[ Page 5973 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On the amendment to vote 117: minister's office –– 5973

Ms. Brown

Division on the amendment to vote 117

On vote 117: minister's office –– 5973

Ms. Brown

Mr. King

Mr. Levi

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

On vote 118: direct community services and administrative support –– 5981

Mr. Levi

Mr. Hall

THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

MR. KEMPF: This morning I'd like to introduce to the House two gentlemen I am very proud to have in the gallery. They are Mayor Jim Togyi and Alderman Al Jarvis from Fort St. James. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

MR. STRACHAN: In the precincts today, and hopefully in the House a little later on this morning, will be Bryson Stone, the publisher of the Prince George Citizen newspaper. I'd ask all hon. members to give him a nice Victoria welcome.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

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

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I think if there are no more speakers for the government, we are prepared to let the vote go now, as the absence of the minister in the beginning illustrates how valuable that vote is.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS –– 17

NAYS — 27

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On vote 117.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, yesterday in responding to some questions raised by me the Minister of Human Resources referred to one of the letters which I read into the records as.... She used a phrase which, though it may be parliamentary, is not the kind of language I use, so I'm not going to repeat her statement. But I would like to read that letter into the record now. The letter was dated April 21, and it has to do with the contracting out of foster-care treatment for children with special needs. It says:

"Dear Mrs. Brown:

"We wish to bring to your attention volume 2, family and children's services, section 14(2), specialized resources — special-care homes. This change made by the present government states that its objective is to arrange for specialized care in a family setting on an individual basis for severely handicapped or disturbed children who are in the care of the superintendent of child welfare.

"We have been foster parents of a girl who is now 14 years old. She has been in our home for five years. She is retarded as well as multiply handicapped. This affects the use of her limbs, speech, etc. Our status is now being changed from foster parents to 'independent contractors.'

"We are negotiating a special-care home individual agreement, which is a legal contract with the government of B.C. through MHR. It is not being pointed out to foster parents that all income is now taxable and that they should seek a tax consultant. Once this contract is signed, the foster parents' home would be subject to capital gains tax if the property is sold. At this time I am sure that neither the government nor the foster parents have knowledge of all the tax implications involved in this procedure. It will be the foster parents who will suffer, however, from any repercussions from these tax implications.

"The end result will be that the special-care children will be the victims of this new legislation. It now puts foster parents as employers of each person needed to be involved in caring for the child. This means homemakers, child-care workers, special services, etc. We must now pay each individual's income tax, UIC, Canada Pension and keep all receipts for food, household expenses, car mileage, etc.

"In contracting for our particular child, after completing the fee-for-service payment, payment for skill is $750 per month. Our child does not walk, uses only one hand, is completely dependent on us for all physical needs, transportation, therapy and communication with others. The Canada Employment Act states that a live-in housekeeper, which is considerably less work than we are doing, is to receive a minimum wage of approximately $955.67 per month with benefits. When becoming a foster parent, no one stated that we would be required to handle bookkeeping, understand tax laws, be able to hire staff, pay all of their benefits, etc. Then, if there may be any time left over, hopefully that should be spent taking care of the child. I would much appreciate your looking into this matter."

When I raised this issue yesterday, the minister referred to it again in a phrase which I do not use and which I will not repeat, even though it may be parliamentary. The second issue which the minister raised which I would like to read into the record has to do with the GAIN, which I said has not been increased since 1976:

[ Page 5974 ]

"Dear Mrs. Brown:

" My wife and I are old-age pensioners. I was born in 1905 and my wife in 1914. In the Colonist some time ago was an article headed 'Elderly Needy Incomes Rising.' Quoting from the article: 'The boost in guaranteed available income for need (GAIN) was announced by Human Resources minister Grace McCarthy, but NDP welfare critic Rosemary Brown condemned the increase as being "too little, too late."

"We received the following pension in 1979. For myself, old-age pension of $273.22, Canada Pension of $122.63, and GAIN of $21.83. My wife's old-age pension, $273.22, Canada Pension of $45.22, giving us a total of $757.95. At the end of December, my Canada Pension was increased by $11.04 and my wife's Canada Pension by $4.07. The total increases including old-age pension came to $26.55. Therefore, in April, the old-age pension was again reduced to both of us, and the GAIN was reduced to $13.83 for both of us, leaving us in April 1980 with pension totals of $15.76 less than we had in March of 1980.

