[ Page 887 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Human Resources estimates.

On vote 140.

Ms. Brown –– 887

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 894

Mr. Cocke –– 899

Mr. Gabelmann –– 901

Ms. Brown –– 902

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 903

Appendix –– 904

THURSDAY, JULY 19, 1979

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to Motion 8, in the name of Mr. Mussallem.

Leave not granted.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
HUMAN RESOURCES
(continued)

On vote 140: minister's office, $206,837 — continued.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't sure whether the minister was through introducing, because she moved adjournment. Has she completed her preamble?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, it's kind of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds to ask. I think I should complete it at that point. I have other things to add, but I think they will come out in the debate.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, this is the first opportunity I've had to publicly congratulate the member for Vancouver–Little Mountain on her appointment as the Minister of Human Resources. I would like to do that right now.

I noticed this afternoon, in introducing her speech, that she was reminiscing a bit about her commitment to Human Resources and how pleased she was to be the minister. Maybe I should reminisce a bit too. I don't know if the minister remembers the very first time she and I met each other. It was by telephone. It was in 1971, I think, when, as Minister Without Portfolio, she introduced the amendment to the Wives and Children's Maintenance Act. That was such a long time ago she's probably forgotten it. There were a couple of things in that legislation which concerned me, and I contacted our caucus of the day and suggested that they should not support that particular piece of legislation. As a result of that I got a phone call from the minister because she wanted to know why I did not support that piece of amendment, and in my capacity as ombudswoman for the Status of Women Council and speaking for a large number of women, I explained the position to her.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ombudsperson.

MS. BROWN: No, I was an ombudswoman.

So, you see, Mr. Chairman, we have been on opposite sides of the fence for quite a long while.

I am sorry the Premier is not in his place, because I wanted to thank him for heeding my statements the last time I spoke on the estimates. I pointed out to him that the then Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) was without doubt the worst Minister of Human Resources the world had ever seen, and I suggested to him that he should be removed from that portfolio. I would like to thank the Premier for acceding to my request and removing the then Minister of Human Resources from his portfolio.

The policies of that government haven't changed. They are still insensitive and uncaring as far as the people in need are concerned, but it is an absolute delight not to have to deal with the verbal violence of the previous Minister of Human Resources. One has just to think back to remember when everyone was under attack in this province — when the senior citizens were being accused of abusing drugs, when Indians were told to go back to the reservation, when everyone in receipt of welfare was being accused of fraud. Young people, single parents, everyone was under attack by the previous Minister of Human Resources.

I was really quite interested that the present minister, in her attempt to say something nice about the previous Minister of Human Resources, could only think of the one program which he introduced, which was so totally discredited — namely the PREP program. It never did anything that it was established to do. It was so totally discredited as a program that when the present minister became responsible for that portfolio she introduced her own program of job-finding. As she told us this afternoon, she sent out 60,000 letters to various business people suggesting that they hire people who are in receipt of welfare, and that the government would help them in that regard.

The thing I'm happiest about at this time is to see that the deputy minister is here. Ministers come and ministers go, but John Noble goes on forever. One is never quite sure how he does it. He's looking younger and a little bit fatter, but it happens to all of us. I'm very, very pleased to see him. I look forward to the day when he writes his book and tells us what the present Minister of Human Resources is like, and whether Norm Levi was as warm and compassionate and loving as we all think he really is.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: As Norm Levi says.

MS. BROWN: We've got to wait until the deputy minister writes his book.

The only reason I'm really pleased about that is because I know that with the deputy minister sitting there we're going to get some answers to some questions.

I'm going to start out by repeating some questions, which have been sitting on the order paper for lo these many weeks to see whether, with the assistance of the deputy minister — that very competent gentleman who has lived through a number of Ministers of Human Resources — I can find out the following things. Were there any persons formally charged with defrauding the government of social assistance payments in any of the following fiscal years:1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79? If the answer to that is yes — and I'm sure it is — I want to know how many people were charged, and how many of those people who were charged were actually convicted and, indeed, what the total amount of money involved was. This is of particular interest, you'll understand, in view of the report just released by the University of Victoria, which claims to have discovered that there is much more fraud under the income tax legislation of this country than there is in Human Resources. I would like to have those figures anyway.

The minister spoke earlier about fraud investigators in the ministry. I would like to know who those people are, what their salaries are, what their previous occupations

[ Page 888 ]

were and where they are located. Where are they housed? Are they operating out of the Human Resources offices all around the province? Where are they based? I would also like to know what the total number of administrative staff is, excluding the investigators, and what the total cost and number of months covered for the investigators and administration in 1976, 1977-1978 and 1978-1979 were. We heard a lot from the previous minister about fraud. Indeed, the impression was created that most of the people in receipt of welfare in this province were involved in fraud — this despite the fact that the statistics show that most of the people in receipt of welfare in the province were children. So I would like to know how many fraudulent children, anyway, there were on welfare.

The minister also talked about the PREP program. She's the only person I've ever heard say anything good about the PREP program other than the previous minister himself. Even Mr. Ron Stew, who was hired to head up that program, said it was a boondoggle; he said it was a fraud, that it was flim-flam that did absolutely nothing. Anyway, the minister, in trying to say something nice about the previous incompetent Minister of Human Resources, congratulated him for setting up this useless program. I want to know the names, salaries and previous occupation locations of the job-finders in that PREP program. What is the total number of administrative staff, excluding the job-finders, and what is the total cost and number of months covered for the program for 1977, 1978 and to date? I'I accept it to July 15; one doesn't have to be that accurate in 1979.

I have a couple more questions, Mr. Chairman. I want to know from the Minister of Human Resources, with the assistance of the deputy minister, the number of social assistance recipients placed in employment. The minister told us she had sent out 60,000 letters. I received one of these letters, not as an employer but because someone thought I would be interested in the letter. It was an interesting letter because it appealed to the employers of the province to break the welfare cycle. I would like to know how many of the 60,000 people did in fact hire welfare recipients. Were there any placements made under this? She read out three examples, so I want to know if there were more than three. Because to invest the time to send out 60,000 letters and come up with three jobs is not really doing very much more than the PREP program, although I think her approach was certainly a more sensible one.

So how many people were placed? Were any of these placements made in ministries of the provincial government itself and, if so, how many and in what ministries? Were any of these placements made in the federal government? If so, how many and in which ministries? I just want to interject here that I'm sorry I'm having to raise these questions at this time. They've been sitting on the order paper for some time, but I realize the importance of having the deputy minister here in order to get questions.

Were any of the placements in private employment subsidized in any way by the provincial or the federal government? If the answer is yes, I'd like to know how many jobs were subsidized and what the total cost to the provincial coffers was as well as to the federal. Were any of the placements made through Canada Manpower? I know that PREP was run through Canada Manpower. If the answer to that one is yes, I want to know how many in each month.

Mr. Chairman, I'm also curious about the relationship with the municipal governments in terms of the cost-sharing formula. What was the total amount paid by the government to the municipalities for 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79? Also, what was the total amount paid by the municipalities over these same years in terms of the delivery of services toward their recipients?

And finally, Mr. Chairman, in regard to the Pharmacare program, I want to know how many persons actually received payment. How many people spent their $100 and then sent in the additional bills to the government and got a refund? What is the total paid to patients to date? What is the total paid to pharmacists? This is that interesting program where you can go and order your prescription which you pay a dollar for and end up paying $3.15 in pharmacists' fees. How did the pharmacists benefit in terms of prescription fees? Finally, what is the total cost of drugs prescribed and supplied by pharmacists to date? Those are some very straightforward questions, and I'm certainly hoping that the deputy minister will be able to assist the minister in giving us some answers.

I was interested in the sort of gentle and almost non-important way in which the minister dealt with the International Year of the Child. I think that the only explanation for that can be that the minister really doesn't understand what the International Year of the Child is all about. Twenty years ago, Mr. Chairman, the United Nations looked around the world and recognized that there were millions of children around the world who were in clear and imminent danger from starvation, lack of housing, poverty, lack of love — a variety of reasons — and who certainly shared one thing in common, and that was that they had no rights. Everyone made decisions for children, and children made no decisions on their own behalf. The United Nations, working on the basis that two heads are better than one and more heads are better than fewer heads, issued a declaration of children's rights in 1959 — 20 years ago — on behalf, not of the children of British Columbia....

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: I'm always fascinated by the attention you get in this House when you speak about children.

HON. MR. CHABOT: When you speak.

MS. BROWN: Well, okay. You've given birth to so many, you're much more of an expert than I am, Mr. Minister.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, 20 years ago the United Nations issued its declaration of children's rights, and in 1977, two years ago, the United Nations suggested that the way in which we could celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the declaration of children's rights was to make this the International Year of the Child.

First of all, I want to talk about some of the things it said in its proclamation. It was absolutely clear in terms of its proclamation that it was not talking about public relations gimmicks; it wasn't talking about PR trips. It was talking about meaningful kinds of legislation, meaningful kinds of programs, genuine things we could do to protect the children and enhance the quality of children's lives right around the world.

[ Page 889 ]

So it brought down these principles: ten principles in all. Twenty years later.... You know, really, this is a year in which we are supposed to be doing a reassessment to see to what extent the world has honoured these 10 principles over the last 20 years. And so, two years ago, this decision — this declaration — was made that 1979 was going to be dedicated to the children of the world.

It made it absolutely clear that what it wanted us to look at were the rights of children, early childhood education, the health of children, nutrition, the handicapped child, migrant children, child labour, child abuse and the influence of the media on children. It repeated over and over again that the United Nations was inviting nations to participate in this — not by having conferences, not by printing posters, not by having buttons, but by introducing genuine programs that said the thrust behind the resolution is the belief that all children are an integral and important part of our social and economic development, and that their well-being is to be ensured and promoted in all countries of the world.

