[ Page 5927 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Sale of Queen 0ak Bay. Mr. Howard –– 5927

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Cocke

IWA-COFI negotiations. Ms. Sanford –– 5928

Mr. King

Mr. Barrett

Shutdown of Amax molybdenum mine. Mr. Passarell –– 5928

Racial discrimination. Mr. Barnes –– 5928

Gas Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 19). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 5929

Ms. Sanford –– 5929

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 5929

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No –– 1), 1981 (Bill 24). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5930

Mr. Howard –– 5930

Mr. Hall –– 5930

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5931

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

On vote 117: minister's office –– 5931

Ms. Brown, Mr. Gabelmann, Mrs. Dailly, Mr. Hall

Royal assent to bills –– 5938

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

On vote 117: minister's office –– 5938

Mr. Cocke, Mrs. Wallace, Mr. Levi

Appendix –– 5948

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask all members to bid a cordial welcome to two guests in the gallery today: Miss Sharon Jacobs from the constituency of Vancouver–Point Grey, and Mrs. John Olson from Saltspring Island.

MR. HOWARD: In the gallery we have with us a very highly regarded and respected gentleman from Winnipeg. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Bill Blaikie, MP for Winnipeg-Birds Hill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: A group of students from the constituency of Saanich and the Islands is visiting us today in the gallery. I wonder if the House would welcome these young people from North Saanich middle school.

MRS. WALLACE: Another group of students is in the precincts today. They are grade 8 students from Stanley Gordon school in Lake Cowichan. I don't believe they are in the gallery at the moment. I would like the House to join me in welcoming them.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the opposition is having an epidemic, a very terrible rash of birthdays. We thought we would kill all the birds with one stone and ask the House to....

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Now is that a feeling of good cheer? I'd like the House to wish a very happy birthday to the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), who was 16 on Sunday; the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who is 21 today; and the absent member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer), who is going to be God knows what tomorrow.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'd like the House to make welcome some visitors from the constituency of Langley. They came to enjoy lunch and question period this afternoon: Mattie Aiken, Edith Greenwood, Madeleine Snell and Helen Northey. Accompanying them is my executive assistant Carol Gran. I'd ask you all to make them welcome.

Oral Questions

SALE OF QUEEN OF OAK BAY

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Inasmuch as the minister has just sold the new Cowichan class ferry Queen of Oak Bay to Royal Trust Co. of Toronto for $24 million and inasmuch as Royal Trust Co. stands to earn a sizeable profit from this deal because of the generous capital cost allowance on such sale-leaseback arrangements, I would ask the minister if he can confirm to the House that the British Columbia government's share of these tax losses will exceed $3.8 million.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to the member for Skeena, I can confirm that a deal is now being negotiated to sell to Royal Trust the vessel Queen of Oak Bay on a leaseback basis. I'll have to take the other part of his question as notice.

MR. HOWARD: I take it by that answer that the minister didn't bother to find out beforehand what the tax loss would be.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: Inasmuch as article 4 of the draft lease agreement published by the minister provides certain guarantees for Royal Trust Co. If that particular tax loophole is plugged, I wonder if the minister can advise the House why it was felt necessary to arrange such a guarantee to such a poverty-stricken free enterprise operator as Royal Trust.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I might say to the member for Skeena, and all the members in the House, that it is my information that no deal has been signed yet. It was authorized by cabinet that they enter into the agreement, but I believe that this week they're in negotiation for signing the papers.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker. that same article — article 4 — provides that in the event the tax loophole is plugged, Royal Trust may increase the rent charged to the B.C. Ferry Corporation "to such an amount as will, in the reasonable opinion" — of Royal Trust, yield a satisfactory return. I wonder if the minister can tell the House why he has found it necessary to give this kind of blank cheque to Royal Trust Co. to bump the rental on the Queen of Oak Bay at Royal Trust's discretion.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'll get the details that the member for Skeena is concerned about. I'm pretty sure that there won't be any blank cheques signed.

MR. HOWARD: This is a supplementary and final question. Inasmuch as the deal has not yet actually been consummated and signed, can the minister assure the House that those giveaway provisions to which I referred earlier, and which were in the draft lease agreement, will not be contained in the final agreement?

MR. SPEAKER: That's a future action of the minister.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, I wonder if the minister could advise the House why this government and that minister continue to sell the vessels of the B.C. Ferry Corporation at the expense of the taxpayers of this province.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I don't really think that was a question from the member for Mackenzie. This deal that is being negotiated now will be in the best interests of the public of British Columbia.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, this is a question to the minister. Would the minister agree that this is a way of going further into debt and doing it in such a way as to be a very costly process for us? We're selling a vessel for $24 million

[ Page 5928 ]

that cost us $30 million, and we're going to pay $69 million to get it back.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, from the very response of the House it is obvious that the question is argumentative.

IWA-COFI NEGOTIATIONS

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. The issue of regional versus provincewide negotiating is getting in the way of a new contract in the forest industry. I think that issue should be separate from the one of contract renewal. I would like to ask the minister what steps he has taken to resolve the impasse between the IWA and the COFI regarding the scope of bargaining in the industry.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, while discussions are going on in this most important industry I don't think it's in the interests of the parties involved that any matters which I have discussed be made public. Otherwise, I think it imperils the sanctity of collective bargaining and the confidentiality of the comments which have been relayed to me. Accordingly I will not answer that particular question in the House or discuss those deliberations with which I've been involved.

MS. SANFORD: I think the point the minister has missed is that negotiations are not taking place at the moment. They have broken down because of the issue that is interfering. I would like to know what steps the minister has taken to ensure that collective bargaining can take place in this province. What steps has he taken to ensure that that issue is removed at this point so that the two sides can get down to negotiating a new contract?

MR. KING: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I'm amazed at the minister's response that he will refuse to give any information to the House. The question is: has the minister done anything to try to resolve the impasse regarding the structure and scope of bargaining so that the parties can get onto contract renewal negotiations? There's a concern on this side that that road-block may result in a work stoppage without any meaningful negotiations having taken place. What we're simply asking from the minister is whether or not he is prepared to get involved. If there's a technical reason why he would be afraid of upsetting some tentative agreement, fair enough, the House would understand that. But to suggest that he will not be responsible or answer in any way to the House is, in my view, arrogance.

MR. BARRETT: I have a question for the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that both sides in the dispute are not presently meeting?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I am aware of the fact that there are some difficulties being experienced in the forest industry, particularly in the production area. I am also aware of other matters which I am not at liberty to discuss. What confidence would those with whom I deal have if I were to make public some of those discussions?

MR. BARRETT: The question to the minister is this: is the minister aware that both sides are not meeting?

MR. SPEAKER: I think the minister has the question.

MR. BARRETT: Since he wants to sit in silence on that, given the fact that both sides are not meeting, without the minister telling us how he is involved, can he assure this House that he is involved in a plan to get them back to the bargaining table?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm going to, repeat as often as the question is asked: I have no intention whatsoever of discussing matters of collective bargaining, negotiations, posturing and the strategy of the various parties. That's a matter of bargaining, and that's where it will remain.

MR. BARRETT: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Everybody in the House applauded that statement from the minister. Now the next question. Is the minister involved? Without telling us any of the details, can he assure the public of British Columbia that he is involved and has a plan, the details of which we do not wish to know, that will bring both sides back to the bargaining table before they drift into a strike?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think it's accepted practice in this House, and has been since question period has been instituted, that questions can be asked. However, answers cannot be insisted upon. That is not to deviate from the regular practice of the House.

MR. KING: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. The minister's comments seem to imply that he is in discussion with the parties regarding their problems in contract renewal this year. He said that he did not wish to compromise. Has the minister been in touch and had any discussion with the parties — that is COFI and the IWA — with respect to the impasse? We don't wish to know any of the details. Has he a plan to bring them back to the bargaining table?

SHUTDOWN OF AMAX MOLYBDENUM MINE

MR. PASSARELL: I have a question for the Minister of Environment. Last week, Mr. Wayne Lenton, vice-president of Amax, finally admitted that inland tailing ponds are a feasible solution to the problem of toxic waste disposal at Alice Arm. Has the minister decided to spare the Nishga further harm and immediately order the installation of an inland disposal system at Alice Arm?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, Mr. Speaker.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

MR. BARNES: I have a question to the Minister of Labour. section 2(l) of the Human Rights Code makes it an offence to cause to be published or displayed before the public a notice, sign, symbol or emblem indicating discrimination or intention to discriminate. Has the Minister of Labour decided to initiate proceedings under this section against the Ku Klux Klan for its public cross-burnings?

[ Page 5929 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I believe the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) advised two days ago that an investigation was being conducted. Prior to proceeding with that particular incident, I thought it would be in the interests of the issues before us to wait receipt of the Attorney-General's report.

MR. BARNES: A submission to lawyer John McAlpine prepared by staff of the human rights branch argues that the Human Rights Code could be used effectively to combat KKK hate literature. Will the minister tell us why he is refusing to act on the recommendation of his own human rights branch to initiate proceedings against the Ku Klux Klan?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It seems to me that question was asked some weeks ago. It's become quite evident that the Code as it is presently drafted would not serve any purpose, or we wouldn't meet with any success. That was the reason I had that report initiated. I suppose there might have been some benefit in appointing a board of inquiry and allowing those interested to have a venue to express views on some of the detestable events which have taken place. But I think the object is really to meet with some success. That's the purpose of the report and its recommendations.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, Hon. members, the bell terminates the question period, and there is another question period tomorrow.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 19, Mr. Speaker.

GAS AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm pleased to introduce this gas safety act for second reading. This legislation follows the two previous bills and is similar both because it sets up an appeal process and updates the legislation so that it will....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if conferences are necessary, perhaps we could return to whispering, or those conferences could take place in the corridors. Mr. Minister, please proceed.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, this is the third of three companion bills, The first is the Power Engineers and Boiler and Pressure Vessel Safety Act, the second is the Electrical Energy Inspection Amendment Act, 1981, and the third and final bill from the Ministry of Labour is the Gas Amendment Act, 1981. It also contains within the bill some modernization so as to coincide with present technology. It also provides for an appeal process, and I might say that it has been in the chute for some years. It has been essentially unchanged since 1954, but the changes found in the bill are really those requested by industry and labour.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Again, there was a committee which was primarily responsible for the bill. A number of people and professional engineers from B.C. Hydro, Inland Natural Gas, the Mechanical Contractors Association, the Ministry of Labour, Pacific Northern Gas, the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' Association, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting and the gas safety branch. This particular bill. like the others, after being introduced in the House was circulated to the committee. The information passed back to me was that all members of the committee expressed complete agreement with the bill as well as a full endorsation. I also have a letter from the Gas Safety Review Committee under the signature of T.A. Maranda, a professional engineer, advising that the committee had reviewed Bill 19 and a motion was passed unanimously endorsing the proposed legislation.

There may be one minor amendment with respect to an expression that really is not of any significance whatsoever. I really don't think there is much more to be said other than going into the technicalities of the bill. Whether or not there will be any benefit gathered by so doing.... I think probably the members opposite had an opportunity to review it. It's very similar to the others. I think I will just sit down and allow them to pass comments at this time.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to belabour the same point that we raised this morning, but I do have to reiterate our concern about the trend of putting all of the important aspects of legislation into regulations so that cabinet can make changes which are never discussed in this Legislature, which have no public scrutiny and which are not reported on, except after the fact. I just want to go on the record to make sure that that is included in Hansard as being part of the concern that we express on this bill as well. It's a continuing trend with this government, Mr. Speaker, and we are concerned about it.

Most of the material I wish to raise under this bill is better done in committee, because it's fairly detailed and refers to various sections. But I do have a general question with respect to the appeal procedure. I'm not quite sure why the appeal procedure has been set up in this way. First of all we have appeals to the director, and then that appeal may go to the special appeal board that's being established under this legislation. But in addition there is provision for appeals in cases relating to construction, to go under the new legislation we will be discussing later on this afternoon, I assume, or tomorrow, brought in by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), with respect to building standards. I don't understand why the Buildings Code Appeal Board would have a greater knowledge about the provisions in this Gas Amendment Act than either the director of the branch or the appeal board which is established under this act. I'm somewhat confused and concerned about the other appeal provision to the Building Safety Standards Board that's going to be established under Bill 20, brought in by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. If the minister would address that issue, then I think we will raise the rest of our concerns on this legislation in committee.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: If the member looks at the marginal note on page 5 of the bill, where it expands one particular section, you'll find in there that should any recom-

[ Page 5930 ]

mendation be made — this has a parallel provision in boiler and pressure, and in electrical.... The purpose is this; I thought I might have touched on it this morning. Where a decision of an inspector in any one of these three areas might be such as to implement any recommendation which that inspector orders, and may affect the structure of a building, in order to accommodate this problem, industry — and by that I mean the full complement of industry — was concerned about the rigidity of inspectors and that there would be an appeal to the Building Code Appeal Board which would consist of people who are knowledgeable in each of these areas, depending on what the issue is. Really, what happened is that there seemed to be a consensus among all those involved as to how best to handle what at times can be a very irritable problem. I think the member addresses the question particularly of who is going to be on that board to make that decision. I think you would probably find that those who are appointed would be somewhat knowledgeable in the specific area under review.