"This month, in view of the aforementioned newspaper article — 'Pensioners getting both supplement and basic old-age pension will receive $714.23' — we expected to receive an increase of $10.75. However, our March old-age pension was $322.61 for me and $324.36 for her, giving us an actual increase of $1.75. When we received our GAIN cheque on April 23, we found that it had been reduced now to $4.83. Therefore this month we received $18 less in our total pension than previous months before the announcement of incomes rising. Instead of increasing to offset the rising cost of living, thanks to the present provincial government our pension is decreasing.

"When we purchased our home in 1974 the taxes were $190. In 1975 they went up to $314.60; in 1976 to $346.87; in 1978 to $381.39; in 1979 to $704.21."

During that same period of time his GAIN pension was reduced from $21.83 to $4.83. He goes on, Mr. Chairman:
"I hate to think what the taxes will be this month." He talks about having to pay a $362.47 mortgage, etc.

I am merely reading these letters to set the record straight because in responding to the issue when I raised it yesterday the minister denied both statements: the one that GAIN had not been increased since 1976 and in fact was decreasing to some people as their old-age pension increased; and the other one from the foster parent who now is an independent contractor whose services have been contracted by the government.

The final thing she said was the statement about living in the motel. I just want to set the record straight. I was not criticizing the Cariboo Motel. I do not think that a motel — any motel, even the most luxurious — is anywhere to be raising children. It would not be necessary for the ministry to be paying $1,200 a month or more to keep families in a motel if there were an increase in the shelter portion of the income assistance. That was the point I was trying to make: the shelter portion of the income assistance is inadequate. I bears no relationship to real rents. That should be increased rather than money being spent to keep families in motels.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to respond to those two or three points that have been raised by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. The member talked about the old-age security and a letter that she received from senior citizens. Let me just try to clarify it for the member.

Everyone gets the OAS regardless of income. It's very confusing, not just for the old-age pensioners but for those who aren't on old-age pension, to understand the kind of confusion between these three possible sources of income for the senior citizen. It really doesn't add anything to the clarity of the matter to have such a statement made by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. Everyone in that age group gets OAS regardless of income.

The GIS is based on an income test. It's reassessed once a year by the federal government, reported to the provincial government, and every quarter it is indexed. That the member would know. The provincial payment is based on the GIS computer tape given to us by the federal administration. The provincial government pays on an annual basis according to the information given by the federal government. It is at that point that the provincial guarantee is made up. In other words, it's a provincial guarantee to bring it to a certain level.

If that amount is reduced, it's reduced because the recipient of the GIS-OAS has had other income which reduces the provincial guarantee. It is not a pension by the provincial government; it is a provincial guarantee that brings them up to a level. The fact that the province brings them up to that guaranteed level is what the member is trying to confuse in the minds of the senior citizens.

The average percentage growth in each calendar year, using April 1976 as a base — only 1976 and 1981 are part years, so I think this is a fairly good comparison — exceeds the economic indicators which we all compare across the country. In the year 1976 the comparison of growth between the singles — I'm going on singles here, not couples — was 1.18 percent compared with the CPI of 2.14 percent. I can go down all of the years, but just to save the time of the House.... The comparison in 1977, if you want, was 6.41 percent to 8.4 percent; 1978, 14.68 percent compared to 16.42 percent; 1979, 31.32 percent compared to 25.40 per cent; 1980, 49.5 compared to 37.14 percent; and 1981, 67.11 compared to 50.08 percent.

Could I just also say that I think the actual revenue received from the Department of Indian Affairs, which wasn't answered in my closing remarks yesterday.... I should have answered the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

She said: "What was the amount of revenue received from the Department of Indian Affairs in 1979-80 for children?" This was the last complete year, and it was $7,846,600.20. I think the member will understand that we act on behalf of the federal government, They purchase services from the provincial government when it comes to the protection of children, and that was the amount.