It talks about governments providing an advocacy on behalf of children, an awareness of the special needs of children in making them part of the decision-making process on their own behalf.

The other thing focused on, of course, was how short childhood was, that it's not a long-term kind of experience, and that children's needs are not something we can deal with in the future. Children's needs have to be dealt with now, because all of us who have at one time or another been children know that is a very short period of time in our lives.

So I want to voice my disappointment with the government, and in particular with the new Minister of Human Resources. I recognize one has to be very understanding of the fact that this is a new ministry, that the minister has not been responsible for this department for a very long period of time. We have to make allowances for that.

But I must confess my disappointment in the fact that the minister has spent a great deal of time and a great deal of energy on the public relations aspects of the International Year of the Child. Whether it's a scroll which is handed out to people who are supposed to have done well for children; whether it is medals, whether it is inviting the children to come onto the lawn for the opening and then handing out medals after they've had their speeches; whether it's the printing of a song book so that the grandmothers of children can sing songs together and say: "Isn't it wonderful to be a grandmother...?"

Those are fine, but those are the public relations aspects of the International Year of the Child. The hiring of the about-to-be-ex-press secretary of the Premier to do a public relations job on the International Year of the Child and Family is very disappointing. If absolutely nothing happened this year that anyone was aware of but legislation or programs which enhanced the lives of the children of British Columbia, we would have come closer to realizing the hopes and the dreams of the United Nations than we have today.

The first thing that the minister did was to take the very sensitive symbol of the United Nations, which, as you know, is the olive branch, and desecrate it and design a new symbol — there's a dogwood with a child in the middle of it, and the United Nations symbol around it. What are we doing? What is the minister doing? This is not the International Year of the Child in British Columbia. This is the International Year of the Child around the world. Although we recognize that in British Columbia we have a responsibility — because charity begins at home — to focus on the child at home, we are not going to turn our backs on the children in the rest of the world. So when the minister decides to make a tourist promotion out of it, as she did with Captain Cook, and take the symbol which is used around the world and desecrate it by redrawing it with a dogwood with a figure in the middle of it — and all of this kind of stuff — she has totally lost sight of the whole reason for this International Year of the Child.

We are doing an assessment of what has happened to children in the world over the last 20 years, in terms of recognition and protection of their rights — and of them. That's what it is. It's not an excuse to attract tourists to B.C. It's not an excuse to sell the B.C. symbol. I have nothing against the dogwood; I think it's a beautiful plant. But to have taken that symbol and changed it was a travesty. It was a public relations gimmick, and the children of British Columbia are worthy of more than that. The minister is worthy of more than that, because she is no longer the Minister of Tourism. She's responsible for people now, and we had hoped for much more from her than this.

First the symbol was changed, then the medal was struck, then the scrolls were made, then the songbooks were printed, which, incidentally, were used as political gimmicks during the election — they were handed out during the election with all kinds of political literature. It was really an insult to the children of British Columbia, in terms of what this government is doing during the International Year of the Child.

In any event, in December there was a proclamation from her ministry, and I want to look at the way in which the minister has dealt with those things which were covered in her press release, in terms of putting into practice the promises she made.

She said, first of all, that in British Columbia we view the child in the context of the family, and in the wider context of the provincial family of citizens — which is fine. But where does that leave children who are not part of a family? Are they not a part of this year? Are their needs not to be taken into account this year? Most of the children who come under the purview and under the responsibility of the Ministry of Human Resources are children without families. How do they feel when they see that the International Year of the Child, instead of focusing on their needs, has been changed in some way by this minister to deal with the child and the family? That must give the children in care, and children in protection and the children under the supervision of the ministry a very warm feeling indeed. It exacerbates the problem; it just exaggerates what is already wrong while they are in your care and while you are responsible for them. That was a very insensitive thing to do.

Let's look at what else was promised in your press release. When you talk about services for families and children which have an impact on improving the quality of child care in British Columbia during the Year of the Child and Family, you start out by talking about the adoption program, and you say: "The adoption program seeks to provide children with the security of a permanent home by establishing a legal relationship between parent and child." What do we find when we look in the budget for 1979? We

[ Page 890 ]

find that the estimated sums to be spent on this particular program have been reduced by 23 percent. Now you can't say one thing, do another and hope to hang on to your credibility. You stood on the floor of the House this afternoon and you said: "I want to take children out of that never-never land of not belonging anywhere."

You start out in your press release by saying: "First the adoption program, that's a priority." How do you deal with this priority? You deal with this priority in your budget by reducing the amount of money in the budget from $119,100 in 1977-78 to $91,552. This is a reduction of 23 percent. You're making an absolute mockery of the International Year of the Child. You shouldn't have mentioned the adoption program in your press release at all. You should only have mentioned those programs which were going to have funding to them. But when you issue a press release saying what you're going to do on behalf of the Year of the Child, and then the estimates come out showing that you're cutting back on the budget, we have some problems.

We have questions about hypocrisy and this kind of thing. I'm not calling the minister a hypocrite, because that would not be parliamentary, and I wouldn't do any such thing. But I have real problems in terms of what the minister said in her press release and, in fact, what she actually did.

There are some areas in which there was an increase. There was an increase in the infant development program, and that, very rightly, should have been in the press release. As the minister said this afternoon, she's very proud of that program and so she should be. I certainly congratulate her for it.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe that I've been on my feet 30 minutes. That just doesn't make any sense. Have I? I've just started. But in any event....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Three minutes, hon. member.

The member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, my colleague, I think, requires an intervening speaker so that she can carry on with her marvelous speech, which certainly has me sitting on the edge of my chair.

MS. BROWN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you also to the intervening speaker.

Mr. Chairman, the only thing issued in the press release on the International Year of the Child.... I am going to be spending quite a bit of my time on the International Year of the Child because I think it's important. It's taken us 20 years to make children a priority in this world, and it's an opportunity that we should grasp. We shouldn't allow it just to go by with an off-the-cuff comment, as happened this afternoon.

The family support workers service was begun in 1978. I see no evidence whatsoever, despite the press release which says that the program is being enlarged, that in terms of the estimated funding for it, there's going to be any increase. We're dealing with a budget which hasn't changed in any way. We're dealing with a staff ratio which is going from 2,642 to 2,601, yet we're told in the press release that this enlarged program will be fully underway during this year. I want to hear about the enlargement, because it hasn't shown up in the estimates and I want to know where it's coming from.

The press release goes on to talk about the family support homemaker service, and I have to deal with the press release because that's the only thing coming out of the ministry. It's ministry by press release; that's all. We've heard that there's $750,000 put aside for the International Year of the Child. The only money we've heard that has been spent so far is a salary for Mr. Arnett. He is a press secretary about to be an ex-press secretary who is setting up a private public relations firm to deal with that. I'm trying to find whether his salary is coming out of this measly $750,000. But other than that we haven't heard of any money that's coming, and I listened very carefully when the minister spoke for an hour today. We were told the bill is going to be coming, but she's not going to introduce it until it's written properly. Heaven knows when it's going to arrive here.

In any event, she talks about the family-support homemaker service. Mr. Chairman, when you look at the estimates, what do you find? You find that the amount of money set aside for this family-support service is down by 39 percent. What is it doing in this press release? Is this the way in which the ministry is going to celebrate the International Year of the Child?

We are told that the objective of this program is to provide temporary support and relief in the home to families under stress, so that children will be able to remain in their own homes and parents will be helped to resume their own roles as homemakers as soon as possible. And what happens? The money set aside for it drops from $7,710,403 to $4,641,670 — a drop of 39 percent. This is the way in which this department is celebrating the International Year of the Child.

Mr. Chairman, the next thing mentioned in this press release is day care. Now it really takes a lot of gall to mention day care and to talk about the day-care program when she's talking about improved services for children. The information sheet on young children put out by the International Year of the Child committee of British Columbia tells us that more than 40 day-care centres have closed their doors in B.C. in 1978. It asks: "Where are the children whose parents were forced to make alternate arrangements?"

It points out that there is only one centre for baby day care in the whole of British Columbia, and homes willing to offer day care full time for the nominal fee set by the department are rare. So it raises the questions: "Where are the babies of parents who must work?" The minister in her press release says: "This program is designed to assist families in meeting the clear needs of children up to 12 years of age through a variety of programs and to provide support when the parents or parents are working, attending an educational institution or during prolonged illness or other family crisis."

What happens to the budget for day care? Well, if you accept that the cost of living has increased by somewhere between 7.8 percent and 8 percent, you wonder what is going to happen to day care when it has only been increased in the budget by 2 percent.

Now there would be no argument, none at all, if the minister had not issued a press release saying these are the ways in which British Columbia is going to pay tribute to the International Year of the Child and the Family and then

[ Page 891 ]

proceeds to list all of these services. Then out come the estimates showing that all of the money designated to these services have been cut back. Because the truth of the situation is that services to children in this province, in this year of our Lord, 1979, have been cut back. They have been. They have been the victims of the same kind of fiscally irresponsible decisions that have been plaguing our hospitals. The PR thing wasn't necessary. If nothing had been said, if nothing had been done, we would have been able to say the minister is not doing a good job and then we would have been able to take our seats and that was the end of that. But the minister can't help this public relations thing. She just cannot help treating everything as though it was Captain Cook and it was this big hype — you know, sell, sell, sell. Here we have the facts on the day-care program.