The other item on here makes reference again to regulation. But when you look at the regulations behind any of these areas, there are literally piles of paper. I don't quite understand how we as a government can respond quickly — within a week, two weeks, three weeks or four weeks — if it's within legislation. By putting it within legislation I think we really invite a problem and detract from the very flexibility which has been not only our thrust but that of the trades and industry.

If that particular matter was not adequately explained, with respect to the appeal process, when it goes to the building standards board I will make a note of this, and perhaps it could be raised during the committee stage.

I now move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 19, Gas Amendment Act, 1981, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 24, Mr. Speaker — I think a bill best left for debate in committee.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 1), 1981

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: I assume the Attorney-General has spoken, by the sound of things — or you lost your chance, except to wind it up. The motion is before the House?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Attorney-General must be recognized for the motion to be made.

MR. NICOLSON: I think that we go on to the next bit of business, in that we now have a dropped order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, we don't, hon. member.

MR. NICOLSON: There has been no motion moved.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the Chair recognized the member for Skeena, not knowing what the member....

MR. NICOLSON: Quite rightly.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, he was on his feet. He asked a question. The question has been replied to. I now recognize the hon. Attorney-General.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the member for Skeena is so overwhelmingly in support of Bill 24 that I thought perhaps he would move the motion.

This is the first of the omnibus statutes amendment provisions which will be before the House this year. There will be at least one more. As it covers a number of amendments to a number of separate statutes, it can be more appropriately dealt with at the committee stage. I move second reading.

MR. HOWARD: As the Attorney-General said, a number of statutes are sought to be amended. A quick count on my part indicates that 30 statutes are sought to be changed with this one bill. While that in itself inhibits any rational second reading debate on principle, because there are presumably 30 principles involved in the bill, it does lend itself, as said, to a committee stage examination.

However, I think — from my point of view, in any event, and ours here — that it's a most inappropriate way to deal with legislative items, to lump together in one bill a number of acts that may have conflicting principles, one with the other. It puts the House always in a very awkward position of making some determination about second reading. Members are in the position of perhaps agreeing with one section and not agreeing with another section, as the case may be, and finding themselves in that anomalous position of having either to vote against the bill in its entirety even though there are good features or to vote for it in its entirety even though there are unacceptable features.

It would seem to me that sometime perhaps the Attorney-General and the draftsmen for government would find a different way of approaching matters of this nature. Inasmuch as we do have it before us, the way to deal with it obviously is at the committee stage. At some point, unless this matter is addressed properly by government, there needs to be a very intensive procedural argument about the propriety and the orderliness of legislating in this fashion.

MR. HALL: I share the concerns of the member for Skeena about this. This statute gets longer and longer as more and more miscellaneous statutes — as they're termed — get thrown into this omnibus bill. However, I suppose it's in front of us and we'll have to deal with it as best we can.

I would like the Attorney-General to assure the House that when committee stage is called — and I don't suppose we'll get any more than the usual three minutes' notice of committee stages being called; no matter what the House Leader may privately tell his children he's doing for the good of the Legislature, that's about what we get — he'll make sure that the ten ministers who are in Bill 24 will be on the floor of the House to answer questions on the various sections. That way we'll not have to have the usual wrangle as the Attorney-General tries to explain pieces of legislation he knows nothing about.

[ Page 5931 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's never happened yet.

MR. HALL: Yes, it happened last year. We got into a very bad situation when this side of the House was trying to find out what was going on, and you and the Attorney-General couldn't answer the questions and the minister responsible for that particular piece of legislation wasn't in the House at the time. All I'm saying is: if you want cooperation on one side of the House, Mr. Speaker, let's get it on the other side of the House as well. Therefore I suggest that when we go through committee it will be the Chairman's duty to make sure that ministers are on the other side of the House when committee stage is undertaken.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The problem raised by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is one of which we are very much aware. We have been attempting to design the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act to restrict its use to those amendments which are, in a sense, single-section amendments largely for correcting language or errors in expression, so we don't have a number of provisions for amendment under a particular statute being dealt with in this way. We have attempted, with the assistance of legislative counsel, to accommodate that in this bill. If we have not been successful to the satisfaction of the opposition, I extend my apologies.

To the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), who was so interested in raising the issue that he has seen fit to leave the House before he gets his answer, may I say that while the bill stands in the name of the Attorney-General for purposes of carriage in the House, it is required that each of the several ministers whose statutes are being dealt with in this way be present and available for debate at the committee stage. To the extent that some circumstance may arise so that this is not possible, then it will be incumbent upon the Attorney-General to be able to respond to questions that may be posed with regard to any particular amendment.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 24, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1981, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES
(continued)

HON. MR. GARDOM: Before calling the vote, I'd like to draw to the attention of all hon. members that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor will be approaching the premises about 4 o'clock this afternoon for royal assent to some legislation that the Legislature has passed in this session.

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, as we left this vote yesterday in committee, there were some questions raised by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) regarding what he termed the underspending in family and children's services. I'd like to address my remarks to that charge today. There is a very simple explanation for the figures he raised, which I did not have handy yesterday. But I'd be pleased to respond to that charge he gave to us on the floor of the House yesterday.

The suggestion was that the family and children's services part of the ministry's vote was underspent in 1979-80 by $8.5 million. I think the intimation was that we were denying services because of the diminution of that vote, and because it was underspent. First of all, let me explain to you that $5.3 million of the $8.5 million was placed in the budget to include plans for new development, which in some cases was delayed due to municipal requirements and local problems. I think everyone in this House probably is quite aware of what those local problems sometimes are. We plan to put a group home in a community and the community will not accept it. There's a lot of negotiation between the municipal government and the residents surrounding a group home about whatever the problems are. It takes a tremendous amount of communication.

Sometimes some of the desires of the ministry to place a group home or a facility in a particular area are not met with the greatest or the quickest success because of the problems we have. In this regard there are local problems and municipal requirements, A good example of this was in the community of Surrey, and both members for Surrey will be quite cognizant of that. So that which we expect to expend in a given year is placed in the budget in advance and is not spent in that particular year. The fact that the service comes on stream in the following few months of the next budget year was not mentioned by the member who raised this question, but in effect that is what happens.

So $5.3 million is involved in that kind of effort. Also, the budget is based on a full 12-month operation in all resources. Some are closed — and that's not cutting a service out — because of the fact that a parent group will perhaps leave the province or decide that they don't want to take any new people in and close down a facility. New ones are opened and old ones are closed. The budgeting system is changed to reflect opening and closing of resources more accurately in this year. So we think we can be a little more accurate in this particular vote in the coming years because we are just at this present time changing the budget system to reflect that fluctuation.

That takes care of $5.3 million of the $8.5 million. Then the member made reference to homemakers. There was underexpenditure resulting in the transfer of some responsibilities because 1979-1980 was the time when there was the transfer of reference from homemakers from Human Resources into the Ministry of Health. We set up $1.1 million too much in the transfer, but it was better to do so than to be underfinanced for that particular service. But again, let me just say that there was no service denied. The fact that we overestimated $1.1 million does not mean that anyone out there could have had a service and did not simply because it wasn't spent. We weren't as close in our figuring in that regard. We were, as I say, over $1.1 million.

Our ministry felt that in that year the day-care facilities which we subsidize — day-care for people who wish to take advantage of it and who need a partial subsidy or a full subsidy.... They overestimated the demand for service. It was lower than anticipated. Not one parent was denied daycare, because the full amount of day-care was not spent. I wish to reiterate that, because the inference was left yesterday that there was some money underexpended, and therefore that the service wasn't given.

[ Page 5932 ]

Also, in that same vote, the special services for children was underspent by $700,000. Again, the demand for this type of service was lower than anticipated. The reason for that was that prior to this particular financial year we did not have the number of family support workers who take a lot of that work on. That particular vote was underexpended because of the initiation of more family support workers in that area.

So out of the total of $8.5 million, those are the reasons why they were underspent. May I also refer to a couple of things that were left hanging yesterday? I think the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) was concerned about community grants. In effect, what we used to call community grants and the service for community grants — and I notice the member is not in the House — has been increased by 12.8 percent. Year after year it has had an increase. I hope all members of the House will understand that we have a really decentralized approach to financing, and this is done on a regional basis. Please try to remember that these community grants and community services — all services, even the family and children's services that I've just mentioned again — are expenditures on a regional level. They have their own budgets to adhere to. The decision as to what service and what services will be enhanced, what services will be doubled, or whatever, is really in the hands of the local authorities — the regional manager and the region itself — because they are the ones who know best what the approach should be in each and every area.

There was some reference from the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) to the ombudsman's report. She was concerned about the discrimination which was brought forward by DERA and reported, I believe, in the ombudsman's report. I'd just like to say that there's always been discrimination in terms of payments. The member is a part of the socialist party which had the opportunity to be government for 38 months, and they discriminated at that time. Those who were 60 years of age got a higher rate. Remember? They changed it from those who were getting it at 65 years of age, and they lowered it to 60 years of age. When our government came in, we reduced that level to 55 years of age. In the last couple of years our ministry has reduced it even further to 31 years of age. We have been moving it down all of this time.

MS. BROWN: I don't believe this.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: You can laugh if you will. But I want to refer you to the fact that in just about everything that Human Resources or Health or anyone who is giving a service to the public does, there is some form of discrimination in terms of ability to pay.

In our letter to the ombudsman I do believe that we were quite clear in our assessment of the complaint. As you know — and I don't think it was mentioned when you brought it up yesterday — the complaint was regarding lower benefit levels paid to single persons and couples under the age of 31 who are without children. As we have outlined in our submission to the ombudsman, we believe that young people are more able to work. I want you to know that these are the people whom DERA was trying to represent when they gave their complaint to the ombudsman. We believe that some of them require income assistance for short periods of time, but it's clear from the benefits-paid statistics pattern that cases under 31 years of age come and go off the income assistance rolls significantly faster than others. There's no question of that.

Even our own statistics say that those under 31 go off income assistance at an average rate of 24.5 percent per month, while those 31 and over leave at the rate of 10 percent per month. The unquestionably dramatic difference in those two is due to the fact that those who are single are able to be mobile, can go and seek the jobs and can go out of the province or to a different part of the province. They can seek independence without the problems that older people who have families and dependents have to contend with, seeking shelter and jobs and so on. They are far more restricted. Their ability to readily move to seek alternative employment, I believe, supports our suggestion that those who are 31 and younger are more mobile.

There was reference to the ombudsman's report. I really would like to take a little bit of exception to the remarks that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds made when she said that there were complaints from personnel to the ombudsman. If one looks on page 41 of the ombudsman's report — and I have it before me — there is one statement that refers to this. It says: "Staff complaining re working conditions." In 1979-80 the ombudsman received 24 complaints from public servants from all ministries — not the Ministry of Human Resources. The only reference to the Ministry of Human Resources is again on page 41, where it says: "... staff complaining about their working conditions." In the whole year there were 24 complaints from public servants, which is .06 percent of the total complaints given to the ombudsman. It's interesting to note that in the complaints that are, I would say, vaguely referred to in the report of the ombudsman in reference to the staff of the Ministry of Human Resources, there is staff from the former Vancouver Resources Board, which, of course, was not within the realm of the ombudsman, and the ombudsman so informed that complainant.

I also want to share with the House the fact that our ministry does have a procedure for complaints. I would like to refer to you a letter that was received from Dr. Friedmann: "I have advised Mr...." — and I won't name the person — "that should he be dissatisfied with the finding or should he have in future any other problems relating to his employment, these complaints should be addressed to his union." And I have a sample letter which is sent to those in our ministry, we are informed, as a matter of fact: "Existing grievance procedures provide a remedy adequate in the circumstances for the person aggrieved, and I have decided not to investigate the complaint." That's from Dr. Friedmann once again.

