[ Page 5949 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Gas poisoning at Can-Cel plant. Mr. Howard –– 5950

Ms. Sanford

Racial discrimination. Mr. Barnes –– 5951

Mr. Barrett

Political polling by Goldfarb and Douglas Heal. Mr. Hall –– 5951

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

On vote 117: minister's office –– 5957

Ms. Brown

On the amendment to vote 117 –– 5953

Ms. Brown

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Brummet

Mr. King

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Mussallem

Ms. Sanford

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. DAVIDSON: Visiting us today in the galleries are 65 students from Burnsview Junior Secondary School in Delta. They are with their teachers, Alderman Karl Moser from Delta and Mr. Jack Godwin. I ask the House to give them a very warm welcome.

MR. KING: We have visiting in the gallery today Chief Wayne Christian of the Spallumcheen band, and Mr. Emery Louis, a member of the board of the Round Lake alcohol and drug facility. I ask the House to extend a warm welcome to both gentlemen.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I ask the House to welcome Mr. Graham Harrison from Wellington, New Zealand, who is in the gallery today. Mr. Harrison is an international rugby referee and is on his way to Calgary to referee a rugby match on Saturday, June 6, between Canada and the United States.

MR. LAUK: Today a delegation from the University of British Columbia Alumni Association has been visiting committees of MLAs from both sides of the House and also visiting, I understand, the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). I believe they are now in the precinct. Would the House acknowledge Dr. Peter Jones, executive director; Dr. William Tetlow, director; Dr. Peggy Ross; Mr. Robert Smith, president; and Mr. Michael Partridge of the board of management of the alumni association.

MR. BARNES: I'm proud to have as visitors to the capital city the youngest of my three daughters, Beverli Barnes, and her friend Dr. Robert Chacona, a dentist for the state of New York. Besides holidaying, Robert is also here on a research project on the west coast. I wish the House would recall a few weeks ago when I attempted to introduce my second-oldest daughter, Connie Barnes, a fashion model in Vancouver, and my efforts to persuade my colleagues that she was really my daughter, not just a cosy friend, and not really just a secret and delightful friend, but in fact every bit a part of the heritage of the Barnes clan. I'd like to say that Beverli, also a model, is attending the Parsons School of Design and has just completed her second year. She is here after having been away for two years. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming her and Robert to the Legislature in the capital city.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, we have two representatives in the gallery of the fine retail organization of Simpsons-Sears. I'd like to ask the House to welcome Mr. Ron Iveson and Mr. Terry Brown.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, following years and years of tradition, we have a busload of 50 people visiting from the Royal City of New Westminster.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Did you hear that? He said someone from White Rock is with them. I'm very proud and happy to present to the House this group, which takes enough interest year after year to come over here and visit us. I would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, after some hesitation, I wish to add my words of welcome to the referee from New Zealand. We wish to publicly apologize for Canada's defeat of New Zealand by accident in the seven-a-side match in Hong Kong. I hope this apology works well in Calgary next week.

MR. SPEAKER: People seldom come to visit the Speaker, but they are here today. I want you to welcome Mr. Dan Sewell, Mr. Bill Yarborough and Mr. Gary Levin. They're from Colorado.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask leave of the House to make a statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I hear a no. Hon. members, if leave is denied, we cannot proceed.

MR. BARNES: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: No. This is pursuant to standing order 49.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, Mr. Member.

MR. BARNES: I ask leave to move that this House call upon the Minister of Labour to table the John McAlpine report forthwith.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, order, please. If leave is requested and denied, we cannot proceed on the matter unless it is a thing which does not require leave in the first instance. Leave was asked for and was denied.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre rose and asked leave to make a statement. The members opposite said no. Then he rose under standing order 49. It is perfectly permissible to ask leave of the House to move a particular motion. They are two separate and distinct items. He asked leave, and I think it should be put to the House to see whether leave could be granted to the hon. member to move the motion that he desires to move, asking for the tabling of the McAlpine report.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it appears to the Chair that perhaps legitimate standing orders are sometimes being used as a device to bring information to the House. I would suggest the best way to do it would be to stand up, ask for leave and then perhaps, in asking for leave, suggest to the House what it is the statement would be about. Then the House could intelligently say whether or not leave is granted. I recommend that practice to the House.

[ Page 5950 ]

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, every time someone from this side of the House asks for leave, the hon. Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) says no.

MR. SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a request of you. Would you ascertain, through the government House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom), whether that is always going to be the case so we don't have to waste our time?

MR. SPEAKER: That's not a point of order, hon. member.

MR. LEA: Would you do that, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't know under what standing order I would even have the authority to ask that question. It is not a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, I know of no instance, when a member stands on a point of order, that that point of order is being used for other than the purpose intended in standing orders. The member rose on standing order 49 after not receiving unanimous approval for leave to make a statement.

I quote from standing order 49: "A motion may be made by unanimous consent of the House without previous notice having been given under standing order 48." The member stood and asked, under standing order 49, for permission of the House to move his motion. That was not put to the House. Perhaps to clear this matter the member could stand up again under standing order 49, put his request and have the House judge it at that moment.

MR. SPEAKER: If the House is satisfied that they were two separate and distinct matters, the first one not having been identified and the second one having been identified but not related to the first, I will put the question again. Shall leave be granted under standing order 49?

Leave not granted.

Oral Questions

GAS POISONING AT CAN-CEL PLANT

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour about the B.C. Timber–Canadian Cellulose plant in Prince Rupert. The number 4 boiler there is being converted to hog fuel capability at the recommendation of the provincial government. Members of the boilermakers union performing the operation have repeatedly complained of symptoms of gassing on the job site. Can the minister confirm to this House that over 45 workers in the area of boiler number 4 have been stricken by some degree of gassing?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I can neither confirm nor deny that those events have taken place. However, in anticipation of this particular question or something like it, I do have some comments which I'm prepared to give to the House now.

MR. SPEAKER: If they are in answer to the question, please proceed.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: They are not in specific answer to whether or not there are 45....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would suggest that the best order to follow would be to stand immediately following question period and ask leave to give that reply.

MR. HOWARD: Supplementary, then. On May 29 three men — namely, Martin McManus, Al Clarice and Ken Wilson — were severely gassed on the job site. In point of fact, virtually every worker on the shift was affected by gassing to some degree. Can the minister confirm that the total number of meters that are established to monitor the job site about gassing are only two, and that these are not manned constantly? Can the minister also confirm that the Workers' Compensation Board is satisfied with the situation as I have described it and is taking no action?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With respect to a couple of the specific questions, I do not have specific answers, but I will take your suggestion and read the material which I have, which at this time is the fullest possible answer to the matter being referred to.

MR. HOWARD: That's an incredible answer. I have a supplementary question. Can the minister confirm — that's if he's paid any attention to this serious matter — that several of the workers stricken by the gas have found it necessary to fly to Vancouver for medical treatment? Can he also assure this House that their expenses will be paid by the employer and the WCB?

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

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Again, I don't have particular answers for the specific questions, but I will take each of them on notice and get back to the House.

MS. SANFORD: I have questions for the Minister of Labour as well. The gas which is most likely responsible for the seizures that the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) referred to is methyl mercaptan. I wonder if the minister can confirm that the problem of mercaptan use in the forest industry was brought to the attention of the WCB over two years ago, and that at that time the board arbitrarily raised the allowable levels of mercaptan gas for job sites?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, I cannot confirm it. What I will do is take the question on notice and return to the House.

MS. SANFORD: In light of these incidents, any one of which could have resulted in a tragedy, what steps has the minister taken to protect the workers in British Columbia from mercaptan gas before the present regulations of the WCB, which are obviously too lax, result in someone's death?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I shall plead ignorance. I don't know anything about methyl mercaptan gas. I will go to Hansard to get the particulars of the question, hon. member. Again, I will make the appropriate inquiry on behalf of the House and report back.

[ Page 5951 ]

MS. SANFORD: The minister doesn't seem to know much about this situation, even though he's going to be making a statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Let's have the question, please.

MS. SANFORD: I'm wondering if the minister can confirm that there is also an asbestos poisoning danger on the same job site, which has been reported to the WCB.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I have not had any report filed in the office with respect to the presence of asbestos. Again, I will take the question on notice. I don't quite understand how the members can really expect somebody to be fully informed about the nature of the gas in asbestos at an industrial site.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

MR. BARNES: My question is to the Minister of Labour as well, Mr. Speaker. I am reliably informed that the human rights officer currently assigned to investigate the Ku Klux Klan requested a copy of the McAlpine report from the minister's office. The report apparently was being delivered, until the minister had a courier intercept and return it. Would the minister clarify to the House the accuracy of this information?

MR. SPEAKER: Is it a newspaper report? Inquiring into the accuracy of newspaper reports is not in order.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I heard something about this. It seems to me I may have read it in the press. A request was made; that's the only knowledge I have. In any event, I might say that the report will be filed in the House. I don't think it's right that that report — if in fact it was requested — be sent to members of the community at large without first being tabled in the House and letting every member have a look at it.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, just an aside. I think that the minister should be aware....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is question period.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, this is in response to his suggestion that the officer is a member of the community at large: he happens to be working for the human rights branch.

Will the minister indicate in what way the human rights branch is involved in this unusually long suppression of the McAlpine report — a report commissioned as an urgent measure in response to public pressure for government action?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The report has been examined by senior people in my ministry. That is the extent, to the best of my knowledge, of anyone in the Ministry of Labour reviewing it. The report has also been examined by some of my colleagues. Until the report is tabled, I have no intention whatsoever of placing it in any branch of the ministry.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, is the minister suggesting that his investigation is strictly a political one and that the staff of the human rights branch have no role to play whatsoever in the analysis of this matter? I would ask the minister if he would indicate to the House whether or not the director, Nola Landucci, is involved in the discussion of the McAlpine report.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, some of the staff in the human rights branch were interviewed by Mr. McAlpine and put forth their suggestions to him.

MR. BARNES: Would the minister indicate to the House whether or not one of their suggestions was that the branch was quite confident that it could prosecute the Klan under section 2(1) of the Human Rights Code — that they could use the present legislation to prosecute the Klan today, without any amendment or without any commission being appointed to study the problem?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I will not make reference to the report, but I will tell you that I have on file a letter from the branch which specifically states that with respect to the request for an inquiry it was felt that the areas and the language set out in the existing code were not adequate. Do you think for one moment that if they were I would have initiated the report and incurred this? Not on your life!

MR. BARNES: I have one final question to the minister. He suggested yesterday or the day before when we were questioning him on this matter that the McAlpine report, notwithstanding, probably had no effect whatsoever on whether the Klan would succeed or not. Is he suggesting that even if the report were tabled we would still be in a position of no action on the part of the government? In light of that, what action will you be taking if, in your opinion, you don't feel the report will have any validity in any event? That's what you suggested two or three days ago.

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

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the report has a great deal of validity. If I heard the member correctly, what I mentioned yesterday is that it has become abundantly evident that the Code is not adequate to address this problem. I do hope that after further discussions with my colleagues and review of the recommendations we will in fact be able to do something about the activities of the Klan.

MR. BARRETT: In consideration of the seriousness of this very issue, does the minister not believe that the public of British Columbia are mature enough to judge for themselves the value of the contents of the McAlpine report, which they paid for?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The short answer is yes, I do believe that the public will be interested in the contents of the report and more than mature in handling its contents.

POLITICAL POLLING BY
GOLDFARB AND DOUGLAS HEAL

MR. HALL: My question is to the Provincial Secretary. Can the Provincial Secretary assure the House that provincial taxpayers' money is not being used in any way for political polling, either in the province of British Columbia or in the rest of Canada?

[ Page 5952 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE: The short answer to that questions is yes, I can assure the House. The question is related to political polling, is it not?

MR. HALL: Can the minister confirm that $10,000 was paid to Goldfarb Consultants of Willowdale, Ontario, to, among other things, determine political issues of concern, including government and politics?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think it might be more beneficial for the House if the member would provide more specific information related to that particular expenditure.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The purpose of question period is not to bring information, but to ask questions.

MR. HALL: The minister can check correspondence and cheque vouchers in his own department to find that information.

What instructions has the Provincial Secretary given to Mr. Douglas Heal regarding the use of taxpayers' money for such partisan political surveys?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'm not aware of the specifics of what the member is referring to. If he would supply me with more information on it, I'd be happy to supply the information to the House.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point of order I want to raise I do so because of an extraordinary situation that has developed. The point of order relates to standing order 48, which indicates that two days' notice shall be given of a motion, etc. I very reluctantly file notice of the motion in written form, but want to advise Your Honour orally that the motion relates to Your Honour's lack of action with respect to the question of privilege raised a number of days ago by the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell). I thought it appropriate to advise Your Honour directly before tabling the particular notice of motion.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES
(continued)

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, it appears that the minister wishes to ask leave to make a statement. I just wish to inform the House that if leave were requested, the opposition will gladly give it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure all hon. members are aware that leave in committee is not possible.

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

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the opposition is prepared to accept the motion that the committee rise, report progress and then allow the minister to ask leave to make a statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, there must be a motion.

MR. BARRETT: That's right. I can't move it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the hon. member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm the first one on my feet, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As hon. members are aware, in the estimates the minister was almost recognized....

MR. NICOLSON: It's the first person on their feet, Mr. Chairman, if we go by standing orders.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The Chair was about to recognize the minister. The Leader of the Opposition rose on a point of order. The Chair now recognizes the minister on vote 117.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, as we adjourned yesterday, I was just about ready to give some figures to the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace). I'm pleased that the member is in the chamber today, because then she can have the answers to the discussion surrounding the concerns that she had regarding the increases in benefits to income assistance and a comparison of those benefits as they are affected by the cost of living. I just wanted to share with the House some figures provided by my research staff who really have set out.... I'm going to make this available also to the member for Cowichan-Malahat so she will see it in the written form.

