[ Page 5889 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Juvenile charged with keeping a common bawdy-house. Mr. Leggatt –– 5889

Ms. Brown

Racial discrimination. Mr. Leggatt –– 5889

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Barrett

Urea formaldehyde in B.C. schools. Mr. Cocke –– 5890

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Human Resources estimates. (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

On vote 117: minister's office –– 5891

Ms. Brown

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Levi

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Cocke

MONDAY, JUNE 1, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In the members' gallery today is Mr. Brian Powell, a director of the Victorian Chamber of Manufacturers, who is visiting from Melbourne, Australia. I hope the House will make him welcome.

Oral Questions

JUVENILE CHARGED WITH
KEEPING A COMMON BAWDY-HOUSE

MR. LEGGATT: My question was to be directed to the Attorney-General, who isn't yet in the premises. He was, no doubt, again expecting that prayers, or at least introductions, would last a little longer than they did. I think I see him coming through the portals now.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney-General. Early last week a female juvenile, aged 14, was arrested in Vancouver on a charge of keeping a common bawdy-house. I would think that the Attorney-General has now had sufficient time to investigate the circumstances surrounding this particular incident. Would the Attorney-General advise the House why charges were not laid under section 193(2) of the Criminal Code — that is, for being a found-in in a common bawdy-house — against the adult male person who was found to be with this young lady?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The matter has been under investigation by the authorities all this past week. I expect to have a report in my hands in a day or two. I'll be happy to share it with the member.

MR. LEGGATT: My supplementary question is this. Not only would there appear to be appropriate charges that should have been laid in respect to the adult male being a found-in, but under section 33(l) of the Juvenile Delinquents Act there seems to be a prima facie case, anyway, of contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile. Can the Attorney-General advise the House whether that aspect was also under investigation by his officials, and can he now advise why it has taken this long for any charges to be laid with respect to the matter?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure the member is not asking for a legal opinion. Part of the question is in order.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the report that will come to me, which I will be happy to share with the member, will cover all aspects to which he refers.

MR. LEGGATT: In the process of this investigation, I'd like to point out to the Attorney-General, if he'll examine the records of prosecutions under section 193(2) of the Criminal Code — the found-in provision — that charges are almost never laid against the male found-ins of bawdy-houses. My question is this: is it a policy of the Attorney-General's ministry that the victims of prostitution, namely the prostitutes, must be charged while the customers, without whom there would be no prostitution, are constantly allowed to go free?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, it is not a policy of this ministry, Mr. Speaker. But as the member well knows, these matters have been dealt with in the courts with differing results in different provinces. If we can be successful in the prosecution of a found-in, then the instructions are to proceed.

MS. BROWN: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I understand that section 192 of the Criminal Code deals with the leasing or renting of premises for the use of keeping a bawdy house, yet we have not been able to find a single instance of prosecution of any of the hotels in the area which lease rooms to these young women to be used for prostitution. Can the Attorney-General say whether it is the policy of this government not to ensure that section 192 of the Criminal Code is enforced?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the member that that is not the policy of this ministry.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, my question deals with an incident reported this morning that the Ku Klux Klan held a cross-burning ceremony near Mission on the weekend. The ceremony was reportedly accompanied by Ku Klux Klan guards armed with rifles. Has the Attorney-General decided to investigate this incident, particularly with reference not only to the hate propaganda sections of the Criminal Code but also with regard to possible firearms violations by that group?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's not a question of policy; it is already under investigation.

MR. BARNES: I have a question for the Minister of Labour, dealing with the same matter. Alexander MacWhirter, a longtime spokesman for the Klan in Canada, is quoted as saying: "This incident is the first step taken by the Ku Klux Klan in going public." He further said: "Such actions are planned in British Columbia." In view of these developments can the minister explain why he has continued to suppress the McAlpine report?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With respect to the comments which were made, I've only had the opportunity to hear them on the air. However, I certainly don't doubt the veracity of those comments nor do I doubt the sincerity of the member's question. It's a detestable occurrence. I have been concerned about exactly what has happened; and what has happened on at least eight previous occasions of which I am aware. With that in mind, the member is well aware why we are identifying the deficiencies in the Code and why a report was commissioned. I've advised the member before that the particulars and some of the recommendations in the report are being analyzed. and we're reviewing a number of alternatives. I intend to carry out those recommendations. When we have made that determination the report will be filed. I might add one thing. There is a very difficult issue which we must face. It's identified in the report; it was known before the report was commissioned and delivered. This is one of the reasons why, as a government, we are still working on that problem.

[ Page 5890 ]

MR. BARRETT: I have a supplementary question to the minister. What possible reason could there be, other than government policy, for protecting the people of British Columbia from the contents of the McAlpine report? Does the minister believe the people of British Columbia are not capable of handling a government report that is currently being suppressed and may be misinterpreted because of its suppression?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The government is not suppressing that report. I suspect the Leader of the Opposition, when he was in government, upon receipt of oodles of reports, took it upon himself, I suspect, to analyze them thoroughly and make recommendations based on those reports. There is no intention whatsoever on the part of the government to suppress anything.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the report has been in the government's hands for 60 days — almost two months. Now, after all of the intervening incidents, does the minister still feel that it is necessary to keep this report secret from the people of British Columbia, while incidents continue to build up publicly around this very serious issue?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I don't really believe that particular report is going to stop incidents from occurring at all. As a matter of fact, I think that when the Leader of the Opposition was in government the same problems which now face us faced his government as well; they had for many years. Yet I note that there is a deficiency in the Code now, which was a problem that should have been addressed at that time as well. They chose not to, and I believe it was through inadvertence — no intention at all…. But it's a fact that it speaks for itself.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary, not to enter into the argumentative answer by the minister, but to point out that the Human Rights Code was introduced by the NDP government, not suppressed for 20 years or 20 months. We brought the Code in.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the Code was always open for amendment. I ask the minister specifically and directly: what reason is there in that report that leads him to believe that the people of British Columbia cannot decide what action they feel should be supported by a government in this regard? What is it in the report that holds him back from releasing it to the public?

MR. SPEAKER: That question is basically the same one asked before.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I think the material the Leader of the Opposition has raised was canvassed earlier. I repeat that I think the contents of that report have done nothing more than cover a number of incidents of the past. The report makes certain recommendations. The problem giving rise to the report has been with us for a long time. I intend to face up to those issues and follow through with the recommendations which were made.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, is the minister of the opinion that information in a report like this is best dealt with privately by government or publicly displayed for every citizen to examine and judge for themselves as to the nature of this problem? Does the minister think that the public is being served best by this report being kept secret?

MR. BARNES: I have just one matter for the minister to consider. In light of the possibility that vigilante groups may form on both sides of this issue, what advice does the minister have for those parties that may feel that there is no recourse other than to take action into their own hands in the meantime, while he sits and deliberates whether or not the report that he has is applicable or usable in this matter?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Of course no one is inviting vigilante groups to form in any way whatsoever. With respect to the enforcement of law and order, I believe that perhaps that question should be directed to my colleague the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams).

UREA FORMALDEHYDE IN B.C. SCHOOLS

MR. COCKE: I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Education. Last week the minister responded to questions regarding the presence of urea formaldehyde insulation in the walls of provincial schools. Can he advise the House whether since that time any other cases of urea formaldehyde usage in the schools have been brought to his attention?

HON. MR. SMITH: Not directly, hon. member, but I will check and respond further if there is.

MR. COCKE: On May 19 — this is June 1 — the school board in Kamloops was notified that ten of the kindergarten demountable classrooms in that district are insulated with urea formaldehyde. My understanding is that the minister's ministry was notified as well. Why has the minister kept this to himself, and will he act immediately to protect the welfare of the kindergarten students in Kamloops?

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order. Please proceed.

HON. MR. SMITH: I will certainly look into that specific matter, hon. member. If it's been known to you since May 19, I wish you had brought it to my attention earlier.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the minister attributed words to me that I did not utter. I did not know. I said that the school board was notified on May 19; I was notified today. I want him to know that clearly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That's not a real point of order.

Hon. members, I couldn't help but observe that today's question period, although subjects covered could have been touchy ones, was nonetheless conducted in a most orderly fashion, and I would be remiss if I didn't commend you.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wish to inquire under standing order 26 about a matter of privilege raised by the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) on Friday last.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the question of privilege which was raised was not initially raised by the member for Atlin, as I recall, but perhaps by the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot). The question of

[ Page 5891 ]

privilege raised by the member for Atlin was taken under consideration by the Chair. When it is determined if a matter of privilege exists, then, of course, it will be taken into consideration immediately, according to standing order 26.

MR. BARRETT: Whether or not there is indeed a question of privilege is a matter of a ruling from the Chair, according to my understanding. The ruling itself is the matter that I'm inquiring of. There has been a weekend intervening since the member raised it. A certain amount of damage could certainly have been done in the public's mind, related to misstatements by the minister, as the member versus the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. The minister withdrew, or did not wish to pursue by motion, but the member did. There is a sense of urgency, as related by our standing orders.

The other question I have is: could we have the standing orders printed in larger print?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, as soon as the determination has been made on the question raised by the member for Atlin it will be reported to the House without prejudice to the member.

MRS. DAILLY: With leave, could I make an introduction?

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MRS. DAILLY: It's on behalf of my colleague, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon. There are two of his constituents in the gallery today: Mr. and Mrs. Rasmussen. They are accompanied by their guests, Mr. and Mrs. Andresson and their daughter from Iceland.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

On vote 117: minister's office, $233,936.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, as I'm getting into a few statements regarding my ministry, I would just like to say, following question period, that our ministry covers very many services to people, among which are services to senior citizens. I just want to tell the Leader of the Opposition, while he's still in the House, that one of the things we have been very careful to do in all our communications to senior citizens is to enlarge the print. I thought you would be interested in that, Mr. Leader of the Opposition.

I stand in my place today with a great deal of pride in having the responsibility for the Ministry of Human Resources. I am pleased, too, to tell you that with me today is the Deputy Minister of Human Resources, John Noble, and the comptroller of our ministry, Mr. Martin Cook. May I just say that since we last had our estimates in this House, Mr. Noble has taken a fairly long leave of absence, for one of the very few times in his professional career, to undergo hospitalization. I'm glad to tell you that he is back and well, serving our ministry and the people of British Columbia in his most effective and dedicated way once again.

I would also like to cover a few of the things I think have been important in this past year. I am pleased to note that as we begin our estimates for this year, my preceding colleagues, who have been responsible for the Ministry of Education and for social services, have addressed the Year of the Disabled. The Year of the Disabled, I think, in terms of our province's contribution, has been exceptionally well looked after in this province. I am really proud of the fact that when our ministers of social services met just a week or so ago in this parliament building, having reports around the table from the various ministries reflecting on the federal government's initiative in the Year of the Disabled, the province of British Columbia, under the leadership of the chairman of the Year of the Disabled, my colleague the Minister of Education, and under the auspices of the executive-director of the Year of the Disabled, Mr. Doug Mowat, has presented to the people of British Columbia, I think, the most ambitious plan in all of Canada for the Year of the Disabled. I'm very proud of that.

In this Year of the Disabled I would also like to make mention of two or three of the programs which I think are of particular note. I'm pleased that the estimates we are debating will show that there has been a doubling of the program which has been such a popular program since its inception and does such good work, the infant development program. We are really pleased with the strides this has taken over these past two years. The doubling of that program will mean an opportunity for tiny ones with problems that are recognized early in their lifetimes to be corrected or for some assistance to be given. Above all it gives tremendous assistance to the families carrying more than the usual burden in trying to find help for those youngsters. So I'm very pleased with the doubling of that budget. In the years to come, that will probably be one of the programs that will be doubled and redoubled, because what it is doing in the community at the early stages is truly the kind of preventive social service work people have talked about for years but have not always put into action.

I'm also pleased to report, in recognition of the year of the handicapped, the fact that services for the retarded have had a tremendous amount of attention from all of our social services ministries. The interministerial committee and the committee of the deputies as well as the ministers in the government have addressed the concerns of the British Columbia Association for the Mentally Retarded, as well as other organizations and people who have come forward. Very shortly we will be presenting to the people of British Columbia our program for the eighties for the retarded of the province.

I'd like to state not just what we are going to do but also what we have accomplished in the services to the retarded. It has been a most aggressive program, one that has been outstanding in leading the way in the country. My colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who had the responsibility for the Ministry of Human Resources, was the first minister in the country to recognize what other ministries and other associations across this country have started to recognize. [Applause.] That is well deserved applause, I might say to my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He recognized, when he had this responsibility, that we must bring young people in institutions into the community. He established two programs which have been outstanding in this country and have led the way for other administrations to bring the mentally retarded into the most

[ Page 5892 ]

normal community setting possible. Later in these estimates, no doubt, I'll have an opportunity to tell you how the population of the institutions has been depopulated and young people and older retardates have been given the opportunity to live in the community.

I have a particular interest in the autistic child. I think that in the months and years to come we will see some updated areas of service for the autistic child. One of the things which has really assisted is the identification of autism which, frankly, is so new to the province and even the nation. Autism has really been recognized for just about a decade. Our services and the people who work with the autistic child have had a remarkable, if you like, coming of age in the last few years. I think some really remarkable things are going to be done in that regard.

I want to again stress the fact that in this province, where we are spending $3 million on the Year of the Disabled, the emphasis has been on ability and making those who are disabled more a part of the community life and more able. I really believe that by the end of the year that budget will have done the kind of job we can all be proud of.

In reference to the handicapped I also want to refer to the CHANCE program. You'll recall that it was initiated just a short year and a half ago. The CHANCE program assists the handicapped to have education in the normal school setting. It has been a great credit to the instructors in the schools, the schools, the Ministry of Human Resources, who have aides in the classroom, and to the Ministry of Education. It was initiated under the former minister, but enhanced and very much encouraged by the present Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith). Those young people who would ordinarily not have even a limited education are given an opportunity to get into the classroom in a normal setting. Surely that should be our goal. In this Year of the Disabled, surely our goal should be that we shall not make people who are disabled different from the rest of the community, but encompass them in the normal setting in the classroom, the shopping centres, the workplace, the community halls and all the community areas. Surely that is our desire. The CHANCE program, which was introduced by this government a year and a half ago, pays tribute to that premise above everything else, and has been, I believe, exceptionally successful.