Incidentally, this International Year of the Child for British Columbia.... This is not my information; this is the information of the committee. When I was speaking to some of the people about day care, one of the women who lives in one of the homes in that new False Creek project pointed out to me that the situation for children over the age of 12 is even worse. In that instance what happens is that the parents give the kids a key, which is usually hung around their neck on a chain or a string or something, so that after school they can let themselves in and out of the apartment. Her child came to her and said to her that she wanted a key too because all of her friends had keys hanging around their necks and she didn't have a key around her neck. That's how bad the day-care situation is in this province. Under 3, 3-12, after-school, any category at all that you look at, there is nothing sufficient. Not only have there never ever been sufficient places in day care for the children of this province, but they have been cut back.

According to this information sheet, 40 centres alone have been closed; their doors have been closed. I know the minister is going to say that the doors are closed because there aren't any children using the day-care centre. Well, she should look at the subsidy. She should look at that absolute nightmare of a subsidy structure that operates in the day-care field and try to find out why it is that all the day-care centres in the affluent areas of Vancouver and British Columbia are not only full, but they have waiting lists. That's why it is that the day-care centres in those areas, where people live very close to the poverty line, or below, are the ones that are closing. The subsidy is just not sufficient to keep those children in day care, or the parents just cannot in any way afford the cost of paying the additional money to the subsidy in order to keep them in day care.

AN HON. MEMBER: Day care is upper-middle class.

MS. BROWN: Day care is very much upper-middle class — no question about it. Poor people can't afford it — and that is where the subsidy was supposed to have come in to make it possible. Of course, with this complicated system, nobody qualifies. It's just not possible. The day-care centres are suffering. The subsidy isn't enough for the centres to operate, and the people needing the subsidy can't add to it to pay the additional cost so that the centres can operate. So it's a real Catch-22. The minister in her press release talked about helping people in educational institutions. A family where both parents are students don't qualify for day care. Immigrants don't qualify for day care. I don't know who is writing your press releases — or, I should say, I know who is writing your press releases — but you should check them out before you release them. Because when you talk about making day care accessible to people who are in educational institutions, or immigrant parents, you are going counter to the policies of your department. A family where both parents are students does not qualify for day care, so it just doesn't work.

There is no kind of a cost-sharing relationship between the government and a family needing day care. Either you qualify for day care, and you get a subsidy, or you don't. There is no kind of give and take, no kind of collective bargaining or anything going on where you do a little and I do a little and we try to work things out. It's a rotten system. When one takes into account the importance of early childhood in terms of forming the kind of human being that a person is going to be, it is nothing short of criminal that a Ministry of Human Resources does not take the delivery of child-care services more seriously. It is the Catholic Church that says — and I may be wrong in the quote, but the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) can tell me — "Give me a child until the child is seven and I've got the child for the rest of my life." Is that a myth, or is it a fact?

MR. LAUK: I don't know.

MS. BROWN: Oh! A Catholic who doesn't know!

But I certainly know all the research that has been done on racism tells you the child has formed its prejudices by the time it is three and a half years old. Those early years are crucial. Those are the years when the money should be poured in to ensure that the early education and the needs of those children are being met. It should not be later on, building detention homes and detention centres, but in the beginning.

Mr. Chairman, I met with some of the day care workers, and do you know what their crucial complaint was? They said of a number of the children coming into day care, because they have to bring their lunch now because there is no money to be able to afford to give them anything, that when you open their lunch pails they have cold french fries. That's what they come to school with. They come to the day care centre with bread in their lunch pails — without anything else. Cold french fries, potato chips, garbage, junk food — and they are concerned about that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Cheese. What have you got against cheese?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds has the floor.

MS. BROWN: I've nothing against cheese. If there was protein in those lunch pails, even just a little bit of protein, we would have no complaints. But what I'm saying is that in the International Year of the Child the money that is going to be used to pay the salary of a public relations person to issue more press releases that make absolutely no sense would be better used to put something either into the lunch pails of those children or to make it possible for child care centres to serve at least one hot meal a day. There was a time when they used to be able to do that. I can remember when my kids were in day care. I had my children at the

[ Page 892 ]

cooperative day care and each child got a fruit. That's all. You got one piece of fruit. If the parents wanted you to have more than that, if your children ate a lot and this kind of thing, then you packed something extra. But you knew that during the break the child would be given either one apple or an orange or something.

As a result of the increased cost of running a day-care centre, coupled with the decrease in the amount of subsidy people have to operate with, the day-care centres can no longer provide that, so the children are told to bring a lunch. The poverty really shows up in those lunch pails. When I think of the money spent on printing scrolls and striking medals and printing songbooks and hiring PR flacks, I can't believe that is more important than seeing to it that there is something in the lunch pails of those kids. I can't see that is a greater priority.

I'm so tired of saying this. We're not an underdeveloped country; this is a rich and affluent nation we live in. There is no excuse for our children going to day care with cold french fries and bread with nothing on it and potato chips in their lunch pails. That's an absolute disgrace. As the minister who has taken it upon herself to turn the International Year of the Child into the Year of the Child and the Family, I think you have to stand indicted on that account. Of all things to talk about in your press release, you talk about day care. If I were issuing a press release on anything from your ministry, the one thing I wouldn't mention is day care. Your government's record has been absolutely disgraceful in this particular area. On and on it goes: the family day-care homes, the under-three day-care homes.... They're just not sufficient for any of this.

You published a brochure — and I had a copy of it here in celebration of the International Year of the Child. The symbol on the brochure was so fine that even with my glasses on I couldn't find it. That shows you what kind of priority it had. The press release talked about the children's rehabilitation resources. It says:

"This program enables approximately 1,000 young people per year, who are experiencing great difficulty at school or who have dropped out of school, to acquire basic academic and social skills, making it possible for them to re-enter the regular school system."

What do we find when we look at the budget? You've cut it! It's down. The cost-of-living indices 7.8 percent; the budget is up by 2 percent. You put in your press release that in honour of the International Year of the Child this great program is going to do all of these things for children. Then you estimate a budget which is worse than before the International Year of the Child came along. It makes sense to me that while introducing your estimates you just raced right through the International Year of the Child. As I mentioned to someone this afternoon, if there is anything at all that this government is doing for the International Year of the Child, it sure is top secret. Nobody has been able to find out anything about it at all. The press release is there. You put it right beside the estimated budget of spending, and everything is down.

Special services for children. The goal of this program is to assist families where there is a risk of the child being removed from the home. You spoke in glowing terms about it this afternoon, and so you should, because that budget is up by 14 percent. I want to congratulate you on that. If I were writing your press release, that would have been in it, but I certainly would have left out the other stuff.

You talked about child protection. You say:

"The purpose of this program is to protect children from physical and mental cruelty, to safeguard the young, to ameliorate family conditions which lead to neglect of children, and to care for those children in need of protection."

That's interesting. That budget, too, is interesting.

The TRACY people who have made an agenda for the year designated June as the month to protect the child. The result of that was that they did a survey which they released on the sexual abuse of children. They had a press release; we all dealt with it, and you saw it too. I was really a little bit upset by your response to that press release. You said that society was responsible. Society has to clean up its morals. Society has to do a better job. Who do you think society is? It's you; it's me; it's all of us; it's the government. You've got children in care. You are responsible for the children of this province. According to that report, 300 of them are on the streets of Vancouver during the summer months as prostitutes; they are being abused sexually. You respond to that by saying that society must clean up its act.

You've got to do better than that; there has got to be more than that coming out of the ministry. It is not good enough for the Minister of Human Resources to stand up and throw her hands up in the air and say: "Society has got to clean up its morals." That report brought down recommendations that touch on your ministry, that touch on the Attorney-General's ministry, that touch on the Ministry of Health and that touch on the Ministry of Education. There has to be a commitment from you to see to it that those recommendations are implemented. You can't leave it to society to clean up its act. Obviously society isn't going to clean up its act; it's getting worse.

There are people who are prepared to talk about it and to report on it. We're talking about children; we're talking about children eight and nine and ten years of age who are being sexually abused for money. There are recommendations in that report, and the minister should have stood in front of those television cameras or that radio microphone or whatever it was and said: "I make a commitment to see to it that those recommendations are implemented." Instead we got some mealy-mouthed thing about society's morals. If that's all there is, why are we here? If we can't protect the children, why are we here?

Or the other thing that you deal with in that section on protection was a White Paper. You talked about the fact that you had received 1,200 responses to the White Paper. I didn't get 1,200 responses, but a number of the people who responded to the White Paper were kind enough to send me copies of the responses which they sent to Mr. J.V. Belknap. They were unanimous in saying that the White Paper was just not meeting the needs of the children of the province. The White Paper did not deal with the kinds of services that had to be implemented. They kept referring to the Berger report. The job has been done, the research has been done, the survey has been done, the study has been done and the recommendations are there. Let's get on with implementing those recommendations. Someone sat down and wrote this White Paper; it was sent out. As you said, 1,200 people responded, but over and over the responses

[ Page 893 ]

that came back said: "You are not touching the problems in that White Paper."

Responses came from the Association of Social Workers, the Registered Nurses Association, St. Andrews Catholic League, the Port Alberni Foster Parents. There were individuals who responded from the St. Stephens United Church, Nelson District Community Resources, the Status of Women and the Law, Smithers Community Law Centre, Chandler Parks school in Smithers, Qualicum Beach Elementary, B.C. Parent Finders, Quesnel Ministry of Human Resources, Family Life Subcommittee and Outreach of the United Church of Canada. On and on it goes. The recommendations laid in the White Paper are not meeting the needs. The School of Social Work from the University of Victoria did an excellent presentation to you on that proposed thing. SPARC, which must have your most profound respect, submitted it. There were also the Coalition Task Force on Children and the Law — again, individuals; Grandview Woodlands Area Team, a Human Resource team, on and on it came.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I agree with you. You said the bill isn't ready; you're not going to bring it in until it has been perfected. I agree with that, because based on what was in the White Paper, you can't introduce a bill; it just wasn't good enough. Mr. Chairman, in addition, when we look at the number of children in care again, we find that the budget for that particular section has been increased by 2 percent. I want to tell you that everything else has gone up by at least 7.8 percent or more. There has been a cut in staff and the number of children in care is on the increase. I heard from one Human Resource office in the Okanagan, and they said that their workers were dealing with an average of about 80 children; one worker had a caseload of about 80 children. I heard from one worker in Williams Lake who said that his caseload had 118 children plus 18 Indian reserves and 30 homes. Now be reasonable. What kind of supervision, what kind of social work, what kind of protection do you think goes on under those kinds of circumstances?