The comparisons of actual benefits paid with the cost of living — the CPI — are fairly dramatic. If one were to take the October 1976 benefits paid, an average amount per person in 1976 was $121.86. I'm averaging every single person receiving income assistance, whether they are heads of families or single persons, in total, and comparing that with the same group of people in April 1981. In October 1976 the average was $121.86, compared with April 1981, when it was $216.82. That comparison shows a difference of 77.9 percent. If one were to use the same comparison you would have found, compared to the CPI, that the difference would have been 46.2 percent, as compared to 77.9 percent. If you would like to take comparisons of cases, which would mean singles plus families together, that average of October 1976 is $264.69. In April 1981 the amount is $418.62, for a difference of 58.2 percent, compared to a 46.2 percent CPI. If one were to take families and an average-per-family comparison, October 1976 is $358.06, compared to $563.46 in April 1981, again showing an increase of 57.4 percent; that 57.4 percent compares to the CPI of 44.2 percent. If we can make another rather dramatic comparison, the single-person category in 1976 was $144.75. In April 1981 it's $276.47, showing an increase of 90.1 percent in that time-frame, compared to the CPI increase of 46.2 percent. I think those figures show that had we moved along in increases according to the cost of living, as has been suggested over the years, those same categories — and all, in fact — would have fallen behind. We have indeed exceeded that in these years.

In closing, I think I answered most of that which was raised in the House, and I look forward to other questions from both sides of the House.

[ Page 5953 ]

MS. BROWN: I'm sorry the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) has left, because now that I'm on my feet I could have moved that the committee rise so that he would have had an opportunity to make his statement.

However, when the estimates began a couple of days ago I dealt with the failure of the minister to meet her advocacy role, and yesterday you heard a number of my colleagues outlining ways in which the minister failed to meet her responsibility to deliver services to people in need in the province.

The reason for that is that the minister works at her Human Resources job as a part-time job. In fact she spends maybe less than half her time discharging her responsibilities as the Minister of Human Resources. For this reason I think it would be unfair for this side of the House to vote the minister her full salary, and so I would like to move that vote 177 be reduced by the amount of $116,968. If that is in order, I would like to proceed to explain why it is that a part-time minister should only receive a part-time salary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion appears to be in order, hon. member.

On the amendment.

MS. BROWN: Yesterday, in responding to some of the questions raised on this side of the House, the minister made a number of statements, a couple of which I would like to deal with very quickly.

The first issue, raised by the member for Cowichan-Malahat, was about the fact that women in receipt of maintenance payments whose husbands or ex-husbands fall into arrears, and make the payment as a lump sum, are not permitted by the ministry to retain the entire amount of money they receive as a lump sum. In many instances the money is deducted and they're only permitted to accept either $100 or, if it's a large amount of money, they keep the money and they're turfed off welfare. The minister suggested that this was an individual problem, that each person should really bring that to her office and discuss it with her, and it could be dealt with that way. I raised this issue last year with the minister and the year before, and it is still a problem, because, quite frankly, it is policy.

So I want to bring to the minister's attention her own policy in terms of GAIN regulation 3(2)10, schedule A, section 8(1) schedule B, and section 9(1), where it says: "The following is a definition of 'unearned income,' and such income must be totally deducted from any income-assistance benefits." Then it goes on to list from A to S all of the different categories which fall under the description of unearned income. Lump-sum alimony payments fall under this definition under section S. So I would like to suggest to the minister that section S be amended. I cannot amend regulations; I can only make a recommendation — and she asked for positive recommendations. So my positive recommendation is that GAIN regulation 3(2)10, schedule A, section 8(1), schedule B, and section 9(1), 3S, be amended so that it reads: "...any other income declared by the director to be unearned income, except back payments of maintenance." That is my recommendation.

The other matter raised by the minister, very briefly, had to do with a statement by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) about the impossibility of securing reasonable housing as a result of the inadequate shelter allowance and the fact that the ministry is paying large sums of money to motels and hotels to provide accommodation for income-assistance families in instances where they cannot themselves find accommodation because the shelter portion is just not adequate. My positive recommendation in that area, Mr. Chairman, is that the shelter portion of GAIN has to be increased, that it has to be brought more in line with the actual rents which people have to pay.

The final issue which the minister raised yesterday and which I would like to respond to very briefly was her comment — and I'm going to quote from it — where she said: "Our government's position on day care is very clear; our response as to whether or not we believe in universal day care is no, we do not. We believe that universal day care takes responsibility away from the family." I would like to let the minister know that the opposition's position on day care is very clear. Our response as to whether we believe in universal day care or not is that we do. I would also like to let the minister know that we do not perceive day care as taking away from the family's responsibility. We see day care as a very important part in the early development of the child.

Research has been done by a number of people in this field, including Professor Hannah Polowy and other professors in the UBC faculty of education, where it has been found that children who participate in a group day-care program are enhanced in terms of their cognitive development and also in terms of their social development, in terms of how they relate to each other. Day care is not designed to meet the needs of parents, Mr. Chairman; day care is designed to meet the needs of children. That's what day care is designed to do. Day care is also a preventive program. As the minister herself should know, the child abuse program of Vancouver General Hospital used day-care facilities extensively. They found that it decreased the amount of abuse of children by their parents, simply by removing the child from continual contact with the parent; placing the child in group day care gave the parents a rest and certainly gave the child a different environment in terms of its own development.

We do not see day care as a baby-sitting service. We so not see day care solely as a means of allowing people to go to work. We see day care, first of all, as part of the early development of the child — a very important part of the early development of the child, especially in those instances where we're dealing with an only child or where it's a child that does not have access to the company of other children — children living in apartment blocks, for example. But it is a very important part in the cognitive, psychological and social development of the child. Day care should be available to all children, not just to those children whose parents have to work. We feel very strongly our commitment to universal day care.

There are a number of other issues which other of my colleagues would like to raise in support of this resolution. They are disappointed and saddened by the fact that the needs of children, seniors and other people in this province who depend on the ministry are not being met because this minister insists on being a part-time minister. She spends much more of her time trying to develop a convention centre than trying to relate to her responsibility either as an advocate for the people of this province who are in need or as the person responsible for delivering services. That is why I have moved this motion to cut this minister's salary in half.

[ Page 5954 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I rise, of course, in support of this amendment. Normally in the past couple of years I haven't been dwelling a great deal or spending a lot of time on these estimates or on these problems. So many members here are very articulate and knowledgeable on these matters. But as one of the MLAs in this House — and I know this is happening with most MLAs — we are getting more and more problems from our constituencies relating to the Ministry of Human Resources, primarily because of the harsh regulations coming down from the senior level of the ministry — I presume from the minister's office and the cabinet level.

Rather than go into the whole thing again, to illustrate my point I've chosen three cases in three different areas which, in my view, exemplify exactly what I'm talking about. The first case deals with an elderly lady who happens to live in Powell River in my riding. She is 54 years old, lives alone, has no income whatsoever and has medical problems. She wrote me quite early this year asking for assistance, as her total income, including the supplement from Human Resources, adds up to $331 per month. Her rent was increased in January of this year to $280 a month, leaving her $51 a month for food and utilities — obviously an impossible situation. I won't name her; I don't think that's proper. The minister has a copy of this letter, by the way, Mr. Chairman. I'll get to that in a minute. I know that the minister is listening.

The rates have gone up insignificantly, in my view, for some of these people. The problem that I'm outlining here is that I did contact the ministry, at the local level first; they told me that they weren't able to do anything because of regulations. They had not the power or authority to grant any type of extra funds to this lady. She had to go other agencies — and I did assist her in that — for survival funds. By the way, they told her at the local level they would find a cheaper place to live. Now you tell me where you can find a place to live like a human being for less than $280 a month. Practically anywhere in the province it's just about an impossibility. So that was the advice at the local level. They told me at the local level: "Look, we know that this person needs assistance. We are powerless to do anything, because if we break the regulations at this level we're out of a job. You'll have to take the thing to Victoria." I took this whole matter to Victoria. The answer came back: "We're very sorry, but regulations are regulations. We can't do anything for her. We will be increasing the allowance." This has happened — insignificantly, in my view. So there is an increase in the allowance. She is still in that same position.

In supporting the motion by the member for Burnaby Edmonds (Ms. Brown), I feel that if this minister were truly concerned about these people — and there are a lot of people in a similar position — she would spend all her time looking after them. This is what she's getting paid for; this is her responsibility; she should be spending all her time looking after the disadvantaged in the province. That's one example.

[Mr. King in the chair.]

The second example very clearly illustrates a point in another direction. Let's remember that this is the Year of the Disabled. This situation involves an elderly lady who is still working and earning $750 a month. She has had two young people thrust upon her due to a series of circumstances, which it is not necessary to go into in this debate. They are her grandsons, aged 16 and 17, one of whom is a thalidomide child. He is going to school; he is very bright. However, according to the minister, he is not eligible for any assistance whatsoever. The boy has one leg, and his hands, face, etc., are deformed. Could I get the ear of the minister? Because I think this is very important. I'm really attempting to make a point here that's really important.

What I'm attempting to do here is explain something to the minister. I'm going to quote from the correspondence I received from the minister on this particular case. The minister may remember it — the Vanichuk case. I discussed it with the minister personally, and I put it in writing as well. I'll just give a bit of the background. On $750 a month this elderly lady, who is forced to work and maintain a home for these two young people who have been thrust upon her, one of whom is seriously disabled.... There was no help available of any kind; once again, I am told, it was because of regulations, to put it in a nutshell. In the letter from the minister — who was good enough to take a lot of time to make a very lengthy reply....

The fact is that the situation that exists in that home is very bad now, particularly in this Year of the Disabled, when these are the people we should be helping. There is no help available, primarily because this boy is still going to school. He will be graduating this year. If he were out of school there would be some assistance available. He should be in school; he's a very bright young fellow. But because he's still going to school, there is no help available for him. It really concerns me that the minister will send this type of regulation down through the ministry to the local level. Every case worker in the community is aware of this case. Every case worker in that community agreed that if there were any family in the area that should be eligible for assistance, it's this particular family. Yet nothing was done. There's no help whatsoever available. It's really disturbing. If this minister were doing her job correctly, in my view, and working full-time at her job, and she had compassion for a fellow human being in that very sensitive position she holds as Minister of Human Resources, these kinds of things wouldn't happen in this province; they certainly would not happen under a New Democratic government.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The third case. Just to make a point, rather than going into all the other things under regulations, I think these three cases will really exemplify and put in a nutshell what we're all trying to say here in the debate on these estimates. I have a copy of correspondence from the director of Malaspina College to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), and the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). In Malaspina College there have been a number of cutbacks because of funding and inflation, as there have been in every college throughout British Columbia. The case I'm talking about today is because of lack of funding. In spite of pleas at the local college level, the college has no choice but to cut out and do away with the person who was charged with special adult education for the mentally retarded in that community. The funds requested were $26,400. Here we are in the Year of the Disabled. Because of funding cutbacks this position in that college at that level is being done away with on the direct orders of the government. They say they will not fund it. Where is that money going?

[ Page 5955 ]

I understand $800,000 was earmarked for adult special education through the Ministry of Education.

The minister goes to cabinet and has the opportunity to make representation to Treasury Board. Why has that minister not stood up in cabinet and gone to Treasury Board and demanded these funds? She's demanding funds for Pier B-C, B.C. Place and public participation in the northeast coal deal, which is going to cost the taxpayers literally billions of dollars in the initial stages as a subsidy. Yet she could not find the money to maintain these services for the mentally handicapped people in that community. I suspect this is happening elsewhere; in fact, I know it is, because I took the trouble to check. The minister must know that when these people attend these classes to upgrade their capabilities, they very often have the opportunity to go to work in the community in some capacity. But they can't do that without proper training and education. This is exactly what's happening.

In my view, it's making a laughing-stock out of British Columbia, when we have banners, leaflets, scrolls and all of these things discussing the Year of the Disabled and funds are being cut back for this very purpose in this province, while we can subsidize these big-ticket political projects. In my view, that is a farce. I hope that when she replies the minister will address herself to that question.

On this particular issue, I am now making a plea in this Legislature that these funds for the mentally disabled be restored so Malaspina College in my community at least can continue that very fine program they have underway.

Secondly, I ask that the minister in regulation or legislation allow some leeway to the people of Human Resources at the local level to make arbitrary decisions for funding for special purposes. Because in both of the cases I've mentioned — there are many more, but these happen to be two cases that have gone completely through the ministry and right to the minister's office with no action — the situation is as bad today as it was a month or three months ago when they were first brought to my attention.

I'm asking the minister to spend more time at her job. The job she was assigned by the Premier to do was to look after the people who require special assistance in this province. Give Pier B-C and her other projects to somebody who can handle them possibly better, and at least well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the next speaker, let me point out that the committee cannot discuss a grant on which the committee has resolved, or a grant not yet brought forward. The member just taking his place was discussing estimates which might have been more property addressed under the Ministry of Education.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Just to correct an impression you seem to have, my question to the minister was simply this. Since this correspondence went to the minister that I referred to, as well as to the Ministry of Education, I simply asked that she at least raise her voice in cabinet on behalf of the disabled people of this province and to Treasury Board to have these funds restored. The minister obviously must have influence. Why else would these people be writing to her? Certainly the minister is responsible to some degree for the disabled people of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member's point is well made. However, the Chair does remind all members that we must maintain debate relevant to the ministry, the vote and the grant before us.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak against this amendment. First of all I'd like to say I had a little bit of difficulty following the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), who got up speaking in favour of the amendment to cut the minister's office expenditures in half. Then somewhere in the speech I heard requests that the minister do more, and that her office do more and so on. I'm having a bit of difficulty in equating those two in the same concept.

