and those will be "the lesser of the following: the amount indicated by the income test; the cost of service; or an amount equivalent to the total basic maintenance rate for a foster child of equivalent age, " with some minor qualifications at the end.

Now this is a requirement that, in the case of families containing handicapped members, could hit them very, very hard. It's not clear whether there would be some kind of reduction rate in the payment of these services under the income test, whether they'd only have to pay, say, 50 per cent of the available income that was above the base, or whether it would be a dollar for dollar reduction. That's not clear from this particular memorandum, but it's clear that there would be a very significant financial contribution by the parents, let's say, of a handicapped child, up to the cap on the costing which is the cost of the basic maintenance rate for a foster child of equivalent age.

Mr. Chairman, as other speakers have pointed out, this will particularly hit the working poor. It will be just another incentive to stay out of social assistance programmes, that preventive medicine in the social field that I spoke of. I ask the minister why. How much does he think he can save if all of these tests are introduced, if all of these contributions are introduced? How much in dollar terms does he think he can save? I think the committee is entitled to that information because....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: He gave it last night.

MR. GIBSON: He did not, Mr. Minister. I read the Blues very carefully last night. I got you on that one! You show me where he did last night and I'll gladly retract. He didn't.

How much does the minister think he can save if all of these draft policies are accepted? There's an obvious difficulty here, Mr. Chairman. Social services are provided for a couple of reasons. One is for the good of society, and the other one that immediately occurs to me is to share misfortunes over which individuals or families have no control for no reason of their own. I'm thinking of most

[ Page 1650 ]

medical problems as well as many social problems. Failing the provision of these various kinds of social assistance, would the minister rather have the head of the household not working, for example, because of disincentives to put their child in day care of one kind or another? Would the minister rather have a youth end up in the criminal justice system rather than having help from a social worker, because it is much more expensive to have them end up in a criminal justice system? I admit that the minister gets the cost out of his ministry and into another one, but the cost overall to the taxpayers is more serious.

Would he rather have someone seriously retarded in a residential home when they might have been helped sufficiently :-o stay out of that residential home by the use of the infant development programme that is gong to be subject to a disincentive under this proposed draft regulation?

Mr. Chairman, I'm asking the minister: what does he have in mind in allowing this to continue to circulate? I can see what the costs are. What are the benefits to the public that lie can give us with respect to these proposals? Why should he not withdraw them now?

That was a serious question, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry the minister isn't....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I think I've already responded to what I think the benefits are from such a proposal. It's a partnership, it's participation, it's a working with.... We're not government attempting to superimpose. We're hopefully developing a system which will involve the parents with the government in providing services for their youngsters, as is often the case. I think that's what matters - that we not come in and move in as big government, always apprehending, always taking children away from the home and putting them into government cubicles, but instead that we work it out together. It's togetherness.

You made reference to handicapped people and how they might have to pay for services. I would like to make it very clear that we do not - and I think I've stated this to you in answer to a question a week or 10 days ago -intend to provide a hardship on parents of handicapped children who are already suffering. If perhaps we're providing a service which is as normal for them as it would be for another child and for the same reasons, then that's a different story. But we will not add to their difficulties because of a handicap.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I want to get this very clearly on the record, because it is terribly important.

The draft circulated by his deputy made reference to a number of programmes, some of which apply to the handicapped. It proposed that the new policy would become effective immediately to residential programmes and, as the minister is aware, there are handicapped people involved in residential programmes, with their parents often paying only a nominal rate for such accommodation.

Next, the director said that effective October I of this year, the income test must be applied to the special-needs day care, a day-care programme that's involved with handicapped people.

Next it said that effective April 1,1979, the infant development programme would be subject to the income test, and that programme, as the minister knows, is a home-based programme that works, among other things, with the developmentally retarded.

Now these are services that are given to people not as a result of any voluntary action of their own, but because they are handicapped. The services are given because they are handicapped, and yet they are scheduled in this document as being ones that will become subject to the income test.

Will the minister assure this committee now that whatever he does with the rest of it, he will exclude these programmes as they apply to handicapped people from the proposals in this memorandum? In other words, exclude them from the proposal to make them subject to the income test?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, on the one hand the member commends the ministry for circulating this type of information and being fairly definite in its proposal, and now on the other hand, you criticize the same procedure. This was one of a number of memorandum which had been circulated amongst the regional managers for their input. That is not a policy paper but a policy proposal and, like I say, one of a number. I have already made reference to some of these programmes and the way they will or might be applied, because no policy has been developed as yet.

MR. GIBSON: What I'm asking the minister to do is in these specific cases make his exclusion that he's hinted at concrete. I appreciate that these are proposals. What I want the minister to do before this committee is to withdraw from the proposal these particular programmes as they relate to handicapped people. I make that clear.

I don't have before me, obviously, now the

[ Page 1651 ]

words you said a few minutes ago. But I want to refer him to page 1275 of Hansard on the Premier's estimates where he said: "I want to reiterate once again that there will be no attempt whatsoever to place a further burden on handicapped families, one that would not be borne by people that are receiving the services and who are not burdened by a handicapped child or other member of the family."

Now to me, it follows clearly and logically from that that the minister should be prepared to say to the committee today that whatever he does with the rest of the proposals, he will delete the proposals that handicapped persons in receipt of residential programmes, special needs, day care, infant development programmes or other services obtained because they are handicapped, and they will be excluded from any proposals for an income test or other additional contributions.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, we're considering this policy as yet. I certainly do not intend to make a decision at this particular moment as to the details of that proposal or that policy as it might be developed. But aside from, of course, the homemaker programme and the day-care programme, which are separate right now in any case, there is nothing in the proposal which would provide for a charge for any programme which is intended to have people keep the children in their own home or to make it more possible for them to keep children in their own home.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm gratified and interested to hear that, except that the paper makes a definite reference to an infant development programme, and that is a home based programme. It says there's going to be a charge for it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's right. It's my intention. I'm sorry, I shouldn't say proposal; I should say it's my intention.

MR. GIBSON: Good, I'm glad to hear that.

Now as to whether or not it's merely a proposal, I want to relate to the minister a case. I will call this young lad Jeff. I'm not going to use his real name. He's seven years old. He lives out in the Fraser Valley. He is handicapped and has had the services of a child care worker for about four years. Human Resources provided for the cost of that worker because the parents were having difficulty with other expenses like special shoes and special dental work and so on. In September, 1976, Jeff started school. He was in a-special transitional class with several other children with special needs, and to assist that class, the Ministry of Human Resources provided a full-time child care worker. During the following summer, Human Resources again provided a child care worker for four to five weeks.

When the school term began in September, 1977, his parents were asked by the ministry and by the school if they would place Jeff in a special class by himself if a child care worker was provided to teach him. They agreed and this proved to be satisfactory until late March of this year when the parents were told - I want the minister to listen carefully -that if they wanted to keep Jeff in that class, they would have to start paying $80 per month towards the cost of the child care worker. This was in late March of this year, just about the time that this document ums sent around. I want to stress this is not for any special services Jeff gets at home. It's solely for his education.