On this business of special-care homes, please let me reiterate what I said yesterday in respect to the taxation. The member has said that embodied in the letter was a concern that the person who owned that home where they have a handicapped child.... It is called a special-care home, of which we have some 240 in the province as compared to foster-care homes of over 8,000. But of the 240 special-care homes which are under contract to the ministry, there is an accountability for special services. We've had a lot of debate on the floor of the House about the retarded children or retarded adults being moved out of institutions and put in special-care homes. This is a special-care home that would qualify. Now on the one hand you want us to depopulate institutions; on the other hand, you're critical of a contracting

[ Page 5975 ]

agreement, if you like, that we have. We have a lot of accountability with our staff in institutions. We have a lot of accountability in terms of Woodlands, Glendale and Tranquille. When we move a child into a separate setting, as in this case that you have just brought to the floor of the House by reading that letter, it would seem to me that we would want the same accountability. You can't have it both ways. You can't say depopulate institutions and then not have the same kind of accountability in the special-care homes that we expect from our very dedicated staff. We want that kind of accountability.

We have some 8,000 foster children in 4,500 foster homes, but we have 240 special-care homes. The special-care home or group-home parents would be subject to the same capital gains tax as any other citizens. If they have any doubt on that, all they need to do is contact their local tax office. Let me read into the record the letter which I referred to yesterday, because I thought the member for Burnaby Edmonds would understand when I gave that assurance to her for any mail that she might get. The assurance was given by B.K. Currie, the chief of inquiries and office examination section in the taxation division of Revenue Canada. This is from the Vancouver office. It is addressed to our comptroller, Mr. Martin Cook, who is on the floor of the House assisting us today. It says:

"Re: foster care and other similar programs.

"This is further to our recent telephone conversation concerning the taxability of payments shared by your ministry and our Department of National Health and Welfare. We have received a policy directive from our head office and subsequent head office rulings to clarify some areas of concern on this matter.

"Payments made out of provincial plans, subsidized by the Canada Assistance Plan, to foster parents for children in their care are not to be included in the recipients' income by virtue of subparagraph 81(l)(2) of the Income Tax Act. These payments include fees for services, retainer fees, clothing grants, extraordinary transportation money and basic maintenance payments. In this connection, the term foster parent includes a group home, which can be a fairly large operation receiving sizeable amounts for fostering children."

Could I repeat that? They "are not to be included in the recipients' income" to be taxable. I can read the rest of the letter if you like.

"In addition, there are other types of social assistance payments subsidized by Health and Welfare through CAP which meet the requirement of subparagraph 81(l)(2), such as those to individuals who are caring for the mentally disturbed in private homes. provided the patient has been discharged from the hospital and no longer requires institutionalized care. The portion of the fees paid to such individuals by a province or agency would also be exempt.

"According to information I have available to me, the following programs are sharable under CAP, thus making them ineligible for taxation: (1) Foster-care and child-in-care special-care homes — the exception to this would be private boarding schools..."

You haven't mentioned private boarding schools, and I don't think you're making a case for that.

"...(2) Group homes and therapeutic homes; (3) Residential care — retarded and adult. The onus will be on the taxpayers to confirm that their payments are exempt from taxation."

I think that's a fair statement.

"Please advise me if there are any other programs that would qualify for this special treatment. I realize normal welfare — GAIN — also applies. If you have any questions or concerns of the above policy, please feel free to call me."

Incidentally, I'm sending a copy to our Vancouver and Penticton district offices. This is from Victoria. I understand that this document was sent to the foster parents association, and the information was given to all of those who fall under that particular area of concern expressed by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MS. BROWN: Since the minister has indicated that the comptroller is here, first of all I would ask if she would let me have a copy of that letter, because I got lost in all those brackets. The specific questions raised by this particular foster parent is about being responsible for the unemployment insurance payments, income tax, Canada Pension and those other kinds of payments accrued by the homemaker or the child-care worker working for her. Is that also exempt? Also, I didn't get a clear answer about the capital gains tax, so since the letter asked if we had any further questions, I would appreciate receiving that.

There is no point in belabouring the GAIN question, so I'm going to put it as simply as I understand it. In 1976 the amount of money which a senior could receive under GAIN was $38.88. That figure has not changed since that date; 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981 — it's still $38.88. That figure is still the same. In fact what happens is that nobody receives the full amount because, as the minister herself admitted, as the income goes up, the contribution that the provincial government makes goes down. That's precisely what this senior citizen is saying in his letter. In 1979 he received $21.83 from the provincial government. In 1980 that was reduced to $13.83, and this year it's down to $4.83. There is no point explaining to him about computer printouts. He knows what shows up on the cheque, and that is that he's now getting $4.83 from the provincial government.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It's important we get this on the record because, you see, the member, as has happened in past months and in past years, tries to confuse the poor elderly citizen in this regard. I want to make it clear. First of all, when the supplementary was introduced by the province of British Columbia under a former Social Credit administration, it was introduced because it was felt by this province.... I believe this province was the first in Canada to introduce a supplementary to the federal OAS.