One of the things that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds did not share with the House I'm rather pleased to share with the House because I'm rather proud of the fact that our ministry has had a very good working relationship with the new ombudsman's office. I would like to ask you all to take a took at the Ministry of Human Resources which takes up something like four pages of the ombudsman's report, which in total is about 100 pages, and in those four pages there are a few paragraphs here which refer to specific investigations which he has undertaken. I have had the opportunity to read these complaints, and I want to tell you that there are very many of those that had come to the ombudsman that could well have been taken care of by any one of the members of this House, because almost in every case in this ombudsman's report there has been an avenue for resolution. We've all done that in our own offices and communities, and we have found those.

[ Page 5933 ]

Let me just refer you to page 41, under personnel, the very thing that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds brought up. " It is worth noting that the ministry — both executive and line staff — have been very cooperative, and this has facilitated complaint resolution." And then move along to the one-stop total bureaucracy care, and then you'll find that the ending paragraph of that says: "The complaint was thus resolved through the ministry's actions and no recommendation was required." Let me refer you also to the "battling bureaucracy can be like pulling teeth" paragraph on page 42. This very case was reiterated on page 42 regarding a man who wanted to have special dental treatment through the GAIN program. Strangely enough, I have resolved many of those cases personally without any problems of taking them any further, and so have people on my line staff and so have people in this House. But let me give you the last paragraph of that, and I quote from the ombudsman's report: "My staff followed up a few weeks later, and the complainant was in a much happier frame of mind. His teeth had been fixed, his other problems had been attended to and, most important to him, he felt that the ministry treated him like a human being."

I also quote page 44, the paragraph titled "Steering recipients of assistance through the bureaucracy": "This case represents a good example of the concern which this ministry has shown in ensuring that the concept of administrative fairness is applied as fully as possible to recipients of income assistance." The very last paragraph in reference to the Ministry of Human Resources is on page 45. It is at the end of a paragraph in regard to reuniting a mother and daughter who had been on income assistance: "The cooperation of the ministry in making the reunion possible was greatly appreciated by the complainant and my staff."

I'm pleased that we've had such a good association, and I am pleased to respond to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. I think those were the only questions left, and I look forward to the discussion of my ministry this afternoon.

MS. BROWN: Yesterday I dealt specifically with the advocacy role of the minister, and I expressed my disappointment with the way in which she had discharged her responsibilities in this area. I suggested that in fact she had failed to discharge her responsibilities.

The other area I would like to deal with today has to do with services. Of course all my colleagues would like to participate in that debate, and so this afternoon I am going to allow my colleagues to raise specific issues with the minister rather than doing it myself. I can wait and do that at some other time.

Before passing on, however, I just want to bring to the attention of the House that in the ombudsman's report, on page 15, there was a special section, section D, which said: "Specific issues for the attention of the Legislative Assembly." That entire section deals with the Ministry of Human Resources. I wouldn't want the House to be misled or left with the impression that the only things the ombudsman had to say about the ministry were in the four pages the minister brought to our attention. The actions of the ministry receive special attention in this particular section. The ombudsman said the ministry would not implement his recommendations dealing with age discrimination, and so it had a special section all of its own, on pages 15 and 16 for anyone who is interested.

The reasons the minister gave to the House are, of course, not the same as the ones she gave to the ombudsman, because in the ombudsman's report the reason she gave for people under 30 receiving less was that the public believes they should receive less. She also said her ministry would have to take it before Treasury Board, because to change this particular type of discrimination would involve significant expenditure. I think it's only fair that the House should know that those really are the two reasons why people under the age of 30 are discriminated against by the Ministry of Human Resources.

In closing these comments I just want to say that I'm really surprised to have learned today that GAIN for seniors starts at age 31 in this province. This is the first time it's been brought to my attention. GAIN for seniors, which was at age 65, was lowered to age 60 under the NDP. It was lowered to age 55 under the present government, and today we were told it has now been lowered to age 31. I hope all of us senior citizens over the age of 31 will be getting our bus passes and Pharmacare cards before the day is out.

MR. GABELMANN: Both the minister and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) raised their eyebrows when the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) made those comments about the age of senior citizenship being reduced to 31. That's precisely what the minister said. I heard her too: the reason there was discrimination at age 31 was that that was just a continuation of a policy that had been developing in British Columbia over the last few years: 65 to 60 to 55 and now down to 31, Obviously she couldn't have meant that, but that's what she said, and the House should be clear about that.

This afternoon I want to talk about one specific issue. The issue is shelter allowances.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll ask the committee to come to order, please.

MR. GABELMANN: Before dealing specifically with some of the numbers involved that I want to relate to the House this afternoon concerning the shelter allowance portion of social assistance, I want to describe, in composite form, the situation that three or four of my constituents have faced in the last six to eight weeks.

It goes as follows. The phone rings in my constituency office or in my office here in the buildings and a woman says: "I've been evicted from my home or my apartment and there's nothing the rentalsman can do, because it's a proper eviction under the rules. I'm on social assistance. I'm alone, with one child. The housing allowance is $300 since April 1. There is no accommodation. whatsoever, available. There is a house that would be suitable for...." Then the figure ranges between $600, $700 and $800 a month. Then I phone the social worker and I say: "What are we going to do?" The social worker says to me: "Well, what do you want me to do?" I say to the social worker: "Well, I think together, as advocates for people in this position in this community, we should try to do something to help this person and her child or children find accommodation." The social worker, quite properly under the existing rules, says to me: "We are not mandated to assist our clients in finding housing. It is our job to pay the bill that they present to us." So I say to the social worker: "There is no housing, certainly within the affordable levels. What would you say if I recommend to this client of yours that she and her child go to live in a motel in town at a cost to the government of $1,000 or $1,200 a month?"

[ Page 5934 ]

Human Resources then pays that if that happens. The worker says: "Well, I can't comment on that. It's not part of my job to assist in finding my clients accommodation."

I'm saying to the minister now that I intend, in the future, to continue to recommend to these people that they do not spend 10 and 12 hours every day searching for accommodation that doesn't exist in the first place. I'm going to suggest to them that they go to the nearest motel, check in and send the bill to MHR, because that's the only solution available. It's just not good enough.

I appreciate that a lot of this discussion has to go on in the estimates of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot). I can assure the House that those comments will be made then. But why is it that a government who is so conscious, publicly at least, about public funds is quite prepared to say to its staff: "Don't help the clients find a place to live, but we'll pay $1,000 or $1,200 a month?"

I quote a headline in the Vancouver Province: "Homeless Clog Motel Strip." The sub-head and body says: "Aid to a Welfare Family Can Top $1,000 a Month. Motel row on Kingsway in east Vancouver has become a cramped waiting room for welfare recipients subsidized by up to $1,200 a month per family by the provincial Ministry of Human Resources." What kind of program is this? Why are we spending that kind of money instead of putting money into affordable housing for people on social assistance? I suspect it's a question that has no answer.

This afternoon I briefly want to bring to the attention of members in this House, to all those people in the gallery and to those people who read Hansard just what the shelter allowance portion is today. This is after what the minister calls "substantial increases effective April 1" On March 13 she said: "During the 11 months since the last GAIN rate increase, the cost of living in British Columbia has risen significantly. These new rates will help our clients keep up with these costs." We're talking about the housing component of those costs.

If you are a single person on welfare, you are eligible up to $170 a month for your rental portion. I'm going to give you all the figures up to the unit of four. If there are two of you, it's $300; for three of you, it's $360; and for four of you, it's $400. That's not just rent. That includes utilities such as power, heat and other utilities that all of us need in this day and age.

Now let's look at what housing costs are for these people. Let me remind the House that, overwhelmingly, most of these people are women with children. One person in Vancouver — $170 allowed. What's the studio-apartment rent in Vancouver? I'm quoting government statistics from the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing. A studio apartment is $415 a month. A bachelor is $275 a month, and a one bedroom is $450 a month. A one-bedroom in Burnaby is $460 a month. And you get $170 towards your rental. So the difference between the $460 and the $170 is $290, which comes out of your food portion, except that it's not that high. You don't get that much money for food. So you spend more on this average one-bedroom apartment than you get in your total welfare cheque. You might be able to do it in Surrey, because rents there are only $300 for a one-bedroom. You'd only be taking $130 of your food money every month to pay for your accommodation in Surrey, on average. In New Westminster you have to take $230 out of your food money. And so it goes. And it's not just in the lower mainland. In my constituency, a one-bedroom in Campbell River is now averaging about $270 a month. So you only have to take $100 out of the food you need to eat every month to pay your rent.

But let's not talk about singles, because there seems to be a public bias against single people on welfare. There certainly is a government bias against them, as demonstrated by the minister's comments about under-31s in her reaction to the ombudsman. So let's talk about kids, for whom we can all have some emotional compassion, since we don't seem to be able to have any for other individuals in our society. Let's talk about situations where there are one or two children. Let me remind you that if there's one child and a parent, you get $300. Take the Vancouver figures: two-bedrooms in Surrey, $350, two-bedrooms in Coquitlam, $600; there are some three-bedrooms for $650, $500, $575, $650, $500. They are all in that kind of range. And what's the housing allowance? For four people it's $400.

I can go through these figures endlessly to demonstrate that there is a considerable shortfall between the shelter allowance and the amount that it actually costs these people to live in accommodation — if they can find it in the first place. What's the minister's response to that? To marginally increase the rates April 1, which doesn't even begin to deal with the crisis that faces people out there.

Let me talk, first of all, about some figures produced by the YWCA — not your average radical organization that the government may not want to listen to. It's not even Red Door, which I'm sure the government will never listen to. These are the YWCA figures in Vancouver. They have over a thousand people a month coming into their office looking for assistance in finding a place to live. It's the only agency in downtown Vancouver. Seventy-five percent of those people who come into that office are women; two-thirds are single women and single parents. A majority are well over 35. Most of them are from British Columbia; it's not an influx from some other part of the country. Eighty-one percent of them are from British Columbia,

In March 21 percent or 210 of those thousand people were on social assistance. There were actually 1, 217 people in March. I said over a thousand, but it was actually 1,217. In March the YW was actually able to find 128 places out of this demonstrated need for 1,217. Out of this 1,217, 21 percent were people who are the responsibility of that minister.

For those single women the housing allowance is $170. Seventy-seven percent of single women in the lower mainland are paying more than $200 a month in rent. Many are paying considerably more. This means, whether it's a single woman, or man, or whether it's a family with a single-parent head or, in some cases, two parents that in almost every case people are using money they need for food and clothing for rent. It means that our health care costs go up, because nutrition goes down when you don't eat properly. It means that levels of education for these kids go down, because you don't study well when you're hungry and poor. What has that ministry done about it? Nothing at all, Mr. Chairman.

The anti-poverty association in this province suggests that there are some people spending 75 percent of their social assistance income on rent. What measly amount is left for the essentials of life beyond shelter; for clothing and food? Are not food, clothing and shelter the three basic rights for all citizens in this society? Why are they not being provided for?

I quote from the Skeena Terrace Committee on Welfare Rights. "The shelter component of the welfare cheque is not in line with the actual market rents. Because most of us cannot find accommodation in existing public housing, we

[ Page 5935 ]

are forced to rely on our support money to pay the rent. This problem has become worse since rent overages were eliminated in 1979."

Here's a report from the United Way — not your average radical, red group, as the government would so like to label many of the activists in the community on this issue. It's a pretty respected organization. It's an organization that a lot of us on both sides of the House have had something to do with. I quote as follows: "Many low-income people are going hungry in Vancouver because of the high cost of housing, the United Way said Thursday. Research shows that 56 percent of a sample of welfare recipients have housing costs that exceed the government's maximum shelter allowance," This is last year, before the present crisis descended.

Dr. Henry Hightower, who is chairman of the social policy and research committee, said: "It means that people are going hungry. I don't mean this in the sense that people are not having one meal a day, but many people have a diet that is not nutritional because it contains a lot of starch. Some people really are hungry, because they are having to take large amounts out of their monthly food budgets to pay for shelter." It goes on and on.

I know from personal experience that a lot of parents in this situation are going hungry because they use whatever money is left over to attempt to feed their kids. They make a decision that their own lives may be lost in many respects, but that they're not going to allow their kids to have that future. So many of these kids do have that future. It's because of the neglect of this government to provide adequate shelter allowances and their absolute failure in providing housing for these kinds of people, apart from anybody else in our society who is facing the housing crisis.