Because of their circumstances, Jeff's parents have ref used to pay the bill and his education is now in doubt. The difficult thing is we want these children to live at home wherever possible and yet they may be forced into a position of seeking that the lad be institutionalized in order that his education can be afforded.

The other aspect that bothers me is, as I say, that the minister said the policy was just a proposal. This would appear to be a specific case where it's become more than a proposal and where billing is already going on. The minister did leave the distinct impression when we had that dialogue on March 9,1978, when I asked a question, that the only payment for services parents of handicapped children would be faced with would be to charge them for day-care services at the same rate as other youngsters. This youngster I have referred to is not in day care. He's in elementary school in this province. I just hope that this is not a counter-example. In fact, is this only a proposal or are we seeing the beginning of the implementation here?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad the hon. member raised that example because I'm familiar with it. I'm familiar with Jeff, although, like you say, that's not his name. I know where he's attending. It's that very example which has brought to the fore this proposal of developing a definite policy, because actually what happened in that particular instance is that a social worker at another time applied the policy as put forth May 8,1975. Part 4 of that policy, May 8,1975, reads:

[ Page 1652 ]

"Parents with earnings should contribute to the cost of the special services. The homemaker-housekeeper supplementation budget and income guide is to be used in determining the amount of their contribution. The district supervisor may review any case where strict application of this guide would create undue hardship or otherwise jeopardize service goals."

It was the implementation of that particular section 4 policy directive of May 8,1975, that caused that to happen. It's that example and ones like it which led us to propose the development of a definite policy would be applicable to all at all times and not hit and miss.

MR. GIBSON: Where does this one stand now?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, as it stands now, the existing policy would apparently require that they contribute. The new policy - if, in fact, it's keeping the youngster in the home as opposed to ending up in some institution - may exempt that person. Hopefully it will.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if the minister has heard that there are more Chinese youths faced with jail sentences than ever before in the history of the city?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Why Chinese?

MR. BARNES: This is what I hope to try and explain. I have some remarks from a young fellow in the city of Vancouver by the name of Stanley Mah. I believe he has had representations made to the ministry. He's 22 years old. When he was 9 years of age he left home and was advised by a number of sisters and brothers that school frustrated them. He ended up becoming a drug addict, and also he became involved in various crimes - mugging and so forth. He served in isolation for half a year. He said he tried to adjust to society, but found that the guards were so negative and punitive that they screwed him up real bad. He escaped New Haven at one time, and on goes his story.

The Strathcona Community Centre Association - under the name of the president, Mr. Gary Chapman - wrote to the Minister of Human Resources on April 13,1978, requesting some funds for what they call a youth worker - a street worker. This particular youth worker or street worker is the fellow that I'm speaking about, Stanley Mah, and these are just some of the remarks that were made in the letter written to yourself, sir:

"Recently we received a letter from Mrs. Karen Feuz, community grants officer for Strathcona, informing our association that the 1978-79 community grant request for funds to support the ongoing work of the Chinatown youth worker was not approved, since the service is a responsibility of the local Ministry of Human Resources staff. To say the least, we were shocked by this decision by your department for the following reasons.

"Firstly, the local MHR staff do not have the time nor the expertise to work with this unique and difficult type of youth which frequents Vancouver's Chinatown. Even if the staff were available, it would be unfair to ask the local team to utilize full staff-time to service a group of youths who come from all over Vancouver to Chinatown almost every day.

"Secondly, the Strathcona Community Center has an excellent record of coordinating social services of all kinds, which has led to many instances where cost-saving has resulted for your department and the government as a whole. The Chinatown youth worker has played a vital role in this process by preventing crime and assisting youths to adopt more positive life styles.

"Thirdly, the local community resources advisory board, which has a mandate to represent all local community associations, and the local Ministry of Human Resources staff both strongly recommend this project; yet the application was denied. Shouldn't local residents and staff best know how to functionally solve local problems? The Strathcona Community Centre is very concerned that Vancouver's Chinatown does not degenerate to the point where we have a similar situation such as was the case in Toronto and San Francisco. At this time much of the gang activity in Chinatown is low; much of this is directly as a result of the efforts of the Chinatown youth worker. Therefore we strongly urge you to reverse the decision of your staff and immediately make the necessary funds available to carry on the work of this vital Chinatown youth position."

And their position is described in a brief which, I understand, you also received. It was dated March 9,1978, and was rejected -callously rejected, I dare say. I'm hoping that you could explain what appears to be a conflict in your philosophy about volunteerism, self-help, and assisting people who have shown manifest need. This description is very brief:

[ Page 1653 ]

"During the summer of 1976, the Strathcona youth services team became acutely aware of a youth problem in Chinatown. Consequently, in co-operation with SUCCESS, the United Chinese Community Enrichment Services Society and following direction of the Strathcona youth services advisory committee, a young man was hired to learn and practise the skills of street work in Chinatown. In the fall of 1976 the Strathcona youth service team produced a report, Strathcona Youth and the East End Experience. This report clearly indicated that many youth who are attracted to Chinatown are school dropouts. Often they become involved in minor criminal activities such as petty extortion, drugs, and breaking and entering. In May, 1977, the above- mentioned worker was hired by Kiwassa Neighbourhood Services on the Canada Works grant and carried on the street work in Chinatown.

"Since funds for this project were for only one year, the Strathcona Community Centre Association was requested by the Strathcona children and youth services advisory committee to apply for funds from the Ministry of Human Resources to fund this position. An application was submitted on November 8,1977. The local MHR staff recommended that the position be funded. However, the MHR rejected the grant request March 9,1978. The loss of this position leaves the groups of youths who frequent Chinatown from all over Vancouver with no direct services to them with the exception of the Vancouver police department."

There's a long list of supporting letters. One is from the Britannia Elementary-Secondary School, submitted by the principal of the school. There is one from a local youth worker, Admiral Seymour School, an area counsellor for the Vancouver School Board, Vancouver City Police, and the Chinese Community Library Services Association. All of these perhaps should be read into the record, but I believe it will suffice that there are large numbers of them here.

What they're basically asking is that the minister look at the unique qualifications of the person they've hired. You've said yourself , as I think has the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) , the only qualification should not be one's academic achievements and degrees. We have a clear case of an individual who has really pulled himself up by his bootstraps, a person who describes himself as having been a battered child, having come from a family that had developed in the old country and had a cultural conflict. They had ideas about how child-rearing should take place, and he simply found that he was in trouble. I suppose, because of his constitutional stick-to-it-ness, if I may coin a phrase, he somehow managed to get back in a constructive role in the community and is now trying to do something for other youth in the area with whom he comes in contact.