I am speaking against this amendment because I feel that the minister is doing an excellent job in the ministry. I think she has brought imaginative ideas and has introduced some new programs that have brought good administration to that ministry. She takes a very strong personal interest in any of the problems that are brought to her attention. In other words, whenever I have brought problems to her attention — I know of other members who have — she has sought solutions. I know she has made every effort to try and get out and establish personal contact with the people in her ministry. With that type of contact there comes a cooperative commitment to try and help the people who require help. That certainly is something that minister has instilled in her staff — a feeling that something can be done and that the answer is not just to keep handing out more money. Where people need money to get by and where help is needed, every effort is made to provide that to the extent possible, but we look for other solutions to get people off welfare or income assistance, rather than just constantly providing more money. I think that is a responsible attitude. It's responsible not just to the taxpayers or the economy of this province, but is also responsible to the very people who need assistance. If you can get people helping themselves, instead of increasing their help, that does much more for them than any handout programs.

I think this particular amendment to cut this minister's office expenditures in half does a disservice to the people of British Columbia. Certainly not everyone will be satisfied. All of us can expect correspondence from people who would like, expect and need more. To suggest that the solution lies in cutting the expenditures of the minister's office in half has to be a somewhat ridiculous approach to the problem. I would like to suggest to the minister that she continue her personal commitment to helping when problems come to her attention and in trying to get people to help themselves as much as possible, because therein lies the long-term solution. I'd certainly like all responsible members of this House to defeat this amendment so the minister can get on with her job.

MR. KING: After that ringing endorsement of the minister, I'm somewhat reticent about getting up and participating in the debate. I want to say to the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), who refers to handouts, that in the Year of the Disabled, when the government, at least allegedly, has made a commitment to the disabled of the province of British Columbia, I am surprised to hear a member of the House referring to those commitments to support disabled people as "handouts."

MR. BRUMMET: Don't twist it.

MR. KING: That's what my colleagues from Mackenzie and Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) were referring to: the cases of legitimate need, not handouts. The handouts that I'm familiar with that have occurred in this Legislature over the past few months are not referred to by members of the

[ Page 5956 ]

government benches as handouts when they are directed to the major corporations of this province. Then it's a "subsidy." Then it's an "incentive" — such as to Denison Mines, Teck Corp. and, just yesterday, Royal Trust. Millions of dollars of "incentive." Yet when it comes to supporting people who are disabled and have needs, we hear them referred to as handouts. It's a clear indication of where the priorities are in this Legislature. Let the facts speak for themselves. Methinks the member doth protest too much from his little corner of the world in isolation down there. Perhaps now we know why.

I want to address some questions to the Minister of Human Resources regarding an agreement, as I understand it, that was entered into last year between the minister and the Spallumcheen Indian band at Enderby. I believe the minister did meet with Chief Wayne Christian. The problem, as articulated by Chief Christian, was with respect to the custody of Indian children when they were taken into custody by the Ministry of Human Resources. I've been provided with some pretty alarming statistics. I know my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds has raised this in debates in past years, but I'm shocked and amazed to find that 40 percent of all the children in custody in the province through the Ministry of Human Resources are indeed Indian children. That statistic in itself speaks of something radically wrong when one looks at the proportion of Indian population in the province and we see the disproportionate percentage of Indian children who are in custody through the Ministry of Human Resources.

I want to say to the minister that I'm pleased she met with the chief of the particular band, and sat down and discussed this problem, albeit through some very persuasive activity by the Indian band to bring the minister to the table to discuss it. Be that as it may, my interest is that a meeting did take place, and I believe an agreement of sorts was forged out of that meeting. That is what I would like to question the minister on. I would like the minister to explain to the House what the essence of that agreement was.

As I understand it from the media reports at the time, it basically provided for the Spallumcheen Indian band to assume the responsibility for the control of their own children. I believe the Ministry of Human Resources committed itself to this transfer of authority to the Spallumcheen band. As I recall it, I think the details regarding those children who were currently under care and how they might be transferred to the custody of the Spallumcheen band itself were left to further discussions and negotiations. Then there was the question, I believe, of where the necessary resources for the budgetary support to give effect to whatever precise agreement and plan is negotiated between the minister and the band with respect to the ongoing custody of the children would come from.

I would appreciate very much if the minister would simply give to me a rundown or status report on what has transpired since that agreement of intent, which is, in effect, what we had. Could the minister tell me whether or not there have been any subsequent meetings and, if so, whether a final program has been established and approved by the ministry through which the band can give effect and bring to fruition the agreement of intent that was signed? If such a meeting and agreement have not been reached, could the minister then tell me what her plans for bringing this agreement of intent into fruition are? What's the time-frame? Is there a meeting planned or pending between the senior officials of the ministry and the band to finalize and give effect to the spirit of that initial agreement? I should appreciate very much having an explanation from the minister as to what precisely is going on there. I think the native Indian band is anxious to get on with the job. Although I haven't been privy to all the discussions that have taken place, I would appreciate the minister filling me in in that respect.

I do have another matter to raise briefly with the minister, but perhaps she might like to respond to this matter first. Is that the minister's wish, or shall I raise the other point?

The other point I had relates to the mentally disabled in a particular way that I don't think has been raised in the House through discussion by the other members. I have a letter that perhaps I should read out, identifying the problem in a more precise and articulate fashion than I could myself. I'll just read it to the minister and ask for her response to this particular problem. It's a letter from Pearl N. Mowers, who is president of the Salmon Arm and District Association for the Mentally Retarded, and it's directed to the president of the BCAMR in Kelowna:

"At a recent meeting of the Salmon Arm and District Association for the Mentally Retarded, a motion was passed that we write a letter to you and to BCAMR expressing our concern about the present unsatisfactory situation in trying to set up an estate for a mentally handicapped person. The specific problem is that concerned parents, guardians or relatives, who wish upon their demise to provide extra benefits to a handicapped person to enhance his or her lifestyle, are thwarted in their wishes by existing legislation. All bequests, whether real or personal, are immediately attached by the public trustee for the basic maintenance of the handicapped person in their care. The wishes of the benefactors are often totally disregarded or, at best, the fulfilment of some of these wishes becomes a frustrating and prolonged legal process.

"The members of our association have attended within the past year two seminars at which estate planning for the handicapped was discussed. On both occasions either the public trustee or members of his staff were in attendance. Many questions were asked from the floor, but few were answered to our satisfaction. We therefore strongly question the policies of the office of the public trustee, when they are unable to explain these policies to us and are also unable to explain how and why these policies will be implemented. There appears to be very poor communication between the office of the public trustee and the people whom that office is serving.

"Further to this concern we also question the reason for the public trustee having the legal right to claim the benefits willed to other family members by a benefactor and to use these benefits for the basic maintenance of a handicapped person included in the same estate, when such is not the wish of the benefactor. We have concrete evidence that this practice exists and that it is considered proper. We do not agree. We are very aware that this problem of estate planning and the handling of estates concerning handicapped persons has been discussed by many local associations and at provincial and federal conferences as well. We also know from information garnered during the past year that where criminal law is concerned, a mentally handicapped adult has the same rights — no more and no less — than a normal adult. Yet, in civil law, where

[ Page 5957 ]

we are most likely to be involved, a mentally handicapped person appears to have no rights; and while their rights are being ignored, the rights of their parents or guardians are being equally overridden. We therefore strongly recommend that BCAMR petition the proper government authorities and insist that legislation controlling these unfair practices be amended to provide that benefits willed to handicapped beneficiaries be disbursed specifically as indicated by their benefactors.

"We further recommend that BCAMR step to the fore by setting up a legal financial board or committee to either control or monitor the handling of estates dealing with mentally incompetent persons. This monitoring could be further extended by having an appointed committee at the local level to deal with the problems on a more personal basis and without undue delays.

"We trust that this letter expressing our concern will be brought to the attention of your executive at this month's meeting. We hope also that the British Columbia Association for the Mentally Retarded will make every effort to set the wheels in motion for immediate action on this urgent problem. We are sending copies of this letter to other local associations asking them for their active support of our recommendations. We are also sending copies to Mrs. Grace McCarthy, Minister of Human Resources; to the Human Rights Commission of British Columbia; Mr. Nelson Riis, Member of Parliament for Kamloops-Shuswap; Mr. King, the member of the Legislature for Revelstoke-Shuswap; and Mr. Joe Lucas, our regional director for BCAMR.

Pearl N. Mowers"

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I appreciate that there is another ministry involved here. However, it's a joint area of responsibility. There is responsibility within the Ministry of Human Resources for delivering proper services to mentally handicapped people. While the public trustee resides in another ministerial jurisdiction, it is nevertheless incumbent, I believe, upon the Minister of Human Resources to ensure that that service is designed, tailored and capable of meeting the program needs of mentally handicapped people. And I would ask for her response or at least her perception of this problem, which I do intend to raise again when the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Gardom's) estimates are before the House, if that should occur this session. Nevertheless, I would like an indication from the minister of what her feeling is toward this particular problem,

I know that the public trustee has a difficult task of protecting the interests of the handicapped person or the person over whose estate he is trustee. It's a doubly difficult position to be in, but nevertheless it seems to me there's some validity in the complaint contained in the letter I just read. If the minister would respond to those particular issues, I should appreciate it very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member and the minister are both aware, I'm sure, that vote 36 of the estimates of the Attorney-General might be more appropriate. However, some latitude has been allowed, and the committee is reminded of that with respect to another vote.

MR. MITCHELL: I would like to enter this debate. There are three major subjects that I would like to bring to the minister's attention, where I feel her ministry is not keeping up with the times or not keeping up to what is needed to be innovative and to provide a service. The three items I would like to discuss are the crisis grants, the shelter allowances and the Langwood adult care institute or school that was in my riding.

Mr. Chairman, I know that you are not privy to all the correspondence that has gone on between me and the minister. For your benefit and to maybe refresh the minister's memory on some of the facts, this particular case dealt with a lady who was on welfare. She was attending school to upgrade her chances of getting re-employed and showed the initiative that I feel is admirable for a person of her age and background. She had a family and was making mortgage payments on a home. Through the winter the sewers and drains of her home blocked up. A number of volunteers from her church came to her aid, dug out the ditch and attempted to repair the blocked sewers. You can imagine that it flooded her basement and the lower part of the home. She utilized volunteers. They dug it all. After consulting some of the municipal officials, when they had opened it they realized they needed a plumber. So a plumber was engaged. He charged very reasonably for the work that he did. There was no complaint about the value that he gave for the work he performed. The price came to $800. It was something that had to happen right now.

She received the bill and applied for a crisis grant. This woman is on welfare, has a family and is going back to school. She's not earning additional income, because of her attempt to get retrained so she can get back into the workforce. She applied for the crisis grant, and it was turned down. What bothered me was that it was turned down not for the amount or for the work, but because she did not make the proper applications through the red tape bureaucracy that exists within the ministry. She hadn't made her application prior to digging up the ditches. It wasn't made before she had found out by using volunteers to dig up the ditch that it was damage that the volunteers could not repair for nothing and they had to have a plumber. Because she hadn't gone through that bureaucracy, she was turned down.

I appealed it through the various levels of the ministry: social workers, supervisors and right up through the bureaucracy. I eventually appealed it to the minister herself. It was $800. Maybe to you and me, $800 is not a great amount; but to someone who is struggling to make payments on her mortgage, to keep a 16-year-old boy in school and in clothes and to upgrade her education, $800 is insurmountable. What happened? It was turned down. I received a letter from the minister which I thought was very hard and callous. It said that it was turned down because she had not made the proper application. The letter also stated that it would not cause any hardship. An $800 bill to someone who is afraid that her house was going to have a lien put on it is a hardship.

I feel that the ministry must be a little more innovative. They must be a little more human. They must realize that a crisis grant is a crisis grant. It is not something you can plan ahead. When your basement is flooded with surface water and sewage, to sit back, wait and make all the applications to the bureaucracy is ridiculous. I ask the minister, when she is reviewing the rules and regulations, procedures and separate applications.... Even if they had offered to pay part of the grant or make some particular settlement, loan or something....

[ Page 5958 ]

As it turned out, the lady did come into a little money and was able to pay it before a lien was put on the house. But the plumber had to wait. All the people in the church who were involved in it were very disgusted with the inhuman attitude of the workers, of the supervisors and of the minister herself. I feel that we must take a more or less positive and human policy. We should look at crisis grants for what they are. I don't want to see them abused. I would hate to see them just become a blank cheque. But I think that when applications are made and MLAs have studied them and interviewed all the people, there should be some better method than saying that the $800 bill will not bother a person in her income.

A second issue I would like to discuss is the shelter allowance that is given to people on assistance. I know that it doesn't matter what you give, you can always find a figure that should be higher. I think we should look at what a shelter allowance is for. It is to provide shelter for a person and his family. With fast-escalating costs for housing today, and because of the high increase in mortgage payments and the shortage of homes, some of the rents and the remortgaging that has to come from a person who is paying a mortgage is taking more money than is allowed under your shelter allowance.

I have one particular case where the lady was getting a shelter allowance which I believe at that time was set at $385. Her mortgage payment at that point was $405. She only had to make up the difference of $20 out of food. Because of the policy today that you have to remortgage every year or two, when she went to remortgage her home, the payments had jumped from $405 to $528. There was no attempt by the ministry, and there is no give-and-take within the regulations, so the additional money she must pay for that shelter had to come out of her family food and the other things you need when you're raising four boys on welfare.