Isn't there a better way to spend your money, to spend our money, the taxpayers' money? Isn't there a better way in which we can deal with the needs of the children of this province rather than by striking medals, publishing songbooks and scrolls, and hiring about-to-be-fired PR hacks from the Premier's office?

Mr. Chairman, there isn't any question that children who come into care come into care as a result of the failure of society as much as a result of the failure of parents. You're not going to lay this on the parents alone. In a lot of instances we're talking about illness in the home. A lot of the time we're talking about lack of housing, lack of support services. When I say illness I mean mental illness as well as physical illness. Sometimes we're talking about physical handicaps. There are all kinds of reasons why children come into the home. It's not always sloppiness or laziness and reluctance on the part of the parents to look after their children, but once they come into care, then we have to have the kinds of support services and the staff to see that they are at least protected while they are in care, and that's not happening now.

Mr. Chairman, there's not very much left on the press release, but if you want me to have an intervening speaker and then get up and finish the press release, I'll see if I can find one of my colleagues to intervene.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'I recognize the member for North Island. Even if the House is in agreement, the committee has no way in which the committee can actually absolve the rules, so we'll just proceed with the intervening speaker.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, in the course of this session this has been the best speech that I've heard, and I want to continue to listen to it.

MS. BROWN: That was a really nice intervening speaker. I really appreciate that.

I just want to complete the press release that came out of the minister's office. She talked about the child abuse team, and about foster homes which she also dealt with in her press release, and about the care for the handicapped. Just to give you some examples about what's happening in these three particular areas before I wind up, I agree that the child abuse registry is something that was needed. I'm not quite sure how the Zenith line is going to work, because in fact it's a strange system. There's a telephone number that you can call from anywhere in the province. If you can hear your neighbour or someone abusing their child, you phone in, and the person answering the phone is in Vancouver. So if the member for Fort St. John is abusing his child, and the neighbour picks up the phone and uses the Zenith number, the call goes through to....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I'm just using this as an example. I know you're much too gentle a creature to do any such thing — I hope. Then the person in Vancouver has to phone back to the duty worker in Fort St. John, and the investigation has to be done at that level. I think it tends to undermine the community involvement in this. Maybe the minister will deal with it. It's an expensive thing she's done, and I'm not convinced that was the best way to do it. I think that every agency has a duty worker — is supposed to have, at least — on call 24 hours a day. I think that if the agency's phone number is known to everyone, or if they have a 999 number, as the crisis centres have in other parts of the province, and locally it can be dealt with right there, it would probably make much more sense. But I think the minister would want to talk about this. Also, I understand it was at a cost of $400,000. Maybe she can verify that for me. I can't verify it, because it came from someone in B.C. Tel and they may not be aware of it.

The number of foster children in care. At the same time when we were talking about protecting the children in care, the department has decided that foster children are to be refused dental care other than the basics of drilling and filling. I don't know whether this is true or not. They have to go straight to Victoria for specific permission and a special decision has to be made at that level as to whether these children should have the additional kind of dental care that they need or not. I don't think that's an indication of an increase in terms of caring for children.

Residential treatment centres and therapeutic homes have been cut back. Their funding has been cut back; the homes themselves have been cut back. There have been budget cuts in community grants and guidelines. All of

[ Page 894 ]

these things have been cutbacks. There have been cutbacks in staffing the whole way through, yet we hear the minister talking about the specialized resources for children.

The minister was talking about her love for the retarded children and how pleased she is that now she has under her jurisdiction Woodlands and the other homes for retarded children. What is the first thing that the minister did when she had jurisdiction for Woodlands? The children at Woodlands once a year go away on holidays. They go to a little camp, a summer vacation program at a cost of $84,000. They go out for two weeks to Golden Ears Provincial Park. Once a year these 250 retarded children who live in Woodlands go off for two weeks to this camp in Golden Ears Park. What's the first thing that the minister does by way of recognizing the International Year of the Child? That program is cut from the budget. According to this article, it was a request from Treasury Board for cutbacks. They were told to cut back what they could and they cut out $105,000 in medical costs, $60,000 in comforts to the patient, $40,000 in clothing for the needs of the patient and $9,000 in pediatric care. But probably nothing hurt the patients as much as that two-week holiday. The minister stood on the floor of this House and told us she's always had this compassionate concern for the retarded children and how really pleased she is that her ministry is now responsible for services to them. This is what happened and that is the reason why I said to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), when his estimates were up, that he should put up a fight to get the retarded children back under his jurisdiction. There isn't any way that he would have tolerated this kind of thing.

We have the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) writing a letter to Merv Griffin and inviting him to come and visit British Columbia and holiday here. Does Merv Griffin need a holiday more than the retarded children at Woodlands? Who can afford to pay their own way better — Merv Griffin or the children at Woodlands? [Laughter.] I'm really glad you find it so funny. I hope this means that none of you will ever have to have the experience of knowing what it is to have a retarded child, because then you wouldn't find it so funny.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, letters have come in from a Mrs. Erich, who has a child in Woodlands. She wrote to the Minister of Human Resources about her daughter and sent a carbon copy to us. These children need that two-week holiday. Rather than using $84,000 in the budget to hire an about-to-be-resigned PR flack, rather than using it to print scrolls and a song book, rather than using it to strike medals, wouldn't it have been better to use it so that these 250 children at Woodlands could have had their two-week holiday at Golden Ears Park? That's the kind of thing that would have made more sense in terms of the International Year of the Child.

I don't know who this came from. It came in the mail without a return address. Nothing on it. It just says: "I have heard that the Handicapped Industries Guild is negotiating to turn into a non-profit society. This means, apparently, that your department is no longer going to be funding it." Do you know who uses the Handicapped Industries Guild? These are the same retarded people that you have all this love and warmth and compassion for. It's a sheltered workshop. That's what it is. They make the most beautiful garden furniture and then they sell it through Art Nat's and other nurseries. I don't know how accurate this is, because it has no identifying marks on it, but apparently they're concerned that their funding is going to be cut off too.

Who are we talking about when we talk about the children of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, in this International Year of the Child? There are 710,285 children under the age of 17 living at home in British Columbia. When we look at the welfare rolls, we find that, of the people on welfare, 58,693 are children. More than half of the people in receipt of welfare in this province are children. Under those circumstances, what do we have to strike medals about and give ourselves scrolls about? This is an indictment. More than half of the people in this province living not just below the poverty line, but dependent on government funding for their survival, are children.

Now in the International Year of the Child, we have an opportunity to get at that figure and eliminate it or cut it down or do something about it. There are all kinds of programs that could have been done. Instead of that we've been subjected to one press release after another, one PR gimmick after another, dragging kids out of school to come and stand on the Legislature lawn so that you can hand out medals to them and get your picture taken. When I met with the day-care workers, I told them: "The way to appeal to the minister in terms of getting funds is to offer to hang her picture in the day-care centre. A picture of the minister in every day-care centre would probably ensure that you get your funding."

But this is the year that we should be dealing with those 58,693 children on welfare. Mr. Chairman, when we talk about that, we're talking about poverty.

Before we get into the issue of poverty and children in this province, I would first of all like to hear the minister deal with some of the questions which I have raised. I have been very critical; I am the opposition critic. My responsibility is to relate to the minister. And to the new members who are not sure about what an opposition critic is supposed to do, I am supposed to offer constructive criticism. The year is not yet over — it's only half over; this is July — and there is still enough time for some of that $750,000 to be spent in a constructive way. I want to talk about the constructive ways in which it can be spent. But first of all I need some feedback from the minister as to how she can issue a press release talking about the great things that are happening for children during this International Year of the Child at the same time that our estimates indicate she has been cutting back on some very crucial areas and on some very crucial services to children.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I am really happy to have the opportunity to respond, because I have just listened for what, I guess, is the better part of an hour and a quarter to a tremendous amount of misinformation that must be corrected. Let me just start by correcting your last statements, and then I'll work up to the other ones.

Throughout your address in this assembly this evening, hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds, you continue to talk about public information or public relations, and make disparaging remarks about lack of information or giving too much information. I don't know what you want. It is interesting that when we don't put out a press release, you ask why not. When we do, you accuse us of public relations. But let me say to you that I have the full intention in this ministry — as I have had in other ministries and is what I've done in public life — to make what we're doing in

[ Page 895 ]

this province and in this government well known to the people of this province. You can't, on the one hand, say that the International Year of the Child in British Columbia is a deep, dark secret and then, on the other, criticize us for having an information program in the Ministry of Human Resources — you can't have it both ways.

MS. BROWN: It's a gimmick.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Let me just correct some of the things that you have said. You said, on the basis of an anonymous letter or note, or something that came, I guess, in a brown paper package, that you think there are cuts in sheltered workshops. Let me assure you right here and now that there are no cuts. And if you can ever find a signature on that piece of paper that miraculously turned up on your desk, let me know, and I will certainly answer for you. It's very difficult to answer questions that are anonymous — and you think they're a rumour — and I think that's not the kind of debate we need in this House.

I want to address myself to the so-called cuts in the camp budget for Woodlands. You make light of the commitment that this side of the House, or any member of this House, has to the retarded children in this province. Let me say once again that we have the best program and services for retarded children anywhere in Canada. There isn't any place that gives better.