Let me say that when that was introduced, the reason behind it was that the federal program of old-age security was felt to be inadequate at that time. Therefore the province of British Columbia said they would guarantee it up to a certain level, and it would be X number of dollars. Since that time the federal government has not only increased their contribution on an annual basis indexed every four months but they have also increased the base. If you will compare notes across this country where all other provincial governments did come in on that same supplementary program following British Columbia all over these years, it is consistent across this coun-

[ Page 5976 ]

try. The provincial governments still rely on the federal government, because it's the federal government program of OAS. Ours is only a supplementary to bring it to a certain level.

Now that case you mentioned, where there is a reduction to either $14 or $4 or even $1, is only reduced for that couple or that senior citizen if that senior citizen from one year to the next has a gained income from some other sources. You know that and I know that. Don't try to leave the impression in this House that it's the provincial government that is reducing the amount, because it is just not so — absolutely not so.

MS. BROWN: Since 1976....

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: You continue to say it, and sure it's the same from 1976.

MS. BROWN: Well, that's fine. I just wanted you to admit it, that's all.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: But it hasn't been reduced. You continue to say it's been reduced and you're leaving an incorrect impression on the floor of the House.

MR. KING: It's diminishing.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: If it's diminishing, Mr. Member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, it's not because we have reduced our supplement, but that the guarantee we give has been exceeded by that person's own income from stocks, bonds or whatever revenue they have. It is true that if they have a revenue it is reduced by that amount, not by us but by a printout that comes from the federal government and gives us that information.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Referring to the special care foster homes, I did forget to mention, and I think it should be put on the record, that the member should, if she will, refer to Mrs. Joan Wenstov of the Federation of Foster Parents Associations, who very clearly supports the ministry's point of view on special care homes and has gone on record as supporting it. I am very cognizant of the many volunteer groups in the province who give us that kind of information. None of the information that we get, and the policy that's enacted from that, is done in isolation from those kinds of groups. I'm pleased that we've had the foster parents' input on that.

I hope that we can get on with the debate on our estimates in a very positive way, because there are lots of positive things that can be said about the Ministry of Human Resources. Let's try to keep some of it clear. I think the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) can clarify for his colleagues the OAS-GIS and the guaranteed supplement.

MR. KING: I'm certainly not trying to mislead anyone. I'm trying to understand the minister's response to my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds. The minister's comment that we should get on with a positive discussion of the ministry and all the great things about it is not the way in which the people of British Columbia can be helped. They can be helped by positive debate trying to identify areas of weakness and areas that could and should be improved.

On this side of the House we are expressing a concern that seniors in an overheated economy, where interest rates and inflation are extreme, are simply not being able to keep pace with that inflation rate. Whether the minister wants to categorize it as no reduction or just diminishing returns, it certainly is my understanding that as the federal cost allowances come in — the quarterly increases for inflation — then the provincial supplement is reduced commensurately. It's not indexed. The indexing they get through the federal government is accordingly negated by the reduction that takes place at the provincial level.

I think that's the point the senior citizens and the opposition are trying to make. We're not trying to play games with figures; we're talking about the real income of real people.

For the minister to suggest that their income is eroded because they hold stocks and bonds is unbecoming of the minister. Certainly anyone who was into the stocks and bonds market, and who had the kind of income the minister seems to be implying, would not be qualifying for the supplement in the first place. You can't have any other source of income, or at least your supplement is phased commensurate with any other income you earn. The minister knows that. That's not an adequate answer from the minister.

I wanted to make those couple of points, but that's not the main thing I got up to talk about this morning. Before you become alarmed, Mr. Chairman, I just have two brief points. I'm seeking from the minister clarification of answers she gave to me yesterday afternoon. One was regarding the Spallumcheen native Indian band at Enderby and the agreement the minister entered into with the chief of that band to transfer to the band custody of children that the ministry had custody over. The minister said: "There is no delay; the agreement is all in place." Her words were: "The band is negotiating an agreement with the federal government." Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the minister that it is my understanding that an agreement was, in fact, consummated with the federal Department of Indian Affairs and signed on April 29, 1981, so that agreement is in place.