I would also like to make reference to some of the services we have for senior citizens in the province. There has always been an ongoing debate as to whether or not we have services in our province which really pay tribute to the pioneers of the province. I'm really pleased to have information, and if it's wanted during the estimates I'd be pleased to offer it to our colleagues. What I would just like to say is that we're very pleased indeed to have the kind of services for seniors in this province which have been the envy of other jurisdictions.

If we were to take a look at all the services — and that includes health services, human resource services, services in education and so on — I think I can honestly say that when the social services ministers met last week — and all but three were present, representing the provinces and the territories…. I can safely say that we in British Columbia can certainly be proud of the social services which we give to our fellow citizens. Those services are only as good as the people who serve in our ministries, the people who deliver the services and those volunteers who give of their time throughout the years. There has always been a recognition of volunteers in our ministry, and when we really address how many hundreds and hundreds of hours our volunteers give throughout the province it is an amazing amount of time. Above all, it's an amazing amount of dedication, which I would like to pay tribute to today.

I would also like to pay tribute to the ministry staff. My ministry staff numbers 5,000. There are some 200 officers in the province of British Columbia, and as I travel the province and meet with the Ministry of Human Resources people, I feel that I can honestly convey to the House that our ministry is in good hands with people who truly care at the community level. As I said before, our programs and the delivery of our programs is only as good as the people who are there on the front lines dealing day to day with people in trouble, the people who need help and the people who need a special lift along the way.

Speaking of a lift along the way, there is one program that I would really like to address and share with you today. As a matter of fact, the last time I had the opportunity to speak before the House on my estimates I did say that we were beginning a program called the Individual Opportunity Plan. I hope that each and every member of the House has had an opportunity to see the program here in Victoria — which has been going now for some nine or ten months — which was the pilot project which began all the others we now see throughout the province. I don't think I could explain how tremendous this program is in terms of helping people, but I'll read you one of the letters. I've had several more, but I would like to read one of the letters which came to me from an upper Vancouver Island resident. For obvious reasons I'm not going to identify the writer, but this is just one that expresses the kind of effort that the people in my ministry are making through the individual opportunities program and shows how it is truly working.

This letter from Nanaimo, written in March, says:

"I have recently completed a program sponsored by your ministry, the Individual Opportunity Plan. I must commend you on this plan, and I can do nothing but shout its praises. I am a single parent with two small children living on assistance. I'm not satisfied with my lot. I teach Brownies, I sew for the museum, I belong to a single-parents group…."

She tells about other things which she has worked on in the community, all on a volunteer basis, and I will not repeat those because of the identification.

"I have kept myself busy. I never seemed satisfied, though; I didn't know what was missing. I would go for job interviews, but I didn't get the job. I was offered this program. I knew nothing about it, but I was willing to give it a try. By the end of the first day I realized what was missing. It was like being hit with a hammer. The knowledge I have gained from this program I will carry with me forever and pass on to others.

"The instructors on the program worked as a team, reinforcing each other, coaching, schooling, reassuring and helping us to understand the principle of what they were teaching us. They took us through the program step by step, using visual aids and a well-organized, well-planned program. For some of us it took a little longer, because, as we all admitted, we had problems to overcome. With the encouragement of Don Comis and Tom Wright, and with each other, we all became winners, ready to take on the employers of the world, When it came time to do the phone

[ Page 5893 ]

interviews, we had self-confidence, and it came through as if we had absolutely no trouble getting personal interviews. We were motivated — boy, were we!

"There was one woman in our group who was single, and so far down in a rut that she had even contemplated suicide. By the end of the program she had changed. She became attractive, she liked herself again, her self-confidence came through, and she got good, successful interviews, The change in this woman was phenomenal.

"I would personally like to see this program taken into the schools as a compulsory grade 12 course. The children of today have a great disadvantage getting jobs. They all have the education, ability, drive and youth, but they lack the knowledge of how to approach an employer, dress, and in an interview, get and hold a job. There are rules to follow, but they don't know what the rules are. They, as much as single parents, need every advantage they can get. This is a solid gold one. Please continue this program.

"My own personal triumph came on the last day. I got a minimum part-time job at the Bay, doing personal evaluations; it is not much now, but the future opportunities are endless. I am glad there are still…."

Well, that's a personal note to me, and I'm not going to finish the letter. But I do want to say….

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, you know, the member for Victoria, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), who speaks on social services in this House, can joke and laugh about a single parent who now has a new lease on life. I find it a happy letter and an enjoyable letter. I also find it a little distasteful to see members on the other side of the House making light of something as important as a person's life — looking after two children and finding her independence again. I know that the philosophy of the socialists is to keep those who are down down in submission always, but that's not our philosophy on this side of the House.

The Individual Opportunity Plan has offered an opportunity not just to this woman but to many men and women throughout the province. It is a great credit to the staff of the ministry, who have designed an individual opportunity plan in different regions of the province, that it has been so successful.

I am really happy to report to you that since I last had the opportunity to speak on my estimates the program is doing very well. I am pleased too that in this last year we have had the proclamation of the Family and Child Service Act, which this House debated well and with, I think, good parliamentary decorum a few months ago. As a matter of fact, it was proclaimed just this week.

One thing I would like to address is something that we have accomplished this year. In the fall of 1980 we took the unique step of agreeing to respect the authority of a native Indian band, the Spallumcheen, over their own children. This agreement really received very wide support from the native Indian people. It is now in the process of being reviewed and planned for, for the children in the band who are in care, with a view to finding ways within existing legislation to return them safely to the care of the band. We believe this unique solution may be the kind of solution that we can have for other Indian bands throughout the province. Because it is a first in the nation, I think that it may even be one that can be copied by other parts of our nation.

I would not like to end my very few remarks on the introduction of these estimates without saying that I'm very happy to tell you that the Helpline for Children has been very successful. The toll-free Zenith telephone number which we have for young people who need help has really been accepted throughout the communities. I believe that we have really and truly helped save lives through that program. I'm very proud of that program, because it has been picked up by the province of Alberta. Just recently in the province of Alberta — I think about last August or September — they too introduced a line which they call by a different name. It was copied from British Columbia after they visited our service here. We can feel good that we have also led the way in Canada, and the rest of Canada is going to be doing somewhat the same throughout the different communities.

I want to mention that I have not felt that the assistance that we can give to those parents who are single and have been left by their spouses…. I do not believe that we have come as far in our enforcement of maintenance orders as we would have liked to. We still have some problems in that regard in order to get the very best system that we can possibly have. That is still under consideration by our ministry. Because it's such an important consideration, we want to have the very best policy. As far as we can see right now, we are getting close to a solution but not close enough to make any announcement at this time. But I can assure the House that the enforcement of maintenance orders — which truly makes life miserable and makes people live in an economic state that they should not be forced to live in — needs to be revised in this province and across this country. We are not going to rest until the enforcement of maintenance orders in this province is changed, so that particularly those who have children and those wives who are left and who have extremely miserable lives will indeed have a better way of life by the policies that we put in.

We are very concerned with the cost-sharing programs and the future of the Canada Assistance Plan. Although the federal government has not made any very definite statements, enough statements have been made that it looks as though the future of all social service funding in the Dominion of Canada is going to be changed to such a point that we are going to have some very difficult times in the years ahead. We work and continue to work with our colleagues across the country to make sure that we can have the very best delivery of social services Canada-wide. That includes the attention of the federal government. If they are going to take dollars out of the province, they must continue their cost-sharing programs, rather than cutting them off and leaving each of the provinces to fend for itself, I look forward to the debate that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is having today in Alberta and the help that the Finance ministers from across the country can perhaps give us in putting pressure on the federal government in order to have the very best health and welfare services across this nation.

In spite of my remarks about the funding and our concern, I am pleased to say that we have had an extremely good relationship. It is an expression of concern; it has nothing to do with being critical of the federal government. We have had the very best of relations with the federal minister and the

[ Page 5894 ]

federal government. The federal-provincial cooperation has been very good indeed. I think we have common objectives in social planning. I acknowledge the realities of financing.

Mr. Chairman, I hope these few remarks will introduce some subjects which the members of our House will pick up on. Please know that I can't cover everything in my ministry in half an hour or 20 minutes, because it is a very large and diverse ministry. But I hope this afternoon that the debate on the Ministry of Human Resources will see each and every member giving us constructive and important ideas in order that we can continue to go into the decade of the eighties serving our fellow citizens even better.

MS. BROWN: I'm certainly glad the minister has asked for some constructive suggestions. I think the most constructive one that I can give is to suggest that she resign right now. I can't believe, after listening to the fact that the Socreds had done a market survey and discovered that the winning word is "positive" and had decided to change all of their propaganda, actions and behaviour to more positive ones, that what we would be treated to this afternoon is a list and a litany of all the programs which the minister, through her government's actions and her own actions, has been eroding and destroying over the last year. That's precisely what has been happening. The past Minister of Human Resources knows it too. Every one of the programs which the minister has listed and mentioned is at risk as a result of that minister's actions and the government's actions. Yet the minister stands up, and instead of making positive statements by saying that her government is going to turn over a new leaf and that people in need in this province are now going to be served, what we get is a litany of all the programs that are dying, are being destroyed and are being eroded as a result of the actions of her and her government. So much for their market research. They had better come up with something better than "positive," because we certainly have not seen any indication of "positive" to date. My positive contribution to the debate is to suggest that the minister resign at this particular point.

A Ministry of Human Resources has a number of responsibilities to its people. As someone who has worked in the field for a number of years, I can only give you my perception. My perception is that the ministry has at least two things to do. It should deliver services and it should also act in an advocacy role on behalf of the people in the province who are dependent on its services. Despite the very excellent staff which the minister has to work with, despite the army of hard-working volunteers in this province and despite everything that the government has going for it, the minister and the ministry have failed on both counts. They are not meeting the need for services, and the minister is certainly not operating as an advocate for the people in need in this particular province.

Let us begin by specifically dealing with the advocacy role of the minister as it affects the children of this province. Let's start out by dealing with a topic which is of special interest to the minister, because when one goes through the records we find that she's always sending off telegrams on their behalf.

I want to start off by talking about the whole issue of teenage prostitution. When I went through the record, this is what I found. I found in 1979 a newspaper clipping indicating that the minister sent a cable to the federal Minister of Justice saying: "Something has to be done about teenage prostitution in this province, because it's a terrible, dreadful thing that is happening to the young people of British Columbia. Please amend the Criminal Code so that something can happen about it." I went through the records and found that again in 1980 there was a telegram sent to the minister responsible for the Criminal Code of Canada from the Minister of Human Resources, saying: "This is a terrible, dreadful thing that we have to deal with in British Columbia, this business of teenage prostitution." Lo and behold, in 1981, what do we find once again? The minister brought out the same telegrams she sent in 1979 and 1980. The same telegram is again being sent in 1981 to the Minister of Justice of Canada, saying: "Please do something about the Criminal Code, because we've got this terrible problem of teen-age prostitution in British Columbia." What else has the minister done, or what did the minister before her do? Well, the reality of the situation is that it takes two people. In fact, what we're looking at is a teenager as the victim in this particular instance. When we question the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) we find that the customer — the person who makes prostitution possible by paying for the service — is not being touched. We find, in fact, that charges are not being laid in 1981, charges were not laid in 1980 or 1979, and as far as we know charges have never been laid. In all of the research that's been done to try and find even one single case where the charge was laid, we haven't been able to find one. The Attorney-General has agreed that he is going to do some research and try and see if he can come up with one instance where a charge has been laid against an adult male who has purchased the services of a female child. That's what we're talking about.

We're not talking about telegrams being sent in 1979, 1980 and 1981. We're talking about the minister's role as an advocate for the children in this province, who should be able to say that a child that has been used by an adult male is a child at risk, a child that needs protection, and charges should be laid against that adult male. Yet there is not a word about the adult male. It shouldn't be necessary to send a telegram to the federal Minister of Justice. This minister is a member of the cabinet who has contact with the Attorney-General and the Premier; she has access to the delivery of justice in this province that nobody else in this province has. And what do we find happening in 1981? Precisely what happened in 1980, 1979, 1978, 1977 and forever.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No. In fact, if the minister had been able to apply some of the issues that were being dealt with at that time, she would have known, because the research is there and it states very clearly…. I can give her back copies of her own research which states very clearly that the child is a victim. You don't zero in on the victim; you zero in on the person who is perpetrating the crime, if indeed it is a crime — and it is a crime. It doesn't make any sense to keep sending off cables about the victim and letting the criminals go free.

The minister stands up and says she hopes that she will get some constructive suggestions and ideas. That's the second constructive suggestion I'm making, Mr. Chairman. First of all recognize that a child is a child, and when a child is being used by an adult, that child is a victim. The minister's responsibility is to protect that child, not to participate in the myths and the fantasies and the scapegoating that is going on surrounding the children — the female and the male children

[ Page 5895 ]

— who are being used on Davie Street, Granville Street and in other parts of this province by adult males.

One of the things you ask about this whole business of adult sexual exploitation of children is: where does it occur? The answer is that it occurs in hotels. I have a copy of the particular section of the Criminal Code which states quite clearly that it is against the law for any public place or other place to be rented or leased to be used as a common bawdy house, yet there has not been a case when a 14-year-old child has gone to a hotel and rented a room with an adult male in her company that that hotel has been charged with contributing to delinquency. Every single time a hotel rents a room to a child in the company of an adult male by the day — or by the hour, as happens in some instances — that hotel is contributing to the delinquency of that child. What is the minister doing about that in her advocacy role of protecting the children of the province? If the minister doesn't have the information, as I said, I'm very happy to pass on to her all the reports, some of which have been in her possession since 1977. She must have got them from the previous Minister of Human Resources.

I would really like not to have to go through the hypocrisy of having the Minister of Human Resources once again send that telegram to the Minister of Justice saying, "Help, please do something about the Criminal Code," just before her estimates come up in 1982. I know that there are dedicated, committed, hard-working social workers working with those kids, but it's not the kind of thing that Human Resources is going to be able to solve by itself through counselling. That's not the way it happens. As long as the customers are there and are protected by the law and the government, and as long as the Minister of Human Resources remains silent on the subject of the customers, all the counselling in the world is not going to bring an end to the sexual exploitation of children by adult males. It's not going to happen.

The Minister of Human Resources is not going to pacify her conscience and get off the hook simply by sending off one telegram once a year to the Minister of Justice saying: "Help, please do something about the Criminal Code." In her role as an advocate for the children of this province she's been a hopeless failure. She's been a disaster, and should resign on those grounds alone. She has the tools, she has access to the Attorney-General and the Premier, she's got the support of the community groups, TRACY, SPARC and the United Way. Everyone wants to help her with this problem, but it's not happening. What do we get in exchange? A cable once a year to the Minister of Justice.