We have to be a little more innovative and flexible. One of the recommendations I would like to give to the minister for her consideration is that the rate of earned income should be a little more flexible. To have $50 for a single person and $100 for a family is not in itself a practical way to do it. I believe that a family which has shown a little initiative, one that will go out and attempt to earn additional income, should not have the amount they earn frozen at $100.

I say that that amount should be allowed to rise, at the very least, to the poverty level that has been established in Canada. We have to be a little more flexible. We must have a different approach to people. We in this House know that because of the increase in the cost of living we all took an increase in our indemnity, without any complaint. In our wisdom, we feel that we need it. Expenses have gone up. In the minister's own department, she is allowed an extra $300 for her deputy to have a car. But people are still frozen at $100 earned income. That is not allowed to go up. If they earn additional money — and they're way below the poverty level — it is taken off their allowance.

I feel that the minister must give leadership — in this House and in cabinet — to allow people to survive. Inflation, cost of living, mortgage payments and food payments are denying a lot of children who are growing up under this poor economic system of today.... Those children are becoming very bitter and disillusioned with Canadian democracy and rights. I say very definitely to the minister that there has to be a change in the amount of earned income, and it should be allowed to rise to at least the poverty level in Canada.

The third item I would like to bring to the minister's attention is the Langwood school for mentally handicapped adults. Again, Mr. Chairman, I realize that you are not privy to the minister's correspondence and a lot of the information that has been exchanged by me and the Capital Region Association for the Mentally Handicapped. The association funded a school in the Langford area called Langwood. In that school were 22 mentally handicapped adults. Their ages ranged from 22 to 50 or so.

These were adults whose parents have looked after them throughout their lifetimes. Many of the parents of these particular students were senior citizens. The one benefit they received was that the children had an opportunity to leave home at 9 o'clock in the morning and go to a school for instruction; they came home at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. This was the only time many of these senior citizen parents had the opportunity to relax and do some housework and not have to suffer the problems of people who have lived all their lives with a mentally handicapped adult in the home.

What did this particular school cost society? The Capital Region Association budgeted $30,000 from their fund to finance it. For 22 adults, they had two workers to keep it in operation. It's not a centre that can make money. It's a centre for severely handicapped people.

The Capital Region Association also funds another centre, the Sentinel workshop, which does not have as severely handicapped people. Because of their capabilities, they can raise additional funds. But the Langwood one could not raise enough funds to help them. Last year they allowed an overrun in their budget of $30,000. In fact, they only had a shortage of $26,000. How was that funded? The ministry does assist. It gives $1 per training hour per student in the centre. But it is not realistic. One dollar per student cannot fund this particular centre. The actual funds needed, according to the directors of the centre, would be at least $1.80 per training hour per student.

A lot of people say the government can't keep providing additional money. But this Legislature, in its own budget under the achievement centre program, budgeted for $3.5 million. Maybe the cabinet ministers get Brownie points in cabinet if they underspend their budgets. Last year the achievement centre program underspent by $800,000. If this $800,000 had been spent, if the grants that were given out to the various centres had been raised to take into consideration today's costs, the Langwood centre would not have to be closed down. If they had raised the rate from $1 per training hour to $1.80 per training hour, it would have survived, and 22 children would have been better off.

I'd like to bring to the attention of the minister and the House what happened to these 22 adults. Six went to the Serio program, a new, 100 percent provincially funded program operating out of the YMCA building in Vic West. Three have moved out of the community. One was lucky enough to be able to transfer to the Sentinel centre in Victoria. One was lucky enough to be able to go to the Garth centre. But eight were without any service at all. Some of those were returned to Glendale. Some are back home, being looked after full-time by their parents.

I say that every person, and especially the severely mentally handicapped, has a right to enjoy some meaningful daytime activity. When we, because of our desire to save a few dollars here, will not accept the need to raise the money from $1 to $1.80 per training hour — a very minimal amount — people are being denied this. What really happened to the

[ Page 5959 ]

six who went to the Serio program? As I said before, it's 100 percent provincially funded. The Langwood plant had 22 children and two adults. The six adults who are being funded provincially in Vic West have two workers. This is a far better ratio. The provincial government has provided 100 percent funding for this one program — they have funded one worker to three adults — but because of their niggardly attitude to the Langwood centre, it had to close down.

I would like the minister to re-examine the whole grant system, to pay out the money that was passed by this Legislature, to give to everyone who is mentally handicapped the opportunity for their parents to have at least four or five hours of every day when they are free of a burden that they carry seven days a week, 24 hours a day, providing services for a mentally handicapped person. Some parents have had them institutionalized in places like Glendale, where they have a per-diem cost of $90 to $100 a day. If you take into consideration the capital cost of that building, you would be looking at something around $200 a day. An extra 80 cents per training hour, I think, is needed and will help. It will encourage parents to keep the children, to give them a chance to get a break so that they can be on their own. As I say, some of these cases are senior citizens. I've interviewed them all; I've met with them and listened to their pleading. I would like to pass on to the minister that she should look very closely and very humanely at the money that is paid out to these centres. I know that in the last couple of years the Capital Regional Association for the Mentally Handicapped budget was funded 80 percent indirectly from the ministry, but because of rising costs and the need for additional money it is only being funded 55 percent from the ministry. I think we have to be innovative and a little more flexible. I ask the minister to look at our crisis grants from a human point of view, to look at shelter allowances from the way they affect people and to look at the need for allowing earned income to rise at least to the poverty level before they start cutting off the amount of money the ministry is paying.

Again, in closing, I would ask her to look at Langwood and to see if we can have a better method of funding all the centres that are looking after the mentally handicapped.

MR. NICOLSON: First of all I guess I'd like to say, if it's not out of order on a non-confidence motion — which I will be supporting, Mr. Chairman — that in spite of the fact that I'll be supporting this motion, I would like to thank the minister for returning a call to me in the evening on a very important matter, and to indicate that on that basis I will give credit where it's due.

However, there has been a matter canvassed a little bit here today. It isn't just a statistical thing, and it is something I would like to re-emphasize: that is, the way people are victimized when maintenance payments do not come in regularly, but come in in a lump-sum payment. I started correspondence with the minister on this some time ago, and I did receive her final answer a week or two ago. I cannot for the life of me think why she did not enter these estimates with an announcement that regulations were to be changed. Why not take the rug out from under us? Why not cut out the need for this kind of debate? I can see no ethical reason why a person who is on assistance from Human Resources is entitled to receive up to $100 per month in excess of outside earnings — often coming in the form of maintenance payments — and I don't see any reason why that person should be the victim of the irregularity of those payments. I can't understand it. I guess there are a lot of things I can't understand, and that's one of them. You could have the best teacher in here trying to explain this regulation to me, and I would still flunk the test. I couldn't understand why a person who doesn't get a maintenance payment for about three months or four months, and whose husband — who might be working out in the bush, up in the Northwest Territories or in some other province — finally gets his act together and says, "Okay, I'd better send that money," is docked and not allowed to have that $100 in excess of what would otherwise be the nominal value of a monthly payment for social assistance. It isn't fair.

I should not accuse this minister of not having good political judgment, but I think it's bad political judgment to allow this condition to continue and not to have rectified it before coming in for these estimates. I can only conclude that the minister is so preoccupied that even some of her very fine political instincts are being numbed and dulled by the activity and the preoccupation of the convention centre. It's a pretty sorry thing to see. If I can admire a person on any level, I can admire a person of astute political instincts. When something like this is allowed to slip by, I am at a loss. I know of no way to approach the subject with this particular minister if it isn't on the basis of compassion and fair play. If at the last resort one cannot appeal on the basis of politics and say that it's darn dumb politics, if one can't make the argument for fair play or the other arguments.... I think that this is the one thing that has maybe bothered me more than anything this year.

I would say to the minister that it seems in the past year.... I guess various things take up an MLA's time. I think the Minister of Human Resources is taking up a great deal of the time. Probably half or more of the people that come across the threshold of my office come in with a Human Resources problem — little things such as a lady and her husband, both pensioners. They were on full medical benefits. She has feet which require corrective orthopedic shoes. This particular lady went to a doctor. The doctor thought that rather than send her to the specialist in Vancouver that he had sent her to before, he would send her to another specialist in Kelowna. The specialist in Kelowna almost instantaneously produced some plastic shoes which appeared to have already been fitted before she even arrived.

At any rate, her family physician and, I think, also a specialist in another aspect of foot care subsequently wrote a very disparaging letter. It's the only kind I've ever seen where one doctor came so close to criticizing another doctor; in fact he didn't come close — he did. In spite of that, the ministry said that while these shoes were no good, they had already discharged their responsibility, and it was up to them to pursue the thing. These are older people. Thank goodness for the ombudsman. I referred the case to the ombudsman, who did the job.

I think that is a warning that the kind of philosophy that is emanating from the top down in the ministry is leading.... Anybody becomes part of a system after a while. People go into the penal system with the best intentions and then become brutalized a little bit by the system. People go into the vocation of social work with the best of intentions, but if a philosophy is emanating from the top down. they get a little bit tough and testy. With that kind of a philosophy at the top, it is manifested at the bottom. Senior citizens like that get put through a wringer that need never have occurred and need not take up the very limited resources of the ombudsman's office if it were looked at in a commonsense manner.

[ Page 5960 ]

I think what we need is response. I don't want to see things explained to me; I want to see changes when things are obviously wrong and when a thing could be remedied so simply, such as the proposal made by my colleague for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) on this subject of maintenance payments. A thing like that could be remedied very easily. So I say to the minister: it's fair, it's just, it makes common sense, and it's good politics. Please get on with it, because if we don't, I don't think that your excellent staff can operate to the maximum of their ability if the kind of direction that they're getting is not responsive. Of course, if they have very limiting parameters to work in, they just can't operate.

Also, I'd just like to say very shortly that the minister should look at the fee-per-client-hour concept in activity centres. I say this because it's been brought to my attention through the experience of activity centres that have been in operation for five and six years. It's kind of discouraging, the placing of some of the more productive workers in the activity centres out in the community. There is a tendency to hold the more productive people there to help make the operation more economic, and some of these people are perhaps ready to go out to a workplace — not into a sheltered workshop, but to get out of that sheltered workshop and take a fuller role in society. You almost have to hold on to those people in order to keep the activity centre — whether it's producing ceramics, as they do at Cresteramics in Creston, or whatever.

So I think that we've had enough time, and it's time to move forward in that area. We should always keep in mind that we want to take people and put them in as people who participate in the fullest sense in society. And the $1 per client-hour or whatever — even if it were $2 per client-hour — does act as somewhat counterproductive, so that should really be reviewed.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of questions to the minister on this motion. The first one is on fieldworkers up north. We have presently one fieldworker covering probably one of the largest areas in the entire province. He has found that the difficulty in travelling such large districts as the northern part of the Atlin constituency has caused problems for him as well as the residents of the area, who need his valuable services and the services of Human Resources. As a suggestion, I would certainly hope that the minister could alleviate this problem by having another fieldworker in Cassiar help out with this large area that the one present worker is covering.

The second question is of more essence: food vouchers which are given particularly to the native people who must shop in a company store in Cassiar. Presently the system only allows the residents to spend their entire cheque in one lot. It has caused hardship for the people, when they go into the company store in Cassiar with their food vouchers from the Ministry of Human Resources, to spend their entire cheque in one shot. The company has not allowed the residents — the native people in particular — to spread out their allotments. They would like to spend $100 in one shot, come back in a week or two and spend the remainder. They have to spend it all in one lump sum when they go to the company store in Cassiar.

The fieldworker up in Cassiar has asked the company to change their position, and they say they can't do it. I would certainly hope that the minister could be in contact with the Cassiar Asbestos Corp. to work out a solution so that people, particularly in the summertime when they don't have refrigeration, don't have to go in and spend the whole lump sum. What happens is that in a lot of instances people end up buying junk food for their children because it stores. Without the refrigeration in many communities up there, the native people are caught up in buying junk food — potato chips and soft drinks — for their children. It would certainly help if the minister could intervene and set up some system where the native people could spread their cheques out throughout the month.

The third issue I'd like to raise with the minister is the need for a group home in Lower Post. The UNN local 143 has written to the minister on a number of occasions concerning the need for a group home there, which would serve a very large area. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the minister that the federal government should definitely be involved in funding this. It's part of their responsibility in this area, since it's northern British Columbia and Yukon, and it would certainly be unfair to have the province pick up the entire amount. I would certainly hope that the minister could work out some cost-sharing agreement with the federal government, so that the residents in the northern part of this province could have a group home that would alleviate many of the social problems that the children presently are facing in small communities.

The last aspect I'd like to bring to the minister's attention is the apprehension of native children. We've all seen the facts; we understand the problem, I hope, ever so clearly. I would certainly hope that the minister would take the suggestions brought by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) concerning the apprehension of native children. Try to alleviate the problem and get native children back to their own group setting, instead of taken out of their locality, moved many miles away from their families and relatives and placed in a home, which often causes problems.

Those are four questions. As I stated earlier concerning the food vouchers that the ministry has instigated, that should be changed so that native people can use these food vouchers over the month instead of having to spend them all in one shot at the company store in Cassiar.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, what we're debating here is a resolution of non-confidence in the minister. While I had an opportunity yesterday to air what I consider to be some valid grievances, when one looks through the Blues and thinks about the answers, one realizes that we have a minister who is only half occupied with this most important ministry. Every time you pick up the paper you read about the responsibility that minister is taking for a trade and convention centre in Vancouver.