MRS. DAILLY: I would like to discuss the area of day care with the minister this afternoon. I, along with my colleagues and many other people in the province of British Columbia, am becoming increasingly concerned with the problems that face parents today who need day care. My concern is primarily based on the fact that the present government still does not seem to comprehend the true importance of day care. I say that because of their policies, the lack of provision for day-care centres in this province and the whole subsidy system which is inadequate, despite some recent improvements. The main concern is that the whole idea of the Social Credit government seems to still be that day care is basically a child-minding service for those who are in need.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to — with your indulgence — read a few sentences from the United Way brief on day care to the government. Then I want to compare their definition with the definition I find in the Human Resources manuals. The United Way — I completely endorse this — says:

"Day care should no longer be viewed as a childminding service, provided primarily for parents who must be away from the home during the day. This traditional concept is giving way to the recognition that good quality day care should be available, on a universal basis, to those parents requiring it on a short- or long-term basis, or to meet crisis situations. In addition, there is concern to ensure that day care today embraces an integration of education, health and welfare philosophies and skills."

That is the general acceptance of the objectives of day care by most people today. Then I turn to this statement from the Ministry of Human Resources listed under the GAIN regulations in which it is stated: "The purpose of the day-care services must be to prevent, overcome or alleviate the causes and effects of poverty or child neglect." I consider that a very, very narrow objective of any government in 1981 when it relates to day care. My first question to the minister this afternoon is: could she assure not only the members on this side of the House but the many citizens out there who are concerned about this narrow-minded outlook on day care that she and her ministry are giving consideration to adopting a far more understanding, broad-minded and intelligent approach to day care?

What concerns me, Mr. Chairman, is that I can't help comparing the record of the Social Credit government to the NDP government in day care. I'd like to bring to the attention of the House the difference, which shows either commitment or non-commitment. In 1971, the year before the New Democratic Party took government, there were 67 licensed group day-care centres in the province of British Columbia. And one year under the NDP administration that rose from 67 to 152. In 1973 it jumped from 152 to 250. In 1974 it reached 280. Over 6,000 spaces were now available. and over 12, 090 children in B.C. were receiving a subsidy compared to 2,600 when the NDP took office. Then we look at the record once again when Social Credit returned. In 1975 there were 286; in 1976 there were 283 — it actually dropped. The latest figures I have take me up to 1979, when there were 307. Perhaps the minister will have more up-to-date figures that can show us that there has been a major upsurge. But my concern is that I cannot believe there has been, and I know there isn't.

There isn't a place you go in the province of British Columbia where women are not saying: "I need day-care help and day-care spaces for my child." In my own riding I know that that is something that I deal with very often. My colleague the critic for Human Resources also deals with this in Burnaby. It's very frustrating for those women who need day care, and the facilities are simply not there.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

One of the reasons the NDP was so successful in moving and creating more spaces is that the NDP realizes that the starting up of a day-care centre takes a tremendous amount of work and a considerable amount of financing. Therefore under the NDP administration we actually did assist in capital, financing. But under the Social Credit the assistance for capital financing seems to have disappeared. I've met many young mothers who say: "We want to get one going, and we're ready to put in volunteer help and some of our own money. But can you not see if the government will not contribute to get us going?" They're not asking for complete government help; they're asking for some. So my next question to the minister is: is she reconsidering the present policy, which does not allow for capital assistance?

When we're talking about being positive and negative, I don't think there's a better example of a government that has a negative approach to the development of children than the Social Credit, as has been shown by their policy on day care. They seem to fail to understand that what happens to a child from the time of birth through the beginning years — up to the age of seven — often has a tremendous impact on what that child is going to become in later life. The Human Resources portfolio might not need so much money to look after the children at the other end of the scale who may become educational accidents or social accidents — not

[ Page 5936 ]

because of their own fault, but because their early years were simply not taken care of as they should have been.... We cannot place blame entirely on government for that lack of care. Certainly families have a great responsibility. But the average working mother today simply must have good day care provided for her, so that when she goes to work she knows her children are being properly taken care of. The child who is left with a very poor babysitter who just sits it in front of a TV screen.... We've seen this happen with little children from two on, because the mother cannot find proper day care. Those children who are left with inadequate social backgrounds in those early years inevitably have many counts against them when they enter school.

I can't express more sincerely to the minister and to the government that moneys put into day care will prevent moneys being spent at the other end of the scale when these people become young adults. When I referred to the earlier statistics on the comparison between the NDP and Social Credit when it comes to commitment in helping to establish day care.... The critic for Human Resources has handed me the figures up to 1980. It shows that those receiving subsidies in 1980 totalled 7,986. That is a drop. I say shame on any government today that can spend money on Pier B-C, convention centres, B.C. Place and yet fail to see that one of the most important jobs any government has to do is look after the children of the province. Instead of putting their money into people and children, they are putting them into edifices.

I hope the minister has taken the time to read the United Way report. I know they have made recommendations to her, and I must say there is one recommendation in the report that I really can't endorse. That is where they suggest another big study be made of day care. The days for the studies on day care are long past. Most people today know the value of day care. What I'm concerned about is: does this government not appreciate the importance of putting money into day care? Those are the questions I have for the minister at this time.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would indicate if she is going to answer some of the questions today or.... Do you want to answer now?

There are a number of questions I would like to raise with the minister. She and I came into the House at the same time, in 1966. I know and she knows that I represent an area which has had as tough a time as any in terms of dealing with the problems that are represented by her ministry. I do want to say right off the bat that I think there has been a great deal of improvement over 15 years in the Surrey area. That's due to a constant raising of awareness in the community, and at all levels of government, about the kinds of problems there are in that area. To that end, I think it can be fairly said that a lot of people have been bending their efforts towards heightening that awareness. There has been an improvement in attitude by a lot of the staff in Surrey, compared to the staff that was there in 1966. There has been a great deal of voluntary effort going in to match systemized and professional effort.

Having said all that, it's still true to say that Surrey does represent one of the greatest areas for the wide range of problems in the lower mainland. On a per capita basis, I'm sure that I'm right in saying that we probably have more single-parent families. We have the unfortunate fact that, while some of the building chances over the last ten years have offered some opportunities for cheaper accommodation in Surrey — that was mentioned earlier by my colleague from North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) — they are now being closed out and there are not those opportunities any more.

What we have had, however, is a continuation of erratic rulings, if one compares the kinds of rulings one gets in one district with the rulings one gets in a neighbouring district. That's what I want to draw to the minister's attention. I hope that kind of local variance can be smoothed out. I don't lay fault to anybody on this; these things happen, and it's something that has to be straightened out. People in the community that are assisting recipients of social allowances know there's a different kind of ruling in one district than there is in another.

I want to give a couple of instances of the kinds of things that have happened in Surrey. There is a case here where the father of a child didn't pay the $150 a month support that was ordered under the CPSA three-party agreement. The mother waited for her worker to obtain a statement of arrears from the superintendent of child welfare so that an enforcement order could be made before family court. She contacted me for advice and assistance after having had some difficulty in getting that information. She finally made application to the court on the advice of a family court enforcement officer. The MHR worker seemed unclear as to the MHR's responsibility in bringing it to court. That seems to me to be nothing more or less than a question of training.

Finally the father paid a lump sum of $900. The income assistance cheque of $533 was then completely deducted from the social assistance allowances. She was asked to return that cheque, and did so. If the support that I referred to originally had been paid monthly the mother could have kept $100 per month as earned income; for six months it could have been $600. Because payment was made in a lump sum she could only keep $367. The Ministry of Human Resources deducted $533. I advised her to appeal that decision. Allowing that loophole means that mothers with such agreements who are on income assistance have no way to prevent fathers from paying lump sums, which effectively reduces the amount of support which could be received for the child's benefit.

That happens in one office, and the point is that in other offices there are quicker and tougher — obviously a judgmental word-workers who get on the job faster and give the mothers slightly differing advice so that the whole process is speeded up. Those are the kinds of areas that I think we have to apply ourselves to. Goodness alone knows, if you're the head of a family and the only parent, it's a big enough job without having to fight what is obviously, in your mind, an injustice. I ask the minister to really have a look at the manual as far as that's concerned.

There's, a question of indigent burials. Oftentimes I feel there's lack of sympathy on the part of some offices and hospital social workers who simply don't follow up at the times of bereavement, stress and unhappiness, and who only work.... I don't want to make it a blanket condemnation, because I know many social workers who work all sorts of hours. I see many of them at conferences who've been working all the previous evening. Nevertheless there should be some rules laid down in terms of bereavement so that advice is given. For instance, this particular lady received bad advice from caseworkers and her husband lay in the morgue for over a month while arrangements were being made. Again it's a question of administration. Those are the problems I'm raising with the minister.

[ Page 5937 ]

Lest the minister asks why I'm raising them here and why haven't I come to her office, let me assure the minister that I worked in the field in Surrey and we've got some of these already being looked at. This is an active file; it's a file that has already been looked at. These notes I read from are extracts from files which have been looked at and worked on by my office and myself and which have come to a happy conclusion. They are only symptomatic of some of the things that have happened over the last 12 months, since last I had an opportunity to discuss these things with her. I think they are fair comments on some of the things that, are going on.

One of the things that's happening in Surrey, and I don't think it's unfair of me to refer, as I did during the estimates on transportation.... When you write to some people in the ministry, they say: "Well, we've got an office." You and I, Mr. Chairman, have written to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and were told they have an office in Cloverdale. You and I know that is of no value whatsoever for over 60,000 or 70,000 people who are living in the north end of north Delta or the north end of Surrey or Whalley or Guildford and round about there. I would like to ask the minister if she could tell me what the latest situation now is in reverse — although we've got an office in north Surrey, we don't appear to have a district office in Cloverdale, The last information I have was that there was a lot of overcrowding in Guildford, and Cloverdale clients had to travel to Guildford for appointments, for cheques, etc. The situation is inadequate for both staff and clients. It created a great deal of difficulty, especially with a completely inadequate bus service. The new office has been postponed again, and I wonder if the minister could now tell me what the latest is on her file regarding a district office in Guildford.

I'm happy to hear from the B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded. It was my pleasure to meet with them on a Saturday just two weekends ago in the Hazelmere Valley in south Surrey and, with them, I went over their brief and correspondence with the minister. It's a sad story that the Association for the Mentally Retarded have to give to the members of the House. I don't know whether the members have dealt with it in the last two days, but I want to say that I was horrified to realize that the grand promise made by my colleague the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has not been fulfilled, and that what he said two years ago, that the institutions of B.C. were in effect a thing of the past, has not been carried out. We have, indeed, seen no real reduction in our institutionalizing habits; we're still warehousing our mentally disturbed people; we're not responding to that grandiose plan announced with a lot of public relations hype by the then Human Resources minister. In 1977 the then Human Resources minister identified 200 persons as being ready for immediate release from Woodlands into the community. In 1977 the resident population of Woodlands was 906; in 1980 the population was 842 — a reduction that is hardly in keeping with the tone of the release in 1977. At that rate, Mr. Chairman, it's going to be way past the year 2000 before our institutions are depopulated.

The questions one has are, of course, these. Why has the government not come through with its promise and commitment? Where are the examples of expansion of community-based services? How many group homes for mentally handicapped persons will the ministry fund this year? I know that the minister has sent a letter to the association and that they sent an open letter back to the minister. When I attended this meeting and saw the brief that was presented to the social services committee of cabinet, I wondered why on earth we still are in the business of warehousing people the way we are in our institutions, and why we allowed that public-relations statement to take place, as we did way back in 1977 when my colleague the first member for Surrey introduced the LIFE program — Living Independently for Equality. I see, for instance, that now in 1981 a Times lead editorial pointed out that that project was an empty promise. I think many of you have seen that lead editorial — how the B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded released a devastating report on the status of the mentally disabled in the province. The scathing indictment charges that government policy forces hundreds of mentally handicapped citizens to remain in institutions against their wishes and the wishes of their families. Particularly disheartening is the report's underscoring of the failure of the ministry to provide promised improvements, specifically those outlined by my colleague away back in 1977 — Living Independent for Equality. That report promised that the Human Resources ministry would be launching a major effort to de-institutionalize services, "The day of the massive institution is over." was proudly proclaimed.

The questions they ask — the minister has a copy of them.... I don't want to thrash this point over and over again. It's time for some plain talking and simple answers. Where is the program? What are your answers, Madam Minister, to the questions and requests of the B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded? If you look at that report dated May 1, 1981, which has some 20 requests, what are your responses to those 20 requests? What can we say, as members of this Legislature, to all of the district associations who haven taken the time and the trouble to come and see us, and all of whom represent hundreds of volunteers and thousands of volunteer hours in this association and similar associations, particularly in this year — the International Year of Disabled Persons — and particularly in view of the thousands upon thousands of dollars that are being spent trying to lull the public into believing that all sorts of exciting programs are taking place'? Thousands of dollars are being spent both federally and provincially trying to tell the public there are all sorts of things taking place for the disabled people in our province. Here's one of our first duties and first responsibilities — to simply make sure that those people who shouldn't be in institutions are returned to the community.