As the statistics show, every summer hundreds of children end up on Davie Street being used and exploited sexually by adult males. The research also shows that we're not talking about poor, deprived, underprivileged males. The research shows that that's an expensive habit which is indulged in only by those males who can afford it. I don't want to ever have to sit through another instance of that minister's hypocrisy sending off another cable to the Minister of Justice. I want to see some action over there. I want that minister to deal with the Attorney-General in terms of what happens to those customers, and to deal with the hotels; to deal with whatever minister is responsible at whatever level of government, because it's a national disgrace that after all her years as Minister of Human Resources the problem of the sexual exploitation of children in this province is on the increase rather than on the decrease.

Talk about having the tools to work with. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) introduced to this House an amendment suggesting an advocate for children — an ombudsman to work on behalf of children. The children of this province sure need an ombudsman, because the Minister of Human Resources is so busy building glass slippers in her honour and her memory that the children of this province have nobody to speak and work on their behalf. Of course, she has her own problems with the ombudsman. So don't use the word "ombudsman''; let's call it something else.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Let's have some good suggestions.

MS. BROWN: Is the ex-Minister of Human Resources, who was fired from that job because of his incompetence and ineptness, suggesting that to have an advocate working on behalf of children in this province is not a good idea?

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: A little less advocacy. Do you know what the absence of advocacy has done? Do you know what the absence of advocacy means to the children of this province? It means that young girls and boys are being sexually exploited by adult males, while the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) yawns and looks bored, and they get away with it scot-free. That's what the absence of advocacy means. The Ministry of Human Resources is not operating as their advocate. The government is not operating as their advocate. That's what the absence of advocacy means. That an adult male can take a 14-year-old child and pay her for services. She gets charged and he gets off scot-free. That's what the absence of advocacy means.

However, on August 21 of last year, the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) introduced an amendment to Bill 45 — an absolutely disastrous piece of legislation — which was proclaimed a couple of weeks ago. It suggested that there should be an ombudsman for children — someone appointed under the Public Service Act to work on behalf of children. In fact, if there was such a person — if there was a child advocate in this province today — that 14-year-old child would have had someone to speak on her behalf. She would not have had to live through the humiliation of being charged with keeping a common bawdy-house.

Look at what's happened here. We have two adult males and a child involved in a situation which is illegal. There's the adult male who is the clerk at the hotel which rented the room and the adult male who was the customer — two adult males and a child. Who gets charged in a civilized society like this? The child. Now it's not too late for the minister to act on the third good suggestion which I'm making. She's asking for positive suggestions. This is the third positive suggestion which I'm making — that is, that the amendment introduced on August 21 by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam concerning an ombudsman for children is an amendment which should be accepted by the government.

If the minister is incapable, unable or unwilling to act as an advocate for children, then at least have somebody else appointed under the Public Service Act to do that particular job. At least do that much. But the advocacy role on behalf of children is going to have to be done by somebody. We just cannot continue to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to this particular problem, or to try and deal with it by sending a cable off to the Minister of Justice every year.

[ Page 5896 ]

Then there is the whole question of teen-age suicides. It's interesting to me that, in elaborating the litany of things done by her ministry, the minister really very neatly sidesteps the total lack of services to juveniles in this province. Anyway, the disgraceful statistics on teen-age suicide and the kinds of things involved in teen-age abuse of alcohol, abuse of drugs — not necessarily just teenagers, because the ages are getting younger and younger…. The whole question of what's happening to children is one that — if she is unwilling or unable or uninterested, and not wanting to play a part in — the minister should be willing to consider at this time; and certainly the appointment of an ombudsman to take on this particular role should be considered.

The other area in which the minister has failed in terms of her role of advocate — not just to children but to their parents — has to do, as she herself confessed, with the enforcement of maintenance payments. The minister said they are very sorry the ministry couldn't do as much as it would like to do in this particular area, and everyone is supposed to say: "Well, isn't that too bad; try harder next time." But that's not good enough.

The ministry really is a total failure — an utter and complete failure when it comes to ensuring that those maintenance payments are being paid. In any event, in the system under which the ministry operates, the maintenance payments don't go to the families anyway. Only the first $100 is kept, and the rest is deducted. In fact, what we find again is that the children are the ones who suffer.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Can't you say one thing nice?

MS. BROWN: This is not a nice issue we are dealing with. What is the point in saying something nice about an issue which is not nice? The failure of the minister to operate in her role as advocate is what I'm dealing with. And that is not an nice issue. The children, by no choice of their own — because nobody chooses who their parents should be — who are dependent on the Ministry of Human Resources for services and protection, are not getting it. Certainly one has to zero in first on that failure, which has to be laid squarely at the foot of the minister, and in as gentle a way as possible. I've got to accept the fact that the reason it hasn't been happening is because too much of the minister's time and energy is being placed in other areas. The ministry is obviously not her first priority.

That is why my very first recommendation was that if at least she doesn't want to resign, she should take a leave of absence until after the glass slipper is settled and off the ground, and let someone else do it who cares, who has some concern, some compassion and some commitment to the people of British Columbia who need the services of the Ministry of Human Resources. But this business of spending all of the time, energy and effort building and putting together this memorial when the services to people and children are being left without any policy direction, and no attention at all is being paid to it, is something that one has to zero in on. This is a gross disservice to the people of British Columbia who need the services of that minister, to have to try and make do with this particular minister, who at this time does not have their needs on her mind. She's not the slightest bit interested in them.

Again, Mr. Chairman, continuing to discuss the advocacy role of the ministry, which the minister is ignoring, there is the whole question of the discrimination which families in receipt of income assistance continue to face in housing. This is another instance in which the minister, as a member of cabinet, has access to the minister responsible for the residential tenancy legislation. She hopefully or presumably sees him at cabinet meetings and in caucus meetings. Year after year an appeal goes out from this side of the House to have that particular piece of legislation amended so that landlords cannot continue to refuse to rent accommodation to people because they are in receipt of income assistance or because they have children. The person who should be fighting the hardest, speaking the loudest and trying with every fibre of her being to have that act amended is silent on this particular issue. Once again her responsibility as an advocate is not being discharged. During this time of the housing crunch, when housing is so tight, when everyone is having such a dreadful time getting accommodation and when landlords can pick and choose to whom they shall rent their accommodation, families in receipt of income assistance and families with children are finding that the discrimination against them is on the increase.

The fourth positive recommendation which I am making to the minister, because she has asked for positive recommendations, and I believe in positive recommendations…. I believe that the market survey done by the Socreds that says, "Let's use the word 'positive'," should be shared by all of us. So I'm making another positive recommendation. A positive thing that minister can do in the interest of being positive is to get an amendment to the Residential Tenancy Act accepted by her government. We have tried to get that amendment accepted without success. The minister can do it, as a colleague of the minister responsible for that piece of legislation. As the Deputy Premier, with access to the ear of the Premier, the minister can get that piece of legislation amended. If the minister finds that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) is stubborn and will not heed her, there is a Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), who is responsible for the Human Rights Code. That can be amended. There are two alternatives: either amend the Residential Tenancy Act or amend the Human Rights Code.

In any event, this business of discriminating in housing against people who are in receipt of income assistance and families with children is something that the minister should take a positive position on. She should positively make a commitment to have an amendment, either in both pieces of legislation or in one piece of legislation, introduced to this House before her estimates are terminated. That is part of her advocacy role.

As I said when I started, as Minister of Human Resources she has two responsibilities: one is to the delivery of services and the other is to advocacy. I'm dealing now specifically with her advocacy role. I want to repeat that she has not discharged her advocacy role, in particular with the children who are victims of sexual exploitation by adult males. She has not discharged her responsibility as an advocate for the children who are committing suicide for whatever reason — certainly due to the pressures of the community in which they live. She has not discharged her responsibility as an advocate for families with children and for families in receipt of welfare who are being discriminated against in terms of housing.

The minister also has not discharged her advocacy role in terms of looking at the impact B.C. Place is going to have on

[ Page 5897 ]

the housing needs of people living in the area peripheral to that development. An excellent study has been done by a social work student at UBC on the impact on the housing of people presently living in that area. Once B.C. Place is developed and the housing introduced there is going to be high-cost housing. What's going to happen to those people who are presently there? The minister has not spoken. She doesn't have to do this publicly. If we could at least see some indication from her government's action and the direction that her government is taking that she has at least spoken out on behalf of the people living in the downtown eastside surrounding the B.C. Place development, that she is aware and that her government is aware that they are going to be displaced and that somehow a plan is made to protect them and to ensure that there is still housing there for them….

Region 15 of Human Resources is in that area. B.C. Place is going to have an impact on that region. The minister has been silent on this.

I can see the red light, which means that I have two minutes. Is that it? Oh, I have no minutes at all. Okay. I'm going to have to stop for a while, but I'm not through discussing the way in which the minister has failed in her role as an advocate for the people in need in this particular province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, just prior to recognizing the minister, I think it's possibly an appropriate time to review the sixteenth edition of May on relevancy and general restrictions on debate in Committee of Supply. Once again I will read: "The administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply." I'm sure that the last member who took her seat will realize that the Chair allowed considerable latitude in the opening remarks. We'll get back to that particular section and more relevance as the debate continues.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to the member who has been very critical of the handling of Davie Street and the juvenile prostitution problem in the city of Vancouver. Let's just tell it for what it is and put it all out on the table here and now. The problem with the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) and the other members of the opposition party in this House is that none of them at any time ever stated one word when all the problems grew in the city of Vancouver because of the problems with the Criminal Code, when the Criminal Code of Canada was challenged in the supreme court and the law enforcement agencies in the city of Vancouver could not enforce the law as it should be enforced. Let's call it for what it really is. That side of the House, represented in the very centre of Vancouver where the juvenile prostitution problem is the most acute in all of Canada, said not one solitary word.

That member talks about cables. I'm going to tell you that I've got a filing cabinet in my office — of which only three files are here on this desk — all on the juvenile problem in the city of Vancouver. Did the mayor of Vancouver do anything about it? Did the aldermen in the city of Vancouver do anything about it? Did the the MLAs representing Vancouver Centre do anything about it? Mr. Chairman, they said not one solitary word until today. Let's call it for what it is: the member for Burnaby-Edmonds on two items right here on the floor of this House today said: "My gosh, we didn't speak up; we'd better put it on the record; we'd better make it clear; we'd better call for this minister's resignation; we'd better get the whole thing on the table on this day on this estimate, because we have forgotten; why, we didn't say anything." And they didn't; they didn't say one solitary word.

Mr. Chairman, if that member were so concerned, where was she when the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and I called on the member in Ottawa, Mr. Chretien, and asked for that member to stand up and be counted?

Does she get kicks out of relating about children that are being abused? She relates them on the floor of this House as if it's the fault of this ministry, this government or any one citizen in this province. Of course it isn't the fault of any one person in this province. The law is such that it can be and is only handled by the federal administration — the federal law which needs to be amended but has not been amended by the dominion government.

The member talks about research, and if she had any kind of research at all she would know that this matter has even been addressed on a civic basis by the city of Montreal through legislation. I have a copy of the act here. In Montreal, I understand, juvenile prostitution is quite well contained by a civic bylaw. It was introduced by alderman Helen Boyce in the city of Vancouver and is now being. studied by the civic government there. But it's been almost two years that the Attorney-General and I have been negotiating with the federal government and the city of Vancouver. Who was it that established the first and only organization in the city of Vancouver to address this by the appointment of Ted Oliver? Who appointed Mr. Ted Oliver? The provincial government. That's not sending a cable or a letter; that is action. It cost the provincial government money to take over a responsibility that, frankly, was the city of Vancouver's responsibility. They should have been doing it themselves. We called on them for help, and they gave us assistance in terms of cooperation, but it was the provincial government — the Ministry of Human Resources — that initiated that, Mr. Chairman.

The member tries to put on…. She says that we have sent three telegrams. Yes, I sent telegrams to get attention from the minister who has the responsibility and can do something about it — the very minister who promised us that in the fall of this past year he would be introducing amendments to the Criminal Code which would address themselves to the Davie Street question. This member tries to make light of telegrams and tries to put us in a position as if we haven't done anything. There isn't any provincial government in this whole nation with this problem — and that includes Ontario and Quebec — that has addressed itself to this problem with as much ambition as this government has.

I recall to you not only the Ted Oliver report and what he recommended, but the fact that many or most of the recommendations have been carried out. Mr. Oliver recommended that through the Attorney-General's ministry and the police department in the city of Vancouver, which gave great resources and cooperation, we reinstated car 178, which gave us attention to a small area and tried to help these youngsters from day to day and from night to night; and that was reinstated. He recommended that we have an emergency facility. He said that it wasn't good enough and it didn't work — and we all said it wouldn't work — to take children….

You take them out of the area and perhaps take them to another community, back to their own homes…. He said: "It doesn't work. Your own ministry tells you it doesn't work. They're right back on the street within 24 hours be-

[ Page 5898 ]

cause you can't lock them up. What is needed now is a one step away from the street hostel." A one step away from the street hostel was put, into place in the city of Vancouver. It's there now. It wasn't the most popular thing for the city of Vancouver or for the provincial government to do because, like so many things, it's fine to have it, everybody wants it and they want help for the children but "please don't put it in my neighbourhood."

We went all through that and we'll go all through it under many other services for children that we have to deal with in the future. But I'm going to tell you that I didn't see the members for Vancouver Centre stand up and say: "That's a good idea. Let me help you with the business community in that area that don't want this hostel down there." I didn't see them at the meetings. I didn't see them coming forward and saying this was something that all people on all sides of the House and all parties can agree on. We didn't hear a word from that party. We didn't have one iota of help — not one word. I'll tell you what's bothering them over there. Because they didn't have any interest in it, didn't speak publicly about it and didn't stand up to be counted when the time was there to stand up to be counted, they're Johnny-come-latelys now and want to hitch onto the bandwagon. I didn't do it for publicity. I did it to get the job done for the young people. You're doing it today to hook onto some headline that you want, and you're not doing it for the children of that area. won't take that from that member for Burnaby-Edmonds. I won't take the accusation that we have done nothing in that regard.