I don't know about the priorities of this government, but I do know this: to place a minister in a very vital and responsible position such as Human Resources, where her entire attention should be, and then give her the added responsibility of a Deputy Premier, and beyond that give her responsibility for the trade and convention centre.... It strikes me that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) moved a resolution that was most generous. The resolution should be to cut it to a third, but I'll support the half. Basically it's a matter of confidence.

You pick up the Blues and see what the minister said yesterday with respect to our very valid complaints about the depopulation of the retarded centres in our province. What did she say? "We've been meeting with the groups and playing politics" — not those words, but that's precisely what she indicated.

[ Page 5961 ]

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I would hope that the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) will learn to be a good MLA in the course of some time. He's got a pretty safe seat over there. Meet with people, listen to their complaints. When you do, you'll be standing up here and asking the minister some questions. The one thing that you have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt is the fact that you sit there and whimper across the floor with your comments, but you say nothing on the mike indicating the complaints of the people in your area. I get complaints from the people in your area. As a matter of fact, I had a phone call from Clearbrook this morning.

What we would like to see is the underutilized Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan).... She could very easily take on the responsibility for the trade and convention centre. It would strike me that that would be far more in her bailiwick than in that of the Minister of Human Resources.

Why does she want to stay there? Because it gives a great deal of focus in Vancouver. She is able to show the folks in Little Mountain that she's here, looking after them, looking after their future, and everything's beautiful in the valley. It's not beautiful in the garden for those people in our society who are in worse shape today than they ever were, by virtue of the fact that as inflation goes on the disparity gets greater between the haves and the have-nots.

This particular portfolio is the bulwark that should be protecting the needs of those people. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds has been talking for two days about the obligation of advocacy. What have we heard? Not a word. It's suggested that we should even conceive in our wildest imagination of not amending this vote? Not on your life, Mr. Chairman.

MR. KING: We should cut it by her back taxes.

MR. COCKE: The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke is not being fair, Mr. Chairman. Do you know what he suggested? Cut it by her back taxes. No, $47,000 isn't enough; we've got to cut it more.

I got another comment out of the major comments that she made yesterday. It took her hours to say nothing in the greatest filibuster I've ever heard. She gave such little answers to questions to the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), who asked why we were underspending on services to children. Do you know what the minister replied? She said that it was underspent by $700,000 because the demand for service was lower. I wonder where we get the demand for service. When 14-year-old children are winding up in Riverview, the demand for service to children is lower. Four psychiatrists are quitting today at the The Maples children's facility. The demand for children is lower. I can't believe it. For heaven's sake, who generates the demand? If there were an advocacy system over there and if she were responsible and doing her job, that money and more would be spent for the most important resource in our province — people — and the multi-most important resource in our province when you consider children. Children are winding up in jail and in facilities that are not for them at the same time that we get some child who is acting out to the extent that we can't handle them any more and we send them to Alberta. What happens? We soak the city of Vancouver for something that should have happened here.

Mr. Chairman, I ask you one question: is it any wonder that the opposition has to move a motion of confidence with respect to this minister, her behaviour and her role in her ministry?

MS. BROWN: I can't believe that the minister is not going to say something about this motion. I have always been taught that silence means consent. Does that mean that the minister agrees that her administrative vote should be cut in half because she is in fact a part-time minister? Is that what her silence means?

No, that's not what it means. It means that the minister has contempt for all of the questions raised under this particular motion. That's what her silence means. It means that she has contempt for the issue of native children raised by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), the issue of food vouchers raised by the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) and the issues raised by the members for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) and Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). That's what that silence means. It doesn't mean that the minister agrees that her salary should be cut in half. It means that the minister has decided that she is not accountable to this House, and she does not have to respond to the issues raised under this particular motion.

I think that my colleague for New Westminster was correct: I was too generous in suggesting that this minister's salary should be cut merely by 50 percent because she's a part-time minister. The record shows that even the part of the time that she's discharging her responsibilities, she's not doing them very well. In fact, she is a failure. She has failed in her advocacy role and in terms of delivering services to the people of this province. In the opening remarks the minister made a comment to the effect that she and her government were proud of the services to seniors in this province. Let me tell you what the government and the minister are proud of. They're proud of the fact that the income known as GAIN paid to senior citizens in this province has not been increased from $38.88 since 1976. That's what she's proud of. Six years later the GAIN for seniors is still $38.88. That's the service that she's proud of.

Something else that she's proud of is that every time the federal government increases its pension to recipients of GAIN, the provincial government decreases that $38.88 to the exact amount. Just recently I got a letter from a senior citizen who is receiving 10 cents from the provincial government. That's what she's proud of. I want to read a letter from another senior citizen, who lives in the Lake Cowichan area. In 1979 they were receiving $21.83. Then the federal contribution went up. What happened to GAIN? In 1980 the contribution from the provincial government went down to $13.83. That's what the government is proud of. What happened as of April 1, this year, when the government gave another increase to the senior citizens? They received a cheque for $4.83 from this government, which is proud of its services to citizens. That's what this government is proud of. Was this minister's voice raised even once on behalf of the seniors, to say that since 1976 they have not received an increase, and that as a result of inflation and the increase in taxes visited on them by her own Minister of Finance there should not be a deduction every time the federal portion of the pension went up? Not a word, but she stands up on the floor of this House to talk about being proud of the service to seniors.

What about the much-vaunted SAFER program, which is continually being bragged about? Let's look at how much

[ Page 5962 ]

money this government is putting into that program which the minister is so proud of. In 1978-79, $12 million went into that program; in 1979-80, $9.2 million — notice the decrease; in 1981-82, $9 million has been budgeted for it so far. I don't want you to forget, Mr. Chairman, that this minister consistently underspends her budget in the area of services to people — never in terms of her office expenses, computer charges, travel expenses and office furniture. But in terms of services to people, services to children and seniors there has been a consistent underspending of the money appropriated to her by this Legislature.

One of her staunchest supporters had to write an article in the Vancouver Sunon April 28, talking about the SAFER program. He said: "The SAFER program, the provincial government's shelter aid for elderly renters, is becoming less and less a help, because the numbers used in the formula lag far behind actual rents being paid today." Today no senior-citizen couples qualify for SAFER. Not one senior-citizen couple qualifies for this program which is continually being bragged about. The maximum for a single is down to $66.13. That's the program they're proud of. When the program was first introduced, we were told that all seniors were going to benefit from it. Last year we checked the annual report, and we found that only 13,500 people benefited, and this year we find that is down to 12,000 people. Yet we're continually being told about how proud this government is in terms of its services to people, and that minister sits there and treats with contempt the issues raised by this side of the House.

I was going to make a comment about the special kinds of hardship visited on older women who are totally at the mercy of that department because they're poor and overtaxed and because their pension is so inadequate, but I'm not even sure there's any point in mentioning it. In any event, I would like to bring to the minister's attention a brief prepared by two social workers on behalf of the School of Social Work at the University of Victoria, dealing with the particular dilemma of single older women who are dependent on the Ministry of Human Resources, SAFER, GAIN and all those programs which are so inadequate. I would also like to make a suggestion to her that I would be willing to share with her my copy of Perception, a social-work journal, for January 1980, which dealt specifically with the plight of people over the age of 65. If the minister is going to stand on the floor of this House and brag about services to seniors and being proud of it, I think there should at least be something to be proud of. The situation with GAIN, which has not been raised since 1976, is disgraceful, and SAFER is becoming more and more irrelevant. They should not be mentioned by them again.

In moving this motion, I briefly mention the comment of the minister about the whole issue of day care, and I want to reiterate again my commitment and the commitment of my government to universal day care. I want to bring to the minister's attention the brief prepared by SPARC, the Social Planning and Review Council of the United Way. In its preamble it states that day care should no longer be viewed as a child-minding service provided primarily for parents.

I'm sorry that the minister is gone. Should I move that the committee rise, report....? No, it's okay. It doesn't matter anyway, Mr. Chairman, because I can see that what I'm saying is falling on deaf ears.

I just wanted to bring to your attention that as a result of the statements made by the minister yesterday that the government is not committed to universal day care, we understand why it is that so many of the qualifications for the day-care subsidy are becoming stricter and stricter. We also understand why it is that public day-care institutions are not being subsidized adequately, and all in all why people who need day-care services are being penalized.

It also explains why the staff and people who work in day-care centres are so badly underpaid. Many of them work full-time and still earn insufficient income to bring them up to the poverty line. That certainly is clear. A brief was prepared by the Young Women's Christian Association, which brought these things to the minister's attention. It was a plea that day-care workers be financially recognized as professionals and paid at least a living wage.

It is essential that the ministry be able to differentiate between day care for the needy and the need for day care. There is also a letter from the Broadway West church. They complain not just that the staff is underpaid but that they can't get their cheques from the ministry on time. It says: "No matter how responsibly we run the day care, there is no way we can run a program for children, pay salaries to staff and build up a large bank balance. Therefore it is essential that our cheques from the government concerning parent subsidy payments arrive before the end of each month." A number of complaints have come in about the lateness of cheques and the fact that the ministry is not paying its bills on time. Not only is the payment inadequate, but it's not even arriving before the end of the month. There is a very real fear on the part of those of us who believe in quality day care that the situation developing in the province will result in commercial day-care organizations moving in. We would have the kind of travesty surfacing in the day-care community that we now see in the private hospitals and the private health community. Certainly this is the experience which Alberta and Manitoba and Ontario found. Once government day care diminished and was depreciated to such a level that it was going to be totally inadequate, the private day-care people moved in. The large organizations, the hamburger-joint day-care places, as they are called, are what we are afraid of.

Certainly nothing that the minister said yesterday or the day before alleviates that fear. We don't want a chain of private day-care centres coming in here with the resultant kind of depreciation in service to children that has been experienced in Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario. That is going to happen as long as the government clings to its commitment not to deliver good, quality, universal day care. That is what we're afraid of. Because it's not the parents who suffer when that happens; it's the children, and that's the reason we are concerned about it.

Mr. Chairman, TRACY approached the Ministry of Human Resources about the fact that there are so many teenagers who are becoming pregnant while they are still in school. Because of an inability to find adequate day care for their children, they are dropping out of the school system. TRACY put together a project and appealed to the Ministry of Human Resources for funding. Maybe TRACY was wrong. Maybe TRACY should have appealed to the Ministry of Health. Maybe TRACY should have appealed to the Ministry of Education. Maybe TRACY should have appealed directly to the Premier, or maybe to the lotteries branch. I don't know. I do know that the minister talks about an interministerial committee designed to meet the needs of children. Why couldn't that committee have looked at the proposal presented by TRACY and recognized the value of it? Isn't it bad enough that a teenager finds herself a single parent and then winds up uneducated and illiterate as well? What does that

[ Page 5963 ]

mean for the future, not just of that teenager, but for the child which she has brought into the world?

What happened? TRACY was turned down. The request for the proposal for the funding, even as a pilot project, was turned down, despite all the statistics which show that invariably these young girls drop out of school and discontinue their education. What we end up with is uneducated, young, single parents trying to raise children. We talk about help lines and child-abuse centres. Why don't we start talking about some preventive services for a change? Day care is a preventive service. That's what it is. The minister should have leapt at the opportunity to fund that pilot project. Instead of that, it was turned down.

The other issue that the ministry is into — again, in terms of maintaining the bottom line and underspending her budget — is the whole issue of contracting out services to abusing parents, families in crisis, child care workers and diagnostic treatment for children 6 to 16 years of age. Why? Because the private agencies are cheaper, that's why. The study was conducted by her own ministry, and I read into the record earlier that they found that 40 percent of the people who are on and off income assistance work directly or indirectly for the ministry in the area of day care and homemaker groups, creating a ghetto of poverty through the system of contracting out.

They're giving agencies insufficient funds to operate with and are forcing them not to be able to pay adequate salaries. All the people who work for these agencies turn around and need subsidies if they want to put their children in day care. Half the time the agencies can only hire them part-time. When they're not hired by the agencies, they're back on income assistance. It's an absolute travesty, While all this is happening, that minister is worrying about building a stadium, a convention centre and B.C. Place. That minister is concerned about all kinds of other things, and these kinds of things are happening to people who are directly dependent and at the mercy of her ministry. Nothing is being done about it.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) raised the issue of the increasing number of Indian children who are being apprehended. I want to ask the minister if in her role as an advocate she is ensuring that the federal government is giving adequate money and resources to ensure that these Indian children are being taken care of. I'm asking why the province is not participating in the federal-provincial task force reviewing the whole question of adequate care for Indian children. How much money does the provincial government receive from the federal government for the care of Indian children? I want to know that in dollars and cents. I don't want a speech about it. I want to know how much money in terms of dollars and cents the federal government is placing into the coffers of the provincial government to take care of these children. I want to know what items are covered by the federal-provincial agreement in terms of their behalf.

My colleague the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) raised the whole issue of the shelter allowance and how totally inadequate it is. Yesterday my colleague the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) pointed out the fact that a directive which went out from the ministry told the social workers that it is not their responsibility to assist income-assistance families in terms of finding adequate housing. Rather than do that, when the income-assistance families cannot find adequate housing, the ministry pays whatever it costs to put them up in motels and hotels.

I don't want to be accused of giving information which is not correct, so I want to read a letter from a woman into the record. She said:

"Three months ago I came to Vancouver for Christmas holidays with my common-law husband and my three boys, because my husband had left me and I had applied for income assistance. Since then I have been looking for a place to live. In the last three months I have gone to an average of at least five places a day. Every time I've been turned down primarily because I'm a single mother with children on income assistance."