Addressing myself to the overnight camping at Woodlands, let me just say that I too received a letter from a lady who has someone in Woodlands — you made reference to letters that you received. I'I just refer to a part of the letter, which was dated and received on May 8:

"Dear Mrs. McCarthy:

"I received the enclosed from the parent group at Woodlands and it has worried me no end. My daughter is here, and they all have been so delighted with the bus trips, et cetera. The government has been wonderful. I kept my daughter for 35 years, until I became very ill, and I am now unable to look after her. Everyone is so wonderful. I am sure she wouldn't be able to adjust in another environment. We all look so forward to their trips, et cetera.

"Maybe this is an NDP propaganda deal. They are so underhanded with everything they do; I'm hoping and praying they won't get in again. You've done a fantastic job in the government, and I wish I could do more work for you instead of talking. "

Then I want to tell you that in talking to Dr. Pauline Hughes of Woodlands about the overnight camping, she told me this is the question at Woodlands school. They lose staff time on overnight trips because of "overtime" arrangements. Overnight camping is not 100 percent discontinued, but there is now greater utilization of daytime camping and more use of staff for this purpose. At Woodlands School, for example, a worker attending a 24-hour period at camp receives the following benefits, which were agreed to prior to this administration taking office. For a 24-hour period they have two days off in time, plus four hours additional pay. The specifics are all in the collective agreement in the hospital and allied components. Some overnight camping is being done with all their lodge residents on the special program of the Coquitlam school district, and a Woodlands staff member attends this situation. Woodlands goes to Camp Squamish Lions Club camp facility, and about 50 will attend. The part of the agreement which makes it difficult for Woodlands to do a lot of overnight camping is that which gives employees all overtime compensation in cash. Employees who are required to work in 24-hour camp operations are to be compensated with two days off and four straight-time hours cash for each 24-hour day spent in camp. The result is that those who worked at Woodlands and wanted to take the youngsters on an overnight camping trip decided that those impositions — some made years ago and some not too long ago — in their agreement unfortunately precluded them from doing so, because it is insisted that they be paid overtime. They did it on their own before, but they are not allowed to do that any longer. The dollars that used to be spent, and the time that used to be spent in a dedicated way, are now changed. It is all changed around and it is a different way. The youngsters and the retarded adults there do still get overnight camping trips, and they get more of the daytime camping trips. Again, what you have said is completely erroneous.

Let me just address my remarks now to the Zenith line of which you were critical. I think that it is important for everyone to know that the crisis lines of which you speak are being used in the system, and they will be called upon because they have done a tremendous job. Just recently I attended a ten-year anniversary of the Vancouver Crisis Line. I was there when it was started, and I helped them to launch that crisis line. I can tell you it has really been a great service for the city of Vancouver. But that service isn't available all over the province, and the Zenith line will be. We believe that will be an excellent program for the Year of the Child and Family. It will be a legacy for the Year of the Child and Family. It will be a child-abuse education program, a public education program. We will make the number known, so that it will be well enough known to every citizen who would be prompted to call in, either anonymously or not; it doesn't matter. It is a program to afford them an opportunity to advise the people of British Columbia of this program so that they will be educated too. There are a lot of people in the province, both abusing parents and people who have never heard of child abuse, who all need the education.

I'd like to also answer your question regarding rehabilitation resources. You say that there have been dollars diminished in that program in the estimates. That's not true at all. In 1975-76 the estimates were $1.2 million — I'I use round figures — 1976-77, $1.7 million; 1977-78, almost $2.1 million; 1978-79, $2.6 million; and 1979-80, almost $2.7 million. You seem to be surprised that we didn't dramatically increase it, but let me tell you why we didn't. The rehabilitation resources are, as you know, at the request of the school system. We place those workers within the system as a special resource, only on the call of the school that needs their assistance. In this regard let me tell you what the demand has been. In 1975-76, 45 percent of that budget was called on; 18 percent in 1976-77; 25 percent in 1978-79. In this new budget the reason that it is only increased by the 2 1/2 percent — it wasn't decreased, as suggested by you, but increased — is because the actual expenditure in 1978-79 was less than was called upon, as it has been in other years. That has been the experience with that budget. The budget for this year is actually over the expended amount by almost 14 percent — 13.7 percent.

[ Page 896 ]

You asked about the White Paper, and you asked why I don't just implement the Berger report, why I had to have a White Paper. Let me remind you that the NDP government did not implement the Berger report, and when the White Paper came out, it was a discussion paper. As I reported earlier today, it has had a good discussion. It has had good public input. It is on the basis of reports that have been brought before us, including the Berger commission report, that legislation will be brought before you in the spring of 1980, in order that we may all address ourselves to the accumulated expertise and wealth of information brought to us through that White Paper. I think that was an excellent process. I really think that the extent of public input which we have had on such an important subject has been worthwhile. I don't make any apology for not having it on the floor of the House this year, because there just has not been time to do it well. Again, I say that it has to be done well.

You talked about the TRACY report on the sexual abuse of children. You referred to a press release, but unfortunately you only referred to it in part. I'd like to refer to it too. In my response to the TRACY report, I mentioned that we would be very happy indeed to study the report and implement as much as possible. I also mentioned in that press release, and in the public commentary following the recommendations of the United Way task force on family violence, as well as the TRACY report, that some of the things mentioned in both of those reports had already been done. You are taking the report and you are forgetting the response that came from my ministry. They talked about putting up transition houses; we already have eight transition houses throughout the province. They talked about support from Human Resources and from the Attorney-General's office; that support has not only been pledged; it has been forthcoming. I said that all of the recommendations would be considered by my ministry. I said that in my press release; I've said it in my public statements; and I mean what I say.

You said that in last year's budget there was no increase for family support workers. However, those positions were already in last year's budget. They weren't filled until later in the year, but 169 of them were incorporated in last year's budget, and the balance of over 250 on staff are people who left other areas of government and filled those positions. So there was not a decrease, as you have led the House to believe tonight. In fact, the family-support workers service is one of the best we could possibly have put in. We're very proud of that program, and I hope that you are too, and I hope that you are aware of the work they are doing within the community.

Let's talk about day care and some of the things you have said tonight in terms of day care. First of all, in subsidized day care we're averaging over 1,000 more children per month than one year ago; that is for all types of day care. We have over 11,000 children this year, and there were 10,056 last year. You mentioned False Creek. I haven't had anyone writing to us about the False Creek area. May I just remind you that we have in-home care for the very latchkey children you speak of. For those parents who cannot afford to have baby-sitting in the house, and for those parents who cannot afford to have care in the home, and for people on shift work or who have to be hospitalized or who have to be away for some reason or another and cannot be at home, we do have a home-care, day-care service for children that incorporates that. In the province today we have 682 families taking advantage of it. That's not a lot, but the service is there. That couple you talk about in False Creek could apply. You didn't read the letter or read anything into the record on that, but if you'd like to talk to me about that letter, I'd be very glad to look into it for you. If there's a need there, the Ministry of Human Resources will certainly respond to it.

Let me talk to you now about the family homemaker. The family homemaker service is a great service. You say it has been decreased by 39 percent. Written into the record is that in this International Year of the Child and Family we have decreased the support for homemakers. Let me say here and now that is absolutely untrue. Is it correct that you said 39 percent?

MS. BROWN: Yes. From $7 million down to $4 million.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Let me tell you about the $7 million. There was a $7 million homemaker amount in the budget, which took care of the elderly, families, and children. Of that $7 million, 75 percent was for service to the elderly, and it was transferred to the great program which is under the Ministry of Health and is in his estimates which you have just debated. Seventy-five percent of that care has been taken over by the greatest long-term care program in Canada by the Ministry of Health. The member puts her hand to her head. She doesn't like hearing about the long-term care program, but it's a great program. We're very proud of it; we think it's a good job they're doing. Now if you took 75 percent of $7 million away to look after the elderly under Health, that would ordinarily give us $2 million, but let me tell you what our budget is for this year. We should have really got $2 million, but instead we have $4.6 million. So instead of diminishing by 39 percent, we have increased our care for the children in our care, for the families in our care and the elderly citizens are now being looked after well under the long-term care under the health program.

Another erroneous statement that you would like to place on the floor of this House and to the people of the province — somewhat like the election campaign that we have all lived through, where we saw a political party represented by your side of the House putting the fear of God in the people of British Columbia who are in need, who are ill, who are sick and who are needing the kind of understanding and the kind of support and the kind of non-partisan attitude that should come for care....

When one says that they have decreased the budget 39 percent when indeed we have increased the budget, that kind of commentary is nothing else but just straight misinformation.

I want to address my remarks too to the adoption process. I am very glad you brought up the adoption process, because I'm proud and very pleased to tell you that this month — in spite of the fact that we have had a reorganization of the physical office as well as the staffing and so on in the adoption program — we have processed more adoptions, and we are very pleased about the record. We hope that will continue, and we hope that the speed in which it is being done is going to continue, because it's a good record that our ministry is starting to have. Let me just tell you that the cost of maintaining children in hospital only

[ Page 897 ]

has been decreased. You and I and all of this House should be very, very pleased about that, Mr. Chairman, because you know what that says? That says that we are moving the adoptive child out of that hospital sooner. That's the only part, and we can decrease it every year, Mr. Chairman. If that's one part of my budget that can be decreased every year, everyone in this House should say hallelujah, because that's getting a child into a caring home immediately.