The jury is still out on whether or not the one step away from the street hostel is going to be a truly successful one. Let me tell you what the hostel has already done in six months. All children who are picked up do not go there. There are some children who can return to their families, foster parents or to whatever community they have come from. So we don't take all children and put them in that hostel. But of 30 youngsters who have been picked up and have been given treatment — remember, this is a slow-starting program — all except five have been successfully rehabilitated and placed. This is a very good example of a cooperative effort by several agencies. I'd like to pay tribute to them because this has not been an easy one to get off the ground. That is a cooperative effort by the Ministry of the Attorney-General, the Ministry of Education, our ministry, the people, police and social agencies in the city of Vancouver, the civic government and the provincial government. All of us are working together, all above politics, and all saying that we want the very best thing for those youngsters. We want to help them.

I'm going to repeat that we can be the stretcher-bearers after the problem and the accident. We can try to mend and put the pieces of their lives together. That's what we're here for. We'll do that job. We'll do it over and over again. Even when it seems frustrating, we'll continue to do it. But what can stop the whole thing is an action by the federal administration. I've said that over and over again in a series of frustrations over a teen-age suicide and a charge of a teenager in a bawdy-house last week. Yes, I sent another telegram. I'm going to read the telegram to the House. It was to the hon. Jean Chretien. It says:

IT IS WITH GREAT CONCERN AND FRUSTRATION OVER UNSEEMLY 'DELAYS WHICH PROMPTS ME TO REITERATE MY PLEA FOR ACTION TO DEAL WITH JUVENILE PROSTITUTION IN THE CITY OF VANCOUVER. I REMIND YOU OF OUR MEETING OF JULY 22, 1980, AND YOUR EXPRESSED DETERMINATION TO TAKE STEPS TO DEAL WITH THIS DIFFICULT PROBLEM. MY REQUEST FOR ANOTHER MEETING WITH YOU IN LATE 1980, WHEN YOU FAILED TO PRESENT CHANGES TO THE CRIMINAL CODE TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, WAS DELAYED AS YOU FELT YOU WISHED TO HAVE THE FINDINGS FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA ON AN APPEAL IN THE GALJOT CASE.

THIS WEEK WE HAVE HAD A SUICIDE BY A 14-YEAR-OLD GIRL AND A CHARGE AGAINST THE YOUNGEST KEEPER OF A COMMON BAWDY-HOUSE IN THE CITY OF VANCOUVER. THE CHARGE IS LAID AGAINST A 14-YEAR-OLD GIRL. IT IS UNBELIEVABLE THAT IN THIS YEAR 1981 WE STILL PERMIT CHARGES AGAINST JUVENILES IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHARGES AGAINST THE PROCURERS. SURELY THE HOUSE OF COMMONS CAN RELATE TO THE STREET CHILDREN OF VANCOUVER WHO CONTINUE THIS MERRY-GO-ROUND OF PROSTITUTION, ARE TAKEN IN BY OUR MINISTRY AND WITHIN HOURS ARE BACK ON THE STREET IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY LEGAL MEANS TO DETAIN THEM AND OFFER REHABILITATION.

I HOPE TO HAVE YOUR RESPONSE BY RETURN.

Mr. Chairman, I have so much material here on the problems of juvenile prostitution that it could keep us here until 6 o'clock. It is a very sad day in this House when we have a member who is to be the official critic of this ministry stand on her feet and try to say that we have done nothing in this province about the problem which is probably one of the worst social problems we have had. But I think we can see it for what it is. The member has not spoken up until today, and I guess it's an opportunistic kind of thing in this regard. She trying to put it on my head that nothing has been done. I've had enough things said to me by that party across the floor of this House, and outside this House, that frankly it doesn't bother me too much. I just assess it according to whence it comes.

This is a very serious problem, and it is the kind of problem that members on all sides of this House should be in unison on, not fighting one with the other. The member talks about children being abused and sexually exploited by adults. Let me say this to you: not once has that member come to me in my office and discussed something. I would even go to her office, whatever — I'm easy. Why don't you come to us if you have some wonderful cure, something that none of us have ever thought of besides all those things we have already done: the implementation of the one-step-away-from-the-street hostel, the added help on the site, social workers, health workers and young street workers to assist, the added dollars that have been put in to make sure that help was there, the concentration by our staff, who carry the burden of that right on site, who go home and worry about it all night, who wake up and are called out to help those young people in the middle of the night.

If you carry that burden, then for heaven's sake come and talk to me about it if you've got an answer for it. Don't stand up in this House and say we haven't done anything, because that is just an absolutely outrageous and completely irresponsible twisting of the facts by a member who would like to take on some kind of holier-than-thou attitude about where she's been. I want to know where she was a year and a half ago, when all those young people were on the streets of Vancouver and we were telling the world that there was no help for those children through legal avenues. We never heard from them then.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[ Page 5899 ]

I would also like to say about the reference to the enforcement of maintenance orders that I told you it was a priority for this ministry. It is a priority for our ministry, because today, just as in many years past in this province, there are parents with children who have been separated or divorced and who go through that incredible wrangle of having to try and collect for maintenance after a court order has been made. I gave a solution for it a few months ago. It's running into some problems because we haven't been able to quite figure out how it can be enforced and implemented, but I think we have a solution. I told you what it was and what I thought last year. I said it had been done in other jurisdictions, and that they have had some problems. We'd like to repeat what they've done in other jurisdictions without some of the problems — that's all, that's where it's at. Don't try to put on now that you're all very interested in the enforcement of maintenance orders, when in the last year this ministry has said that that is one of their top priorities. I told you quite frankly in the introduction of these estimates that I'm not satisfied with the speed at which it is going; but then I'm never satisfied with the speed at which anything goes, because I like everything to be done yesterday, as most people in this House would like it to happen. But what a bunch of nonsense to say that we've failed. We're further and further ahead in terms of the enforcement of maintenance orders. I can tell you where we are in that regard when I exchange notes with my colleagues across this country. I know the frustrations they've had, some of the things they've done and some of the things they would like to do. I think that British Columbia stands at least on a par with other jurisdictions, if not a little ahead, in their research in this regard.

I wanted to talk about those two items, and I don't think there's anything else that had to do with my ministry that I will respond to. I asked for constructive criticism, and I'm really hoping yet to get it. If we do have some constructive response that we can get out of the opposition or members on my own side of the House that would add to solving the problems we have had reiterated here in the first hour of this committee, I'm really willing to listen. I hope they'll come forward with it.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm not surprised that the minister is saying that I've never spoken on this issue before. Obviously, she listens but she doesn't hear. I have spoken on this issue so many times. Certainly, even before she was the Minister of Human Resources, her predecessor can say that. Obviously she doesn't hear, because she also said that I didn't offer a solution, a recommendation, or an idea. So I'm going to do that once again, and I'm going to do it really slowly and clearly to see whether maybe this time the minister will hear what I'm saying.

The minister said that the responsibility of the ministry is to be the stretcher-bearer — to pick up the cases after these kids have been exploited. That is not the role of the ministry. There is an advocacy role, a prevention role, and that's what I'm talking about now.

I'm going to start from the beginning and go really slowly. As long as there are customers, as long as there are procurers, and as long as there are adult males who can purchase the services of children, not all of the counselling, the hostels or the programs in the world are going to wipe out the sexual abuse of children. The minister did not hear, because she certainly did not address herself to my recommendation, which was to start dealing not with the victim — the child prostitute — but with the adult males who are the customers, the exploiters, the procurers. That was my suggestion in 1980, in 1979. In 1978, and again in 1981.

The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) and the minister herself said that I get a kick out of speaking on this topic. The fact that I am a parent of children is one of the reasons I am concerned about it. I am offended by the comment made by the member for Dewdney and by the minister. But I am not going to ask them to withdraw, because the sort of people who would accuse another person and another parent of getting a kick out of talking about sexual exploitation are obviously speaking as a result of their own experience and their own feelings. So I won't deal with that. But I am offended, and grievously so, by the comment made by the Minister of Human Resources and supported by the member for Dewdney that I am dealing with this topic because I get a kick out of it.

I am angered that year after year we get pious statements about what is being done for the prostitute and not a word about what is being done to the adult males who use their services. That is what I'm talking about. I know that the minister has a hostel one step away, and I know that there are programs in place to do with the children. That is not the point. The point is that the children are the victims, and I want the minister to deal with the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), who has the responsibility and the right and the law on his side in terms of dealing with the adult males who are exploiting these children.

In response to that issue which I raised, I get 30 minutes talking about the victims again, and not one word about the adult males who are exploiting those children. That is the topic I raised today, last year, the year before, and the year before that. I will continue to raise the topic, despite the member for Dewdney and the Minister of Human Resources, who accuse me of getting kicks out of it. This is too important a topic for me to back off from just because I get upset, and because the member for Dewdney and the Minister of Human Resources accuse me of getting a kick out of this. I am angry. I’m angry about adult prostitution too, and the fact that the Criminal Code addresses itself only to the prostitute and not to the males who use their services. I'm doubly angry about the fact that in responding the Minister of Human Resources zeros in once again on the victims, rather than on the adult males who are exploiting them.

The other issue which I raised was the discrimination against people — families with children — in receipt of income assistance for housing. The minister did not address herself to that particular topic. I guess I'm going to be accused of getting a kick out of that too. But I would appreciate it if she would address herself to that topic in responding.

What I'm talking about specifically is the advocacy role of the minister. I pointed out to her that an amendment was introduced to Bill 45 dealing with the appointment through the public service of an ombudsman to speak out on the rights of children, and to add that the provinces of Quebec and Ontario have incorporated protection of the rights of children in their recent legislation. The major opposition I had to Bill 45, which was recently proclaimed, was that an advocate was not included in that bill to speak on behalf of children and to protect them. When the bill was being debated we were told that the minister did that. I'm saying that it's not happening. The minister is not discharging her advocacy role to the children of this province. It's just not happening. I would appreciate it if in responding she would deal with the topics I

[ Page 5900 ]

raised, and keep her personal comments off the floor of this House.

As far as her role of advocate is concerned, I raise again the whole development of B.C. Place, and how it's going to impact on region 15 and the people in receipt of income assistance who are going to be displaced when that development is complete. I'm asking for some kind of response from the minister about what is going to happen. I would appreciate it if she would address herself to that topic.

There's the whole business of federal and provincial cost-sharing. The federal government recently increased the income exemptions which it is possible for people in receipt of income assistance to have. The government of British Columbia did not take that up. At the time, the minister said that a pilot project conducted in Victoria had proved to be unsuccessful, and that was the reason why that particular opportunity to increase the income exemptions of people on income assistance was not exercised. The $50 a month for singles and $100 a month for families of more than one person has been in place for heaven knows how many years. The federal government has now raised that and is willing to cost-share in an increase up to $75 a month for single people and $150 for families of more than one person. There is a final report which the minister has. On the basis of the findings of that report, she explains that she did not exercise this option. We want to know why. Certainly the kinds of information coming out of the two interim reports which we have did not support her contention that the pilot project was not successful. If the federal government is prepared to increase that earnings exemption to $75 a month and $150 a month, there isn't any reason why it cannot work in tandem with the Individual Opportunity Plan. I do not see them as being mutually exclusive of each other. People should have a choice. They should be able to decide whether they want to be a part of the Individual Opportunity Plan, or if they would prefer to put in X number of hours in employment and have their earnings exemption — the $75 a month for single people and $150 for families of more than that.

That again is a way in which the minister has failed in dealing with people in need. The whole business about the federal-provincial cost-sharing — the threats that are coming out of Ottawa about cutting back on these cost-sharing programs and the amount of money being put into it — is again where her advocacy role should come in, and she has not been working hard enough in that particular area.

In speaking about the different ministries — the Attorney-General, in terms of the young female and, in some instances, young male prostitutes…. The minister didn't address herself to the whole business about the hotels either. She spent all her time speaking about the victims. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), with the Human Rights Code, and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman), with the residential tenancy legislation, have not been dealt with. I'm sorry the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has gone, because another area in which the minister needs to exercise her jurisdiction as an advocate is on behalf of the disabled in terms of the bus-pass issue. As a member of the cabinet with access to the decision-making process, she has still not resolved that issue on behalf of the disabled people of the province. That is another failure on the part of the minister in terms of her advocacy role.

The whole question of the over-taxation of people, as brought down by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) in his budget, and the impact that is having on people on fixed incomes — senior citizens as well as people in receipt of income assistance…. The advocacy role of the minister, in terms of fighting against these kinds of incredible tax increases that have such a devastating impact on people on fixed incomes, is something that the minister has not addressed herself to. Not everyone can defer their taxes. There is absolutely no way of deferring a sales tax. When you purchase an item, your sales tax is put on right away; it's not possible to defer that; you can't put that off for three years. It's the most regressive form of taxation there is, and the one that weighs most heavily on people on fixed incomes and people in receipt of income assistance. These two groups are part of the constituency of that minister as a Minister of Human Resources, and her role as an advocate on their behalf has been abandoned. She has not been fighting on their behalf, and that is what I say when I say she has failed them.

In listing all of these areas, I'm speaking specifically of the areas in which she has responsibility as an advocate. I'm not dealing with the direct delivery of services yet, because that's another issue. That's going to take a lot more time. I'm dealing specifically with her advocacy role and the way in which she has failed as an advocate on behalf of children; families with children, in terms of discrimination in housing accommodation; people in receipt of income assistance who are going to be affected in terms of their housing needs by the development of B.C. Place: the whole cost-sharing thing, in terms of the earnings exemption for people in receipt of income assistance — all of these areas, and, of course, the regressive sales tax which was introduced by her government in this budget. In all those areas, where the minister should have been operating as an advocate and working on behalf of those people, protecting them, it has not been happening. That's what I'm talking about when I say she has failed in carrying out her responsibility in that regard.

If one were to even look at the whole issue of the development of northeast coal and the development of a new town to deal with that, and to question whether in her role as an advocate she has ensured that all the community services are going to be in place as part of that development plan….

Are there going to be transition houses put into place? Is there going to be adequate day care? Are there going to be adequate services for the children, women and families who are going to be moving into that area? I'm talking about the new town at Tumbler Ridge, or whatever, in terms of northeast coal. That's part of the advocacy responsibility of the Minister of Human Resources — to see to it that those services are in place and that they're actually a part of the plan.