Basically what I'm looking for from the minister — and, I believe, what Chief Christian is looking for — is a meeting with the minister again to get down to brass tacks and bring into detail the agreement of intent that was signed between the minister and the chief last October. Part of that agreement reads: "...and both parties agree to work out an appropriate plan in the best interest of each child presently in care." What I'm saying to the minister is, okay, the agreement is in place with the federal Department of Indian Affairs, and the native Indian band would like to get together now with the minister and finalize those precise provisions for the transfer of custody. I ask the minister if she is agreeable simply to meeting with the band in the very near future to finalize that deal.

With respect to the other point I raised on the trusteeship of mentally handicapped persons' bequests, the minister indicated that she had some correspondence with the public trustee in this regard. I would appreciate very much receiving a copy of the correspondence the minister referred to. If she'd be so kind as to provide me with a copy of the correspondence regarding the public trustee and the estates of the mentally handicapped, I would appreciate it very much.

[ Page 5977 ]

MR. LEVI: The debate on the OAS, GIS, Mincome, GAIN or whatever you want to call it was really very interesting, because I noticed that on the minister's side, and particularly around her, after she had finished speaking there was as much confusion over there as there is here. Part of the reason, I think, is that the minister really doesn't see it in the proper context. She starts off by saying — this might be of interest to those members who weren't around some years ago.... It's no good the minister saying to this House that the former Social Credit government was the first government to introduce a supplementary allowance. That's got nothing to do with the program that was introduced in 1972, the difference being that prior to October 1972 there was a supplementary social allowance arrangement. At that time we had 205,000 seniors in this province; 108,000 of those seniors were on the GIS, 16,000 of the 205,000 people were getting supplementary income, and only 1,200 were getting what was then considered to be the full amount of $191. Those are the facts.

When the government brought in the Mincome program in 1972, they talked about guaranteeing an income. The supplementary assistance did not guarantee an income; it only gave 1,200 people $191. So there is a great deal of difference in the way the previous Social Credit government saw the concept of giving the people over the age of 65 an increase. One was a supplementary allowance on the basis of a needs test, and the other one was a guarantee — that's the difference. Now what you've done, in fact, is to stay very much in the mould of the previous Social Credit government, and I'll tell you why. What this argument here is about in terms of where you are with your GAIN is that if you would have left it as Mincome, people would have understood it better. But no, you had to destroy it, and you wanted to bring in GAIN. The key thing is that in the six years since you've been government — with all of the bragging you've done about your surpluses — you have never once increased the level of the guaranteed income for seniors. You haven't done it.

Now let's understand what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about the quarterly index; I'm talking about what, for instance, we did in 1972. We guaranteed the income to $200 a month; we did that. We said in April 1973, when the federal government first indexed OAS and GIS, that we would not pass it on to the seniors because we had just guaranteed them up to $200, and that we would look at other plans to expend the money. We did so, because by October we had announced Pharmacare and we announced Mincome for ages 60 to 64; that's how we brought in the program.

In October 1975 we added an additional $30 to the Mincome program, effective January 1, 1976. That was an additional provincial contribution of $30; it had nothing to do with the federal government. Since that time, your government has never given an additional amount of money. That's the point we're making. Now don't tell me that that's wrong. You've got to understand it. That previous minister never understood it. He can sit there and sit there. He never understood what he was doing. He used to open his mouth and out would come some of the most unmitigated drivel in the world. Not at any time has that government ever increased....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, we've allowed some....

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, "drivel" is not one of those restricted words, surely.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the point the Chair was about to make is that we have allowed some latitude in the debate to cover more than the year that we are supposedly reviewing in vote 117.

MR. LEVI: Oh, Mr. Chairman, far be it from me to go back into history.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I say the Chair has allowed some latitude, but that latitude certainly will not extend to other members. I would ask the member at least to not stray that far from the vote.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: I want to talk about your $100 million underexpenditure, which is disgusting! The blackest spot on the history of this province is when you tried to demonstrate how you could rob the poor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEVI: Back to the contemporary history.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Ah, waste. We'll talk about waste in the next vote.

Back to the minister's vote, Mr. Chairman. In relation to the history — as stated by the minister, not by me; she raised this — that's the only question the minister has to answer. Never mind the quarterly index. Just tell us if your government has ever, in the six years you've been in, added an amount of money to the Mincome or GAIN program for seniors over the age of 65 beyond the $38 my colleague talks about. That's all you've got to answer. It did happen in October 1975 — a $30 increase. That's the basic question you have to answer — nothing else.