Let me also refer to your comments regarding the Year of the Child and the logo and the United Nations concept. We do not take away from the United Nations concept. In fact in just about every single thing that we do in terms of the Year of the Child — in British Columbia, the Year of the Child and Family.... The reason that we wanted to emphasize the Year of the Child and Family is because we believe that even those children who do not have their natural parents, who are in group homes, who are in institutions, who are in foster care homes or who are in adopted homes and not with their natural parents, they have a loving British Columbia family.

The citizens of British Columbia are caring. It's not the ultimate; we would like to have the ultimate, but there is a need to think of the child in the family concept. We don't have the socialist point of view that you have to divide everybody up and separate them from their families. We want their family to be together, and we are emphasizing that in the Year of the Child and Family.

You made some remarks about public relations and achievements — scrolls and things like that. Let me tell you, there are achievement awards being given out for the Year of the Child and Family because there are great achievers in our province. Let me just tell you about one couple....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All members will have an opportunity to participate in this debate. The minister has the floor. Please continue.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I don't think that all of the catcalls and the humour exuded from the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) are really fitting for what I'm going to tell you, because I'm talking about a Year of the Child and Family presentation that was made, and there are several that have been made. We could talk about them all, but let me just read you one of them, because I think it is a very special case.

This couple — and I'I name their names because they were honored publicly in their own area — are Celia and Frank DeVries. They have five foster and adopted children — some with physical and mental handicaps — as well as two natural children. For eight years the DeVries have been foster parents to Patrick, a nine-year-old native Indian boy who is blind, severely retarded, partly paralysed, and has epilepsy.

Michael, now six, has lived with the DeVries for the past two years. He too is blind, retarded and has epilepsy. The DeVries are adopting Donny, a six-year-old with one kidney and minimal brain damage. They have two other adopted children, Julie, 14, and Margaret, 13, who are both native Indians.

They have been foster parents since 1970. Mr. Chairman, I think it's important that we say to the people in the province, the people who have gone out of their way like the DeVries, the people who, when the members over there have long gone from this House and have gone back into their homes.... When those people stop laughing, the DeVries will still be caring for those children. They'll still have that care, and they're taking that care for the whole community. I think they should be honoured, and I make no apologies for them — none whatsoever.

You mentioned, by the way, day-care centres that have closed. But let me tell you that if they have been closed, it's because an inadequate assessment of the need was made in the first place. But there have been others that have been opened, and you didn't mention the others that have opened.

You see, Mr. Chairman, there's where this member places statements before this House and where we find we differ so much. You see, the day-care service in this province is a good one. It's based on the need in a community. There will be day care. You know, the day-care centres and the day-care service in this province wasn't started under the NDP government. It was started under the former Social Credit government.

In the day-care centre service — the ones that were started in those days and some of the ones that were started under the NDP — those youngsters have grown out of that day-care centre and there are not younger children in the home to take up that slack. So the need goes somewhere else, and that's fair. You don't want to keep an empty building with no use for it. That's what happens. I'm sure you wouldn't be advocating that.

Could I, please, just respond to the special youth services program, the Davie Street program, which has been started as a response to the problems that were outlined in the TRACY report? We have a special youth team project that has just been started in the last few days to address ourselves to that problem. The youth team is going to work closely with police and juvenile probation. It is also going to have some of our people from the Ministry of Human Resources — we are on that team as well. They have a very good program working out of the West End district offices.

It takes all the community programs, all the correctional services, the city social planning department, the provincial court, Gordon House, the West End community police team, the juvenile liaison police team, and it is led by our representative, Leslie Arnold, manager of our Ministry of Human Resources.

It will address the issues of teenage prostitution in the West End neighbourhood and attempt to work more cooperatively with other agencies involved and responsible for children. I know I am running close to the time, but I do want to just give you this because I think this is a very important committee. They will address the following issues: alternative housing, employment opportunities and alternative education. The committee plans to attend the interministerial children's committee of our government in September to present a report and their recommendations.

One of the successes of the committee to date has been to provide some street recreational programming. Through Gordon House, contact has been made with the Vancouver Parks Board, and also the committee has been able to obtain access to recreational programs on a no-cost basis offered through the YMCA and the YWCA.

On the initiation of the committee, the city department of health is currently developing a proposal to provide a

[ Page 898 ]

community street nurse, who will be available to children on the street in an attempt to provide preventive medical attention.

Another area the committee has addressed is the issue of charging adults who become involved in juvenile prostitution. In this regard, close consultation is being maintained with the A-G and Crown counsel. The committee is working profitably with TRACY to plan a workshop which will be presented this fall, providing information on services available to children.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm sorry hon. member. Under standing orders....

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: All right. Could I just say that on those issues that you've raised in your talk this evening, many, many questions were on the order paper? I'm filing some answers this evening, and the rest will all be answered the same way.

MS. BROWN: I'd just like to continue very briefly, Mr. Chairman. I'm not going to be long this time, because my colleagues are threatening me. They're all dying to get in on the debate.

The last thing the minister did, of course, was to reinstitute a program which the previous Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) wiped out when he wiped out the Vancouver Resources Board. The youth workers used to do that, and this whole issue of the increase of sexual abuse of children in the Vancouver area has increased as a result of the youth workers being wiped out and that program being wiped out when the Vancouver Resources Board was wiped out. What we're having is the result of the incompetence and inept decisions which were made by your predecessor, so I'm certainly not going to blame you for that.

I just want to deal very briefly with this comment of yours of the loving British Columbia family, which all children in British Columbia have. I hope you read Hansard Blues, Madam Minister. I know you don't hear a word I'm saying. From your responses, it's clear you don't hear a word I'm saying. As long as 50 percent of the people on welfare in this province are children, I don't think we should be called a loving family here in British Columbia. As long as 50 percent of the people of this province are not only living below the poverty line but are dependent on government funding for their income, I don't see how you can stand in your place and talk about a loving British Columbia family. As long as 300 children are being abused on the streets of Vancouver alone, to say nothing of the rest of the province, how can you dare to stand there and talk about a loving British Columbia family?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

There are children going to their day-care schools with cold french fries in their lunch buckets, and dry toast and potato chips. And you talk about a loving British Columbia family. That is hypocrisy. That's what that is.

MR. BRUMMET: Are you going to ridicule those people who do serve?

MS. BROWN: Nobody in this province has the right to hang a scroll on a wall or stick a medal on a chest as long as those kinds of statistics remain. And for the minister to use the money for the International Year of the Child in this way — that's a travesty. We are not dealing with the doers of good deeds. We're dealing with the evils being perpetrated against the children of this province. As you are the minister responsible, I am merely saying to you in as soft and gentle a manner as I know how that all your government has put aside for this year is $750,000. Spend it on the children. Don't spend it striking medals, or making scrolls, or printing songbooks, or hiring PR flacks.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'd just like to respond to the comment the member made: "We're not dealing with those doers of good deeds." Yes, we are. We're dealing with people in this province who do good deeds, with people who are positive and who want to change the Davie Street situation. We're dealing with people and volunteers all over this province, with citizens all over this province, who want to do the right thing, and who are doing it in many ways.

The Ministry of Human Resources is doing it in every way they possibly can. My staff is doing it in every way they possibly can. My colleague the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), because he has all the problems in corrections with the problems of juveniles, doesn't blanket every juvenile in the province as being all wrong, and neither do we as a government. What you're saying is that because there are those problems, you blanket the whole province with that. You don't need to celebrate the Year of the Child and Family.

I'm telling you, as long as we have people in this province who care, and I believe we have.... I believe in the people of this province and I believe in what they want for the children of this province.

Don't try to put the prostitution of children or the abuse of children on any party in this province. Don't try to place that on any political party. You and I both know that's a North American and a world phenomenon, and that we're trying to do our best with it. What we want in this province is to have those doers of good deeds given the kind of support that makes them do the good deeds, and continue, and want to do them, and not be called down derisively for that kind of recognition. I'm not going to apologize for recognizing them.

I know a lady who goes to the Children's Hospital and takes out a child who is handicapped three times a week. She's not related to that child, and has done this for months and months and months; it is getting into years now. No one ever gives her a scroll at a chamber of commerce meeting. No one ever asks her to stand up and be counted in a social services meeting in the city of Vancouver. Nobody recognizes that lady, and this year we are. For the few pennies that it's going to cost, I tell you that it's worthwhile, and I don't make any apologies for it. I don't make any apologies either for the kind of support that we're trying to give. I make no apologies for the kind of work that my ministry is doing and will continue to do. Hopefully we'll be able to overcome the problems that you've identified, listed and made inventory of tonight.

You have made erroneous statements and non-factual statements in the House tonight. I wish that you would take a look at the programs we have, because there is a great

[ Page 899 ]

story to be told there. It's a good story in this Year of the Child and Family. We're doing things for families in this province. We've got families together. We've got some good programs going, and we're going to continue to do it.

MS. BROWN: I would just like to continue, Mr. Chairman, by saying that the people who are doing the good deeds are not doing them because they'd like to have a scroll handed out to them at a chamber of commerce meeting, or because they would like to have a medal to hang on their chest. We all know people who do good deeds, and those people do good deeds because they care about people and they care about children. They are the first people, if they were asked, who would say: "Use that $750,000, a measly $750,000, on the children."

The doers of good deeds are the first ones who would say: "Don't use it to make a scroll for me to hand out to me at a chamber of commerce dinner. Use it on the children. Do what you can about those kids who are going to school without any food in their lunch buckets." If that money can be used to give one hot meal a day to those children, those doers of good deeds would appreciate it much more than having a scroll to hang on their wall or to have a medal to pin on their chest.

I'm not asking the minister to apologize for her ministry. I know they're doing a good job. They were doing it before she came there, and they're doing it despite her being there. I'm not asking for an apology. I am merely saying that the money that is there should be spent on the children. Please. That's all I am saying to the minister.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'll be gentle — no, really. Naturally I have memories of the past. I am almost tempted to ask the minister where her secret police are, but I realize that she must have left them in her last ministry, and it's a possibility that this is why she got moved.