I think there are two questions. One is to perhaps dispel the myth that the Chinese family structure is one that is so self-reliant that it doesn't require the usual social service assistance that other communities require. I think that is inadvertent, perhaps, but it turns out to be a form of discrimination against a community that has prided itself in keeping families together, but at the same time is falling away as time goes on to the pressures of materialism and a highly competitive society, especially in an area that attracts the kind of traffic that Chinatown attracts, where tourism is a main part of the economic stability of the community. You have pressures that perhaps those in the other communities don't regard as being real, because maybe they don't experience it. But consider what life must be like for families, and the social life for the residents who are living in Chinatown and the immediate area.

The families there are attempting to raise their youngsters the same as families in other areas. At the same time, their quarters are restricted and many of the amenities are shared by people who are sort of transient or passing through. It is difficult sometimes to separate the residents from the tourists and youngsters have a great deal of difficulty identifying their community, on a residential basis, as compared to other communities.

These are not remarks, Mr. Chairman, that I am speaking about off the cuff, although I'm very sensitive to, what is going on. These are remarks that were passed on to me by this young man, a 22-year-old youth worker who is very much concerned that the days of the Hong Kong gang, the mugging and the kinds of experiences that have existed in San Francisco and eastern cities will begin to grow in Vancouver. I think that the price of one youth worker, who is highly recommended - I believe it is something like $13,000, including all of the support services that go along with this position - is a small price to pay for the assurance of someone who is familiar with the Chinese community, familiar with the families and the young people in the area, who speaks the language, who can be trusted because of his own experience, who is not a bureaucrat or

[ Page 1654 ]

a professional person in the sense that he formalizes relationships, and on and on.

The kinds of things that this person does shouldn't even be expected from someone who is working from 9 to 5, who has to close the office down at 5 o'clock and who probably doesn't receive telephone calls after hours, such as would be the case if we were to follow the minister's suggestion that a person doing similar work could be a member of the Ministry of Human Resources.

I'm asking the minister if he would set the House straight in terms of his philosophy regarding an individual case such as this, where this person is presently volunteering and has been since April 9. He's volunteering because even though the grant has been terminated he believes that his job is important, and so do the people in the community. He's continuing to do the work.

I don't know. Maybe the minister sent out a directive and said, "Look, we're cutting back, " and it was just too bad. This important service was just a victim of circumstance. But I would like to know whether you really evaluate these programmes on the basis of performance, on the basis of community input, and with a view to trying to make an economical kind of decision, one that is efficient. Have you done an efficiency analysis of this situation? Would it be cheaper, really, to bring in one of the people from the Ministry of Human Resources to do the same thing? Would it be as effective? What do the people from Human Resources have to say? Perhaps you should be referring to them, getting their input.

I don't have any letters, but I an led to understand that many of the people from the Ministry of Human Resources support the youth worker and are saying, off the record, that they think it is a mistake. But I guess they're not prepared to jeopardize their jobs.

This is an example of a bargain, and it's also an example of the uniqueness of these various applications. Here is a case that is unique from what may be happening in some other part of the city. It may have been valid for you to use the criteria you are using in determining what need is, and in determining what the appropriation should be in a given area, but here you have an obvious situation where for $12,000 you have practically all of the agencies in the Chinatown area happy because they have seen the results of this person's performance. Besides, they trust him, and the police feel that he can reach the nooks and crannies that they can't reach. The rapport is good. The person has a free style because he's not formally trained but he has the benefits of the school of hard knocks. It's an example of how we have to be flexible.

I think when you study closely the experience of this particular youth worker, it would be a real letdown to the social workers that you were speaking about earlier, probation officers, police, all kinds of agencies and individuals who work to try and encourage such people as Stanley Mah, to stay with it, to have faith and to continue trying to improve upon their skills and abilities and to forgive and forget.

In other words this individual has every reason to be angry, you know. He certainly had very little reason to be thankful because most of the authorities said he would a be a crook for life. Even his own family said that he would be a crook for life. He said, "Once a crook, always a crook, " and so he ums an outcast. But he didn't believe that that should be the way it is and this isn't the way he communicates with the youngsters in that area.

I really would like to see the minister stand before us this afternoon and say: "Look, okay, perhaps we've made a mistake. There obviously is a case here that is unique despite my memoranda which are cutting funds in such instances." But there comes a time, I am sure, Mr. Minister, when you know that you can't measure service and values in dollars alone; there is a human factor involved. There is one individual here who is worth it, if for no other reason than to show him that we have faith in him. He has performed and has gained the support of every agency in the area, including the police force and many professional people who have become aware of what his work is. The merchants, families, individuals, you name it, all know who he is. He's been there for over two years; he's done a good job. Now he's carrying on as a volunteer because he knows what it's really like on the streets, something that many of us, even social workers and other people, aren't going to find out, because no matter how well-intentioned we are, we aren't going to be trusted. Most of us may not speak the language. We're going to have great difficulty getting the kind of rapport and confidence that this individual has been able to achieve and I think you certainly should take another look at that application.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I have a very brief question, and as the minister is preparing to answer the previous one, perhaps he could look into this one as well. It's something I brought to his attention before last December, before the end of the last taxation year, and it related to a joint

[ Page 1655 ]

jurisdiction between himself and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) aver homeowner grants. In order to qualify for the special grant for handicapped persons - veteran's allowance, this type of thing - you have to be either over 65 or under the age of 60. It's been a real problem with a small number of people in my area that when you apply for a handicapped person's income assistance and you're over the age of 59, then you're not entitled to handicapped person's income assistance because under the regulations governing that Act, you're considered handicapped because of age, so you're entitled to age benefit under the guaranteed available income for need programme.

It has created a hardship for people within that category, people between the ages of 60 and 64, that not only are they not entitled to the additional homeowner grant which amounts to some $200 this year - for a total of $480 -but they also are required to pay the minimum tax of $50 rather than nominal tax of $1, which is available to those age 65 and above and handicapped people age 60 and below. Now I discussed this with a number of people in the ministry. Those people said that it was on the minister's desk awaiting a decision. It doesn't involve a large number of people, but the people who are involved in this problem are suffering. Their income may be only $290 to $300 per month, and to be hit with a tax of $50 has a substantial impact on their monthly income.

The minister's people have told me that the policy was on the minister's desk - a policy had been recommended to the minister. I wonder whether any decision has come from the minister's office on that policy, whether those people between the ages of 60 and 64 are entitled to this additional $200 benefit under the Provincial Home-owner Grant Act, and whether they're entitled to the $1 nominal tax rather than the $50 minimum tax which we all must pay. Has the policy been determined yet?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the matter raised by the second member for Vancouver Centre we will certainly review the matter that he raised. I don't have the answer now, but we'll review it.