I mentioned earlier that in terms of her advocacy role, she should have been having those pieces of legislation amended to ensure that that kind of discrimination couldn't go through. However, she hasn't done it. Okay. So she went back to MHR, and the result of this is that the Ministry of Human Resources is currently paying the Cariboo Motel $1,200 a month in rent for her to live there with her three children — a boy of 16, one 13 and one 11 — while they continue to look for housing. Now they're not going to be paid $1,200 a month to find housing, I'll swear; they're not even going to be paid adequately. We have four people here, Mr. Chairman, who would presumably need somewhere in the area with two or three bedrooms at least. Well, I don't need to tell you that the shelter allowance doesn't permit anything in that area. I think that, as a matter of fact, they would be eligible for about $240 a month in terms of shelter allowance; but I may be incorrect in that figure, because I haven't got my brief here with me. I do know, though, that whether that woman wants to live in Vancouver, Burnaby, Surrey, New Westminster or anywhere in the lower mainland, the rent is going to be more for her three teenaged boys and herself than what is covered by the shelter allowance. So rather than increase the shelter allowance and allow her to live in decent housing, the ministry is paying $1,200 a month for her to stay in a motel because she cannot find adequate housing.

[Mr. Segarty in the chair.]

A study done of the lower mainland shows that in all 23 urban areas the new shelter allowance of $170 for a single person was totally inadequate, and that also applied to areas like Fort St. John, Victoria and other places outside the lower mainland. Where is the ministry? Where is the minister when all of this is going on, Mr. Chairman? There are letters after letters — and I don't want to go into them — dealing with the fact that people are saying there is a disparity, which was shown up even by the survey conducted by the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, between the actual amount of shelter allowance which is allowed by this particular minister and.... And, of course, the United Way housing survey supports that point as well.

I want to say a word or two about the family-support worker — and we're going to be talking more and more about the family-support worker and the financial assistance workers and other people like that as we get into the votes. But I just want to say that the lack of training of these workers really is unfair to them. They're on the front line doing a very special kind of work and, in fact, they're not getting the training to support this. The evaluation study done by the ministry's own evaluation unit supports this. I'm reading from it where it says: "Generally speaking, the workers hired were young, inexperienced and not trained." Now I hope that since that time something has been done about that.

[ Page 5964 ]

I just have to very briefly go back to the contracting out and just mention one particular instance, and that has to do with the foster parents who take care of special-needs children, who are now being told that they are independent businesses and they have a contract with the ministry. As a result of that, these people are finding — and I bring this to the minister's attention because she may not know it — that the family home is now being seen as a place of business and so is eligible for all kinds of taxes which a family home should not be covered by. Also, in terms of trying to identify the financial needs of the future and come up with a reasonable financial statement about their needs, a number of these foster parents are now finding that they have not got the experience to do that adequately, because they're just not business people. I think that the contracting agreement which is being forced on them is unfair.

Mr. Chairman, I'm saying all of this merely to support the motion which I moved earlier. A lot of the problems which we're experiencing with the Ministry of Human Resources could be alleviated if the minister would spend nearly — not actually, just nearly — as much time addressing herself to the demands of her ministry as she spends in terms of trying to design that "glass slipper" in Vancouver. I am really upset that the minister has not found it necessary to at least respond to any of the questions and issues raised by members of the opposition under this particular motion.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, speaking against this motion, I do not believe that of any ministry in this government.... Certainly no Minister of Human Resources in any government in these parliaments deserves more credit for humanity and understanding in this most difficult portfolio than the present minister. It is difficult for me to understand how certain members of the opposition can stand up and refer to isolated cases. The province is the third largest in Canada, and there is no such thing as perfection. But for the effort, the desire and the results obtained, I will say that never was a ministry better operated, and never was there more humanity shown in all facets of its operation to children and adults alike.

I think I can refer you now to the report of the ombudsman. It's strange that the honourable opposition has not referred to this report. Of course they would not refer to the report, but this is a statement made by an impartial judge; the ombudsman does not speak for political reasons. He's out to show his judgment and the judgment of the people of British Columbia of this minister. I will read briefly from the report:

"A large portion of those cases closed were due to my decision to decline or discontinue investigations where suitable, untried administrative review mechanism was available to the complainant. The ministry has a reasonable appeal system in place that permits a review of the ministry decisions on social assistance by a tribunal. The appellant may nominate one person of his choice to the three-member tribunal. The tribunal's decision is honoured by the ministry."

What could be fairer? That's the statement of the ombudsman. He goes on to say in another part of the report:

"It is worth noting that the ministry, both executive and line staff, have been very cooperative, and this has facilitated complaint resolution. My staff followed up a few weeks later about this matter and the complainant was in a much happier frame of mind."

In reference to a dental problem, this man's teeth had been fixed, his other problems had been attended to and — most important to him — he felt that the ministry had treated him like a human being. What better could you say about any ministry of government? That's from the ombudsman. Then members of this opposition say things that rub here and here there. It's impossible for me to understand.

I'll go on further. In referring to another special case the ombudsman says: "This case represents a good example of the concern which the ministry has shown in ensuring that the concept of administrative fairness is applied as fully as possible to recipients of income assistance." What could be more factual than the ombudsman's report? It's full of these statements. If this opposition was not trying to be so political, they would bring out these facts from an impartial source. Here's another statement, about a child's complaint: "The child had a valid complaint which the ministry remedied very quickly. It issued a cheque for the missing month. I greatly appreciate the speedy resolution of the problem."

I could go on, but I think that's sufficient to prove what this ministry does and how they handle matters of such importance.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) went on at length about the GAIN program, about the SAFER program; and how would anybody attack these two excellent programs brought in by this government? They were the first of their kind in Canada. They work by strict formula according to income. I'll say to that member that if this person she referred to received ten cents it was because they were receiving due income from some other source. That's what happened, because it's on a strict reported formula. They don't just send cheques for 10 cents or $10 or $1,000 except by formula.

If the honourable opposition would only realize that we are not accustomed in this government to shovelling money out of the back of a truck. The issue is an entire difference in philosophy, which is that money is paid where necessary, but not necessarily money. Our philosophy is that if we can help people and encourage them to become self-supporting, that is the way this government works and always has — particularly this ministry. It works with humanity and understanding. It's a strange and unreasonable attitude when anyone can say on that side of the House.... They are entitled to their political point of view, but let us hear it as a political point of view. Let us not point a finger at the minister and say: "We want to reduce your salary because you haven't done a good job." That is a strict impropriety, because that minister has done a good job. It's proved by every source you could mention except by the political one. It's proved by the ombudsman and all those that will take time to look.

It is extremely difficult for any member of that opposition, particularly the critic from Burnaby-Edmonds, to find fault. Never during these two days of debate have they found factual faults that could stand up before this House or anywhere else.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) talked about a child that the ministry sent to Alberta for care. I'd like to know what was wrong with that. When the minister found out there was a source in Alberta that we did not have in British Columbia that could help this very difficult child, it paid the cost and sent the child. I'll say to you that when the entire ministry of a government takes it into their heart to go to that extent to help one child, it shouldn't be criticized. I think they should be praised for such an action. It's a difference

[ Page 5965 ]

in philosophy. It's interesting how different the philosophy is. We want all individuals to support themselves.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds mentioned this single-parent with three children and, I believe she said, a common-law husband. I do not understand the problem, but I can tell you this: that person received as much care and as much money as could be obtained, because a mother with children is the first charge of that minister. I'm ashamed to hear anyone in this House saying they did not have the heart to look after them. I understand they're in a motel at $1,200 a month. If it was $3,000 I want to tell that member that that minister would see it was paid. It isn't a question of money when it's a mother with children. But I'll tell you what: if there's a husband involved, common-law or otherwise, we want to see to it that that person has the responsibility of supporting that family. That's the difference. We don't shovel money out of a truck. I don't know what she said about common-law, but I assume there's a man involved. If he's there, let him go to work. I think that's fair. I'm not moralizing whether he should be married, unmarried or what. That's got nothing to do with the issue, and the ministry does not consider this point of view. Let him go to work, if there's a man there. I don't know about that, but that's our policy. That's what we do, and I compliment the minister on that point of view.

Where there's a man involved in a family, that man must work if he can work. We'll find work for him. Just look at what we're doing here in Victoria on a trial program: the job action program and the Individual Opportunity Plan. I know about that plan. I was there, and since that time I've followed it up. Many people have been helped, and letters have come in about the enthusiasm of people who are given the opportunity of going to work and shown how to get a job. I think what this ministry is doing is tremendous.

Instead of anyone in this opposition asking to have the minister's salary cut in half, what we should be doing is saying we should increase the salary. It's not possible, but that's the way it should be.

Here again is the issue of children. It is strange how the members on this side, and particularly the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, get on this thing of children. There's no one who believes more in helping children than that minister. Let me give you some facts about children. The population in B.C. is increasing yearly, yet the number of children in care is going down. On March 31, 1978, there were 9,081 children in care; on March 31, 1979, 8,831; and in 1980, the last figures I have, 8,735. This is the attitude of the ministry: finding places, finding homes and looking after the children. Children were never better looked after than by this ministry under this government. I tell you the minister should be complimented.

And the handicapped children — such care and understanding. The ministry is getting them involved in this year of the handicapped, and getting them involved in the schools with other children, and raising their spirits. It gives me a feeling of enthusiasm. I know a child that was at home absolutely out of understanding, afraid of school and afraid of the outside. Today, with the help of this ministry, that child is in school, and the ministry is paying the bill to give that child special attention. Are we hearing that from the member for Burnaby-Edmonds? We do not hear one single word about that. That child is being helped with personal assistance by special experts in the school. Do I hear that from them? Not one word about one child. There are many. I know of one who is gaining self-respect and beginning to learn; he is not half as handicapped as we thought he was. That is the attitude of the minister. How can anyone in this House, especially the critic for this ministry, stand up and say that this minister is not doing a good job? I do not want to use the word "disgusting." They are entitled to be the opposition, but they should be fair. They are not fair.

I want to inform this House that a few years ago a certain lady with three children came to me one day — I was the MLA at the time; I think it was 1972. She said: "I'm sick of your government; I'm sick of your country. If your government will give me and my children the fare, I want to go to Manitoba." Well, I thought this was kind of ridiculous, but I sent the message and somehow, somewhere, the lady arrived in Manitoba. Three years later I was surprised to see her again in my office — I was back as MLA. I said: "Well, Mrs...." — I won't say her name — "you're back." She said: "Yes, I'm back. I'm sick of Manitoba. I was never better treated." She and her family are still around — I won't say where — and the children are grown up. They are not what I'd call self-supporting, nor will they ever be, but they are happy people; that's what I want to tell this House.

MR COCKE: Poor people.

MR. MUSSALLEM: They are poor but happy. I want to tell the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) that money does not make happiness. The poor are sometimes more happy than the rich. I tell you this: in our family we never were happier than when we were poor — that was not long ago.

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Well, I don't know how rich Rosemary is, but let's not mention that at all. That has nothing to do with the case.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MUSSALLEM: The case at point is that the ministry is doing a good job. On children, do we hear that NDP critic, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), ever mention the tracking system for children, where children in trouble are tracked every day to see that they are doing what they should be doing? They get them back to their own homes or put them in foster homes; they watch them day by day. Do we hear about this system? No, we hear about the odd difficult case.

MS. BROWN: You track them, and you put them in Riverview.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member for Dewdney has the floor, and should be allowed to speak, uninterrupted.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, I don't mind. Thank you for your support, but I don't mind when the barbs hit home. What I want to say here is that this ministry is doing such an excellent job. We do not hear about the great things being done. We only hear about isolated cases which I question the veracity of; according to the records of the ministry, they cannot be correct. I would say that the reports

[ Page 5966 ]

are incorrect, based on the correctness of the ministry. I want to say to you that today in this House we should appreciate the job being done by our Minister of Human Resources behind the job. It hurts me to think that of all the ministers in government with humanity, judgment, care and understanding.... It's almost as if she were the mother to the whole ministry — that's the attitude I get from her. I've seen the concern in her office — everywhere she goes. Yet we hear about the lack of concern...reduction in salary. I think it is unfair, unreasonable and unjust. I ask the opposition to reconsider this very poor stand they have — this rather careless attitude. Play politics if you want to, but above all be fair; and you're not fair.

MS. SANFORD: It's always interesting to hear the member for Dewdney express his philosophy, particularly as it relates to an issue such as human resources — people in need, people who don't have much money. One thing about that member is that he's always forthright; he states his opinion very clearly, and expresses the philosophy which the people on the other side are not as likely to express as clearly as he does. He lets us know where they stand over there. The others are a little more subtle in the way they present their views. In fact, on this issue very often they don't say anything. They don't have much to say about people who have needs in this province: people who, for one reason or another, have to have some special services through government. We hear about incentives for businesses. We hear about incentives for great coal deals. We hear about a billion dollars being spent out of taxpayers' money in order to assist some coal development. We hear the member for Dewdney talking about shovelling money out of a truck when it comes to giving services to people in need in this province.

I support this motion. I was interested to hear the comment about the poor being happy. Oh yes, they're happy people. He picked up on that one.

This minister is like a mother to the whole ministry. She's so busy being a mother to the whole ministry that she can't even take care of her own taxes. She hasn't even got time to pay them. For a whole three years they get behind. I guess that's because she's being a mother to the ministry.

I want to point out to the member for Dewdney and the minister that unless you provide some services in this province we're going to have far more problems than we have at the moment. The member for Dewdney talks about people getting out to work. Boy, if only they could all work, then all the problems would be solved. In this province we have a Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) who has just cut out the youth employment program for all the volunteer services.