Now how is she going to move them to where she is now? That minister should not have stood up in this House and suggested that a responsible MLA like my colleague might possibly be stretching the truth. That is the minister who walked around this province for three years accusing the government of the day of having a secret police force, of having ammunitions stowed away here and there. Fast Gun Harry Cocke is what I was known as in them thar days.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why did you do it?

MR. COCKE: "Why did you do it?" that simpleminded little minister for the Okanagan says.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll ask you to withdraw that statement, please.

MR. COCKE: "Simple-minded"? Yes, I'm sure I'll withdraw "simple." Yes, I'll withdraw minded as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To all members, I would like to point out that we are discussing vote 140. Administrative actions are not the issue.

MR. COCKE: We're discussing the responsibility of a person who made the kind of charges that she made. I'm suggesting she is very poorly fit for this ministry. This is a ministry involving human beings, a ministry that requires real integrity, a ministry that requires a good deal of human instinct. Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether she's wanting.

The one thing that I stand in this House tonight to discuss just for a few moments is something that's very close to my heart: Woodlands. I listened to the minister a few moments ago. She quoted Mrs. Hughes. She quoted Dr. Pauline Hughes. I mean she quoted the wife of the candidate that ran against me in New Westminster — the Social Credit candidate, not the Conservative. That Woodlands program has been going on for years under this ministry.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this a big expose?

MR. COCKE: If I needed a big expose, do you know where I'd go? I'd go to the third chair on that side of the House. I would say that the people are not being well represented in Delta. That would be a big expose. He only sits in his seat and never stands up and talks.

The Golden Ears Park program for retarded children in Woodlands has been a first-class program. It's a camping program that has been a boon to those children. Why has it been cancelled? It's been cancelled for the same reason every worthwhile program that this government should be supporting has been cancelled. It's because they're squeezing for dollars. My colleague points out that they're prepared to spend $750,000 on a PR program; they were prepared to spend multi-thousands of dollars on a Captain Cook program. Yet they will not take the children from Woodlands to Golden Ears Park for their camping program.

That's not all that's suffering.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Parks and recreation — this applies to one of your parks.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Which one of the hundred?

MR. COCKE: Well, you wouldn't know. You haven't had time to find out where the washroom is yet; by the time you do, you'll be moved somewhere else. You've been found wanting in every ministry you've had to date. Why should this be a change?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for New Westminster has the floor.

MR. COCKE: He's been down talking to a colleague of his, I'm sure. I can tell by the sound of his voice.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to read you a letter. I won't identify the person, but it's a letter that's signed and very.... But it gives an idea, I think, of what's happening in Woodlands. This is a letter to the minister, and if she cares to look it up, it's dated June 1 of this year. It starts out:

"Dear Mrs. McCarthy:

"I am writing to you for help. My daughter has been a resident of Woodlands school for 20 years."

Remember, it wasn't long ago that she was telling about this marvelous letter that she got.

[ Page 900 ]

"She will be 31 years old in November. Up to now she has been very happy and content, thanks to the dedication and high quality of the staff. Recently she was moved from ward 21 to ward 33 in the Fraserview building. The quality of the staff is still excellent but she has become very unhappy. Instead of progressing she is regressing. I can only attribute this to the decline in the quality of her environment."

They're concentrating people in Woodlands and they are putting people in the wrong kind of situation because of the stringent budget — just exactly the same as we find in the hospital situation. She goes on:

"While in CP 21 she and the other residents had access to the auditorium and a patio. There were ramps for wheelchairs, and sufficient staff to take them to all the functions and dances, which were a great source of pleasure to her. It is no longer physically convenient for the staff to take the residents to the various functions, and now we understand that as of June 15 the staff is being cut by three."

Doesn't this sound like more of the same old Socred stuff? International Year of the Child? Loving family of British Columbia? Marvellous minister? Well, well!

"As a parent I would like to see the former residents of CP 21 returned to that building, and I would like to see conditions returned to the way they were then. I do not understand why this should not be possible. Woodlands has had decent conditions for over 20 years and there is no justification for this sudden decline. But if this is not possible then there are many things that can be done to improve things at ward 33, both for the staff and the residents."

She then goes on to outline what those things might be. She says:

"If the staff is made more comfortable in their positions then it must follow that the residents will benefit. So my first request is that the staff be maintained at levels which would be sufficient to enable them to maintain the programs which were the only source of enjoyment and pleasure for most of the residents. Cutting staff will mean that my daughter and the other residents will get only minimal care, feeding and bathing. I have worked in private hospitals and I know very well that a minimal staff never has time for any extras.

"My second request is that the residents not be required to eat their meals in the boys' dormitory. As things stand they eat in a very crowded dormitory, and should one of the young men become ill or nauseated, they still must sit there and eat their meal.

"My third request is that an alternative be found for the fire escape system. As it is, all the fire doors are kept locked. We were told that this is because the former residents of 21 CP are now housed with people who are security risks, which I take to mean people who will use the fire doors to escape from custody of the staff. This is hazardous, especially since my daughter and many others are in wheelchairs and could not escape if their lives depended on it. I think that mixing high-risk residents with zero-risk residents is grossly negligent practice and should not be tolerated.

"My fourth request is that a better day-room be provided. The present day-room is so crowded that should one of the residents have a seizure or require immediate attention for some other reason, it is very difficult for the staff to get to them to administer the required aid; it's almost impossible to get them out of the room."

She goes on to request air-conditioning, because it's so hot as the sun shines in the huge southern-exposure windows which are not open.

"There is neither air-conditioning nor ventilation. It is my opinion that this is a health hazard."

Can you imagine that poor kid this week?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Dennis, what date is that?

MR. COCKE: June 11, 1979.

"My sixth request is that a covered patio be provided so that the residents can sit outside on warm evenings. As it is, they are put to bed at 6 to 6:30, which is cruel. It's cruel because it's unfair to have to go to bed so early when they get few enough pleasures in their lives, and it is cruel because of the lack of air-conditioning.

"My seventh request is that ramps be provided so that the staff does not need to use the little elevators to get residents up and down. It's a lot of extra work for them and very dangerous in case of fire or other emergency.

"My eighth request is that the residents be provided with certain facilities that they have already been promised: side tables, individual wardrobes and privacy curtains.

"I think it's very little to ask. I hope you'll look into this matter because if these things continue, I know that some of the residents — my daughter included — will regress severely and become vegetables. She already dreads returning there when we take her home on visits for a few hours on Sunday. She has never before in her life been reluctant to go back; she has always looked forward to going back to her home. Now she fears it. We would appreciate it if you, or a representative, would visit ward 33 without giving notice to the administration. Please insist on looking at everything. It is our understanding that some parts of the building have been closed to official visitors. I am sure the staff would cooperate fully, because they are just as concerned as the parents about the treatment that our children are getting."

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Was that letter addressed to me or to you'?

MR. COCKE: It's addressed to you, Madam Minister. That's what I said at the outset. A copy was addressed to me and a covering letter was addressed to me, as the local MLA, which I didn't read. Mr. Chairman, I'm not singling out the minister as being specifically responsible for this case. But I am saying that this is the kind of symptom that we have when we overlook priorities, as we have in some of the human services and particularly in a year such as the year that we have now, a year when the children should be recognized as

[ Page 901 ]

being extremely important as the United Nations has expressed in their resolution.

I would hope that the minister will look into this situation. She can have another copy of the letter if she wishes. As I say, it was addressed on June 1 and it went to her office, I'm sure, at that time. But this is a very sad case.

I want to say again that Woodlands has been going through a transition period. It was moved to the Ministry of Human Resources, I think, and well it should have been. It was under the Ministry of Health for years and years and years in this province. When I was Minister of Health, it was transferred to the then Minister of Human Resources and has remained there ever since...

HON. MR. GARDOM: Aye.

MR. COCKE: ...the Attorney-General notwithstanding. Or he is standing — he's not with.

Mr. Chairman, it's a situation that department is going to have to come to grips with because the service has been declining and will continue to decline until it becomes a priority in the eyes of the minister.

I suggest that when that report came out in our local press some months ago, when the cancellation of a simple camping program for retarded children came to public light, that was enough to send people in my town into orbit. We have absorbed many of the people from Woodlands. I think New Westminster has a very high population of people that are considered retarded. I think that we handle them well. I think that we treat them well. We have workshops and we also have many boarding places where they live. Many of us know a great part of that population.

But when the people in Woodlands can't get out into the community and are stuck there with nothing to look forward to, and then one of the great adventures that they have every summer — the camping program to Golden Ears Park — is cancelled, that is just too much. We're talking now in terms of 250 young people who deserve our support. There isn't a taxpayer in this province that would deny them access to that if they had their way. It's just this government, in their tight-fisted way of doing business with their institutions, that has created this kind of havoc and this kind of very unhappy situation in Woodlands School.

I hope, Mr. Chairman, that there will be second thoughts about this question. I know that the minister is going to have to think over a lot of the things that she said in her opening remarks. She was giving all the loving kindness expression in those opening remarks. She could have struck a few less medals, and she could have printed a few less songbooks and scrolls and let those children have their day at Golden Ears Park.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, my intention is to be quite brief this evening. I wanted to make a couple of non-related comments about the minister's responsibilities. The first is that earlier this year, when I realized that the program of the ministry and of the government in relationship to the United Nations resolution was to fly in the face of and contradict the decisions made by the United Nations, I didn't know whether I was angry or just sad. It was one of the saddest days in the history of this province. It's not terribly significant in the overall scheme of things, but it's a symbol of the lack of understanding of some members of the party in power at the present time. It's a lack of understanding about what it was that the United Nations was trying to do with its International Year of the Child.