As I said, last Friday morning when I opened a conference on education for the disabled and the mentally retarded, I was impressed by the way the answers to some of these problems — and the solutions — may be found in the efforts of the people themselves. Certainly you're never going to get from mentally retarded people the effort, the help, the assistance, the ideas, the creativity and the imagination to solve their own problems harnassed, channelled and used, by having them in institutions. That is the greatest waste I've seen since I came into public life in this province: I was horrified and shocked to the very core of my being when I first went into Coquitlam and New Westminster and saw those institutions. I remember travelling with the then member for Vancouver-Burrard, Dr. Parkinson, and with the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). I've never forgotten that day and what a criminal waste — I use the word in a clinical sense — we saw of a chance for people to take part in solving their own problems and creating their own freedom, in the sense of breaking loose from some of the disabling features that we are forcing on them by institutionalizing them.

[ Page 5938 ]

Madam Member, to finish up my questions to you, I feel very strongly, having spent some time talking to the associations in Surrey. What are your answers to these requests of the B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I wonder if I could just respond first of all to the member for Surrey, who has just taken his place. He mentioned several things which I think we both have a keen interest in. I'll start with the B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded. First of all, you talk about a promise not being fulfilled. Our colleague in the House, the former Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), when he had this responsibility, did make a commitment. That commitment is being upheld and fulfilled. That commitment was that this government would, in every way possible, be able to move as many people as possible who were in institutions into the community. The Community Living Board, which was initiated by the former minister, my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs, has seen its budget almost triple just last year from $300,000 to $850,000, which I suggest is a commitment to doing just what the Community Living Board was set up to do. Remember, the Community Living Board is unique in Canada. It was the first. Even though the B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded in your recent meeting with them perhaps did not give credit to this government, over many meetings I have attended with them they have certainly given credit to this government for leading the nation in that regard.

Just in this budget that we're discussing and in reference to the budget for this next year, we have increased infant development, achievement centres — both capital and operating — and transportation allowances for the retarded to attend achievement centres in our program. We have in place, semi-independent living homes, non-profit residences for the retarded, child-care resources for the mentally retarded, specialized day care for the mentally retarded and community-based life-skills training for retarded adults.

The member claims that since 1977 there has been no appreciable decrease in the residency in institutions. That's not true at all. Community-based services have increased by $3.8 million. This year the increase will be $4 million. In 1977 the population of Woodlands, the institution that the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) has referred to, was 906. There were 110 discharges in that one year alone. In 1978 the population was 880 and there were 81 discharges. In 1979 the population was 856 and there were 42 discharges. In 1980 the population is 842, with discharges totalling 46. That's a total of 279 residents. That's depopulation of the residence called Woodlands.

Others come in as those retarded adults or children are placed in the community. I'm going to say immediately to the member that I have also been at Woodlands. There are some residents who can never come out of that institution. There are residents in the Tranquille facility in Kamloops and in Glendale on lower Vancouver Island who will never be able to move out of the residence. But in those institutions where we have those who can move out, it is the commitment of this government. It has been fulfilled, not totally, but partially. Remember, it can't be fulfilled totally until we can ease those young people into the community, so when they get into the community there are resources, support and public and community understanding for them. Let's remember that. I want to refer back to this subject, if I may, whenever we reconvene.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am advised that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct and is preparing to enter the chamber..

The House took recess at 4:07 p.m.

The House resumed at 4:12 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour the Lieu tenant-Governor is about to enter the chamber.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Estate Administration Amendment Act, 1981

Company Amendment Act, 1981

Credit Union Amendment Act, 1981

Senior Citizen Automobile Insurance Grant Act Income Tax Amendment Act, 1981

Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1981

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1981

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to these bills.

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Supply Act (No. 2), 1981

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair,

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES
(continued)

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In answer to the questions raised before this break, I would like to begin my comments by saying that there was a misquote referred to by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown). She was referring to those over 65 and I was referring to those under 65. I just put that on the record for clarification. I'm sure she understood that when she was playing around with the words earlier today.

Could I return to the comments I was making regarding the B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded, and also to other comments made by the second member for Surrey (Mr.

[ Page 5939 ]

Hall)? I'm sorry that he's not in the House at the present time, but I'm sure he will be back in a short while. I just want to mention the meetings that have been held, particularly the one held by our ministry with the B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded. Members of the social services committee of cabinet met with them and received the brief which was referred to by the second member for Surrey. The brief set out what the B.C. association would like to see happen during the rest of the eighties. It was very ambitious and, I would say, a very good reflection of what the association wants — their aims and objectives for this decade. The social services ministers then referred it to a group of their deputy ministers. That brief has been under study; there has been some active work done on it. It's unfortunate that we cannot meet the timetable that the B.C. association would like. We are certainly trying. I think that within a very few weeks we will have an excellent report in answer to that brief. I'm sure that all members of the House will be appreciative of that. We're moving it along as quickly as we possibly can. The commitment of the government and the commitment we made before is not just a verbal commitment that perhaps one could not keep in all cases. This one has certainly been kept.

I take exception to the second member for Surrey saying that our colleague, the other member for Surrey, did not fulfil.... He certainly more than fulfilled his objectives and commitments to the B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded and to all parents of retarded children in this province. He started the very first community-living society in this country. Rather than being critical of our member, I think that the second member for Surrey, who took his place just prior to the Lieutenant-Governor's visit, should be giving accolades to our member for having done such a wonderful job in terms of looking after the mentally handicapped in this province. I'm pleased and honoured that I have been able to carry on that commitment, because I believe in it just as much as he does. I am pleased that I have had that opportunity.

The second member for Surrey also talked about a difficulty with staff. Let me assure him that the Cloverdale office he spoke of — I know he wants an answer for his particular constituency — is number nine on the priority list for 1981-82. We hope to have that established. It's a pretty high priority for us as well.

Administration. We have 5,000 staff in the Ministry of Human Resources. We have regional training coordinators and regionalized budgets for such training. I was a little disappointed.... I think it has to be said, I guess, if you find these problems; but I wish that members would really and truly feel free, when they have a problem.... Some members on the other side of the House and some members on this side of the House do share with me their individual concerns. I was particularly concerned about the reference to a bereavement. Someone in a family had been, as the second member for Surrey put it, in a morgue for a month, waiting for some kind of clearance from our ministry. I have not had that brought to my attention. If he had brought it to my attention, I can tell you that it would have been attended to immediately. I know that it doesn't have to happen in this province. I want to find out about it. I can tell you that there would be no reason for that to happen. He did not share the details with us, Mr. Chairman. Please, may I just make that the example for all members. If you have a problem that comes to your attention, would you please give me a phone call? I certainly want to look into that particular case. I know that people in our ministry would not tolerate that kind of treatment of our fellow citizens. Therefore I really would like to know more about that.

He also talked about other cases he feels need to be addressed by the ministry. Again, I think the very best answer for helping to get around the bureaucracy where.... As he mentioned. each member of our ministry telling the same story, referring to the same manual. etc.... All of us would agree that unless the member has some specifics and brings them to my attention or to the attention of my deputy minister.... If there are some people in our ministry who are not carrying that out. then they cannot be corrected. So, please, all members of the House, share those things with us.

He talked about the prorating of the enforcement of maintenance orders. This has been a very difficult one for us to handle. I have shared with all members of the House who have brought this to my attention that we are certainly addressing ourselves to it. We maintain approximately 22,000 single parents on income assistance in the province. A very small fraction of those receive some maintenance from their spouses. A very small fraction of those are in the position that the member for Surrey has talked about. But I think all members of the House would understand that it poses the problem that we are there to provide in time of need on the basis of need. Unfortunately, when these spouses get caught up to, the time of need is no longer there and, as the member has well portrayed, some of them have had their income assistance deducted.

May I say to you, though, that the whole problem of the enforcement of maintenance orders has taken a tremendous amount of our time in the past few months. We hope to have the real answer for that within the enforcement of maintenance orders in the province of British Columbia.

I want to move on now to answers to two other members of the House. The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) was very concerned about day care. I guess her first question was for an explanation of our government's position on day care. It's very clear. Our response to whether or not we believe in universal day care is no, we do not. We believe that universal day care takes away from the family taking its responsibility. We have an excellent day care program in this province. The enrolment, which is subsidized by the Ministry of Human Resources, is approximately 11,500 children involved in day care at the present time.

There has been an increase for special-needs children for full day care. We have raised the income test level as of April 1. Our budget has gone from $11,114,000 in 1977 to $22,747,000 this year. We're talking about a lot of dollars for day care. We're investing a lot in it. We believe that the family initiating responsibility is the way to go with day care.

I would like to share with you all the types of care that we have. We have licensed family day care; unlicensed family day care, which is the provision of day care in a private home other than the child's own home; and group day care or in-own-home care for children in their own home under the care and supervision of a person who has been selected by the parents for shift work and that sort of thing. There is quite a range of services, but in this particular area there have been tremendous increases this year for day care subsidies. When the member was on her feet, I think she mentioned a mother with two children. A mother with two children in 1981 has had an increase of 12 percent in her day care allowable level. Her allowable income, you have to remember, is net income. It's after deductions and does not include family allowance payments.

[ Page 5940 ]

There are additional exemptions for employment earnings and an exemption of $125 as of April 1 where there is a disabled person in the family unit. All of those things accrue to that person's level of allowability for receiving day care. If that mother and two children, a family unit of three, had a net income of $810 a month, they would be eligible for the full day-care support. I would like to say it increases as there are more children to be looked after, and allowable incomes have been increased to almost $1,200 a month net.

You mentioned capital grants and operating grants. We do have startup grants for equipment. As you know, day care is under the licensing of the Ministry of Health, but I don't see that that's any problem. I think the United Way report made a very big issue of more than one ministry having reference to day care. The only reference that the Ministry of Health has is in the licensing, and I rather agree with that. In terms of service to children, the member for Burnaby North mentioned that it was tremendously important to have the very best of care. I feel that the involvement of the Ministry of Health in this regard is very necessary, and I think it has worked extremely well.

I was interested in the remarks from the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). There's no question that there is a real problem. He started by making references to his particular constituency and then quickly moved onto the the very difficult and real problem which is probably the most acute in the province, and that is in the city of Vancouver. To my absolute amazement — frankly, I find it quite irresponsible — he suggested in his remarks that he will be counselling people to incur debts and to exceed their income. I think that is quite irresponsible, because he's putting people in jeopardy when he does that. He said in his comments to us earlier in the day that they'll be able to incur debts, and he will encourage them to incur debts that they won't be able to meet.

I would just like to say that unquestionably we have a problem in this province because there are so many thousands of people moving into the province. It's a question of supply of housing; it is not a question of us not having sufficient dollars in Human Resources to meet the demands. That particular burden has certainly been on those who have had to search for shelter in a very difficult area, particularly in the city of Vancouver, as was mentioned by the member for North Island. Let me share this with you: in this past April we raised the level. He made some comments about a single woman under 31. That same single woman under 31 has had a 20.3 percent increase in income assistance in this past year. That's a pretty dramatic increase. Also, in reference to the single people mentioned by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), it was single people on income assistance who had the most dramatic increase in income assistance in April, in order to address the very real needs that they had to meet.

I'll give you the example of a mother with two children. I believe that was the same reference that was made by the member for North Island. Assuming full shelter and basic income assistance, that mother with two children would have $8,520 annually from income assistance. Remember, not counted in that, but received by her, are additional amounts of money. There's the family allowance of $574, the child tax credit of $476, an averaging Pharmacare of $66.73, the school startup allowance of $60, the Christmas bonus of $50, Rent aid of $150 and a provincial tax credit of $212, giving a possible total of $10,109. There would be a possible maintenance order, at the very minimum.... I say "minimum" because, tragic as it is, the average maintenance order awarded for a single parent raising two children — it seems almost consistent — is only $100 a month. That would bring it up to $11,309. Not included are medical and dental benefits, crisis grants, incentive allowances, educational training costs and camp fees for children, and all of this is tax free.