She mentioned the Spallumcheen band and the Spallumcheen agreement. It's been over a year…. No, sorry, it hasn't been a year. I guess it was last fall. But apparently it's still under study. The whole business of implementation still hasn't been reached. In your opening remarks you said it was still being examined and was still under study. What about the federal task force which the ministry has consistently refused to participate in? The federal government has indicated, in terms of delivering services to Indian children, that it wants to establish this task force. The women of the Indian Homemakers Association, which the minister knows is a very important component of the Indian community because it's made up of the grandmothers, mothers and aunts who are very much involved with the children, want the provincial government to participate in this federal-provincial task force. The ministry has consistently refused,

[ Page 5901 ]

despite all requests, to be a part of that. I would like the minister to give some kind of explanation as to why this is the case or whether there has been some change in terms of her decision. Has there now been a decision to participate in the federal-provincial task force looking at the needs of children and designing some kind of plan for them? I'd appreciate it if the minister would deal with some of those questions.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, first of all let me respond once again to the charge that I haven't been listening. I was listening and I thought that I had made it clear. I wish the member for Burnaby-Edmonds would listen clearly as I say once again that it's a federal government responsibility. All of the responsibilities vis-à-vis the Davie Street problem and juvenile prostitution, as far as the Ministry of Human Resources is concerned, have been handled not only in a very responsible and unique way but in a way that has led the country in terms of social services in that regard. There isn't that kind of a hostel, for example, in Montreal or Toronto.

Let me quote your words. You want the world to know no one in this House would argue with you — that you want us to be dealing with the adult males who are the customers. You underlined it. You said: "Now please listen." The province of British Columbia, through the present laws in this nation cannot — through the Ministry of Human Resources, through the Attorney-General, through the Minister of Health or through the Minister of Education — change the Criminal Code. It has to be done through the federal government.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) will have an opportunity to speak.

I want to read to you our proposed amendments to the Criminal Code for soliciting juvenile prostitution and procuring. It's clear and I hope that after you hear this today….

I will be very glad to send this to you. I think you have a copy of it; I believe I gave you a copy a year ago. It reads this way:

"Section 195(l) and (2) of the said act are repealed and the following substituted therefore: Everyone who: (a) procures, attempts to procure or solicits a person to have illicit sexual intercourse with another person, whether in or out of Canada; (b) inveigles or entices a person who is not a common prostitute or a person of known immoral character to a common bawdy-house or house of assignation for the purpose of illicit sexual intercourse; (c) knowingly conceals a person in a common bawdy-house or house of assignation; (d) procures or attempts to procure a person to become, whether in or out of Canada, a common prostitute; (e) procures or attempts to procure a person to leave his usual place of abode in Canada if that place is not a common bawdy-house with intent that he may become an inmate or frequenter of a common bawdy-house…."

Procurement is mentioned…. It goes down through (f), (g), (h), (i) and (j). It says that the law should be brought against the procurer, just as you have said. That is not possible under provincial law. The member for New Westminster can talk about it being possible. If it were possible under provincial law, the city policy in the city of Vancouver would long ago have used that avenue, because they are at their wits' end, What I would like the House and the member to understand…. She continues to say that she has given a solution. She has given the solution that we gave to the Solicitor General in July 1980 at a meeting where he promised to do something about it. She makes light of the fact that I sent a telegram to him last week because I'm totally frustrated that he has not acted on that meeting which was arranged by the Attorney-General and me. I think that she should be lauding us for prodding him once again to get to work on it, rather than being critical of sending a telegram.

We say in this submission to him, signed by the Attorney-General and me:

"British Columbia previously took the position that the current soliciting provisions of the Criminal Code should be repealed and amendments introduced to the effect that where a person approaches another person in a public place with the intention to exchange sexual services for a consideration, a fee or other gain, that person would be guilty of an offence. Further, where a person accepts the offer, he would also be guilty of an office.

"We continue to hold the view that this approach is valid, and we recommend that it be considered further as part of the continuing deliberations with respect to the fundamental review of the Criminal Code."

We have met with him and we reiterated that it is the adult customers who are very much more to blame than the children they exploit — more so by any measure of human decency whatsoever.

So don't tell us that we haven't addressed it and that that's the almighty answer to it. Yes, it's the almighty answer, but it is in the hands of the federal government — the very federal government that I appealed to by a telegram which you derided an hour ago in this House. I ask you, send a telegram to Mr. Chretien today and tell him that you agree with the Minister of Human Resources in the province of British Columbia, and will he please address himself to changes in the Criminal Code. Now I know the member is going to be up on her feet again in these estimates, and I would like to ask you. Mr. Chairman, to allow the member to respond to me in that regard, to please send that telegram today and to support this Minister of Human Resources for a change. Let's do something for the youngsters on Davie Street.

I'm going to address my remarks to a couple of other things that were said. The member raised the issue of earning exemptions. In response to the federal government's recent announcements that they would give more money….

They would be willing to share more money; it isn't that they are going to provide some largesse which is going to change everybody's life. I would like to say that I am quite cognizant of that whole program. We are working toward relating this very much to the Individual Opportunity Plan. We appreciate that over the years there has been rather an ad hoc way of putting that program together, because it has grown up over need; it's been responded to because of need, but now we want to get it all reconciled. I think that's a positive step to be taking. I'm hoping to have that review completed in a very short time, and I hope that I'll be able to address in my report some of the things the member suggested in that regard, once we have the report and all the facts before us. So the member for Burnaby-Edmonds will be pleased to know that it is under review.

[ Page 5902 ]

I also want to address my remarks to some of the things she has said to us regarding British Columbia Place. You know, Mr. Chairman, you can't have it both ways; you can't ask for concerns over housing in that area and then be against B.C. Place, because the very effectiveness of B.C. Place is the fact that it has been purchased by the government of British Columbia for a very small amount of money — a very good deal, I might say. British Columbia Place is going to represent, if you like, downtown British Columbia; it's going to be representative of the whole of the province, not just Vancouver. It will rehabilitate an old railroad and a semi-industrial, miserable-looking area that we look down on from two bridges. It will beautify the area, and it will give us an effective stadium which has long been sought after by the people of British Columbia. But it will also add to the area housing which will be effective and will give, as I understand it by reading more on it, homes to families and children amounting to about 22,000 people in the future.

It seems to me that the member, when she brings it up and says that it's a terrible thing to be building these monuments, is against the very thing that will produce the housing in that area that is called British Columbia Place. I tell you, you can't have it both ways. It isn't going to be from the tax dollars of the people of British Columbia that the housing will be provided; it will be because that property will be sold at a much greater price than what we paid for it. People will be investing, people will come from all over the world to invest in that area, and there will be a payoff to the taxpayers of the province, instead of taking it out of the pockets of the taxpayers who are going to be providing housing in that area, which will be a great advantage to the citizens of B.C.

Discrimination in housing. I would like to ask the member to bring that up under the Housing minister's (Hon. Mr. Chabot's) estimates. I know that we have problems in terms of housing in this province — problems of supply, great problems of inventory. Those problems are because of the greatest growth in the history of this province, where we have something like around 55,000 people in one year arriving in this great, positive part of Canada from all other parts of Canada. I know the word "positive" irritates the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, but I will continue to use the word because that's the way we are on this side of the House positive.

I was very surprised at the references to the budget. In making references to the budget, the member fails to recognize that in that same budget which was placed before this House there is $70 million of tax credit to low income families. It means that for a family that has two adults and two children, with an income of $10,000…. Personal exemptions credits mean that 40 percent of British Columbia families will benefit — only those paying taxes, but they are low earners. Seventy percent of those are over 65. That will reduce the provincial revenue by some $70 million. I notice that that, which was announced on March 9, 1981, was not related in any way to the member's remarks.

You mention Tumbler Ridge, and there's no question in my mind that the great initiative in northeast coal, which will provide hundreds and hundreds of jobs for our fellow British Columbians, will really assist those of our people who are on income assistance. It will give further opportunities for employment in the province and will assist them to have independence, and not dependence, in this province. I would also like to assure the member, just as we in this province have always been cognizant of providing the services that go with such a development, that certainly that is very much on our minds. We have had discussions in the interministerial committee and between ministers regarding the instant town, if you'd like to call it that.

I think I've covered all the points up to this point.

MS. BROWN: I just wanted to ask the Ministers Human Resources why a charge of contributing to juvenile delinquency was not laid against that adult male who procured the services of a 14-year-old girl.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, you know the Attorney-General's ministry was asked about that, and I think my own personal feelings and the expression of the government with regard to our concern have been well said. The Attorney-General stated earlier today in question period that that is under investigation. I know his personal feelings regarding that, so I know that it will be well looked after. But a report will come back to the House through the Attorney-General; that really is not a question for my ministry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a moment, hon. members. May, in the sixteenth edition, reminds us that action for which a minister is not responsible cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply. I recognize the concern of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. I also recognize that the Minister of Human Resources has also discussed actions for which her ministry is not responsible. We do have a relevancy clause which binds us in the Committee of Supply.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the only reason I raised it was because the minister had stated that only the federal government. had the jurisdiction to deal with this particular problem. The question really was raised just to bring to the minister's attention that there are provincial things that can be done. A charge could have been laid under the law dealing with contributing to juvenile delinquency. I appreciate that the Attorney-General is investigating this matter. I just didn't want the impression to be left that the provinces are totally helpless and can do absolutely nothing in this particular area. There are things that the provinces can do.

I would like to speak at more length about the whole B.C. Place thing, but my colleague the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) would like to ask the minister a few questions, so I'm going to defer to him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In the spirit of allowing debate to reciprocate, the hon. member for Dewdney seeks the floor.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I cannot pass by without making note of the remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds, when she heaped coals upon my head for a chance remark I made across the floor. I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman, that there's hardly any other construction I could put on it. I would also like to tell you that it was during that same period when her speech commenced that I went to the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) and I said to him, "You know, I agree with that member," referring to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. "I agree with what she said, that there should be something done in this area." But what I mean, Mr. Chairman — and I think I should make this clear — is that this is not the forum for making speeches of 30 minutes' duration on one subject. An opening speech by the critic of the NDP is not the place for this kind of speech. I

[ Page 5903 ]

have to construct that there must be some enjoyment taken from playing it over and over again. The place for this type of discussion is in the minister's office, as I have done and as other members of this side have done.

We are concerned — every one of us — because it is a very special and terrible problem that is occurring in the city of Vancouver and in almost every other city in the North American continent, and probably elsewhere. But I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that this House is not the place for the opposition to make political points across the…. All together, as a concerted force, at the minister's office — above politics…. Politics has no place in this, I want to tell the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. We all agree on it; we all believe it; we all know it's wrong. Charge the males if you want; charge everybody. But I say to you that we must understand that it is not a political problem. Her place is not on this floor, making emotional speeches for the benefit of her political party. I tell you it does no good. I tell you it's wrong. It got to a point, after 30 minutes, when I considered it extremely disgusting. This charge I make; I make it standing here before this House.

The Minister of Human Resources is a constructive minister. The programs that have been established by that ministry are new to this province; they've never been done in that way before. I tell you, when unemployment is in the position it is today, there should be no able adult male on the Human Resources roll — and there are mighty few. We believe that the element of work…. We believe in the work syndrome; that's what this party believes in — we believe that the federal unemployment act should be changed so as not to cater to laziness and unemployment. We believe in these things. We believe in what the minister believes in, that we should be constructive. We should work together on everything. Human Resources matters are not a political forum — not at all. They are a forum for doing the right thing with people. One should not attempt to make points on this floor, on the backs of the poor, on the backs of the disadvantaged, on the backs of the young, on the backs of all these people. This is not the place for it.

I say the member for Burnaby-Edmonds is wrong. I say it is dastardly. I say it should not be allowed in this forum. I say we should all get together on this great problem to solve the situation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Dewdney is not imputing any improper motive to the member for Burnaby Edmonds, is he?

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, nothing that the member for Dewdney says bothers me. It doesn't matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm still not satisfied. The hon. member for Dewdney was not imputing any improper motive, was he?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. Chairman has observed anything that seemed improper, I would like to know what it is, because I have no improper intentions whatever in the matter of this debate. But I make my points very clear; they are forceful but they are to the point.

MR. LEVI: In the past in this House we have had people who've said that this is a political forum, and we've had people who've said that the worst thing you can do in this place is to play political politics. Now we have the member for Dewdney telling us that this really isn't the place at all for politics. Well, he's in the wrong business. George, you'll have to find somewhere else to go and talk, because this is a very political place and this is a very political topic. I know as well as the minister how political it is. I've got the scars to show it. It's always going to be political. For somebody to suggest that you mustn't play politics when you've got some issues is crazy. That's why we're here; that's why the Minister's up there answering the questions and taking the lumps, like every other minister has to.

I want to deal with the minister on some of the booby traps and sand traps that you get in the ministry. If she's going to come in here and tell us that somehow she's pinning her hopes on the federal government doing something, I say to her: "Forget about it." You cannot expect them to do anything. Do you really think you're going to pass a law that's going to prohibit prostitution? Do you really think that's going to make a difference to the young kids down there? The kids will run away from group homes. Do you think that because you build a hostel somehow that is going to be more attractive to the kids prostituting down on skid row? What are you going to say to a girl who makes $400 a day — "Come with us, we'll take you to a group home"?

What the minister has failed to address are the problems the ministry has failed to deal with over the years. I want to deal with an example of what epitomizes what you do in your ministry. Two weeks ago we had a debate in question period — we're supposed to ask questions, but it got into a debate — about a 14-year-old boy who was in Riverview. We had the minister say in the House and go into the corridor…. She wasn't completely sure what she was saying, except that the boy was psychotic and that was the best place for him — which I disagreed with. We have to examine that particular problem in the light of what the minister has been saying.

I would like to know from the minister what happened to the missing S47 million that was allocated by this House for children's programs and never spent. Last year, 1979….

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Every cent of that was spent. You want to compare that? Well, we'll deal with it.

What happened to the $8 million that you failed to spend in the family and children's budget last year? You came into this House and told us that Riverview was the best place for that young boy. For a minister to come into this House and say that just proves to me that the ministry led by that minister is completely bankrupt of the ability to develop resources so that you do not put 14-year-old boys in Riverview with adult people. We'd have been in one heck of a mess in this House if that boy, who was beaten up the day I saw him, had been killed. Then where would we have been? The minister's answer, I'm told — because she went into the corridor; she didn't talk about it here — was that they're now going to develop five special holding centres at $100,000 per child. I have a number of questions to ask the minister.