To change the name — not just the symbol — and the focus and the emphasis, and to deny the whole purpose that the United Nations had set is, in my judgment, one of the greater mistakes made by the government. It's not that it's of any big significance to people's lives in this province; it isn't. But I think it establishes a kind of absolute lack of understanding about what problems children face in our society. I guess my initial reaction was a combination of anger and disappointment. My response now is one of simple sadness that the government chose to go in that direction. I think it was wrong.

There are so many problems that children face in our society. If we as MLAs would all stand up and make speeches about all of the individual cases and all of the situations, we would be here for many days discussing these estimates.

I want to say that the minister's response concerning child care was not necessarily inaccurate, not necessarily wrong, but it totally misunderstood the situation concerning child care in the community. I know a great many people in this province who, because there are no adequate child-care facilities, give their children keys so the children can go home after school. In the holidays the children are free to roam the streets. I know a great many parents in this province who allow their children to go into illegal baby-sitting situations — the mother down the street who is home and who takes in any number of kids, not through the licence program but just on an ad hoc basis, because there are no child-care facilities.

I know a great many women in this province who are forced to stay home — particularly in remote communities. They are forced to stay home, unable to go to work which they would like to do, simply because there are no facilities for child care. If the government had a commitment to make those kinds of facilities available, then you would find they would fill up very, very rapidly. I can guarantee you that would happen from Vancouver to Port McNeill, and in every community in between and beyond.

The only other matter I wanted to raise tonight is one that I have had several cases of lately. It relates to a decision of your predecessor to merge HPIA and social assistance, to in effect have Handicapped Persons Income Allowance treated as welfare. It's treated that way in the estimates; it's all lumped into the one sum under social allowances. Under the NDP government, we had HPIA as a separate function. That allowed people who were handicapped and refused to go on welfare, because for some reason they found "welfare" demeaning, to accept a handicapped pension and hold their heads high. I have had three cases in the last couple of months — since the election — of people whom your staff tell me are eligible for HPIA, who are not on HPIA because they will not apply for "welfare." It's a very simple matter. I don't know whether you are getting notes prepared to argue with me, but don't, because your staff, your social workers in the field, are telling people that it's welfare. They have to because it is under the vote and under the way the ministry is run. I'm asking you sincerely, not in a political way, just as a sincere request from one MLA to another, that you seriously consider taking HPIA away from social allowance, so that people who — for wrong reasons,

[ Page 902 ]

in my judgment — feel that welfare is demeaning can apply for HPIA and hold their heads high.

MS. BROWN: I thought that maybe the minister was going to respond, but if she doesn't want to, I will just complete a couple of statements I was making about the International Year of the Child. I started to talk about poverty just at the time when the light went on, and I couldn't speak any more. I want to specifically talk about something that was done by the ministry, that in fact affects children more than any other group in British Columbia. This is the wiping out of the special-needs category of the welfare rates.

What happened, Mr. Chairman — and this is really very interesting — is that when the federal government decided to reorganize the whole family allowance system so that people below a certain income level could receive more benefits than others, the federal Minister of Health and Welfare asked the provinces not to take this sum of money into account and categorize it as income for welfare purposes.

In other words, under the old system the family allowance cheque that used to come for $20 a month or whatever was not considered income, and so your welfare rate was not affected by it. So when the federal scheme changed, and it went to a lump sum payment at the beginning of the year, the federal minister approached the provinces and said: "Don't tax this. Don't accept this as income. Allow it to go through."

She received a commitment from the provincial minister saying: "We wouldn't tax it. It's not going to be considered income. The families are going to be allowed to keep their $300."

But what did she do at the same time? At the same time, she eliminated the special-needs category from the welfare rates. And what the special-needs category does — for the benefit of the Attorney-General, who is really interested in this — is that in those instances where children need a winter coat or additional blankets for the bed, or shoes or boots for school, or any additional kind of expense, they would go to the social worker. The social worker would make an assessment of the request and the money would be given out of the special-needs fund.

Ninety percent of the requests on special needs, maybe more than that, went to children, whether it was to purchase a new mattress for a bed or an additional piece of furniture, or clothing, or whatever. The special-needs fund took care of that. By the process of wiping out special needs, what the minister in fact did was to put the family in a situation where they had to use the family allowance cheque. This lump sum now became their special-needs cheque. So she achieved the same goal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Worse.

MS. BROWN: Worse. That's right. They say, "no, it's not income, we're not going to tax it," but wipe out the special-needs category. On the special needs a family could get up to $500. The family allowance lump sum payment is $300.

So three things happened to the family. The monthly family allowance cheque went down to a lower figure, so that was an immediate cut in income for the welfare recipient family; the special-needs category disappeared totally; and the family ended up with $200 less to operate with as a result of this new system. All of this was instituted and became part of the system, part of what this loving British Columbia does for the children, in this the Year of Our Lord Nineteen Hundred and Seventy-Nine, the International Year of the Child. Poverty is worse, and the impact of poverty on the children of this province is worse as a result of that minister's decision to wipe out the special needs category.

If the minister is serious about the International Year of the Child, and wants to do something meaningful about that, the first thing she should do is to reinstate the special needs category. I know there is a crisis category. I've seen the memorandum part of the manual that goes out that says that if the child's life is in danger or in the case of a crisis this thing will be viewed under those circumstances. I have a letter here from a minister of one of the churches in Vancouver who tells of a case of a family who were moving from rotten, filthy housing into decent housing, courtesy of the government's willingness to pay the full rent supplement, but they couldn't go because there was no money for moving costs. That's what special needs would have done. It would have picked up the tab for the moving costs. But there is no special needs, so unless each member of the family moves with one piece of furniture on their heads back and forth or something — they can't move.

So rather than the scrolls, rather than the song book, rather than the medals or whatever else — gimmickry — that the minister has in mind, here is a concrete thing that can be done for those more than 58,000 children on the welfare rolls. The children make up more than half of the welfare rolls. Reintroduce that special-needs category and still allow them to keep that $300 without it being considered as income.

The Attorney-General is getting fidgety. Would you like me to move?

HON. MR. GARDOM: No. The minister's got an answer for you.

MS. BROWN: But I haven't finished my questions.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Are you going to be on tomorrow, Rosemary?

MS. BROWN: Oh, yes.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: You wouldn't want the facts to get out tonight; you want to wait until 1 o'clock tomorrow.

MS. BROWN: This is not an occasion for facetiousness, really.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. BROWN: It isn't. I am trying to make a serious suggestion to the minister, and she has chosen to use it as an opportunity to be facetious. I do want the facts to get out; that's precisely why I am raising the issue at this time. Now if the minister has a response, I'm quite willing to hear it, but it's not necessary to be facetious.

[ Page 903 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In response to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, first of all, let me say that we were the first province to exempt for the tax credit in response to the federal administration. Let me just explain the new system. You're saying that it diminishes the special needs. When we increased the shelter allowance under income assistance, we made provision in two ways: first of all, we still retain the special needs for work-related expenses, and we still retain the special needs for people who can prove they have a very special need, such as a crisis need, as you well explained.

Let me tell you what the difference is between the system we had before, which you speak of, as compared to now. We had a squeaky-wheel system. Those who went into a ministry office and talked the longest and loudest got the special need. There were people, though, who were in housing which was not adequate, and they did not have those special programs. It was a squeaky-wheel system. We have substantially increased the rates, particularly in the shelter allowances. Maintenance is included in the shelter allowance, which it didn't include before. We also pay the Hydro and the telephone, which was not included before. That's a departure that wasn't under any administration until April of this year. And that's a good departure. I think you would agree with that. Can I just explain to you that we encourage people to seek better housing by virtue of that change? And they have. They've improved their housing. They've upgraded their housing, and this has made it possible. I'm awfully pleased you agree and nod your head in support of that.

Could I just say that in regard to the family tax credit, which was brought in by the federal government, it was our government that said we should not deny the children's allowances for the first month of the year? The $8 allowance, which they would feel very strongly, was continued under this administration. That wasn't done in the other provinces. So I disagree with you on that. I just think that now everybody is getting special needs by virtue of a better deal, and the squeaky wheels are getting it too. They're all getting it.

To the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), who made the comments regarding the $750,000 for the Year of the Child, I could tell you that was just the first part of the Year of the Child allocation. We have asked for more funds for the Year of the Child and Family, and when you consider that the federal government is spending only $1 million in all of Canada for the Year of the Child, I think British Columbia is doing pretty well. I'll answer the others tomorrow, Mr. Chairman, if I may.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I file an answer to a question standing in my name on the order paper.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:05 p.m.

[ Page 904 ]

APPENDIX

25 Mr. Hall asked the Hon. the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services the following questions:

With reference to the Queen's Printer-

1. Was any work contracted out in the years 1976/77, 1977/78, and 1978/79?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, (a) what was the total dollar value in each year and (b) what was the number of jobs involved in each year?

3. What was the total number of employees of the Queen's Printer in each year?

4. What was the name of each successful bidder or recipient of the contracts awarded and the amounts they received?

The Hon. H. A. Curtis replied as follows:

"1. Yes.

"2. (a) 1976/77, $2, 75,624.12; 1977/78, $3,500,309.16; and 1978/79, $5,500,004.82.

(b) Queen's Printer records do not reflect this information. An inordinate amount of time and effort would be required to obtain same.

"3. The total number of employees of the Queen's Printer as of the beginning of each fiscal year was: 1976/77, 138; 1977/78, 129; and 1978/79, 125.

"4. The following is a list of commercial printing firms to which the Queen's Printer awarded contracts in the three fiscal years. The amount for each firm is the total of the invoices paid in each of the fiscal years:

[ Page 905 ]