With respect to the matter just raised now by the member for Alberni, we recognize that there is an inequity. It is, as you say, a very small number, because a person can actually make application for a handicapped person's allowance if they're 57 or 58. It's when they turn 60 that they don't qualify for that particular programme. The inequity becomes more so when you consider the homeowner's grant and all of these things. It's not on my desk as a policy. It has, I suppose, passed across my desk because it's part of this whole review that's taking place now with respect to rates. So it's in the mill. It's being reviewed along with all of the other rates and I suppose there will be something forthcoming in the not too distant future. I do agree that there's an inequity now.

MR. SKELLY: Just to follow up on that, a number of cases were brought to the minister's attention prior to the expiry of the last taxation year. I understand that relaxations in the homeowner grant allowances and deadlines for application are being considered. This does discriminate against those people in the 60 to 64 age bracket. I wonder if the minister would consider, when he does make the changes, making that provision retroactive to the previous taxation year. It doesn't involve a large number of people, but it is a hardship on those people. I realize the policy was first developed when we were in office, but then there was no difference in the homeowner grant benefits under the Taxation Act, or whatever Act it comes under. But I wonder if you would consider making it retroactive to the previous taxation year.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I agree with what the member said. But I don't think that's a matter for me to decide, mind you -that will be the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) . But I do intend to take it up with him at that time.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I gave some very brief notice to the minister that I would be speaking on behalf of Cresteramics Shelter Workshop located in Creston. Cresteramics Shelter Workshop is very loosely associated -certainly not directly - with the Endicott Centre. It offers a programme for handicapped adults. It acquired a building and started a programme with the assistance of the previous government and, I believe, with the assistance of this government. They've received a grant of about $26,000 toward the construction of a new building, which is underway and which I had a chance to look at just briefly last Saturday from the outside. The new building is a concrete block structure. There's been a tremendous amount of volunteer time and effort. I know that even some of the time of the heavy equipment which was used in the construction was donated, and skilled workers' time was donated.

Their original estimates were to build and finish the top floor, I think, at a cost of

[ Page 1656 ]

about $80,000. It appears as if total costs would now go over $100,000 to about $116,000.

Some of the overrun is caused by fire regulations. They were required to finish off the basement with gyproc and, having reached that stage of completion, they decided to go pretty well straight ahead with the project.

What I'd like to bring to the attention of the minister is that they may have sent in a request for an additional $25,000. 1 asked if they were perhaps shading that down in hopes that they would get it, or if they were really asking for what they actually needed, because

I would be concerned that they might be left with too much debt and they would have to rely upon their revenues and their grant structure to pay off the mortgage to the bank.

It's my understanding that they need about $29,000 to finish off the building. They do have an approved line of credit, I think, up to $36,000 with the bank, but if they were to go that far I believe they would only be postponing facing some of the realities of the situation. A year from now, they would be coming to the minister looking for increased operating grants because they would be spending too much towards amortization of debt.

It appears though that if there was an additional grant of $29,000, it would leave them with approximately $20,000 debt in the bank. The first grant was given, I understand, on the basis of a one-third grant. If that is the formula, and if the government is absolutely bound to keep that formula, if it is a rigid formula - I don't believe it's prescribed in law; I believe it is an area in which the government has some discretion - I would urge the government to give them every assistance in capitalizing all of the volunteer labour and effort that has gone into the construction and the donation of heavy equip ment in order that the total capital price could be put at a figure which would justify the largest contribution possible.

At the very least I would hope the govern ment would recognize all legitimate expenses encountered and would make a grant available in keeping with the overrun costs. Certainly in a grant system very similar to this, when you are dealing with volunteer groups, they do like to be very optimistic about the costs that they're going to keep things down to.

It's usually very obvious that their initial estimate is more of a target than a realistic financial estimate.

So I would ask that the minister would con sider an additional grant which I would believe to be the needed grant of $29,000 for completion. I know the minister is familiar with the project. He has visited the project before. I think he's even spoken fairly knowingly of it in the House. I also know the minister is invited to the official opening of the new building. And when we look at the amount, I don't like to say that $29,000 is not a great amount. It is, but I think it is a realistically affordable amount and I think that it is a very good expenditure of public funds. When we see the underspending in the minister's ministry in the recent years, I think that it is an area where the minister could find some money for this project.

So I would ask for that in this area, where so much volunteer work is given. Certainly in the community of Creston. I don't think they have to take a back seat to anyone in terms of their volunteer activity. Recently we've had recreation facilities built all over the province - curling rinks, skating rinks and so on. Creston built their last recreation facility just before the recreational facilities fund Act came into existence. They raised that money and built that without any outside assistance. They later made some additions to it. But it gives an idea of the distance toward which people in that community do go to help themselves.

One might say that that community might have lost out about $200,000 of provincial government assistance by just building their recreational facility a little bit before the old Community Recreational Facilities Licensing Fund came into existence. On that basis, too, I feel that this project for handicapped adults deserves every consideration and it should not be held to such a rigid formula.

We should look at the need. We should say: "Is the programme worthwhile? Are these people deserving of making a meaningful contribution? Is $29,000 really out of reach? I would appreciate the minister's comments on that. I look forward to relaying his response to the people of Cresteramics Shelter Workshop.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I'm familiar with the centre. It's a fantastic centre. I visited the people there. The Guild also speaks very highly of the centre and the projects they have become involved with.

I have not received the request. It is a problem for us in that we very often receive these requests and, as you state, they are underbudgeted. In their enthusiasm the people sometimes lose sight of what they might do it for. Naturally, when we move to give this additional assistance it could provide a precedent for others. Possibly we need to review the method or the way we deal with these requests. I'm prepared to review this one. I certainly support the centre and I will

[ Page 1657 ]

do all I can.

MR. BARRETT: Before this vote goes through and the minister gets his salary, there are a few comments I wish to make as a member of this Legislature representing a section of the city of Vancouver.

The concept of team policing was pioneered by Chief of Police Winterton for a number of reasons, including an opportunity for the police force to deal directly with other support services such as social services and health services in the metropolitan area. A whole new level of co-operation arose among the social workers, the public health workers and the police forces. Co-operation and integration of reaching-out services was developed to a new high.

But as we sit in this Legislature, there is a threat that that co-operation may begin to break down because the city of Vancouver is engaged in a labour struggle with the Vancouver police force, which dramatically influences this concept of team policing and integrating services. Mr. Minister, just 72 hours from now we may be faced with a strike by the police force in the city of Vancouver. The issue is whether or not they can continue to upgrade those team policing services that help integrate the social services that should be an impact on your ministry's delivery of services.

I find it unbelievable that that good police force and the good spokespersons for that police force are driven to the edge of a strike simply because they are asking for an increase in two-man police cars and team policing as a consequence of that. Now only 60 per cent of the beats are covered by team policing. That's just not good enough after the excellent work done by the Vancouver police force.