I want to tell you about the minister and her ability to deal with facts. For the last two days she keeps standing up and insisting that there are 8,500 foster children in this province. She's absolutely wrong. But if I tell her she's wrong — and I read from the book of words — she's going to do what she did when I asked her another question she hasn't answered yet about the underexpenditure. It's in your own book. You should read it before you come into this House and not have to rely on your staff whispering in your ear every ten minutes. On page 33 of the annual report of the Ministry of Human Resources it says: "As of December 31, 1980, 63 percent or 5,427 of the 8,584 children in care are maintained in foster homes."

The important thing that you have to remember about those figures is that it gets tougher and tougher to maintain and increase the number of foster homes that you have. There are a variety of reasons for that. You have only 5,400 children — not 600 — in some 4,500 foster homes. It's a good program. It's worthwhile. The association will constantly have its struggles with you on the levels. That's your problem. You're the government; you have to deal with that particular problem of what the incomes are. But get the facts right. That's important.

[ Page 5978 ]

In your attempt to explain the Mincome situation, if you had mentioned even once, because that's what you have to constantly tell the seniors.... When you look at the first of April every year when the new tax year starts in the sense that you then look back to the calendar year's taxes, there is a lot of confusion there. But the minister can't continue to hide behind her inability to explain one basic fact. If her predecessor wants to explain it, let him get up and explain it. When was the time, or is it the intention of the government ever, to increase by an amount of money — by $20 or $30 a month — the GAIN for seniors over the age of 65 to meet the arguments that have been made on this side? We're not talking about the federal government. We're not talking about the increase to GIS or to OAS. We're talking about when you're going to increase yours. That's the question. It's very simple. You don't feel obliged to do that, because you've moved away from the guarantee concept, really.

When your predecessor came into this House with great braggadocio he was going to index everything. He even put it into the new act. The GAIN act has a section.... Do you remember it? No, he's conveniently forgotten. You were going to index everything. "We believe that people should get an income commensurate with the cost of living, so we're going to put it in the act." It's never been proclaimed; you have never done it. It's a lot of braggadocio. It doesn't mean a thing. It sounded good, but it doesn't mean anything. That's the problem. You can't say, on the one hand, that you guarantee it and then, on the other hand, not do it. The children's allowance is indexed. That's okay; it's a good idea. I don't believe in universal programs — not when they leak to people who don't need it. So you do it through the tax system.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Say it again, Norm.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LEVI: I do not believe in universal programs that leak money to the rich.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: People who don't need it? Well, does somebody who is making $30,000 a year really need the children's allowance?

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: You disagree with the minister? Listen to what I'm saying. I don't want to have a debate with you.

There are important things. The issue of looking at universal programs is a major factor. The only way you could really deal with it is through the tax system. If you deal with it through the tax system you tax back from those people with incomes way beyond the accepted level of need. All right, politically, to take it away is a tough one.

That is basically all the argument is about — the lack of levels for senior citizens. If you were to say that you are now going to increase that guaranteed level by $30, then all the other arguments about GIS, OAS and indexing would fall by the wayside. That's basically the argument that the minister has to understand. Never mind all those other explanations. You have never once increased the rate — that's the key thing about it. I see that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who is an auditor or an accountant, is finally beginning to understand what we've been talking about over here. They have never increased the provincial level. That's what we're talking about. Never mind the federal level.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: You won't understand this, because you don't even understand farm income assurance. I mean, if you can't understand that....

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: You know, Mr. Chairman, we're having a lot of problems. We've got the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) accusing the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) of losing money. My God, that is absolutely incredible. He should get up and apologize. I'll sit down, Bill, and you get up and apologize.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we could return to vote 117. I ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Agriculture and all hon. members to remain silent while the hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam is in debate.

MR. LEVI: Now I might get the minister's attention. She's being briefed by a deputy minister. It's really tough to get briefed by a deputy minister with only one ear. You know, you've got to listen to the speaker. That's why I think you should get your deputy minister to give you a crib book. I used to have one, and they're great.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Well, I don't know. It's either that or she's going to have to have a hearing-aid.