I appreciate the problems these single mothers have in finding accommodation in the city of Vancouver. That was the point that the member for North Island would make. I would also like the member for North Island to understand that at the current minimum wage of $3.65 per hour, using the 40-hour week and the 52-week year, an annual income for that same person would be $7,592. Those are low-income earners. They are not able to have some of the other support that we are able to give. That's the conundrum that income assistance always finds itself in: are you going to give to people who come for assistance more money than they can...? We're talking about those people who are able to be employed: unemployed employables. The majority of employables on income assistance are on for less than six months and are, presumably, earning for the rest of the year. Again, the members who have spoken on income assistance have not addressed themselves to the person who is partially on income assistance. They may be involved in seasonal employment, summer employment or whatever. Income assistance payments are not taxable, so the person who is on income assistance for part of the year may end up paying less taxes than his neighbour who has the same total annual income but who works for 12 months of the year.

I think I have addressed just about everything from before the visit for the passing of the bills. I'd be pleased to take other questions.

MR. COCKE: It always gives me a great delight to listen to the Minister of Human Resources. The delight is the delight in the distortion. Just listening to the last remarks of the minister, did you note the comparison of that person receiving maintenance and a person receiving minimum wage, and what each would get? You'll note that the person with two children, receiving minimum wage, doesn't get the family allowance or the other benefits that the minister was outlining the person with maintenance gets, etc. It's a masterful job. I'm not going to deal with that, because I'm sure my colleague the member for Burnaby-Edmonds will be dealing with it in much more detail.

Another thing is that she notes that $3.65 is the minimum wage, as if that's what it should be, for heaven's sake. There's an easy way to solve that situation. The fact that one person is starving doesn't give us any excuse to have anybody in our rich province starving.

Another thing: when this massive increase came in, it all went to rent; all but a paltry buck or two. In our province, where rents are so exorbitant, it's just not there. The minister can stand up and smile and say everything's fine in B.C. I suggest to you that it isn't.

I'd like to go over one more bit of distortion. The second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) was accused of accusing the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) of not honouring a commitment. That's not what the second member for Surrey was talking about at all. He said that the first member for Surrey brought in a plan called LIFE, and that this member, the now minister, has not lived up to the commitment. That's all. He complimented the Minister of Municipal Affairs for bringing in the program. He said that this

[ Page 5941 ]

minister hasn't kept up to the commitment. He didn't make the charge against the Minister of Municipal Affairs at all.

I've got two areas that I'd like to cover. The first one, since I'm on it now, is this whole question of the depopulation of our institutions. Let me give you a little bit of history on this whole question. In the first place, when we took over government in 1972, we found the medical model at Woodlands, Tranquille, etc., for the care of those people in our community who are called — dubbed, named or whatever, retarded. We felt that the best thing possible would be to transfer it to a more appropriate ministry. The medical model wasn't working and wouldn't work, in our view, so it was transferred to the Ministry of Human Resources. I believe that, unfortunately, the solution has not come out of that transfer, because the model has not changed.

I suggest to you very strongly that we believe the people in those institutions are human beings entitled to all the human rights available to anybody in this chamber, anybody walking the streets or anybody out there in our province. Traditionally this has not been available, and particularly it's unavailable when one is institutionalized. The association has suggested to the minister that they will pay her expenses to go to jurisdictions in North America. They ask the question: "Would Mrs. McCarthy be willing, at BCAMR expense, to visit jurisdictions in North America that we suggest are successfully phasing out their institutions in a planned orderly manner and going to community-based alternatives?" It has been slow — to the point that it's a snail's pace. At our present rate of depopulation it will take until 2014 to do the job.

I notice the minister suggesting that there are a number of people that cannot be removed and cannot leave that institution. There isn't one person in there that can't. Those institutions are something of the past. I suggest that even for those people who are bedridden there are more appropriate facilities than what we find in Woodlands, Tranquille, etc. Those are massive institutions that dehumanize people. The cases we have studied and followed that have been put into the community have been a success.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

You don't have a person with an IQ of something under 70 or whatever able to cope in the same way as someone with an IQ of over 100, 120 or 140, but there is a place for them in our community. I'll never forget one time talking to a very highly intelligent medical person from a Third World country. We were discussing, generally speaking, health care of one country vis-à-vis the other. I said: "What do you think of what you see here?" He said: "The one thing that occurs to me in your country is I wonder where to find your lame and your halt. Or do you have them?" I charge that we hide what is an embarrassment to us, but what should not be an embarrassment to us. We should not be hiding those who are less fortunate through a disability of any sort. We should be moving heaven and earth to put before them as appropriate and free a life imbued with human rights as we possibly can, and we're not.

I will congratulate the former minister for having begun the program LIFE. It was a responsible move in the right direction, but it has not been followed up to the extend it should have been. The minister looks at me with the scathing glance, I have met with group after responsible group — the BCAMR, parent groups and other groups that are interested in this subject. I've met with a lot of them, because I've made it my business to find out what they're saying. To a person, they're critical of the snail's pace. So the minister can take her scathing looks and use her energy for something a little bit more appropriate, and do something for these people who need her help.

This speech should not be made next year. There should be some serious discussion immediately and some implementation immediately thereafter. The BCAMR gave a timetable. The minister says: "Well, we can’t live with a timetable." What timetable can the minister live with? I read her answers to all the questions that were asked by the BCAMR and I don't really think that she was thinking about her answers.

Mr. Chairman, let me advise the minister of this one thing: bureaucracies build around programs, and those programs are the security blanket that the bureaucracy wraps itself in. Now if, in fact, the bureaucracy is bucking to keep the status quo, then my suggestion is that the minister and her officials have to be all that much more firm in their determination to do what was originally set out. I was tempted to suggest that the original program was a PR proposition, but I don't think it was. But if something doesn't happen very quickly, because we're talking about four years later and very little to show for it.... Don't forget, Mr. Chairman, that I live in the community in which we find the Woodlands facility. Don't ask me whether I'm familiar with that facility; I'm very familiar with that facility. I've been through it many times and had a myriad of discussions there. It is inappropriate that we deal with our fellow person the way we are, and I suggest that we'd better start living up to that commitment. We'd better start living up to it quickly.

Like the member for Surrey, I'm not going to go through all the questions and answers. Give the minister an opportunity to take a second responsible look at this whole problem, Right now she's taking a very responsible look at the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman), listening to what he's talking to her about. Does she really care about what's going on in her own ministry, or is she advising him how to run his? If that's the case, then I advise the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to be very careful with the advice that she might proffer.

I have one other item, Mr. Chairman, and that's the question of people with a disabled pensioner's income. A basic income on disability pension — and that's from the Canada Pension Plan, the steelworker's plan or whatever — is usually marginally less than what a senior citizen's pension would be. Incidentally, they are few in number. They are not eligible for Pharmacare, reduced fares on buses or some of the other privileges that are available to those other people.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether the minister answers her mail, but if she does, I wish that she would also send a copy to those people who are copied in on the original letter. Last December 18, the Vancouver steelworkers' pension plan sent the minister a critique in this area, and they wound up by asking for a reply as to how she would feel about the whole question. They also went on to enlarge upon the fact that the people in this particular category are few in number but highly deserving, and asked if the minister would consider them as people who should be receiving the reduced rates, Pharmacare and so on. Well, if she answered them, she didn't send a copy to those who were copied in. So I have no idea, other than the fact that we have to rely on her to answer here or rely on the person who originally requested this information to find out just how things are going.

[ Page 5942 ]

Just to review for a second, the whole question of LIFE is a first-class proposition. But what we have seen to date, after four full years, has been a very unsatisfactory implementation of what could otherwise have been a very desirable direction. Whatever the minister says....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) gets up and talks about great jobs. He's another big-ticket minister. The only job that he sees his colleague doing is looking after the Pier B-C project and ignoring the people in this province. That's the good job she's doing, and that minister knows it, but the thing is that they're in the same nest. They love the big-ticket items. What would he know about a good job being done on behalf of the poor, on behalf of the disabled?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: I wonder if that minister who has such a waggly tongue would just let me complete my remarks. Mr. Heal will be contacted later this evening and he will be told that the minister will not keep his remarks to himself. They'll have to give him another lesson tomorrow.

I would hope that the next time we meet with the BCAMR, parent groups and others directly involved with the problem I've been talking about we will have some news for them that will be acceptable, desirable and humane. It's time we regarded those less fortunate and those disabled in this Year of the Disabled as people, not charges — people not the least bit less important than anyone here or anyone else in the province.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I have two issues that I would like to draw to the minister's attention. The first deals with the extra moneys allowed to people in receipt of social assistance. First of all, the amount has been fixed for a long time at a very limited amount. It hasn't kept pace with inflation. When you say that a person is allowed to earn $100 a month, or in some instances if they're single I believe it's $50, it's a very limited amount. It's been that same amount for a long time with no increase. I would urge the minister to think about making that a meaningful amount of money. Perhaps base it upon the poverty level to allow a person in receipt of social assistance to at least earn enough money to bring him up to the poverty level without causing any deduction in the amount of assistance which is granted.

The other thing in relation to that particular portion of her portfolio is the way in which she draws the distinction between earned and unearned income, one of which is just half the other allowable. The definition of the unearned income includes things like WCB payments and any insurance policies that have certainly been earned income during the life of the spouse or that individual. It seems very unfair to penalize a person because of the source of those funds.

MS. BROWN: Veterans' pensions.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, a veteran's pension is the same. So what I'm suggesting is that a dollar is a dollar and that the income a person receives should not be curtailed because of its source. If it comes from a WCB, veteran's pension or an insurance policy, it should not be considered any differently than if that individual actually went out and earned the money. In addition to that, she should consider very seriously increasing the amount allowable to encourage an individual to have some meaningful employment, if they can possibly find that opportunity. As it is now, there isn't that encouragement. In spite of some of the programs she talks about, the lack of staff to implement those programs has not made them effective programs. Certainly it hasn't been effective in my area. There have been very few people who have actually been able to make that step to get off assistance. It's not that they don't want to. They do want to. The minister needs to give more support to the kind of programs that will encourage them to work their way up into the category of those who actually earn their entire income, and not penalize them when they do that by cutting off the assistance that she gives them.

The other point that I want to deal with has to do with the shared-cost programs and the result of the federal programs, as related to the provincial programs. This is a case which I have previously drawn to the minister's attention. I asked her about it. She asked for more specific information, which I sent to her. I have had no response from the minister. I think it is worthwhile to read into the records of this House the kind of things that are happening. This is a government that is very prone to taking the federal government to task for the things they do. Yet it's a government that in many instances, certainly in the case of this minister, rides on the back of the federal government.

The case in point is a family where we have a senior citizen married to a woman well under 50, and one teen-age child. At the end of 1973, the husband received $47.89 from Canada Pension, $126.18 for veteran's allowance, $183.99 from old-age assistance and a guaranteed income supplement from the federal government. This totals $358.06. As of March 1, 1981, he now receives $101.32 from Canada Pension, $290.18 for veteran's allowance and his OAS and GIS is $405.08. This totals $802.58. That's an increase of approximately 10 percent per year, over that period of time. It's a total increase in all, in fact, of 123 percent. His wife — the child is also considered — is in receipt of GAIN. She's handicapped. In 1973, when the husband was receiving $358.06, the wife received $203 from this ministry. Do you know what she receives today? She should receive, had that increased at the same rate as the federal pension, which is tied to inflation, something like $360. Instead she receives, not $203, but $178.72. That's a cutback of something like 10 percent through a $24 reduction.

If the federal government can see its way to tying the payments it makes to seniors and war veterans and through the Canada Pension to the cost of living, then certainly this ministry should at least be able to hold the line, rather than taking advantage of those increases and reducing the amount of money paid to another member in the family. Much better than that, they should be following the example set by the federal government and looking at the actual cost that people are facing. That's why we have the situation that's been pointed out by many of my colleagues where the shelter portion of the grant is simply not enough to provide shelter of any kind. It's just not available at the amount of money that this ministry provides, in spite of the increase which came through in April. The increase, as has been pointed out, was basically a shelter increase. Not only is that increase not meeting the shelter needs, but it isn't doing anything for the

[ Page 5943 ]

increased costs that families face as far as providing adequate diets, adequate clothing or adequate educational or sports facilities, extra training for their children and all those kinds of things. It's helping, but it's not meeting them. When you have a mandatory requirement to meet your rent or your mortgage payment, there is no way that you can let that go and use those funds to make available to your family the kind of food and clothing that is really required. So we find children in running shoes through the winter in the rain on Vancouver Island — I've seen it many times — because that's the cheapest foot gear that can be bought. We find diets without the advantage of fresh fruits and vegetables and without enough protein. As a result we see escalating healthcare costs right across this province.

I suggest that the minister needs to review her practices and to follow the example of the federal government in taking into consideration the inflation that is facing our province. Stop riding on the backs of the federal government. Every time there is an increased grant federally, there's a grant cut back from her office. That's happening over and over again. Every time that federal increase comes through, we know we're going to have a rash of people coming into the constituency office complaining because their GAIN cheques are cut off. That's the policy of that minister, and it's working nothing but a hardship on the people of this province.