Mr. Minister, I'm putting it to you that after your estimates are through, you go right down to the Premier's office and tell your Premier that that strike and any cutback on team policing would be a threat to the preventive services that have been built up under your ministry. You tell the Premier that you want an increased grant to the city of Vancouver from the provincial government to help cover the increased cost of that extended service given by that first-class police force, the city of Vancouver's finest.

It's your responsibility, Mr. Minister, to defend that concept so that that continued service can be expanded and developed. It's your responsibility, Mr. Minister, to step in and assist the police in their work, which has helped the social services delivery pattern develop in Vancouver. I'm telling you, Mr. Minister, you'd better get with it before the evening is out and the sun is down. You get down to that Premier's office and tell him: "Look, Buster" - you get to call him Bill; you're one of the few who can call him Bill -"look, Bill, get cracking here because we want that two-man concept of delivery of service continued in Vancouver. We don't want a police strike in Vancouver. We want to congratulate the Vancouver police for fighting for a continuation of the two-man approach."

Mr. Minister, I've been waiting patiently to bring it up in your estimates where it belongs. That's right. I can't think of a more appropriate place to discuss it. The threat exists for the city of Vancouver losing this essential service unless you get involved.

I know that you've got more gumption and get-up-and-go than the Attorney-General because you understand more than the Attorney-General does. He doesn't even know whether or not he wants to prosecute a traffic ticket, let alone any other heavy decisions. You're a driver.

Now I'm telling you, I don't intend to hold up the minister's estimates; I'm just giving him a message. You get down to that Premier's office and you tell him: "Look, get some money over to the city of Vancouver. Make sure it's not 60 per cent that are two-man police cars but 100 per cent, and right away." Avoid that strike and let Vancouver's finest get on with the job that they've done so well all these years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, perhaps we could all refresh ourselves a little bit by reading the relevancy clause in our standing orders. That might have been better covered under another estimate.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Chairman, it's team policing.

MR. COCKE: I have one or two remarks for the minister. I had hoped that I could stand in this House and say some nice things about the Minister of Human Resources. He is a very nice-appearing person, and that's probably one of the most dangerous aspects of this person. He looks like he should be making good decisions. You look at him, and you can't believe the decisions that are coming out of that office. It's really true. I can't believe it. You look at him and you say to yourself: "I wouldn't mind looking like that myself." But I'll tell you right now, I wouldn't want to act like that.

I just got a phone call this afternoon -

[ Page 1658 ]

just as a good example - from a paraplegic in my riding, and what did he say? He said: "Do you know what they've done? They've cut off all of the devices that have been of assistance to me, " catheters, bags and all the rest of those very important things to paraplegics, because he is wealthy. This man makes a full $680 a month in income. Oh, he's so wealthy, he can look after all the needs. It doesn't matter if a diabetic is a millionaire, he can get his. But this man is a paraplegic. He makes $680. The total income in that family, for his wife and himself , is $680 a month. He's been cut off.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Give me the information.

MR. COCKE: I'll give you the information. But, you know, it's not unlike all the rest of the kind of things that seem to be going on around us. I listened to the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) and what was she saying? She said: "That minister is only, in his own estimation, a real minister if he can dump on anybody else. His success depends on his ability to bring down his expenditures." So he does it by telling people to go to the Ministry of Health.

The Mental Patients Association was assisted by that ministry at one time; now they're told to go beg somewhere else. It's unfortunate, because the kind of programmes they have, the kind of shelters they have are not health shelters; they are the kinds of shelters that will get people back into the community again.

Listen to this one very carefully. Sunshine Drive Hospital for retarded people in Chilliwack was funded and is funded by Human Resources. People take retarded children and adults there so they can get a break, so they can go on holiday. They've now been informed by the Ministry of Human Resources that they can no longer have funding if they let people bring in adults. You know, I want to inform the minister that I'm of an age where I have four adult children between the ages of 22 and 30. Every one of them, if they happened to be in this particular predicament, would be ineligible, and I would be ineligible as a parent. What kind of rot is that? People are trying to look after their sons and daughters no matter how old they are. Given this break, it gives them an opportunity to do that. But no, this minister, this good-looking, hard-hearted minister decides it goes down the tube as well.

We've seen so much of that kind of irresponsible attitude that I'm really glum about it. I wanted to like this minister. I have no trouble disliking some of his colleagues; I have some trouble disliking him. But believe me, this is the kind of situation that makes one feel that one just can't trust him to make the right decisions.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

There is one other thing I want to ask him before I sit down. Did his ministry, or did he, blackball Edward Yorke?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't know about Edward Yorke. I've had letters from Edward Yorke.

MR. COCKE: So have I. I'm just asking.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Secondly, on the Chilliwack problem - and I think it's a problem because love had representation from a number of people there - it's a requirement of the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act that they cannot provide for adults and young people in the same facility. We're looking at it now with the people who implement the Act, hopefully to bring it to some conclusion.

MR. COCKE: Just one word, Mr. Chairman. They are the government and if there's some problems with the Act, they can darn soon change the Act, I'm. telling you that.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, yesterday under the Minister of Labour's (Hon. Mr. William-go) estimates, I raised a concern that I had with respect to the operation of the PREP programme. Last night I noticed that the minister did make some comments on the particular issue that I had raised at that time. I felt that the minister sounded very weak in terms of his defence of the PREP programme and I would like to make just another couple of comments on that particular issue.

The information that I have, Mr. Chairman, is that the boy was cooking for 12 people and not three, and that he did not quit, but rather the logging operator found a qualified cook and subsequently hired that person. But I think that the issue here is not really related to this one particular case, but to some of the comments that the minister made in response to the issue that I had brought to the attention of the House yesterday after noon.

The minister indicated that he felt that the PREP officer really had no business making inquiries about what kind of salary would be paid or what the working conditions might be. Now it seems to me that the minister, through

[ Page 1659 ]

the PREP programme, has a basic obligation to ensure that the statutes of this province are upheld. These are the statutes that are under the Minister of Labour, and when he absolves himself of any responsibility and says it's okay for the PREP people to provide people with any kind of job at all, even though the terms of the labour statutes of this province might be broken, that's nonsense. He does have an obligation to ensure that exploitation of people does not take place through that PREP programme. I'm very pleased that the Minister of Labour yesterday did agree that he would undertake an investigation of that PREP programme to ensure that the....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: He didn't say that.

MS. SANFORD: I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Labour very clearly yesterday indicated yesterday that he would ensure that he would undertake to investigate that PREP programme.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That PREP programme?

MS. SANFORD: Right, the PREP programme; that PREP programme; the Minister of Human Resource's PREP programme. He gave me that assurance yesterday, Mr. Chairman, on the floor of this Legislature.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to point out to the minister that he's had some problems with that programme - "that PREP programme, " as he said himself. I brought to the attention of the House sometime earlier about a situation in Courtenay where welfare workers who were earning the extra $100 that they are allowed under the Minister of Human Resource's regulation were employed to man the office at the PREP programme. They sat there day after day, and eventually became so fed up just sitting there that they blew the whistle on the PREP programme . The big headline in the paper - and I don't know if the Minister of Human Resources could take the time to turn around and have a look at it - says: "Welfare Worker Blows Whistle PREP Programme." This was the big headline that appeared in the paper. The reason was that there was nothing for them to do. They sat there for six months and finally got so fed up that they blew the whistle on the PREP programme up there.