Mr. Chairman, don't frown at me at this point, because this ties in very well with the speech made by the member for Dewdney. He says: "Put them to work." But we have a youth employment program that has been cut out for all of those volunteer agencies as well as for all the various government services. That is through regional districts, councils and so on. Then he says that they should support themselves. A lot of these people are attempting to do just that, but because they have children they also need the kind of day-care services that are so lacking in this province today. There's a desperate need for after-school day-care services. They're not available in many places because of lack of staff, facilities and equipment.

I want to read into the record and to bring to the minister's attention a letter which I have just received from the Comox Valley Children's Day Care Society. I hope the minister is listening to this, because it is a problem up there for which they are seeking assistance from the MLA as well as from the appropriate authorities. The letter is dated May 28, 1981. It says:

"Dear Karen Sanford:

"There are several reasons why the directors of the Comox Valley Children's Day Care Society have decided to withdraw the after-school programs as of June 30, 1981. A copy of the motion passed unanimously by the society to this effect is enclosed.

"The primary reasons for the decision are lack of space and lack of suitable equipment for school-age children. We also lack the necessary manpower to administer and to maintain this program.

"The society has always recognized that there is a desperate need for an after-school program. As there are a good number of parents concerned that this service will no longer be provided, the society sincerely hopes that the appropriate authorities will endeavour to meet their needs."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, there seems to be an awful lot of conversation going on. The hon. member for Comox is speaking in debate. I wonder if the rest of the committee would pay attention and not interrupt.

MS. SANFORD: This letter is signed by Lynn Fitzpatrick for the board of directors of the Comox Valley Children's Day Care Society.

I ask that the minister pay particular attention to this request. It's a problem that's arisen very recently. They were providing an excellent service up there, but because of the lack of facilities, staff and equipment they have had to vote unanimously to discontinue that service. I know that's going to be a hardship on a number of parents in the area who work full-time and require that kind of service. It's a service that should be available. If we're going to have our people working, it's a service that we must be prepared to provide. The member for Dewdney talked about getting people to work. The other thing is: how are we going to get all of our people working in the province when we can't even provide the basic training that is required for so many of those people? We have a critical shortage of skilled trades in the province and a program that's completely inadequate to train people so that they can get off Human Resources assistance and become productive citizens in this province.

I draw that letter to the minister's attention, and I hope she will comment on it.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: First of all, let me just say to the mover of the amendment to the motion that is before us today, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), that in her own preamble she's claiming part-time input into this ministry by me. [Applause.] Those opposition members who applaud and who have spoken about that should really take a look at their own opposition critic for Human Resources, because some of the inaccuracies and the outrageous statements that have been made on the floor of this House in the past two years vis-à-vis Human Resources have been so poorly researched that it really makes me wonder. When I have heard her say herself.... I have no idea whether she does or not, but I understand that she comes out of the field of social services. Frankly, I am always absolutely in awe to

[ Page 5967 ]

think that she-has been in the field itself, because sometimes some of the things she has said and the inaccuracies that come across the floor of the House from that member as the official critic are just incredibly poorly researched and very poorly stated.

Let me say too that the only half-time member, I would suggest, in terms of social services is that member of the opposition who is supposed to be the official critic. She apparently wants to sell the idea that big-ticket items — it's repeated by her comrades on the other side of the House.... She wants to call them big-ticket items, and she talks about the trade and convention centre, the stadium and B.C. Place. Somebody on the other side mentioned northeast coal. I'm going to tell you something: this side of the House is darned proud of each and every one of those big-ticket items. Don't let us fall for the socialist way of doing things. They think that if they can repeat things often enough — say it over and over again — the people of the province will be fooled by those members who keep saying over and over again that we're taking money out of the mouths of babes for big-ticket items. It's not so. They want to sell the idea over and over again that if there are projects that are built, they are going to be taking away from the social services. There hasn't been a government in this province's history that has spent so much of a percentage on social services as this government of the province of British Columbia. I'm going to tell you that on this side of the House we're all proud of the record of all social services.

When we hear that member talk about special needs children, foster care and how we're taking the dollars away from foster care and special-needs people, how we're trying to put them — she says — under contract, and they're going to be taxed out of their houses.... What a darned crock! We have 8,000 foster children in the province of British Columbia, of which 240 are special-care cases. Special care means that they are very handicapped little children, and we need very special people to take care of them. The people who go out of their way — and all foster-care parents are special parents — to give care to the special-care children of this province are especially special, because they are very difficult to look after. Do you know that in some cases we pay as much as $2,000 a month to the homes of special-needs child to care for that one child — or $1,500 or $1,800? It varies depending upon the real need of the handicapped child.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds said it in a newspaper article. I guess she felt that since she got good coverage in the newspaper article, she should bring it up again in my estimates and maybe try to get another headline. I'm going to tell you something: she's completely wrong. She said to us today that those poor people who are on contract.... She called it a terrible thing in the newspaper, and she intimated that again today. She said it's just a terrible thing that these people are — and these were her words on the floor of this House today — "eligible for all kinds of taxes." They're going to be really taken to the cleaners, because they are now in the form of a business, she said. I'm going to tell you something. The program for foster-care and special-needs children of this province had the full support of the foster parents association of the province. We don't want in any way for anybody to exploit that program, either. It's part of our responsibility to provide a service, but it's also part of our responsibility to protect those children who are very handicapped and sometimes can't speak for themselves. We will continue to protect them.

A letter which I know has been shared with that member — I don't know why she would say on the floor of this House that they are going to be taxed out of their houses — on the Revenue Canada taxation, signed by the chief of the inquiries and office examination branch, has told the foster-care and special-care people that they are exempt from taxation. This letter was given to the group homes, the foster-care homes, the child-in-care homes, the parents and the foster parents association. I know that that member has a copy of it. I don't believe there is anything in government in this age of Xerox that the member of the opposition doesn't have. As far as I'm concerned, they can have a Xerox of anything in my ministry. I'm proud of everything that I do in this ministry.

I am absolutely shocked that she would bring out on the floor of this House an example — she said — of single parents and people who have to be moved into motels. If she had done her research, instead of being a half-time critic of the Ministry of Human Resources.... I can tell you how many people are in motels. I'm going to tell you right now. Yes, sometimes it is necessary, on a crisis basis, to find a motel for those who are in need. We will continue to do so. If there isn't an area available tonight for a family.... She mentioned a family that moved from Alberta. They moved from Alberta to this province, along with the 55,000 other Canadians moving to the province this past year, because it's the best province of Canada to move to.

Yes, I can understand that our ministry will have a very difficult time finding places. We're not in the rental-accommodation business, and we're not in the home-finding business. We're in the business of helping people in time of need, and that's what we do. She talks about me being an advocate — that I should be an advocate. That's been her line since this estimate started. I am just amazed that she would say a single mother and three children who have moved into the Cariboo Motel and couldn't find accommodation.... She wants to know why they have to be in a motel. My heavens! I think that's pretty good accommodation. I haven't seen the particular motel which she is speaking of. I don't know if the member has seen it.

MS. BROWN: It is not good accommodation. A motel is not good accommodation. Come on!

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will ask the hon. Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) to be reminded that the Minister of Human Resources has the floor, is speaking, and shall speak uninterrupted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would remind the members who have taken their place in this debate today that I gave them the kind of attention and quietness that I would like to have as well.

I haven't seen the Cariboo Motel. I don't know if it's a fancy place, a mediocre place, or what it is. But if it's $1,200 a month, and if she has been there three months, I'm surprised she is complaining about that. I'm just amazed at that. Mind you, I have to say, as the person who is responsible for all of the expenditures in my ministry, that I am frankly surprised that a single mother with three teen-aged boys, as the member explained to us.... Perhaps she is not able to work; she probably isn't, I don't know. You have not said so

[ Page 5968 ]

in your remarks to us. I would hope, if that member would get that name for me, that we could assist that lady. If she has three teen-aged children and she is able to work, we can help her. She can find her own accommodation without being on income assistance, because the area in which she lives has a 4.5 percent unemployment rate, Mr. Chairman, which is the lowest we've had in many, many years in this province.

I also want to refer to her last remarks about contracting out. She mentioned contracting out yesterday and today as if that is something that we are doing. I think she said something about cheap help or something about lower wages being paid for contracting out. I'll tell you who introduced contracting out to private agencies. It was the NDP government that introduced the contracting-out concept for special services for children, and we have carried it on. It's strange that she is so confused and so poorly researched that she wouldn't have stood on her feet during time of the NDP government and said: "Oh, that would be terrible. That would be really taking advantage." We don't believe that that's taking advantage; we believe we're getting a good service. It isn't the largest part of our expenditure. That is the intimation again, the socialist way of repetition becoming fact. If you say it often enough, it will become fact.

I'd like to move along to the request from TRACY. We've responded to TRACY. They did have a meeting with me; they did put their project forward regarding teen-age pregnancies and how the young people can be educated during that time. They wish to set up a classroom for all the pregnant girls in the Vancouver area within an established high school that is also serving those who were, if I may say, not in that condition. And I said to my ministry: "Give me a report on this, and let me see what we can do with it." I listened to their side of the story, and I listened to my ministry's side of the story. I can tell you that my ministry's advice to me, and my reaction to it personally, is that it was not the best idea. We do not support the idea. We and TRACY differ on that, and that's fine. We're not always going to agree. They had a very good hearing, and we do not agree. We do believe that we can give assistance and help within the framework of a family when there is a family available. When there isn't a family available, we have support for the teenager at that point in time.

I do not want the impression to be left again with this House that at any time a teenager is denied education. This member got on her feet earlier today, Mr. Chairman, and she left the impression that these youngsters who were pregnant were denied the TRACY program. TRACY is an individual society formed to be advocates for people in the community. We've funded projects of TRACY in other areas, and the member doesn't give us credit for those. Because we didn't fund that one little special one that they wanted, this member leaves the impression that our teenagers are not getting education when they become pregnant. That's just not so, because they are. So let's not leave that as another socialist myth that's going to get repeated around the province by that member so that it becomes fact in the minds of the teenagers of this province and the poor families who have to deal with it. Let's not have that either.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds mentioned the senior citizens of our province. Yes, I'm very, very proud of the service that we give to the senior citizens in the province of British Columbia. Again she tries to sell by repetition the fact that we do not pass along the federal supplement when it comes into British Columbia and across this nation. It comes quarterly to each and every province. She tries to leave the myth and the impression that this government does not pass along the federal supplement to the senior citizens of the province of British Columbia. That's what she wants to say. Do you wish to retract that at this point in time? Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the member, does the member wish to retract that statement on behalf of her party so that the people of B.C. will know that it really was a mistake on her behalf to say that? Does she wish to retract it now?

MS. BROWN: The minister has asked a question, and I'd like to repeat what I said. The $38.88 has not been changed since 1976; in fact, it diminishes. The letter which I read into the record said quite clearly that those seniors are receiving just over $4 a month; I think the figure was $4.36 or $4.86. If the minister prefers, I would be very happy to read that letter, and a number of other letters from senior citizens, into the record once again. If the minister wants me to do that, I'm very happy to. These letters come from senior citizens themselves. Is that what the minister would like? I would be happy to read all those letters from senior citizens into the record. I have the letters here.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The member for Burnaby Edmonds, who has just taken her place, has said on the floor of the House that we have not passed on, and continue not to pass on, the federal supplement. Let it be said once again on the floor of this House that there was only one time when the federal supplement was not passed on to the senior citizens of the province of British Columbia. Do you know when that was? That was in 1974.

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) has corrected me, and I stand corrected. He is correct. The only time the federal increase was not passed along to the senior citizens in the province of British Columbia was in 1973. Do you know when that was? That was when an NDP government was in office.

I also want to say this regarding the senior citizens. That perception which the member for Burnaby-Edmonds wishes to portray and which is consistently portrayed by the members of the opposition confuses the senior citizens of this province beyond everything. The senior citizens' pension and supplement, the GIS and OAS, all the federal and provincial payments to senior citizens, are confusing enough. When those kinds of statements are made by the members of the opposition, they are really and truly confused.

Now may I please address my remarks to the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell). I'm sorry; the member for Atlin isn't in the House, so I'm going to wait a few minutes and address my remarks to a member who is in the House, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell).

Earlier in the day he brought forward the plight of a lady. I must start from the beginning, because he gave three suggestions to us. The first was on crisis grants, and he referred to a lady who had problems with sewers, drains and home repairs. I recall the case, and you'll recall that she was on

[ Page 5969 ]

income assistance. He said "hard and callous" because we had said that she had not made the proper application. That really wasn't entirely true, and I want to say to the member that I think we both know there was something more to that case. That is always the problem with bringing out cases in this estimate. You can read a letter into the record, and you can take a look at cases and try to make some case for an overall policy, but the case is that this lady's house was sold and she made a profit on her original first house.

MR. LEA: Profit isn't a dirty word.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, it isn't a dirty word, and this lady on income assistance, whose mortgage had been paid by income assistance, made a profit like each and every other person who sells a house in the province of British Columbia. With the money she made a trip overseas, and when she returned she bought and moved into a new house. She had money left over and was able to fix her plumbing bill. In my letter to the member I said that according to my ministry staff she had the financial resources. You see, they found out that she did, and that's the kind of information that we base crisis grants on. It is unfair to ask those who are paying the money into the government for providing these services to deny themselves the repairs to the house or the trips overseas or whatever if we are also going to use income assistance that way. I know the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is a very fair person, and he would agree with that.