Why is it, when you're so short of facilities, that you underspent your budget on family and children's services by $8,400,000? That was 1979-80. What did you do in 1978-79? You underspent the same division's budget by $11.8 million. In 1977-78 you underspent it by $6 million. In 1976-77, the infamous underrun year, you underspent it by $16.8 million. That comes to a grand total of some $47

[ Page 5904 ]

million that you've failed to spend to use to develop programs. You failed to develop programs in 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1980, and the fallout from that failure are the people down on Davie Street, the young children who are prostituting and getting into trouble — and you have to wind up putting them in Riverview. That's the legacy of the policy you have, the legacy of the fact that every year since you've been in government you have underspent that vote.

You have absolutely no commitment to a broad program dealing with children. You think that because you take over a hotel and put children in it that that's a solution. And you stand up and tell me — one of the most ridiculous things I ever heard in my life — that you have 25 rehabilitated children. That's absolute nonsense. In the 17 years I worked in the field the last thing we talked about was rehabilitation — that somehow you got it overnight. You don't get those things overnight. To suggest to this House that because you developed that particular hotel you've got 25 rehabilitated people is ludicrous. You don't rehabilitate anybody overnight, particularly not children as disturbed as those young children down there prostituting themselves. The important thing is that we have never had, not from this minister or her predecessor…. Not once have you stood up in this House and talked about what you think the ministry should really be doing in terms of children, which is your major concern.

We've got the member for Mission who tells us that no single people should be on welfare. I can recall that five or six years ago that was a terrible thing as well. How is it that this government can't do any better than the other government in keeping single people off welfare? What is he talking about? But you've got to listen to the kind of gabble that comes out of that man's mouth. The heart of that ministry has nothing to do with the issues of welfare. If people have got to eat, you feed them. But we're talking about children. Later on we'll talk about the retarded and what you've not done. But in terms of children, to underspend those budgets every year for a total of $47 million is absolutely shocking.

You have not been able to come to this House and tell us what long-range plans you have, what new plans you've introduced — nothing. You're not going to get away with the fact that you took over a hotel, you're going to put young prostitutes in there, and you somehow think that you've saved them. The name of the game in the business of dealing with children is prevention. That's what you spend your money on. You spend every possible cent you can on seeing that you don't have people going into the system. To stand up here and tell us that Ottawa won't do this, Ottawa won't do that, and therefore we're in a difficult position….

My colleague has made the point: you've got two pieces of legislation you could act on, in any case. I would love to see somebody arrested under the Criminal Code section. Let's appeal it and see what kind of arguments we have. Then maybe those people in Ottawa would change the law. But don't tell me that you sit in the Attorney-General's ministry and get advised that we really can't win a case on this. I'd like the public to know that you can't win a case when an adult is found with a young prostitute — a teenager or sometimes even younger. That's the tragedy.

You have not at any time talked about children as eloquently as you do about B.C. Place — never. You tell us that you've done this and you've done that. On B.C. Place, while you're answering next time, tell us who is going to live in these 22,000 homes you're going to build down there that will cost about $250,000 apiece.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: You cannot mix the two. That's the ludicrousness of the situation. We have a Minister of Human Resources who is supposed to concern herself with treatment of people in need. At the same time she's mixing in B.C. Place. It's incredible!

Address yourself to the portfolio. Address yourself to children. Answer the question for us: how is it that $47 million was underspent in that ministry in the area where future costs…? You've got an example of future costs in the hotel you've taken over. There are always future costs when you fail to act. Not long ago — two or three weeks ago — we were talking in committee about a new kind of financial accountability. In 1975-76 the administration costs were $3.8 million. Now we're looking at administration costs of some $15 million. I want to know what is so all-fired costly when the number of people you have getting service from your ministry is less than it was in 1945.

Your deputy told us that it costs $25 million to administer a $450 million income maintenance program. Somehow we expected to hear there was going to be an adequate spending of money in terms of accountability; but we seem to be spending more money on accountability than we are on children — $25 million for this, $15 million for that. Where are the programs? In terms of what you've been addressing yourself to today, how can you stand there and not be prepared to explain to us that you underspent your family and children's budget by $8,464,000? How is that possible in a ministry that is constantly in need?

I've been in communication with the minister about operations in my riding that waited and waited and swung on the gate until the very last minute. I spoke to the minister about the infant stimulation program and the need for one worker — $13,000 or $14,000 was all we were talking about. They finally got it after nine months. It's that kind of lack of consideration…. If one wants to argue that the bank is empty and we can't afford it, that's one thing. But when you come into this House and I say to you that you underspent your budget in respect to children, then we need an explanation.

If you're trying to slip out of the burden that you have in terms of administration of your portfolio, no amount of legislation in Ottawa is going to change one iota of things in terms of the problems your ministry has to deal with. You have to address yourself to preventive programs. You have to address yourself to programs for the young children. But don't keep crying about the fact that Ottawa doesn't listen to you. They've never listened to anybody. You write that off immediately; then you make a point of saying that you're going to do it regardless of Ottawa. That has to be the attitude with those people. After all, they spent the last 12 months talking about the constitution. They don't have any time for young kids being violated down on skid row. They have no time at all. Forget about them. Address the problem in terms of what you can do in the ministry, Don't underspend the budget in terms of family and children's services and then come in and tell us what kinds of problems you've got. In just over five years you've underspent by $47 million. That was one year's budget in 1976, and here we are now that far behind in terms of programming. Now I want the minister to tell us something. When she was asked about that young man that was in Riverview, she made a statement to the press. What plans do they have for young people who are constantly

[ Page 5905 ]

becoming press stories, like that young man? The minister said that was the only place they could send him. The irony of the whole thing is that as soon as we raised this — and it's not pleasant to raise these things…. They are signals, and we have to have signals.

That young man had to be removed as quickly as possible, and he was removed. She acted quickly, and out the young man went. But where did he go? He went into a therapeutic foster home — a family that was prepared to deal with him. That was an option before he even went to Riverview, but it wasn't acted upon. It's that kind of action that brings the ministry into disrepute. It shouldn't do, because the ministry isn't just the minister — it's all of the staff that have to deal with the flak that comes out of the community around these kinds of things.

It's my understanding that the minister has indicated that there are going to be five holding units for young, politically dicey people who keep getting into…. Now what is the plan? What is the ministry or the government planning to do? Are they going into the containment business? Are they going to build juvenile jails? What are they going to do with the troublesome youngsters?

We've had debates in the House before when we dealt with the so-called containment legislation, which was knocked down by the courts. What are the plans? It would be nice for that minister to come into this House and tell us what the long-range plans are for her ministry. I'm not interested in hearing about B.C. Place. I want to know what plans you have for the hard-to-handle young person. What are you going to do with them? Are you going to expand the therapeutic foster home program? Are you going to expand the group home program? Are you going to rely on the extra buildings that are going into The Maples? What are the plans? Those are the kinds of things that the member for Mission gets nervous about, because they become political issues.

There is nothing more political than having a 14-year-old boy in Riverview. That's sure political, but it's a signal that the government has been incapable of developing the adequate kind of resources. We heard at one time that was going to happen with Willingdon, but we don't get any answers from the minister.

We don't get any suggestions about what she would like to see or what they're planning to do. You have an opportunity to get up and tell us what the ministry's plans are for young people who are in trouble and at risk. Don't tell us about the hotel that's down there. That's a very small first step. You have a range of programs within the ministry that can be expanded. You might want to do away with some and bring in new ones. It's a question of spending all the money that's allocated in the budget. The failure to spend all the money has helped to make the problems far worse than they were five and six years ago. What happens now is that you have to play the game of catch-up — the heavy expenditure on young people who should have had money spent on them years ago.

We can tell by looking at the budget, at the grants and the cutbacks where private resources have been bled of the money. That's the sum total of that kind of policy — to cut back. The tragedy of that is that programs are compressed, they become less staffed and the services are reduced. You cannot expect to reduce staff and maintain the same service. Are we really in the business in the next two or three years? When there's a change of government, are we going to have to go through a whole catch-up system again?

There was a catch-up system last time — almost nine years ago. Nothing had been done for years. Then, of course, it became very political for the opposition to talk about enormous amounts of money being spent in the Human Resources budget. It was necessary, but it was hardly even adequate by 1975. That was the kind of money that could be spent. The member who talked about politics…. The first year after the new government took over, they wanted to demonstrate how they could save S100 million. They cut back, and what did they cut back on in one of the programs? They didn't spend $16 million in family and children's services.

The minister has now been there two years. What is going to happen to avoid the mess that took place with that young boy in Riverview? What resources are on the drawing board? I have heard — I'll be very candid with the minister — that there's going to be an expenditure of somewhere between $2.5 million and $3 million involving only five children per unit and a total of 25 children in five units. Is that the kind of plan the government has for dealing with these exceptionally hard-to-handle and politically very high-profile problems? That's what I ask the minister: what are you going to do with those kinds of problems?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: First of all, the member brought up B.C. Place on more than one occasion during his last remarks to the House. I didn't raise the subject of B.C. Place. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) raised the subject, and I was responding. I'll continue to do so. If you want answers in this estimate, then I'll give them in response to that. I'll be pleased to do so.

Our last speaker was talking about cuts in the children's budget. During question period a few days ago the same member made those same statements and charges — the question that the ministry underspent its family and children's services budget. An analysis of the expenditures for family and children's services for 1980-81 indicates that the member who has just taken his seat is wrong in his charges. Our financial reports covering 1980-81 expenditures show a total underexpenditure of $5 million, representing 5.7 percent of the total budget of $87.2 million. Moreover, in the area of child-care resources the reported underexpenditure was only S300,000. That represents 0.9 percent of the total budget for that activity of $31.9 million.

Sometimes there is an underexpenditure caused by unanticipated temporary closures of resources. That is when there is a turnover of house-parents because of their quitting, getting out of the business or whatever. We're talking about $300,000 on a budget of $31.9 million. That's 0.9 percent. It's not any overt action on the part of either the government or the ministry to cut back services. It's just a fact of life that when a house-parent quits and there's an underexpenditure, that's what happens. I can give you more details on that if you want, but I have a feeling that the member won't want us to give him too many details.

When he talks about services for children, he hasn't talked about the 100 percent increase in the infant development program, which gives special services from birth to the age of three years for developmentally delayed children. He hasn't talked about the initiation of increased subsidies to help more than 10,000 parents in British Columbia to meet the costs of day care. He didn't talk about an expansion of specialized day-care programs for children with exceptional needs — handicapped children. We've had our field opera-

[ Page 5906 ]

tions budget alone increased by $3 million to provide increased staffing to deal with reported child abuse and neglect, and to provide needed services to the handicapped and their families. He forgets to talk about those things. It's a fallacy to talk about cutbacks, because there have not been any.

MR. LEVI: They're not cutbacks; they're underexpenditures.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The member makes the comment that they're not cutbacks, they're underexpenditures. I have just said that on a budget of $31.9 million, we underexpended by $300,000. I know that the member who has just taken his place would not, in any way, be that close on his budget if he had a budget to take care of. I'm pleased that our ministry is that close, because I have a responsibility to the people of the province in that regard.

Let me also address the question of the 14-year-old boy. It was my understanding through the report that was given to me that the 14-year-old was placed in the psychiatric wing at the Comox hospital by two physicians, not by the Ministry of Human Resources. The boy was transferred to Riverview by two doctors, with the assistance and consultation of the family. I have gone through the reasons for that in question period earlier. After he was transferred to Riverview, he was made a ward of the superintendent of child welfare. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), who has just taken his seat, knows full well that after he was made a ward of the superintendent he was very quickly removed to a child-care resource.

Then that led him into the question of the kind of childccare resources we are going to have. He doesn't seem to think that the initiation in this budget of $2.8 million — almost $3 million — for five resources services for the very thing that he is talking about…. He either thinks it's too much money or — I couldn't quite get his references in that regard.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: You see, Mr. Chairman, that simplistic point of view and that simplistic reaction is the kind of thing that makes really good dialogue on social services in this House a little difficult, I think. When the budget was produced and we had the announcement of $2.8 million, I would have liked the member to come to me and talk about what we're going to do. I would have been pleased to tell him.

Through interministerial cooperation, study and research we are going to have in this province for the first time five resource centres which will address the needs of the difficult children that he knows full well come to the attention of the various ministries — the Attorney-General, the Minister of Human Resources and the Minister of Health — over the years. They will serve the north, the interior, Vancouver Island, Vancouver city and the lower mainland — five regional offices. I should say more services rather than offices, because we are not embarked on a bricks-and-mortar kind of presentation to the people of British Columbia to serve these youngsters. We are going to serve them in the way that we can serve them best, and that is putting the money into the resources to assist them — the people to assist them. Perhaps in a particular area where a child is in difficulty, it will require putting that child in a home setting with concentrated 24-hour help. But we're not going to build the house; it's probably there. In some areas if we have to build something, we may. But it is being initiated in each region. At this very moment we are accepting plans from each and every region. As you and I know, the problems that beset a youngster who has been raised in the city of Vancouver, with all of its sophisticated city attractions, are different to those of the child who is perhaps in a country setting and gets into difficulty in the country. Each and every region is presenting their each and every plan. That's being done well and with great thought. It's going to be a network of services, if you like. That's what we're attempting. It's going to be Corrections, Health and Education who will jointly come up with a plan identifying the range of services which will address the individual child or youngster in trouble.

Most of these programs and studies are available now. Most are now available to us in the province at the present time — even for those who are not these specialized cases — in the province at the present time. Let's not say that they haven't been addressed in this province. Just those very difficult cases have been difficult, and they are identified by those in courtrooms who have those children come before them. But right now we have specialized foster homes for just that kind of service. Through group homes we address a different kind of youngster whose setting in a group home is even better perhaps than it would be in an individualized group home. We have the corrections branch, who have their services. We have the educational and school districts working together to assist. We have an interministerial attack on the whole problem and a range of services throughout the whole province — special education and specialized services to treat each and every difficult need.