One of the workers, Dorothy Rogers, told the local paper that, "We seem to be there just to cheer people up, " because they weren't able to find them any jobs. Rogers told the Free Press earlier that she didn't know of anyone who had been able to find a job through PREP locally in the last six months. So he's had some problems. The office was shut. "PREP Office Shut" is the next headline that appears a few days later in Courtenay. As a result, the administrator of that programme is operating on his own out of the Campbell River office.

Mr. Chairman, there is one other issue I would like to bring to the attention of the minister to pose some questions to him relating to Bevan Lodge, which is located near Courtenay. Bevan Lodge is a facility to house mentally handicapped adults, and at present there are some 45 residents at Bevan Lodge.

The minister has announced that he wishes to decentralize and will close down Bevan Lodge and open four or five smaller group homes in the place of Bevan. I have written to the minister on this, Mr. Chairman, or at least sent him a copy of a letter that I've written to his deputy minister, and have posed a few questions. I would like to know what guarantees the staff who are now working at Bevan have in terms of employment at the smaller group homes. Will all of them be employed, will they have to uproot their families and move to Nanaimo or Campbell River or some other centre in between?

I would also like to know what will happen with the residents who are not able to cope in a group home. Will they have to be automatically sent back to Woodlands? A number of the residents at Bevan Lodge have been at Woodlands, have come to Bevan Lodge and, because of the particular nature of Bevan Lodge, they are able to cope. I'm fearful, Mr. Chairman, that some of the residents who are able to cope in the Bevan situation will not be able to cope in a group home situation.

I think that the minister would appreciate that there is really a need for all three types of facilities: a facility such as Woodlands, a facility such as Bevan and facilities such as he is putting in called group homes.

I'm wondering if he could also indicate to me what sort of cost benefit will result as a consequence of putting people into group homes rather than in the present Bevan Lodge. I must add, Mr. Chairman, that that place is a magnificent place for a residence. The people there like it, they enjoy it and the staff is happy there. There are all kinds of opportunities for those residents in terms of putting in a garden, a swimming pool that's available to them and a lot of woodland around so that they can take walks. That will be denied them as a result of going into a group home in the middle of some community. I would like the minister to make some comments on Bevan Lodge.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, the proposal to decentralize, to in fact create

[ Page 1660 ]

four smaller residences as opposed to one large one, originated with Bevan Lodge; it was a request that came from them to us. It was their opinion that they could develop and provide the same programming in the smaller facilities as they did in the larger - only better, because of the smallness. It's not the lodge, it's the programme that provides for the people there.

With respect to the employees, they don't work for us, they work for the society. We cannot give them any guarantees; it's for the society to deal with.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, could the minister give us any indication as to what sort of cost benefits there will be, and also what happens to those people who are not able to cope in a group home situation? Will they be sent back to Woodlands and not be given an opportunity of an alternative facility?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, I think that costwise it may perhaps be a little more expensive. I don't disagree at all that it could cost more to operate the smaller facilities, but I think the residents will benefit considerably more from the smaller facility.

MS. SANFORD: Depending on the residents.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Now as far as the Bevan Lodge Society people are concerned, at least I gather from their submission that they feel they can provide for those people in the four smaller facilities. Now there may be -particularly when you're dealing of parents with residents - some conflict there. The parents may be of the opinion that there is nothing like Bevan Lodge, that it's the only facility that can provide and that, failing that particular lodge being available, they'll go back to Woodlands. But the assessment by the people who operate the lodge seems to be that they can provide for them.

Vote 152 approved.

Vote 153: administration and community service, $64,048, 833 - approved.

On vote 154: services to families and children, $71,680, 528.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that this is the vote under which the foster home programme and the children-in-care programme has been frozen. It's exactly the same $15 million for 1977-78 as we have for 1978-79. At a time when the minister is verbalizing his commitment to children and to families, he has not increased that vote by even one cent, and I wonder if he'd like to respond to that.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, the rates were increased substantially, of course, last year for foster homes. Also the increase in the family allowance is being passed on and through to the homes for the residents in the home.

Last year we underspent by approximately $1.5 million, so that in effect we will have $1.5 million this year over and above the amount provided last year.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I note that the minister is again indicating that he underspent in the foster home area. Let me tell you one of the ways that you can under spend. You can under spend by not paying two or three months and then suddenly paying after the year turns. I know that in Coquitlam and in the New Westminster area there were a number of foster homes that went wanting for their money. I would not be too enthusiastic about that underspending.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I think that this is a vote where, if it did exist, the $30 that you talked about for children's services should surface. This is the vote it would appear under if it existed. You can't find it either, can you, Mr. Minister? It doesn't exist.

MR. LEVI: Could I ask the minister if he has any figures on the number of group homes that he has and the number of therapeutic foster homes he has? How many children are there in both of those operations - the number of homes and the number of children and the same with the therapeutic foster homes? While he's looking, the minister indicates that the amount of money payable to foster homes is down. He's been able to save some money. Are we actually talking about fewer less children in foster homes? If that's the case, does he have some comparative figures? So just to give him time, how many children are there in how many group homes and how many foster children are there now in how many foster homes?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The number of therapeutic group homes is 160, with 1,000 residential beds in the programme. Fifty-six of these are in Vancouver. We don't have the details for the foster home programme. I can't give you the number exactly now, but the emphasis is on the family first, on the foster home

[ Page 1661 ]

programme second and on the therapeutic or group home programme as a last resource, so to speak.

MR. LEVI: I don't know how the minister keeps this incredible amount of facts that he doesn't give Lo the House, but I might just give him a piece of advice. Surely he has an information booklet from his staff that tells him this. I asked him how many group homes and he said "therapeutic group homes." I presume he means there are 160 group homes. But how many therapeutic homes are there? I presume those are therapeutic foster homes. That's special. Is that still operating?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There are 55 therapeutic group homes, 160 group homes, 1,000 residential beds. Fifty-six of these group homes are in Vancouver. On December 31,1977, there were 5,824 children in the foster home programme.

Vote 154 approved.

On vote 155: community projects, $26,815, 473.

MS. BROWN: This is a vote that has a really incredible decrease of $28 million in the most interesting places. First of all, residential care shows a decrease of about $28 million. Senior citizens counselling service programme shows a decrease of $19,522. I'm wondering whether that's one of the programmes that has been shunted off on long-term care. Of course, the decrease for community human resource and health centres, at a time when the minister in the budget speech and in the Speech from the Throne promised an increase in these very services, is $10,000 in one and $69,385 in the other. I wonder if the minister would like to explain these decreases - $28 million missing from this budget.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, for the community health and human resource centres, it is what they asked for that's been put in. Because the numbers, particularly on income assistance, are down in all parts of the province, it reflects on their budget as well as ours.