MR. LEVI: I want to ask the minister one question, then she can think about it, and I want to go on to something else. Has she finally got her staff to figure out the approximate $8.4 million underexpenditure in the family and children's services vote? You don't need to answer now, but that was what I asked yesterday, and you couldn't find it.

I want to deal in the first instance with a press release that the ministry issued on May 1, 1981. This relates to some of the remarks that the minister made earlier about the success — as she says — of the depopulation of Woodlands and Tranquille. There's no mention made of Glendale. The ministry put out the release May 1. It was in response to the British Columbia Association for the Mentally Retarded. I just want to quote two or three passages, particularly one which deals with figures. It goes like this, and I'm paraphrasing: "A response to a statement from the British Columbia Association for the Mentally Retarded was issued today by the Human Resources minister. The minister addressed several statements made by the BCAMR. In a recent release, including an allegation that her ministry is not working towards the integration of the mentally handicapped in the community." That's the primary thrust.

The minister's response in respect to the statement made by the BCAMR. that the ministry is not working towards the integration of the mentally handicapped into the community was as follows: " 'This is simply not true, ' said the minister, adding that the Ministry of Human Resources is putting a great deal of effort into planning for the best ways to meet the needs of the retarded citizens." She makes reference to LIFE, initiated in 1977. On page 2 she talks about the resident population. One has to try and understand what the minister had in mind when she makes the following statement: "Resident population of all three institutions has decreased in recent years. Resident population of Woodlands is down one third, from 12,061 in 1969 to 842 in 1980."

I'm rather curious about why it was that she chose 1969. I think that she probably chose 1969 because 1969 was the peak year, the year when the previous Social Credit government was getting a great deal of flak from exactly the same people who are giving her flak today — that's the B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded. At that time, gaining admission for anyone into Woodlands was extremely difficult; there was an enormous waiting list of well over 100. The minister in her press release would have us believe that somehow what she has accomplished is in some way directed or reinforced by the LIFE program. I think the minister has to be very fair about what she does and in no way confuse the public as to the merits of the program which we've been talking about — LIFE; that is, depopulation. So let's look at the facts. And it is important to look at the facts in this question, because the whole issue of depopulation starts with the numbers — and we've all heard about what you can do with numbers.

First of all. It might be important for the minister to look at the function and the experience of her own government. In 1975 there were 1004 people in Woodlands, which is some 267 less than there were in 1969. Now that's important — from 1969 to 1975 some 267 people were, as it were, depopulated, removed from Woodlands, We don't know all of the reasons sometimes. By the time we got to 1973, 1974 and 1975, the program to move people into the community was in full force and a number of people were moving from Woodlands, particularly into group homes in the community, albeit — and the minister hasn't covered this to any extent — going from Woodlands into a group-home situation is not an inexpensive proposition. Nevertheless, in terms of the humanity and equity that we have to show toward the handicapped people, we have to be prepared to meet that kind of expense. I say to the minister that from 1969 to 1975 some 267 people were removed from the list in Woodlands; in 1976 it went down again to 962, in 1977 it went to 906; and in 1978 it went to 880.

Now 1977-78 was the beginning of the LIFE program, a program that was announced by the previous minister. Again, let's look at the facts so that the public are not confused. In 1979 it went down to 856 and in 1980 the population stood at 842 — I have no up-to-date figures for 1981. If you take the years from 1978 to 1980, you will find that the population of Woodlands was reduced by 64 people — never mind the minister's uproariously confusing release, in which she says that from 1969 to 1986 one-third of the people were depopulated. That simply is not the case. What we're attempting to look at — the thrust of the argument here — is the effect of the LIFE program, and the effect of the LIFE program on the population at Woodlands from 1978 to 1980 — three years was actually 64 people.

Let's go to Tranquille. I'm not going to go through all the figures, but the net reduction in Tranquille was nine. If we go to Glendale, the net reduction in the years 1978-80 was five. Here we have a total of 78 people depopulated from three institutions since the inception of the LIFE program in 1978. In giving the figures for some reason the minister chose to ignore that during the period 1970-75 some 267 people had been moved out. hat was without a LIFE program. That was with a program committed to the development of group homes for people who are going from institutions to halfway houses. The figure of the people who represent the B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded is 45 to 50, They, of course, are only dealing with Woodlands. My figures show that some 64 people have been reduced.

First of all I want to say this to the minister: every time she's asked a question about the reduction of a service she

[ Page 5944 ]

simply says to us: "But we put more money into the program." The minister knows as well as I do that putting more money into a program in no way reflects that that program is at the same level or that it is in fact increased. That's simply not possible with the kind of increases you make. It's known that if you're looking at maintaining a program that you have, you're looking at a 12 percent or 15 percent increment simply to stand still. If you're talking about expanding a program, you are talking about a great deal of money. It isn't good enough for the minister to tell us that they've put more money into the program when we know, because of the complaints we get from the field, that the size of the program has not increased. We know why the costs are up; salaries are up, the cost-of-living business is up. We know all that. Nothing the minister has said this afternoon in any way answers the charges made by the BCAMR. that you are, in fact, not living up to the promises that were made by the previous minister. I don't want to make excuses for the minister, but the previous minister was rather an exotic speaker. He used to make some fantastic claims, and we don't know whether, had he remained in office, his performance would have been any better. I point out to the minister that she might well look at how the program of depopulation operated between 1972 and 1975 and how it's been operating between 1976 and 1980. The contrast in the figures is that in 1972-75 there were some 267 people, and 78 in the period of the LIFE program. Those figures in themselves really have to put the lie to the question that is constantly answered by the minister that we are in fact doing what we said we would do, and I'm saying to her that that's simply not the case. There is not that commitment there, simply because the money that is needed is not there — not the money to maintain the program as it is, but the money to increase a broadening of the program. That's the nature of the department.

I want to raise another matter with the minister. In November 1980 the minister wrote a letter to Professor Ann. M. Donnellan, PhD, who was in the province in 1980 and did some work in Woodlands while visiting institutions. Professor Donnellan wrote to the minister on November 11, 1980, and within this letter she answers many of the questions we're trying to get the minister to address. She starts off by saying:

"I'm astounded and saddened by your letter of October 6, 1980, which, by the way, I received only a few days ago. I am astounded because of the number and level of inaccuracies contained therein. I am saddened by the tone of your comments which could be read as a great misunderstanding of the situation and an apparent insensitivity to the needs of human beings in your institutions and the rights of citizens of British Columbia.

"Obviously no elected official can possibly know everything about the activities for which he or she is responsible. I am convinced from your past record that had you been given better information by your staff, your letter would have been much different. For example, here we get the origin of the statement in the press release of May 1. With considerable pride, you mentioned in your letter that Woodlands has been reduced from 1,261 in 1969 to 846 in 1980. We all know, Mrs. McCarthy, that a considerable portion of that reduction came as a result of your staff merely moving residents to other institutions and other large institution-like, community-based facilities without due regard to individualization and the need for small home-like settings. That kind of numbers game is played by institutions all over the United States and Canada. However, even by your own standard of reduction, in absolute numbers Woodlands' reduction record is quite poor. Compare it, for example, to what three institutions accomplished in about two-thirds of the time."

The minister is fond of saying that what we do in British Columbia is far better than what everybody else does. Well, we all know that that's not quite the case; we don't have to be first in everything. We simply have to make a good effort at delivering the programs people need. We are not in some kind of contest to get a "Good Housekeeping" stamp saying that we're the best, from somebody who's not available. As long as we're able to do what everybody else does, and live up to that level at least, then we'll be okay. The reason I point this out to the minister is that her colleague negotiated with the federal government for certain block funding which is now received by the government on behalf of the program that the ministry gets. Block funding and the good delivery of social programs are just not compatible. Block funding is an advantage only to a "have" province with a great deal of money and a good tax base, as it can then negotiate extra tax points along with the block funding. The kind of arrangement that government agreed to has done a great deal to lower general standards across Canada in the delivery of service within the human resources area. It was a bad day for Canada when we got into that kind of situation. It's all very well for the government over there to talk about its federalist approach, but when you take block funding, that's not federalist because you don't maintain national standards. Only the "have" provinces can get the good stuff and deliver the services, because they've got the money.

Let's look at the other provinces and see what they've been doing. She points out three institutions in Ontario — Smiths Falls, Cedar Springs and Orillia. She said that in 1972 Smiths Falls had 2,268 people; by 1980 they had 1,100 people, a reduction of some 47 percent. In 1972 Cedar Springs had 1,165; in 1980 it had 685, a 41 percent decrease. In Orillia it was 2,206: by 1980 they had 1,000, a 1,206 reduction for 55 percent. Now those are the kinds of things that are going on in other provinces. There's nothing wrong with going down to find out how it is they're able to accomplish what they have. There's no question that there was a greater commitment of financial resources. There may have been, and we're still waiting to find out whether there was in fact a greater underlying commitment to the philosophy of depopulation.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

In the letter she uses the figures that you used: 1,261 in 1969, and 846 in 1980, for a total reduction of 33 percent. In no way do these figures approach anywhere near what has been going on in Ontario. We did have some things to learn from Ontario when I was in the previous government. One of them was their ability to look at shared-cost programs in relation to the mentally retarded. They were successful in getting that, though they had some problems later on with a couple of the ministers. Manitoba followed suit, and we quickly learned about that advantage.

The professor goes on to talk at great length about what the minister is referring to in terms of reduction records.

[ Page 5945 ]

Really, it's a bit of a spurious discussion anyway in this House. Nothing that the minister has said demonstrates a real commitment to LIFE. The figures simply don't show it. It's no good going back to 1969, because you didn't become the government again until the end of 1975, and you didn't implement the LIFE program until 1977. One has to look at the speed with which you moved from 1977-78 up to the present time. A total of 70 people is not a commitment. It's a far cry from the former minister's saying that we will make the money available to put 200 people into the community. I would suggest that when he made that statement he simply didn't know what he was talking about. He had no idea what it was going to cost to do that kind of thing. It's extremely costly to do that. Consequently, he left the legacy to the new minister..

It would be far better for the ministry to stop making these pep talks about "Yes, we're committed, " and simply tell the public where it's at, that it's a costly kind of process. Generally speaking, when you explain these things to the public, there's an acceptance of that. But you can't hide behind it by using figures which in no way relate to the program that we've been talking about. We know all the other stories. We know about the fact that some people will always have to be institutionalized.

The BCAMR have been trying to get some degree of involvement in the future planning of the department that deals with retarded people. They also talk about inspection and accreditation. Basically the retarded people — the people who are in the institutions — and their parents are interwoven in the kind of effort that they have done over the years. Over the years no group has had to go through the difficulties that the parents of the BCAMR have. It's basically a parent organization made up of people who live with the problems all the time. They've been able to break out of some of the parochialism that existed some years ago in terms of the organization. They've started to look at the broad general question of how you make it possible to integrate people like their children into the community, whether by giving added service in the home, putting them in group homes or humanizing — where possible — the very institutions that most of them have lived in.

Yes, the beginning of the infant stimulation program was one of the better breakthroughs made in the field. There's no question that that program gives a great deal of hope to a lot of people. That kind of program needs to be expanded. I don't really want to repeat what I dealt with yesterday, but I went through the correspondence with the minister. One worker for an infant stimulation program costs around $13,000. It becomes very difficult. It's always the kind of thing that happens to a minister: you get a feeling sometimes that you're being nickeled and dimed to death, because people say it's just one person. When you have a program and when you talk proudly about an infant stimulation program, it does the kind of preventive work that it does. But you have to say to yourself that that's stopping the input into the institutions; that's depopulating before they even get in. So you make the broad financial decision that it's far better to do that than to have people go into institutions as they get older because they have not been able to take advantage of those early preventive programs. That's a basic criticism that has to go to the minister. You are spending $600,000 and people are still saying out there that they're understaffed and they need more help. That's what you have to look at.

It goes to the same question in terms of day care. Day care, for whatever the minister might think it is, is one of the first preventive programs in terms of any child problem. That's why the previous government was committed to the development of day care. There has to be more than just lip service given to the idea of prevention; you really have to understand what it's about. The minister apparently understands what the infant stimulation program is — it's the most fascinating program to observe, and I'm sure she has observed it. The shortcoming is that you simply have to have more of those, because you are going to get the pressure from the people who belong to the BCAMR, while at the same time your ministry is looking at all sorts of structural changes to Woodlands and Tranquille which could involve millions of dollars in capital costs.