I don't know if my ministry staff, with whom you have a lot of good communications, explained that to you. I'm sure that when you brought it to the floor of the House you were under a misconception. Please know that that was not a hardship case. When you talk about crisis grants, they are given in true crises, and I want that to be said. It sort of leaves an impression that we have a lot of social workers and a lot of ministry staff who are heartless people. I think you used the term "heartless" in your debate. Our people get no kicks out of refusing service to people. They get absolutely no joy in saying no to anyone. It's always easier to say yes, because if you do then there's no hassle. The staff gets absolutely no kicks out of refusing people. But when it is not warranted, a no has to be said.

The member all so mentioned shelter allowances and their inadequacy, in his mind. Again, he referred to a mortgage payment to an income assistance family. I want you to know that in that family of four children and one mother, the support money in that household totals $450, with shelter money of $420, and that's an increase over the last year of about $71 a month. Involved in that, and not mentioned, are the child tax credits, family allowance, etc, The member also did not mention the capability. I don't know how old those boys are, but they have the capability, first of all, of an earnings exemption of $100 in that family. All the casual earnings by the teenagers in the family would be exempt, so they would be able to add to that. The worry that they're struggling to pay the mortgage payments can also be related to the low-income earner, who is also in a very difficult position. That's the line you have to concern yourself with. Are you so close to that line of those who are on low income that you are perhaps denying, if you like, the right to the low-income earner who is maybe in the same position of struggling to pay a mortgage? Some of the other advantages they have which you didn't mention are very realistic and are not available to the low-income earner in many cases. That includes medical and many other things.

Let me explain about the Langwood centre. The Langwood centre, which the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has given some attention to today, has had increases in the past year. All achievement centres have been given increases. You keep quoting the formula. It's not to each child. The formula based on achievement centres is a dollar per adult or child attending. That doesn't go to the child. That's the formula which is established. It was increased on April 1 to $1.10. That is consistent with the budget which you have before you.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I'd like to mention to the member for Atlin that regarding the fieldworkers in Cassiar.... One year ago we had no office in Cassiar. The one fieldworker we have there now is very busy. We're pleased that it is giving the service it is. There will be another worker assigned to Cassiar, because in this budget we obtained 170 additional positions, of which 163 are for direct services to people.

I'd also like to comment regarding the company store of Cassiar Asbestos. The problem which he brought to me regarding perhaps allowing those on income assistance to build up a credit which could be taken on a weekly basis, rather than taking it off at one time, would certainly be looked after by my ministry staff.

I also want to say that, in regard to the need for a group home at Lower Post, we had correspondence on that, and you will note that the people who wrote and made representation to our ministry explained that it truly was the federal government's responsibility. In their petition, the United Native Nations chapter of Lower Post have asked the department of Indian and Inuit affairs to provide a home. They have asked, as the second part of the proposal, that the Ministry of Human Resources provide a bed subsidy in this group home. I responded by saying that my ministry will purchase the service for the children when there is a need, and that we also look to the individual community to sponsor and provide the group home. I think that has been very clearly canvassed with the member in past correspondence.

I'd like to pay particular tribute at this point, because this member has need in that particular area to work closely with the native Indian band. I'd like to say that the Stony Creek band from Vanderhoof, which has established a family and children's committee, has done a superior job in reducing the number of children coming into care. It would seem to me that that is a model which many bands throughout this nation could take a look at, and take a leaf out of their book, because they've done a very good job. Our ministry is very pleased to be working closely with them.

On that basis I would also now turn to the questions of the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King). The member made a particular plea for information on the Spallumcheen band. I'm sorry that the member isn't in the House at the present time, but I will refer him to Hansard for the references I can give him. The Spallumcheen agreement was a unique one, and I would suggest it's probably unique in Canada. I don't think there has ever been another agreement quite like it. It resulted from a meeting that I had with the chief, who was in our House today — Chief Wayne Christian.

We recognize that at the present time the federal government has full authority over the Indian bands and social services on the Indian reserves. But our agreement with the band has clearly been finalized. It was finalized at a meeting

[ Page 5970 ]

in October. The details that have to be worked out following that meeting are being done. My staff has had meetings at the local level. We have many details yet to be looked after, but we are on our way. The band is negotiating an agreement with the federal government. They have already moved to identify the children in the Spallumcheen band to bring about the spirit of the agreement. Plans are being developed for each and every child. I think that it is a breakthrough in dealing with native Indian children in our province who have been in care. It's a very difficult problem right across this nation. Therefore I would say that the agreement that we have now with the Spallumcheen band — which is in the hands of the federal government to finalize — is very clearly identified.

The member also wanted to know how many children of the native Indian community come into care. He used a figure of 40 percent. I am pleased to tell the House today that the figures regarding native Indian children in care — although they are dramatic and far too high — are gradually coming down in this province. It is not 40 percent. The number of Indian children remaining in our care at the present time of the total child-in-care figures is 38.9 percent. That was the 1980 figure. In March 1981 Indian children remaining in care have decreased to 36.7 percent. We're really pleased to see that diminishing. Important to note — I guess this is the good news, if you like — are the admissions to care in 1979-80, which totalled 1,387 or 27.6 percent, but discharges from care in that same period amounted to 1,498 or 23.7 percent. The same figures updated to 1980-81 are as follows: the admissions to care number 1,323 or 24.2 percent, but the discharges from care amount to 1,520 or 27.3 percent of all the children taken into care that year. If this pattern remains consistent we should see a significant reduction in the percentage of Indian children remaining in care in the years ahead. I think that's some news we can take heart from. At least there is something being done.

I also want to refer to the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, who made reference to the inheritance and handling of the public trustee in matters where a retarded or handicapped child is needing help. I have had correspondence with Mrs. Mowers, the president of the Salmon Arm and District Association for the Mentally Retarded, who brought this to my attention when I was visiting that area just a few months ago. I think it happened to be somewhere around March or April. I was in touch with the public trustee, and I have shared with Mrs. Mowers what I found out from the public trustee. I would like to share that with the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, and I'd be very pleased to send this material to him.

The public trustee says that with regard to wills retarded children are treated in exactly the same manner as any other child. They have exactly the same inheritance rights, and if a man dies and leaves no will the State Administration Act sets out the amounts to be shared by any party. Regardless of whether a child is retarded or not he will get the same share as everybody else. If there is a will, the Wills Variation Act allows the court to redistribute the money according to the needs of the beneficiaries. If, for instance, a retarded child is left out of the will, somebody can apply for a share of the estate on his behalf. That is where the public trustee steps in. I'll be pleased to share this correspondence with the member, and I want the House to be assured that the same rights are given to the family of a retarded child and to the individual who is retarded.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) made some comment regarding a child who was sent to Calgary. The child was not sent to Calgary for assistance to the William Roper Hull Home. That child was sent by the court....

MR. COCKE: Because there was nothing here.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, it was not because there wasn't a service here. It was because the best individual care for that child was, in particular, directed to that home in Calgary. If there is a service that will help a child to be rehabilitated and get back into the community, and he has to be sent to Toronto, Calgary or anywhere, we're going to do the best for the child. It was an individual plan. That individual plan was worked out by the probation officer, the social worker and the court. It was then the judge who ordered the city of Vancouver to pay for it. We could not do anything about that. The inference that was left, that we ordered the city of Vancouver to pay the bills, is absolutely not true.

I would also like to refer to some of the comments that have been made about day care in this last couple of hours. The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) is concerned about the Comox Valley Children's Day Care Society. We don't operate the day-cares. We offer the after-school program and the afternoon program, which is new in this last increase in day-care rates. We offer a subsidy to the family. That is how day care is operated in the province.

Before I leave day care, there are 11,500 children in day care in the province. We don't believe it's a babysitting service either. We believe that it is a very good service. It is a service where the children in the province are not being denied the service because of the economic state of their family. We make day care affordable for all those on low incomes and income assistance.

We can't continue to make universal programs. As we go down that universal program route.... We've done it where there is need. In long-term care, we've got a universal program. We've got universal Pharmacare and denticare. In this particular area we think that those who can afford to pay for day care are going to be able to pay. We continue to pick up those who are not able to pay. We simply must target the groups.

For the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), who is in the House.... That's nice; he's almost always here. He talks about the increase in rates. He says that they're not sufficient. I don't know if he was in the House earlier, but I can tell you that the dramatic increase in income-assistance rates since that side of the House formed the government from 1972 to 1975 has exceeded the cost of living.

He talked a lot about the housing-supply problem. You know that we will be making some major initiatives, but that isn't under this ministry. I don't think that we can continue to discuss shelter as far as the inventory of homes is concerned. We know it's a difficult time and that there are lot of people moving to the province. We know it's a difficult time, particularly in the area of Vancouver and Victoria, and also to some extent in the area the member comes from, in terms of places where people seek work, like Powell River, and where he represents.

I do want you to know that in every case where I have had any problems — and I get quite a few — the problems of people finding homes and the problems of people being placed in motels, as in the charge made by the member for

[ Page 5971 ]

Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), I want you to know, just so they don't think that all over the constituencies of Mackenzie and Burnaby and Surrey there are people in motels, that in a report dated April 24 — which I have — it says that of the 23 clients in the lower mainland area who were placed in motels at that particular time, 14 were actually in what could be identified as permanent residency, and those were motel and trailer units. They are trailers more than motels, and they were in that kind of accommodation, which the motel itself had built for permanent residency. Of the other nine clients, only one was in a motel for any longer than one week. The request that I made because I was concerned with a report in the Vancouver Sun of April 12 in which "Homeless Clog Motel Strip" was the heading.... After I read the article I had a comprehensive audit made of how many people we had in.... At that time we only had 23, of which 14 could be called permanent residents.

I want to tell the member for Mackenzie, on the one case that he brought before us, which was a very sad case — the grandmother's case.... I'm going to leave the names out on purpose. This is the report I have:

"Please be advised that I have today discussed this case again with the grandmother. The grandmother again emphasized that she is happy with the support she and the grandson are receiving from ourselves" — that is, the Ministry of Human Resources.

"There is no question of requesting increased payments — currently $250 — from the grandson's father. She does not want to appeal the HPIA rejection. Really, other people in the community have been advocating for her grandson. Her grandson has continued to be employed on a part-time basis at the local theatre since September. He earns approximately $100 per month. The grandmother also stated that the grandchild's mother, father and doctor at his birth all deny that he is a thalidomide victim.

"I attended the recent meeting of the Community Vocational and Rehab Committee, and the reference for future planning for the grandson was discussed. The committee, chaired by the Ministry of Health, decided to reconsider the case at a later date for potential support to meet appropriate training needs."

It goes on to tell about his local high school ability and aptitude tests.

"These tests are expected to be of critical importance in assisting the planning for the grandchild's future needs. These developments have been communicated to the grandmother by myself and to the Ministry of Health representative, who is most supportive and indeed very sensitive to the grandchild's situation.

"In summary, there is no question that the grandson is medically handicapped, but he is quite resourceful and continues to attend school on a full-time basis. I would think that a government pension at this stage would only have adverse effects upon his relative independence, If he no longer attends school and vocational training, I am quite certain that we can reassess and he would qualify for handicapped allowance per policy."

Mr. Chairman, I would like to move at this point in time that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Before the next motion, bon. members, on Friday last two matters of privilege were raised, one by Hon. J.R. Chabot and the other by the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell). According to Hansard, Hon. J.R. Chabot said: "I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that he, the bon. member for Atlin, misled the House when presenting a petition.... Further, I think the member should apologize for having misled this House."

The Chair ruled that in the absence of an indication from the member of an attendant motion, the matter of privilege could not be entertained.

The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), on a point of order, then suggested that the accusation of misleading the House ought to be withdrawn. After stating that the member for Atlin "did mislead," those words were withdrawn by the hon. minister with a caveat that "my words stand on the point of privilege." The hon. member for Atlin then rose on a matter of privilege and himself stated that the hon. Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) had "misled this House," which were the same words earlier objected to by the member for Nelson-Creston in raising his point of order.

The motion presented by the member for Atlin reads: "that the Minister of Lands has misled this House by imputing that the member for Atlin presented an erroneous petition. This is totally false since the Canadian Wilderness Society is a provincial organization." The question thus arising was whether or not in the course of raising a matter of privilege a charge or accusation against another member may be made without intervention from the Chair, pending determination of the issue of privilege.

Upon consideration of the matter, it seems to the Chair that both the hon. Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and the member for Atlin in this instance might more properly have stated their respective matters of privilege by first stating the circumstances, followed by a request for determination of the question as to whether or not the House had been misled in a manner contravening its privileges. Had this been done, the objection of the member for Nelson-Creston would seem not to arise. I would therefore recommend that hon. members so frame similar matters which they may wish to raise. The Chair is not prepared at this time to say absolutely that, in raising a matter of privilege, a charge or accusation which under other circumstances would be ordered withdrawn may never be made against a member — May, twelfth edition, at page 244. The House itself looks to all hon. members to accept responsibility for allegations made by one member against another, if such allegations are later proven untrue.

The Chair has already ruled that the matter of privilege raised by the hon. minister was not in order. With respect to the motion by the member for Atlin, it contains argument, which is not permissible it also does not meet the requirement put forth in the fifth edition of Beauchesne at page 25 that "a complaint of a breach of privilege must conclude with a motion providing the House with an opportunity to take some action." Further, Campion, Introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons, at page 72 says that it is clear that the motion should be in a form enabling the House

[ Page 5972 ]

to "resolve that the matter complained of is a breach of privilege, or order that it be referred to the Committee of Privileges." And I so rule.

AN HON. MEMBER: Challenge.

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 18

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

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, the opposition would be extremely anxious...

MR. SPEAKER: Why does the member seek the floor?

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order.

...to give unanimous consent to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) to make the statement he prevented himself from making earlier today.

MR. SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.