With respect to the decrease in that particular vote, that's largely due to a transfer to the long-term care programme.

MR. LEVI: Does the minister have the last figure for the number of people that the ministry was taking care of in the residential care budget? Does he know how many people were transferred to the long-term care operation? At one time it used to be some 7,500 or 7,600. How many are we talking about?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, we don't have that information.

MR. LEVI: You know, if I was really allowed to swear, Mr. Minister, I really would swear. This is incredible! What does he mean he doesn't have the figures? The figures have always been available on a year-to-year basis. In 1975 the number of people who were being taken care of by the ministry was about 7,400. Are you going to tell me it's about the same?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, the information is not available right here right now. We could run over to the Belmont Building and pick it up, but that would take some time. As was suggested by the member for Vancouver Centre, I'd prefer to supply it at another time.

MR. LEVI: Do I understand that the minister is going to table it?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes.

MR. LEVI: Good. This year?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes.

MR. LEVI: This month?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes.

MR. LEVI: Good.

Vote 155 approved.

Vote 156: health services, $45,332, 296 approved.

On vote 157: GAIN programmes, $277,873, 264.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, this again is another interesting vote. This is the one that deals with the GAIN programme.

AN HON. MEMBER: Gain?

MS. BROWN: Loss, really, is what it should be called - the LOSS programme, because at the time when the minister is telling us that there's an increase in the number of people in receipt of income assistance, we find a decrease in the amount of money allotted to them to the tune of $17,250, 000. But they're not the only ones who have had a decrease in

[ Page 1662 ]

the amount of money allotted to them. Senior citizens and the handicapped also have a decrease of $7.5 million in the amount of money in the estimates.

In the total vote, Mr. Chairman, there is almost $25 million less this year that the minister is asking for than last year, despite the fact that there has been an increase in the number of people in receipt of income assistance in the province, despite high unemployment, despite inflation and an increase in the cost of living and everything else. Despite the fact that he's underspent his budget he has still put aside $25 million less for senior citizens, the handicapped and people in need of income assistance in the province. Now how is he going to justify this?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, without going into detail on this, of course, it's obviously because of a decrease in numbers, not an increase in numbers as was suggested by the hon. member. We've had a decrease in numbers in all of those categories.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, it was precisely because of this vote that I asked the Minister of Human Resources to give me the total number of people in the province in receipt of income assistance.

The figures which he tabled in this House, accompanied by his own preamble, indicated that there was an increase. How can an increase be a decrease and an increase at the same time? Why would the minister be contradicting himself? You said there was an increase. It can't become an increase today if it was an increase yesterday. The number hasn't changed. There's a decrease in the budget. There's an increase in the number of people in receipt of income assistance. There is a decrease in the budget.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: A decrease in the number.

MS. BROWN: No, there is an increase in the number.

MR. LEVI: I have a question for the minister. Is the government expecting to go into the block funding and somehow they have reduced it because they expect to be into a block-funding situation in this present fiscal year? Are we looking at that kind of possibility?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, the block funding proposal only relates to social services, not to income assistance, so there is no consideration for that in here.

Vote 157 approved.

Vote 158: special programmes for the retarded, $43,429, 775 - approved.

On vote 159: building occupancy charges, $19v373,175.

MR. LEVI: Could the minister explain exactly what has taken place in this estimate? Last year the estimate was just over $10 million; now we're looking at an estimate of $19 million. If he is going to tell us that this includes the Vancouver Resources Board....

MS. BROWN: Yes.

MR. LEVI: It does? Perhaps he could explain to us why there is almost a 100 per cent increase in this particular budget.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The change of the 1978-79 estimate from 1977-78 is $9,177, 920; that's the increase. The reasons for the change are: the addition of Vancouver area properties - $2,764, 000; planned expansion, alterations and relocations - $lv865,000; anticipated expansion, alterations and relocations - $932,000. For example, in Surrey they have one office and we want to break it down to four, and we're now looking at Sidney because they have a problem in that handicapped people can't get to it. Also there has been a more accurate assessment of square footage in leased and corporation-owned property which amounts to $3,617, 000.

MR. LEVI: Just to get it clear, is the minister saying there was an error of more than 30 per cent in the estimate in the building-cost estimate of last year? Is this what he is actually saying? Because he said there's been a difference, or a variation in the square-footage, and 3.6 million represents a 30 per cent error, apparently. Is this what we're talking about?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What I'm saying is that the figure is now accurate. They have been able to assess it. I admit that last year was a rough estimate. It was a flat sum, a rough estimate, and it obviously wasn't accurate.

MR. LEVI: A very bad overrun, then.

MS. BROWN: I just want to comment very briefly that one of the reasons we were given

[ Page 1663 ]

for the dissolution of the Vancouver Resources Board was that it was going to save us money. Yet we see that the minister is using the dissolution of the Vancouver Resources Board as an explanation for why his building and occupancy costs have gone up by $9 million. Now that is an interesting way in which to save money.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: These costs were there before. They're just identified now.

MR. LEVI: Oh, no, no. He's not going to get away with that, Mr. Chairman. The approximate costs of the buildings in the Vancouver Resources Board were something under $2.7 million. What are we coming in here with nearly $10 million for? That's not a rationale for this. Don't tell us that somehow this is a new explanation and you're going to put the blame on the Vancouver Resources Board. They had the accurate figures.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Oh, sure.

MR. LEVI: Oh, sure?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes.

MR. LEVI: We've pulled this guy up. I've got the floor, not him.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I don't disagree....

MR. LEVI: Oh, no, no, no. You don't have the floor yet. Sit down.

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

MR. LEVI: You know, the object of estimates is to [illegible] the truth, the facts, the true facts. Now exactly what is it the minister is saying in respect to the Vancouver Resources Board and its absorption into his ministry vis-à-vis the increase in costs? Would he explain that to us now?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Chairman, the amount was included last year in the grant given to the Vancouver Resources Board, and now it's included in the building occupancy vote. It was there, but in the grant. It's now in the building occupancy vote, and it's explained, as I did give you the amounts earlier.

MS. BROWN: Can I just mention that this is another example of the way in which that minister has manipulated the facts in his estimates to make it almost impossible to be able to discuss them in any rational way? Flim--f lam.

Vote 159 approved.

On vote 160: computer and consulting charges, $3,816, 414.