For example, there may be a need for a holding resource in the north or on Vancouver Island which can identify that child's particular need. In this $2.8 million, maybe a holding resource will have to be placed on Vancouver Island so that they can have good assessment. I think I'd like to mention more than anything that we would like containment through staff — not through bricks, mortar and bars. We want it through specialized people, who can communicate with these young people who are finding themselves at their wit's end and getting into trouble, with all the resources of the family and the community shunning them. Now they can perhaps be rehabilitated. You mentioned rehabilitation — and I'm sorry if I left the impression that 25 of the 30 young people in the hotel and the hostel have been rehabilitated. They have been moved out of that area and they have been treated so that they can go back into a community and not be on the street. That's a terrific record for the start of that service. Now if I left another impression, I'm sorry, but the word "rehabilitation" brought that to mind. So in this new service that's in the budget this year we're talking about plans for highly qualified staff working with very difficult young people, and not building buildings. I'm not going to tell you that you're going to see five resources. It will be an individual program with additional staff, and in some cases it might even be service in their own home with staff help — that's the kind of flexibility we're going to have. We might use existing buildings and existing services, but it will be done with highly specialized people.

You mentioned other suitable resources. Well, the Ministry of Health — and I'm getting into another ministry here…. But you know and I know that there are additional beds being developed at The Maples, and also that

[ Page 5907 ]

there are some 25 beds in intensive-care children's resources which are under development in various regions of the province. There are ten beds already at the Vancouver General Hospital, which are psychiatric-unit beds. There are 36 beds at The Maples in Burnaby. Those are all things that in your comments to the House you said haven't been addressed. But they have been. I think this whole interministerial thing is working — the Ministry of Health working with the Ministry of Human Resources, the Ministry of Attorney-General and the Ministry of Education. The total services of the interministerial committee are, I believe, working very well. And I think that the interministerial committees at the community level are working very well. So I really think that in all of the things you've brought before us in your address to the House….

Let me just correct something. I mentioned 22,000 people; I did not mention 22,000 homes. I just want that to be cleared up, it was housing for approximately 22,000 people.

You say: "Spend our money on prevention." Yes, we spend your money on prevention. That's what the infancy development program and many other services are all about. In fact, I don't think there has been a time in this province's history when prevention has been given as much resources and attention as it has in this particular era, and I'm pleased to see that. But you can't have it both ways. You can't say, "Look after the child," after the parents and the resources have failed, and leave them there. Sure, it should have been prevented 15, 12, 10, 5 or 4 years ago. But we're there — whether it's been a preventive or a rehabilitative program that's been used in leading up to that crisis time or whether it hasn't — and you would be the very first to criticize us if we were not. So, Mr. Chairman, I think that the member will be pleased to know that that program, I think, is going to be very successful, and we're going to do our best to make it work.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, we don't have the information the minister has; all we have to go with is this little book here which says Public Accounts, 1979-80. If you turn to page C8, you've got the Ministry of Human Resources — and I want the minister to pay attention to this, because I say that you've underexpended your budget by $8,464,000. If you look very closely — I'll send the book over to the minister — it says: "Vote 142. Services for families and children. Total expenditure: $66,745,589. Main estimates voted: $75,209,741. Expenditure" — over or under, and it says "under" — "$8,464,152." Now I don't care how you obfuscate it, you underspent that particular budget. In fact, in terms of the ministry, if you look at the total vote — it was $648,847,575 — the underexpenditure is $8,649,146, of which $8.4 million was an underexpenditure in the family and children's services vote.

What I'm saying to the minister is this: either the book is wrong and something is not correct in the way it’s presented…. In the years I've been in this House and we've looked at public accounts and it says overexpenditure or underexpenditure, we take it that that is what it is. That $4.6 million is directly out of vote 142 — vote 142, an expenditure of $8.4 million. The minister's explanation is totally unsatisfactory. Go back to 1978-79. Public accounts for that year talks about $11.8 million. The year before that it talks about $6 million, and the year before that $16 million, The minister hasn't answered that question.

To suggest that in terms of the infant stimulation program which is an expenditure of about half a million dollars in an area…. You underexpended your budget by $8 million. You're not telling me that you couldn't afford more money for that particular program of infant stimulation — and we know what good it does. How can it be that when people from the BCAMR are asking for progress, particularly in this area…? I told you and wrote you about it in my riding, when they asked for one more infant stimulation worker or $13,000. And I didn't have the book then; I only had last year's book. Then, to my horror, I found the whole family and children's services budget was underspent by $8 million. That's pretty shocking.

You haven't given any explanation — telling us there's a little bit here and a little bit there. In the Legislature we have to look at some area which is definitive in terms of the facts of expenditure. That's our book, Public Accounts. Page C8 tells us that your ministry underexpended by $8.4 million, and nothing you've said as explained why. What you've tried to do is tell us that there was some reason for that, that there was a program terminated here or a person terminated there. That's a lot of money, $8.4 million, and over five years in which you've consistently underspent it comes to almost $47 million. The only thing I can ask the minister, because she has the facts, is: is she telling me that what we have in Public Accounts is not correct? If it isn't, then will she correct it? That's what I'm asking her.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I believe the member is referring to estimates that I don't have in front of me. The material we have in front of us in these estimates is for 1980-81, and I don't believe the member is referring to the estimates before the House at this time. I can probably get the 1979 information which he is referring to, but it would take me a few minutes to do so. I would be glad to do that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are reminded under the relevancy rule that we must be relevant, and….

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. please, hon. member. We are discussing the estimates of 1981-82.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, in the years I've been in this House, when we discuss estimates we have some frame of reference which relates to what was spent before. That has never been ruled out of order or irrelevant. My God, that's the way we make comparisons. The minister doesn't have this book before her, and that's the book we have to take as gospel. I'm telling you that in there it says you're $8.4 million underspent. It's got nothing to do with last year's estimate. We know you urderspent your estimate by $8.4 million. We are entitled to ask you that. You tabled a report. We're entitled to deal with that, Mr. Chairman. We're not entitled to get answers. If she doesn't want to answer, that's fine. But all the years I've been here that's what we deal with.

All I want from the minister is an explanation. If she wants, I'm quite happy to send the book over to her and she can look at it. Come here, young lady, and take this book around to the minister, and then she can see what I'm talking about. Bear with me, Mr. Chairman.

There used to be a time, when I did these estimates, that I'd have a crib book — a book which the staff made up which would make comparisons between this year, last year and the year before, so you could look at what's going on. If the

[ Page 5908 ]

minister doesn't have it on her desk right now I hope she'll look at it. I'm referring to that particular point. It says: "Underexpenditure, $8.4 million."

She's looking at the book. That's the book. We have nothing else to go on. We have none of the inside information that the minister has. Is that an $8.4 million underexpenditure in terms of the estimate? That's fair. I can show the minister that over the last five years — I'll send her the copies — each year since 1976, that particular budget has been underspent, including the fiscal year 1980-1981, by some $47 million.

The minister is looking. In order to give her a chance, maybe I should sit down and let my colleague get up. They're obviously having a consultation there, so I'll sit down. I can get up later and get some answers from her.

MRS. DAILLY: Earlier in the day we heard the Minister of Human Resources referring to the negativism that's coming from this side of the House. We understand that the latest "in" word for the Social Credit government is "positive." Therefore I am going to try and be positive. I would also suggest to the House that the minister's leadership as Minister of Human Resources and as Deputy Premier is not positive. I have a number of reasons to back that up.

One of the first things I want to refer to is something that concerns me very much. I think it concerns many other citizens in the province of British Columbia. When a cabinet minister does not pay property taxes for three years, I say that they are giving negative leadership to the people of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. One moment, please. I'll ask all hon. members to come to order. I will remind the committee that we are discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources, the minister's salary and the administrative actions of the Ministry. I would ask all members to contain their remarks to that ministry.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, we all know that no government can survive unless they have money to provide services. Those moneys are derived strictly and primarily, by the Social Credit government anyway, through taxation. What I'm discussing is taxation and how it relates to the minister. Any of us would be reluctant to refer to any personal things that happen in some particular official's or politician's life. But when you are a cabinet minister, you take an oath of responsibility. As far as I'm concerned that oath is partially, if not completely, broken when you fail to live up to your obligations in paying your property taxes.

I would like to ask you how that minister can expect to provide the moneys for her portfolio and for the Pier B-C, etc., if her leadership in withholding property taxes is followed by the rest of the citizens of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again I will have to remind the committee that during committee of supply, the administrative action is open debate. We are bound by those rules of relevancy. I would ask the hon. member for Burnaby North to restrict the debate to the administrative actions of the ministry whose estimates are before us.

MRS. DAILLY: May I say that in bringing up this subject I expected to hear from the other side that I was attempting to bring the debate on the floor of this House to a low level. If the other members, including the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.Phillips) and the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), do not see that there is a matter of ethics around this whole subject, then I understand what we're dealing with with that whole group.

I'm serious about this. This is an ethical discussion that I'm trying to have in this House. If the rest of the Social Credit cabinet and the caucus see nothing wrong with a political leader of this province setting a negative example for the rest of the people of B.C., then I say there is no hope for them.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Once again I remind all members of the committee to maintain order and not to interrupt another member who is speaking. Again I remind the hon. member for Burnaby North that we are discussing the administrative actions of a ministry. Our debate in Committee of Supply must be limited to that; otherwise we are in violation of the relevancy rules. Further, I would cite to the hon. member for Burnaby North our standing order 61(2).

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I am quite aware that I am to be relevant. What we are dealing with here is the ability and the right of that minister to hold her position. As far as I'm concerned, when a minister of the Crown sets an example that could have a far-reaching negative effect on all the citizens of B.C., I question her right to hold that portfolio.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I will further cite Sir Erskine May, sixteenth edition, page 739. Under the relevancy rules it states: "The committee cannot decide whether or not the minister should be in cabinet or which minister should represent the government in respect of estimates under consideration." I'm sure the hon. member is aware of that.

MR. LEGGATT: On a point of order, on the question of relevancy, Mr. Chairman, I understood that we were on the minister's estimates. Under ministers' estimates it's traditional for the opposition to move that the minister's salary be reduced if in their examination they find it worthy that that salary be reduced. Now it seems to me that in canvassing the minister's responsibilities, we have to deal with this question as to whether this particular minister has carried out her functions and responsibilities in an appropriate manner. Surely it is relevant on this particular vote. You may argue that it's not relevant when we get into the other sections of the estimates, but under the minister's salary it seems to me that the minister's conduct is an appropriate and relevant matter for inquiry. I'm surprised that the Chairman would come to this kind of conclusion when we're dealing in the general subject of the minister's salary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member makes a good point. However, I will once again remind the committee that in estimates in Committee of Supply the administrative actions of the department are relevant. The committee cannot accept debate other than debate regarding the administrative actions of the department. Sir Erskine May is very clear.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I want to go on the record very clearly that I would be abrogating my responsibility as a

[ Page 5909 ]

member of the opposition if I did not express my utter contempt and criticism of the wrong kind of leadership and the negative leadership we're getting from that Minister of Human Resources. That's the point. Whether I have to bring in something referring to her own property taxes may appear to some people to be rather a poor way to go about it. Mr. Chairman, once you accept being in public life you have to accept not only all the lovely trips and the very pleasant social gatherings, but you have to be above suspicion and you have to set a leadership role in this province. Any minister who does not pay her own property taxes and then expects the rest of the public of B.C. to pay their tax at all times, I say should be questioned as to her leadership role.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I will once again remind you that matters involving the property taxes of this minister are clearly beyond the relevancy rule in this committee; and I so rule. Our standing orders and citations are quite clear in that we discuss the administrative action of a department. We have before us vote 117 of the Ministry of Human Resources. I would ask the member to please be relevant and to maintain debate with respect to the vote before us now.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I know about paying property taxes and I know that you don't ask people to do what you're not prepared to do. It seems to me that in considering the administration of the minister's department, one has to consider the minister's fitness to administer that department. I think that that's what the member for Burnaby North is doing at this point. What she's questioning is whether this minister is fit to administer the department; that has to be considered under the administration of the department. It seems to me, therefore, that the member actually is in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would not be relevant to the Ministry of Human Resources. Hon. members, I will say again that we are here to debate the vote before us and debate the administrative actions of the department. I'm sure the members of the committee are aware of the relevancy rule which has been cited quite commonly. I so rule. I would ask all members in this committee to restrict their debate to vote 117, the Ministry of Human Resources.

MRS. DAILLY: As we know, the Ministry of Human Resources is one of the most sensitive areas in government. It wasn't until the New Democratic Party took power that we even changed the name so that the people of British Columbia would be sensitive to the fact that people do not want to go on welfare. People come for assistance from government only when they have to. I think that any minister in charge of this has to make a great attempt to show their sensitivity to the needs of the people who come into their department, If that minister is going to provide for the needs of the people of this province in all the varied areas of Human Resources, she must have the taxes to provide for them. Mr. Chairman, I am simply saying to you that there is a relevancy here. If this member herself believes it's all right to delay property taxes, then everyone else in B.C. could perhaps follow her leadership, and the people would not be able to be provided with any social services.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I cannot relate your comments to the administrative actions of the Ministry of Human Resources.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, the points that I have made here are not in any way trying to thwart the duty you're attempting to do here. I hope you will understand that as a member of the opposition I have a right to question the leadership of the minister. If I happen to have to mention her neglect to pay property taxes in questioning her right to be leader, I cannot see why that would be out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Because it would be a personal matter, hon. member, and we are debating the administrative actions of the department.

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I do resent some of the remarks from across the floor, but I've been here long enough to have to accept it. I want to say that I do not take kindly to the suggestion that, because I am attempting to bring to the House's attention that we have a problem here in leadership, I am attempting to bring the level of debate into the gutter. I am simply attempting to do my job as a member. If I have to bring up property taxes, Mr. Chairman, I have to bring them up. It is a leadership thing we are questioning here, I cannot understand why this subject which I'm bringing up is not considered to be of any importance by the people on the other side of this House. That's all, Mr. Chairman. I am not attempting to make your role difficult, I am simply trying to do my job and say that that minister must set a better example for the people of British Columbia, That is the issue.

Mr. Chairman, I want to continue with this again if I may,

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I sat here with a good deal of interest, listening particularly to the Minister of Universities . Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and the remarks that he's thrown across the floor at my colleague. The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) was giving some very valid arguments with respect to the entire situation as far as she was concerned. I will remind you, Mr. Chairman, the Mother of Parliaments takes very much into consideration the way people behave inside or outside of their ministry.

Going back to the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, the Minister of Universities, Science and Technology, with respect to his remarks, there has never been a member sitting on that side of the House who could be more insulting and more personal in the way he handles this opposition. He's the biggest failure I've ever seen.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask the hon. member for New Westminster to come to order for one moment, please. We are discussing vote 117. If all members of the committee could be reminded that we are on vote 117, the estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources, minister's office, then the committee will be well served. Will the hon. member for New Westminster please address the Chair and also relate the remarks to the vote that is before us.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I feel it is most chivalrous of you, protecting the minister on this issue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the imputation that the Chairman is protecting a member is out of order. Will the member please withdraw.