We have a right to ask — and they are asking — why in the name of everything that's holy you should be looking at that kind of thing, when what we should be doing is something in the community. Once you get that, however tough it's been in Woodlands an Tranquille, people will be prepared to put up with that, if they see that new developments are being made in the community. That's the choice you have to make. We know all the other problems, and they are serious ones. I can recall that when we looked at trying to close down part of Woodlands one of the basic questions asked was what we would do with the staff. It was not difficult. You simply trained the staff to do the community work instead of doing the institutional work. It takes time, but you can do it. Nobody need lose a job; you simply have to introduce the training programs so that when you make the transition, those people go from the institutions into the group homes, into the support work that can be done in the community, which does not necessarily involve a group home. So that's not a problem.

I can recall many years ago, when I was visiting California and they were looking to broaden their probation and parole program — but it had to go hand in hand with the closing down of some institutions they wanted to do — they simply took the people who were appropriated to the institution and trained them to be parole and probation officers. The transition was made. That's the kind of transition that has got to be made in this business.

I would like the minister to tell us what plans are being developed in her ministry to spend millions of dollars on refurbishing, updating or extending the facilities in Woodlands, Tranquille and Glendale. We want to know that. Once we know what's going on, then we can say to the BCAMR. that your chances of ever getting anything in the community will just slip down the drain, because the government is going to be committed to looking at the institutional setting. Are those the plans of the government? The BCAMR. can't find out. They asked to be involved on committees and they got a letter from a member of the minister's staff. It's the kind of letter that often gets written. I'm not even sure I want to....

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye.

MR. LEVI: Never mind "aye." If you've got anything to say, say it. If you're bored, go to your office. I haven't heard one of you guys get up yet and do anything on this thing. You don't talk on human rights. You don't talk on the retarded. You don't talk on anything. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm coming to order.

[ Page 5946 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just to advise you, hon. member, the three-minute light is on.

MR. LEVI: Well, that might give me time to find this thing.

Let me paraphrase it, and later on, when I get up again

I'll talk about it. They received a letter from Mr. Sam Parker of the minister's staff. I in no way want to make this an incorrect statement. Mr. Parker simply indicated to the minister that the kind of accreditation and inspection are far better done by the ministry than they are by outside people. That's an old story. We've got to the stage in the delivery of services to people that you can, in fact, involve the community as well as the bureaucrats. We have adequate examples of how well that works.

The minister has fashioned for herself what appears to me to be a burgeoning opposition towards the minister, particularly with respect to her programs related to the mentally retarded. For years they have tried to deal with the ministry. I can recall when I was the minister, they dealt with me. They have a great ability to put on pressure. They made rational explanations of what was needed, and as far as we could go vie met what they wanted to have — quite obviously not everything.

But since 1975 there has been a lessening of this possibility of meeting the expectation, so much so that that group has now gone public, something they never did previously. They have written dozens of letters to the minister, and all they get back are fatuous replies about: "Yes, we do. We are in favour of LIFE. Yes, we are prepared to listen to you." Then they get other letters which say: "We don't want you involved in the planning." They've got to be involved in the planning, because we're dealing with their children.

This is the most unusual case. We have citizens involved in all other areas of planning. They're involved with hospitals because they sit on boards and that kind of thing. But these people, for some reason, are not being allowed to be involved. That's wrong. They're not able to find out things first-hand. They get dribbles of information from the ministry. They come to other members of the Legislature to see what they can find out. I can't for the life of me understand why there cannot be the open communication that will make for a better development and understanding of this work. It's an antagonistic situation, and it shouldn't be.

I would ask the minister to reply to the questions about the expenditures in the institutions.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Let me respond particularly to some of the statements that have been made regarding the services for the mentally retarded in the province of British Columbia. I first want to speak generally, and then I'll be pleased to be specific for those members who have raised specific questions, particularly the member who has just taken his place, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam.

First of all, generally speaking, in response to the services for the mentally retarded, everything the members have brought up on the floor of the House regarding the B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded generally, and their comments in press releases and meetings they have had in these past few weeks.... In all their statements they continue to say that we have not followed the commitment made by this government through the previous Minister of Human Resources for the Community Living Board. I say once again that the commitment is still there. We have followed through, and we are continuing to follow through.

To the three members who have been on their feet and who mentioned it, one of the things they don't realize is that the depopulation was started some time ago and has been continued. We're talking now about much more difficult people to place in the community than we've had before. It may not be quite as fast and speedy. I think the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) has talked about a snail's pace in terms of speed. Let me say that the parents of the retarded who want their children and their young people in the community want them in the community with support services. They're not asking us to return them to their own homes. They're asking us to return them to a place where they will have the supports within the community. That's a lot different. Let no one in the House or those listening or reading Hansard be under any illusion that we are being at all remiss in trying to build the bridges that will take these young people into the community. These are young people — older retardates — who are more difficult to place in the community than those that we have heretofore placed. It has never been easy, but certainly easier than what we have at the present time. Anyone who knows anything about those institutions we're talking about will certainly understand that.

I'm fascinated by the preoccupation of the opposition in this particular instance, because they see the many references to the association. I think they see that as something that they can promise to an organization and perhaps gain some points on it. Let me just say this about some of the references that have been made. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who made references to the same association and to the services that we provide in the province, has said that every single person in those institutions should be in the community. That's a cruel expectation to put on the parents of the retarded in this province. It's true, we are all working towards making as many as possible acceptable in the community. But let me repeat once again that they won't all be able to be moved out.

It would be a cruel expectation to put into the hearts and minds of the people in the province of British Columbia who carry a very, very great burden of having a retarded child who is now grown up into an adult, but whose very serious, profound retardation keeps them in a crib, unable to do anything in that institution. It's a sad, sad thing to see. How a parent must feel who has such a burden to carry is nothing that we want to perhaps even describe. But it is cruel for us to say that that person who is now in the institution can be out and doing well in the community, because it's just not so. Some of them are not going to be able to. I'm sure that every one of those parents feels that they would like to have that person in that community. Most of them will be able to be in the community. Let no one take what I've said out of context in any way, but when I said earlier in the debate that to say all children and all mentally retarded persons can be taken out is unfair, I said it because it isn't fair. There is one unit in the New Westminster institution that needs upgrading for health and safety reasons, and it will have money spent on it. There are the very difficult cases there that cannot be moved out.

I'm sure that the response from members on the other side will be that you can take some of those retarded out of that institution and put them into the community. Yes, you can take the same facility and duplicate it for ten retarded in ten single units. You can pay for 24-hour care in single-family units. There's no question about that: it can be done. I'm going to say this, though, and I would think the members of the opposition should be considering it. Is it not better to have

[ Page 5947 ]

a very good program with dedicated staff for those same ten, where they can check on each other, rather than to have a specialized service in a single unit for those very profoundly retarded? That's something we all have to consider in this House, in our social services committee and in relation to our discussions with the B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded.

We're going to have to look at that problem and face up to it. Are we going to take every single mentally retarded person out of that area, where maybe ten can be together? I think not. I think there will have to be cases and places where perhaps smaller areas can be built and provided. There will certainly have to be those areas, because we want to check on each of those staff people. We don't want a one-for-one situation, where the patients cannot tell us what neglect could take place, and then have someone tell us later on that there has been neglect of that patient. I would be very careful in what expectations are placed in the hearts and minds of the parents in that regard. Give that some thought. Don't give it the very quick kind of derisive comment that came from the member for New Westminster when I made these comments in the last five minutes. Give it some thought. What are we really looking at when we look at saying that every single resident can come out of each and every institution? After all, we are here to serve those young and adult retarded. We are here to serve them and not to make some kind of points with the organization. That is not my interest.

I want to mention to the members that there's an increasing number of handicapped to address. That's the problem we have now. I said that the community living society has been successful, that we are continuing with it and that we have increased their budget a lot. We have also increased the community facilities. Some of the children who are coming to us today and have come to us in the last two years identified as mentally retarded have certainly not been institutionalized. We've also made gains there. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam will certainly understand that.

You talk about future planning. I referred to that. I want you to understand that when you were not in the House I also responded to the financial questions which you raised yesterday. You can read the answers in Hansard. In terms of future planning, I also made reference earlier today of the B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded. We have met with them, The deputy ministers have also had a copy of their brief and have been addressing them. We are truly addressing those in a very active manner. We plan to have answers for that whole brief, which was a thoughtful and very important brief. I'm sure the association itself would not want us to rush or to try to comment in a very few days on a brief that took a long time to put together and a brief that we were asked to give quick action to. I can tell you that my ministry, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education and all ministers in social services are really addressing all of the things in their brief. You asked what the plans are for refurbishing for health and safety only. You ask what our plans are for the future. I say that it's been actively addressed. Sometime in the month of June we hope to have a meeting with the association and to Jay out our plans. I think that our plans are consistent with theirs. I don't see that we have any conflict whatsoever — absolutely none. I think that we are all talking the same way in terms of where we would like to go in this province. I don't think we differ.

I wonder if I could also make a response to Dr. Donnellan. The member came before us referring to a letter from Dr. Donnellan and my response. Let me just say to you that I thought Dr. Donnellan reflected very badly on our staff and our people. and I told her so in a letter that I made available. I understand that in her reference to British Columbia she seemed to feel that she had a tremendous amount of information on Woodlands which she wished to impart to everyone at large, not just myself. But let me tell you what I understand, and I get this from my ministry. Anne Donnellan was initially contracted with by Woodlands in 1978, along with two other individuals who had been involved in the development of the PIRT Team concept in California. As far as ministry staff are aware, there was no extensive visiting of Woodlands, and if she was ever at Glendale, no one in the administrative staff is aware of it. Her total time in British Columbia covers a six-week total in 1978, a summer course in the University of Victoria, which she taught for six weeks in 1978. She gave a two-day workshop in functional teaching in Woodlands in 1980. In September 1980 she was at Naramata for the administrator of schools for the mentally retarded for two days. It certainly didn't give her an opportunity to look at Woodlands at that time. My staff said that she had not been extensively visiting Woodlands. In June 1980 she was a guest speaker for one evening at a private organization in British Columbia. Again, I say to you that we think that our record in depopulation — a popular word — has been exceptionally good.

I would also like to make reference to the setting of the course for the next decade. Once again I want to say that we are actively engaged in planning with the association. We will be sitting down with them this month and coming together with that kind of program and plan, and we believe we have got some unique and very good answers they will agree with. I believe we will have that opportunity sometime before the end of this month, and if not by the end of this month certainly by the first two weeks of the following month.

Let me just say again to the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace).... I'm sorry she's not in the House, but she mentioned a few comments she wanted me to make. I think she said that the new opportunity plan was not working in her area. I'd like to sit down with her about that. I'm not so sure. I don't have first-hand knowledge of that. She would be more cognizant of whether or not it's working, but I can tell you that if it isn't working in her area, it can.

She talks about the case of the senior citizen with a teenager and a wife under 50. I want you to take a look at the comparison in this particular case she has brought forward to us, because it certainly should be on the record. In the past few years, and taking it back to the year.... I'm just looking for a paper here, Mr. Chairman, if you'll bear with me. I have some figures I'd like to share with the House, and I think it's important that we have them on the record, so Fm going to bring them to the House tomorrow. I think it's an important point the member has tried to make, and I would like to have an opportunity to answer it.

The member made mention of extra moneys allowable for people in receipt of income assistance, and she talked about the $100 a month. We are addressing that. I think the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) also made reference to that. I think what has to be explained here is that this allowable income is an amount of money that allows people to add to their expenses when they do part-time work and so on, and to assist them in order to augment their income.

When it comes to the Individual Opportunity Plan, we think that we can do something in cooperation, and earlier today I think I mentioned that we could perhaps take a look at

[ Page 5948 ]

that in terms of our income assistance program, which is the Individual Opportunity Plan.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I rise under standing order 26. On Friday last I raised a matter of privilege regarding the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) making erroneous and false statements about me regarding the petition on Windy Bay. It's been five days since a cabinet minister maligned an opposition member. When will Mr. Speaker rule on this matter? Justice delayed is justice denied.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Whenever a matter of privilege arises, it is with due consideration that a decision is returned. I am certain that the members of the House would want the advantage of that kind of well considered decision again. It will be delivered as soon as it's prepared.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled an answer to question 51 on the order paper.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.

Appendix

51  Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following question: 

For the fiscal year ended March 31, 1980, what was the breakdown of social services tax revenue between that paid by consumers and that paid by industry?

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

For 1979-80, the social services tax revenue was $630 million, of which $339 million was estimated to be from individuals and $291 million from industry.