MR. LEVI: I did give the minister notice of this question last night. Can he tell us what part of this $3.8 million is consulting and what is computer service? Because this is an incredible increase. He may have the figure in his book as to exactly what it was costing. Again, if he was going to use the Vancouver Resources Board as part of the reason for this increase, their costs were in no way responsible for this 600 per cent increase. Perhaps the minister would explain it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The 1977-78 forecast was $599,000. The estimate was $599,000. The 1978-79 estimate is $3,806, 414. The 1978-79 estimate consists of maintenance and extension of present systems in operation - $1,210, 760. The new development consists of $1,274, 660. The new development, if you wish a breakdown for it, is a child welfare system redesign -$659,600. The integration of independent programmes - $148,800, for a total of $808,400. Also, institutional MIS is $135,360. On-line data entry and inquiry - $261,900. Health care services, statistics information -$69,000.

The third item is general costs including interphase data preparation, data control and external data services including Vancouver version two, which was last year in the grant - $1,330, 994.

MR. LEVI: He's a mine of information, this fellow. Having said all that and having put in all of these information retrieval mechanisms, what is the minister expecting to get out of this come the end of the fiscal. year? Just exactly what is he going to do to add to the efficiency of the ministry? Let me ask you a specific question. In respect to the problem that is constantly there about social assistance cases, are you going to be able to tell with a greater degree of accuracy than you can tell now what the caseload is? Are you going to know within a short period of time how much money you're spending, how much you've got to spend? I don't want to put words in the minister's mouth. I just want to tell him what's going to come out of all this incredible mechanization.

[ Page 1664 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The member puts it very well, and I appreciate the way he put it because that's exactly how it will be once implemented. It will provide us with a source of management information such as we've not been able to obtain previously.

MR. LEVI: The minister has been reading my old speeches, Mr. Chairman.

Vote 160 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

On vote 48: minister's office, $154,432.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I feel pretty small potatoes standing here this evening and asking this House for $29 million to run this great and dynamic ministry that I head up, after seeing all of the millions and millions of dollars that have just passed through this House on the previous estimate. It reminds me, Mr. Chairman, that we have to, and we will, get the economy of this great province going in order that we can provide the taxes for all of the social services that presently exist and, indeed, for the impost that will be made on them in the coming years. That's why I'm so proud to be able to stand in this Legislature this afternoon and pat myself on the back and say what a great job we've done because indeed....

HON. MR. WOLFE: On this fine day in British Columbia.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Indeed, Mr. Chairman, the economy of British Columbia has improved this afternoon while we've been sitting in this Legislature. As that clock ticks by, every minute, the economy of British Columbia improves. New decisions are being made to invest in British Columbia. More people will be put to work, just as it ticks away. Not swiftly, not a great big bust and boom with big tremendous activity, no great big horrendous projects, but gradually the investments are being made and jobs are being created, with a greater tax base and greater economic stability.

This is happening, Mr. Chairman, because confidence in British Columbia has returned and confidence grows with every passing day. Earlier on in our term as government we recognized that British Columbia, because of our economic base, because of the small population we have, and because of the way we are situated in Canada, must export our goods and services. There's sometimes a lot of criticism, you know, that we are hewers of wood and drawers of water and we don't have any stable economic base, but that really, if you analyse it, is not so. If you want to take our No. I industry, the lumber industry, and look at it, you'll be hard-pressed to find a more sophisticated lumber industry anywhere in the world. We don't just chop down our trees and ship them overseas. We do process them. But one of the ironic parts of Statistics Canada is that a lot of the processed lumber and a lot of the processed forest products that we were exporting were termed as raw material.

But if you look at the way we do process our lumber and the way we process a lot of other materials, we are not just a hewer of wood and a drawer of water. I have made the speech in this House before that, indeed, there was a 22 per cent increase in manufacturing in this province last year. Furthermore, I want to say that there are a goodly number of small manufacturing firms that are looking at the province of British Columbia. I think that with the policies we have and with the great labour peace that we have been able to accomplish in the past two and a quarter years, we do indeed have here in British Columbia the opportunity for a manufacturing base. I will naturally be questioned by the minister for Vancouver Centre on that. I will have a few more words to say as to where we are going.

MR. LEA: Tell us where you've been.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want the members opposite to ask me questions. I'll make a few more comments tomorrow.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we entertain the motion for adjournment, I have given further consideration to the matter raised under standing order 35 by the the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) relating to the matter of a shortage of railway boxcars. In a preliminary way, I indicated to the hon. member that some days ago the matter had been raised during question period and therefore did not appear to meet one of the requirements of standing order 35, namely that the matter be raised at the earliest opportunity. Further, as the estimates of the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) had not yet been considered, there would be an opportunity for discussion during those estimates. In response the hon. member indicated

[ Page 1665 ]

that new information or facts had just come to light.

It is stated in May, 16th edition, on page 370: "If the matter is not raised at the earliest opportunity, -it fails in urgency, and the fact that new information has been received regarding a matter that has been continuing for some time does not in itself make the matter one of urgency. I would not wish to dispose of the matter on this ground alone if it were unduly strict to do so; however, I am bound to follow numerous other Speakers of this House in declining a motion when an ordinary parliamentary opportunity for debate will occur shortly or in time - in this instance, during the estimates. The reference is May, 16th edition, at page 371.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Waterland presents the report of the British Columbia Forest Service for the year ended December 31,1977.

Mr. Mussallem presents the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, which was read as follows:

MR. CLERK: Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows: that the preamble to Bill PR 402, intituled An Act Respecting the Royal Trust Company and the Royal Trust Corporation of Canada, has been approved, and the bill ordered to be reported without amendment. All of which is respectfully submitted, G. Mussallem, Chairman.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I move the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Chabot files answers to question Nos. .2 and 3 on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.

APPENDIX

2 Mr. Lea asked the Hon. the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources the following questions:

1. How many tons of copper concentrates were produced in 1977?
2. What was (a) the estimated value of these concentrates and (b) the royalty return to the Province?

The Hon. J. R. Chabot replied as follows:

1. " The estimated production (shipments) of copper concentrates in 1977 is 995 031 metric tonnes or 1,096, 840 short tons.
2. " (a) The estimated value of these concentrates is $424,551, 418, including the values of the by-product metals; (b) the Mineral Royalties Act was repealed on January 1,1977. Copper concentrates are now subject to taxation under the authority of the Mineral Resource Tax Act. "

3 Mr. Lea asked the Hon. the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources the following questions:

With reference to coal mined in 1977-

1. What was the total tonnage of coal mined?
2. What was the total amount of royalty or land tax in lieu of royalty paid on coal mined?

The Hon. J. R. Chabot replied as follows:

1. " The estimated production of clean coal in 1977 is 8 592 416 metric tonnes or 9,471, 567 short tons.
2. " $3,206, 330.93 of royalty 'Was collected from coal sold during 1977."

NOTE- (I) $3,206, 330.93 is the revenue collected as coil act royalty. (2) The assessments under the Mineral Land Tax Act will not be issued until May 1,1979, and are payable by July 31,1978. The estimate of mineral land tax assessments for coal sold during 1977 is $7,765, 973.00.