[ Page 5910 ]

MR. COCKE: I will withdraw, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, I have been in a position over the last number of months, like every member of this House, where I have had an opportunity, through my mail and the people coming to my office, to see that there are troubled people in our province — not only those described by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) and the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) with respect to the whole question of the abuse of children. This is a growing situation. It's growing just because of the fact that this leadership of this ministry has been totally inadequate to meet the needs of the people in our province. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam rightly pointed out, when he went over the public accounts of the last number of years, that there's been an underspending of $47 million in that ministry in the area of children and families.

Mr. Chairman, this isn't something that happens in the bureaucracy. This is not something that happens at midmanagement. This is something that happens from the top. This is happening because the minister's office is advocating that this is the way we go. I pick up the newspaper and find out that children are sent to another jurisdiction — Alberta — because we have no facilities to handle them here.

I feel sorry about that ministry, because everything winds up there. Health is obviously abrogating its obligations, but that particular minister and ministry are stuck with the problems. We're not seeing the prevention done. We're not seeing that $47 million being spent. Nor did we see the $47,000 being spent with respect to the taxes. They took their time there, and they're going to take their time here. I suggest that that's what we need — we need preventive work done. Human Resources is the only ministry one can turn to to do the preventive work.

We're going to be doing more about this later, but I have a list of times that the Association for the Mentally Retarded have tried to get something going with respect to changing the face of the programs for the mentally retarded. A few years ago the then minister, the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), announced a program for in-community care for those in Woodlands and other facilities. That program has been absolutely starved — and we'll go into the details of it — as have been the program for the child and the family and virtually every other program. When we develop a problem like child prostitution and where that becomes an epidemic it isn't because it's something that cannot be dealt with. It's because it can only be dealt with in anticipation, in a preventive way; that is, dealt with properly.

I really fear for our province. I really fear when I hear the opening statement of the Minister of Human Resources winding up with a plaintive letter from a single parent, telling her how wonderful a particular program was. If that program is wonderful, it's one of few.

I have single parents coming to and calling my office every day. As a matter of fact, I had 12 of them in the gallery just last week, people who are working with a program in New Westminster. The SANE — Self Aid Never Ends — program has been going for some years. They've been starved by this ministry. They've been held down to no more. Have you ever seen anybody prepared to put up, during an inflationary period, with exactly the same grants as the year before, the year before that, and the year before that also?

That's the way it is, however. That's the kind of situation we're seeing.

This government was elected in 1975 on the basis that volunteerism was the most positive thing — positive, positive, positive. Well, that negative government have denied their very platform by virtue of the fact that they've never dealt fairly with the societies in our province that have been providing so much.

I remember a few years ago in New Westminster a woman by the name of Dorothy Stoberg was left with four children. She came from a middle-class situation. She was deserted. It took her a year or so to put herself together. She was terribly ashamed of being a recipient of welfare but totally unable to provide any kind of alternative under the circumstances. She had four children for whom she was responsible. She was a very aggressive person. She finally grabbed herself by the bootstraps, with the help of one or two people, and started what has become one of the most successful non-profit agencies that I've ever seen, the Senior Citizens' Service Bureau in New Westminster. It's one of the most respected services providing for the needs of senior citizens in that town. She died at a very young age, unfortunately. But before she died she had set up something that has been ongoing.

Even that program has been stunted by virtue of the fact that it always has difficulty in getting assistance from this government. Thankfully, they started out in 1968 or 1969 — they got a federal LIP grant in those days. Remember those old LIP grants? That's how they started. Fortunately, when the LIP grant went down the tube the then Minister of Human Resources, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, carried on. Over those five or six years they were able to prove to the community, in two ways, that they could really do something. Not only did they provide a service for those senior citizens — transportation, help with shopping, keeping them out of institutions and taking them to the doctor — they provided a major service to the people that expanded beyond New Westminster. I've seen people who were themselves welfare recipients come into that program and regain their self-confidence. Single parents, single mothers — almost to a person — would come in, regain their confidence, realize they were important and get back in the workforce, or sometime get into the workforce for the first time. That is prevention. That's a preventive service we must not overlook, and this government doesn't realize what they're doing when they deny those kinds of services an opportunity to burgeon, flower and do something for all of society. There are dozens and dozens of people who are now living and leading a productive life as a result of what Dot Stoberg started. With a little encouragement there are thousands and thousands of Dot Stobergs out there.

Here's the most amazing thing: she had rankled some people in getting things put together; she had ruffled a few feathers. I once heard her described as "that radical" — that wasn't political, by the way. I went to her funeral, and you couldn't get in there unless you got there early. It was just unfortunate that it took a long time for people to really understand what she was doing. We're all slow learners, but one place we cannot afford to be slow learners is in that very important ministry, the Ministry of Human Resources. We must not be slow learners there. That's the last hope. When you're right down to the wire, that's the end of the line. Leadership, responsibility and understanding in Human Resources is absolutely important. That ministry is being led by a person who, to me at least, indicates that she's far more

[ Page 5911 ]

important in the big ticket. She's far more interested in what's going on at Pier B-C and the convention centre. My colleague said it has been described as "Gracie's Slipper." She has taken full responsibility for it, and in taking full responsibility she's alleviated Vancouver from having to play a role or do this or that and get themselves involved. But she's placed herself in an even worse position by having to take even more responsibility for that and less responsibility for those people who are at the end of the line in this province.

Is it any wonder, then, that the opposition stands here criticizing? There are times, I believe, when it's positive — which seems to be the new catchword — to be critical. That's precisely what we're trying to do. We're trying to wake this government up to the fact that they've got a problem. The problems we now face are small, compared to the problems we'll have in the future if we don't get in there with some prevention, empathy, understanding and caring.

If we could just wake them up; if we could just wake that minister up. It's very difficult to get yourself out of a fanfare business like tourism and into a ministry that hasn't got that kind of lustre. Either she'll do it or somebody over there should take her place who can do it and will do it. I say no more.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if you've ever heard of the Downtown Eastside Residents Association. The Downtown Eastside Residents Association, or DERA, as it's called, is a community-based organization that works in one of the most economically depressed and deprived areas of Vancouver. Most of the people they work with are people who are in receipt of income assistance, or at least should be. As I said before, they're a community-based group, and funding — if any — which they get is from the municipal government.

The Downtown Eastside Residents Association depends on city hall and city government to fund them. When they request additional funds from the city council to hire workers to assist in programs, like the one they have of helping people to fill out their income tax forms and deal with their tax rebates so they don't get ripped off by some of the loan sharks in the area, or when they need workers to work with tenants, in terms of unconscionable increases in rent they're having to deal with — people to work as advocates for them in these kinds of things and, in fact, to do a lot of the jobs that should be done by the Ministry of Human Resources — they are told that they cannot have the level of grant they want because there isn't any money.

I think that what the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) was trying to say was that the minister herself is in a conflict-of-interest situation, because by withholding her taxes she's placing city council in a position where it cannot afford to give the Downtown Eastside Residents Association the kind of income they need to hire the workers to do the job that must be done on behalf of those people who are dependent on the ministry which the minister administers. Therefore this is a part of the discussion of the administration of the ministry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The answer, hon. member, is no. The member may have put forward a good point but, nevertheless, the answer is no. I must ask the member now to continue with the administrative responsibilities of the minister.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your recognizing that it was a good point. What I would like to talk about in terms of the administration of the minister is ombudsman's report, and some of the issues raised by the ombudsman. I don't know whether the minister has her copy with her. What I would like to do is use this opportunity to ask some of the questions which the ombudsman asked, and for which he was unable to get a response. I will give the minister the opportunity to share with the House some of the reasons for some of the decisions which he made.

The first thing the ombudsman dealt with is the business of age discrimination. I don't know if you know this or not, Mr. Chairman, but the ministry issues or hands out income assistance based on age in terms of people above the age of 30 or below the age of 30. Apparently some complaints were filed with the ombudsman that this was discriminatory. Really, need is the only criterion which should be taken into account. In setting up the program, that is the only criterion that the federal government established, and it is still the most fair and just criterion one should use.

The ombudsman suggested that the age criterion was discriminatory. He asked to discuss with the minister her reasons, or the reasons why her ministry had this artificial barrier based on age. The minister said that she was unwilling to do this. To quote exactly, he said: "I sought an opportunity to discuss my opinion and raise recommendations with the Minister of Human Resources. I suggested that a formal internal ministerial review of this problem be initiated, and the minister would not entertain that suggestion." The ombudsman goes on to say that he is of the same opinion still — that as far as he's concerned, it's still discriminatory. Since the minister did not give the ombudsman a reason for this, maybe the minister would like to give the House a reason for this.

I want the minister to take into account, while she is responding to us, something which came out in the research or pilot project on the Victoria earnings exemption which was conducted by her own ministry. Reading from the May 1980 interim report, what happens is that there is a group of people who are unemployed but employable, usually below the age of 30. They don't usually stay on income assistance very long. They're on and off within four months. Sometimes it's a kind of revolving-door thing. They're on and off and on and off and on and off again. The research conducted by the minister's own ministry discovered to his horror that in this group of unemployed employables who are on and off the system — a number of whom are under the age of 30 — 40 percent of them were either directly or indirectly employed by governments. The research said that it was all levels of government, but they specifically zeroed in on two fields. The report said that for the most part they were people who worked for day-care centres and people who are employed in the homemaker umbrella group.

Mr. Chairman, you see the dilemma that we have. As a result of the hiring policies of the government — paying the minimum wage or below the minimum wage either directly or through one of the agencies it contracts its services to — there are a group of people who find themselves in what is known as the on-call earning group. They work for a while, then they're unemployed for a while. During the period of their unemployment they have to apply for income assistance. When they apply for income assistance, they are discriminated against by the policy of the ministry which says that because they're under 30 they cannot get the same

[ Page 5912 ]

amount of income assistance as a person who is over the age of 30.

The government is creating welfare users. With its own hiring policies and its policy of contracting out its services to agencies which cannot pay adequate income, the government is increasing the welfare rolls. As I said, this came out in a report conducted by the ministry itself: "The most surprising fact about the on-call earning group is the industries in which they were employed. In our sample, 40 percent were employed either directly or indirectly by the government." When the minister responds as to why it is that despite the ombudsman's finding that its policy was discriminatory in terms of age discrimination…. I hope the minister in her response will also address herself to the fact that so many of these people on call are working in the welfare field, specifically in day-care programs and in the homemaker umbrella group programs.

Again, I suggest the minister turn to page 40 of the ombudsman's report so that we can deal with a number of the complaints which were lodged against the minister. It says in the report that approximately two-thirds of the complaints received about the Ministry of Human Resources deal with the ministry's income assistance program. In her introduction I think you heard the minister talk about the International Year of the Disabled and the great things that have been done on behalf of disabled individuals. It is surprising therefore to find that a number of the complaints which were filed with the ombudsman came from disabled people who were dissatisfied with the benefits, the income assistance program and a number of different ways in which they had to relate to the ministry. Again these are questions which were raised with the ministry and which were not answered; the ombudsman did not get any response to them. Maybe in responding the minister will share with the House some of the reasons why, especially in this particular year, the International Year of the Disabled, there are so many complaints being lodged about the ministry in terms of its income assistance program for disabled people and in terms of the lack of services which the minister is able to deliver to disabled people in this particular year.

It goes on to say that about one-fifth of the complaints directed at the ministry dealt with the business of children in care. Both individual foster parents and natural parents presented several complaints. For example, it says the ministry has refused to inform them where a foster child was, or has removed a child from the natural home without cause. They also had several complaints from adults who were adopted and were now seeking their natural parents, but that's another issue all together.

I want the minister to respond to the one-fifth of complaints delivered against the ministry about the whole issue of children in care. It's interesting that the ombudsman indicated that one of the ministries he had the least amount of cooperation from was the Ministry of Human Resources. I think that is certainly something the minister has to address herself to. We're going to deal in more detail with the treatment program for disabled children either tomorrow or at another time, because that is going to take quite a bit of time, and also in general with services to the disabled, because that, specifically, is going to take quite a bit of time.

When one recognizes that the ministry had five pages of complaints which were dealt with by the ombudsman — specifically dealing with the ministry — I think the minister should take some time to address and share with the House some of these complaints. The complaints deal with emergency funding, particularly Christmas emergency funding; the inability of the ministry to pay its bills on time; the number of foster parents complaining that their payments were late because the ministry was not paying its bills on time, and the kind of inconvenience this visited on the foster parents; the whole business of the disabled and all of the programs dealing with the disabled, services to the disabled and services to disabled children, including complaints from some of the disabled themselves about the ministry's income assistance program and how totally insufficient it was in meeting their needs; and, of course, the whole business of the bureaucracy.

I want to talk in more detail at another time about the relationship of the ministry to the workers, because it's nice that the minister stands up and tells us that she has hardworking people in her ministry — and I certainly agree with her — but that is not what we hear. We find out that in fact a number of ministry staff themselves filed complaints with the ombudsman about the ministry. Maybe the minister wants to talk at some length tomorrow, the day after or whenever about the personnel-related complaints filed with the ombudsman against the ministry.

If the minister could answer those questions…. I'm not going to raise the question of DERA again.

The minister made a comment about the budget. I want to remind her that in speaking on overtaxation in the budget, I specifically dealt with the sales tax and mentioned that it is the most regressive form of taxation. It's a 50 percent increase introduced by her government which creates the greatest burden and hardship on the people who can least afford to pay it — namely, the people who are dependent on her ministry for services. In her advocacy role, I would have thought that rather than standing up to defend her government, she would have made some suggestion or given some idea as to how this particular burden could have been alleviated.

I don't think there's any question that the increase of taxes introduced by her government is a burden on everyone, including the minister herself. I think that the whole issue we were discussing earlier, which we cannot discuss now because you, Mr. Chairman, have ruled it out of order because it doesn't deal with the administration of the ministry, is a clear indication of the overtaxation of this government. So I think the minister herself is a living example of what happens when people are overtaxed by a government. Aside from working on behalf of herself simply by deferring her taxes, which she has the right to do, she should have operated more as an advocate on behalf of those people who are dependent on her ministry and can't defer their taxes. There is no way….

Mr. Chairman, since the minister is not interested, I would like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.