The only point we've been making — and this is what the minister should address herself to.... She's not prepared to tell us about government policy. Fine. The whole debate rests on only one fundamental commitment by the government. Never mind GIS, OAS or quarterly indexing. Is the government prepared to increase its share of the guaranteed income procedure? Is it prepared to go beyond $38 — let's say to $58 or $60, which is a nice round figure? Are you prepared to do that? That's the fundamental question. In six years of government you haven't done it. You've got great surpluses; you're always bragging about surpluses. When are you going to ensure that you don't get the kind of problem that exists here? Since you changed Mincome to GAIN, most of the seniors don't know where they're at; they don't understand it. First of all, there is no guaranteed concept in it at all. That's the important issue. If anybody gets up and starts a debate on quarterly indexing, we're not going to get anywhere. The fundamental question is: are they prepared to put more money into the pot beyond the $38? If we can get the minister to answer that, this debate that has gone on for six years might come to an end. We've never had that answer. I think that she's prepared to go the other way — to constantly argue, befuddle and obfuscate the whole issue by talking about quarterly indexing. That's not what we're talking about; we're talking about a provincial government increase.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'd like to make just a few comments. I know that in his comments the previous speaker said, in effect, what the Minister of Human Resources has

[ Page 5979 ]

been saying — what the policy of this government is all about. Basically, he said he wasn't in favour of universal programs. It would leak funds to the people who didn't need them. That member knows that when you relate income to old-age pensioners, it is covered by OAS, the GIS and the GAIN program. That has increased over the years due to indexing and covering the increases in the cost of living.

Those people who have other types of income, which have also increased over the years, find that they see a reduction in their GAIN cheque as the member for Burnaby-Edmonds said. It's not that they are losing ground in the fight against inflation; it's the fact that earnings from their other sources of income — in the case of seniors, it's usually bank interest or bond interest that they have — give them interest income, which they report. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds knows full well, as do other members opposite, that it is the individual receiving GAIN and the old-age income supplement who has to file a report to the federal government on an annual basis. The individual involved submits that information to the federal government. The federal government calculates the GIS payment. If the GIS payment is reduced because of earnings from other sources by the senior citizen, then that relates, of course, to the GAIN program, and it is reduced.

MR. HANSON: Why?

HON. MR. HEWITT: If you don't understand the fact that in the system — both federally and provincially — there is a program that allows for income in British Columbia to reach a guaranteed figure.... For example, as of January 1981, if he doesn't have any interest earnings over and above the limit set, a single person gets $443.96 guaranteed under OAS, the GIS and GAIN program. He would receive it from two sources: the federal government and the provincial government. Those guaranteed income levels are indexed and are adjusted on a quarterly basis. In British Columbia we make sure that those people will at least achieve that guarantee that we have put into place.

The members opposite — especially the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, who is very conversant with this — would attack the provincial government for being responsible with regard to paying out public funds. I say that if you're earning income from other sources, then you really don't want or need income under the GAIN program.

When I was managing a credit union some years ago, unfortunately many senior citizens used to come to me and say: "Because I have to fill in this report which shows my income from savings accounts and term deposits, I'd like to put all my money in a non-interest-bearing chequing account so I can receive my just rewards, a cheque from the government." In many cases they did it. They insisted. I used to attempt to convince a person with $25,000 or $35,000 in savings or in a term deposit that it was foolishness. Why do that? It's great for the banker; he gets free money. But it's a terrible thing for them not to understand that they would make more earnings from their own money than from relying on a government cheque because it is a government program.

That's the whole concept behind GAIN and why it is reduced when earnings from other sources are increased. I'm sure the senior citizens.... The gentleman who was referred to by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds reported, on behalf of himself and his wife, his earnings from other sources — primarily interest — and that's why his GAIN cheque has dropped. I'm sure if the member took a moment to communicate that with him, he would understand that, in effect, he is supporting himself. I'm sure every British Columbian and every Canadian would like that approach rather than looking for a handout from government, especially in cases where they're earning substantially more than the limits set by government programs.

Just briefly, because the minister brought it up and I think it should be repeated, due to indexing and the benefits since 1976, when you look at OAS, the GIS and the GAIN program, the 1981 figure has increased by 67 percent from the base year of 1976. The CPI has increased by 50.8 percent. With those statistics, what we're really saying is that between two levels of government — the federal and the provincial — the seniors have improved their position in relationship to the cost of living in this province. I think some of the debating by the members opposite is done in such a way as to indicate that we are not looking after our seniors. The minister on a number of occasions during the last few days has attempted to put on the record just what the government programs, both federal and provincial, relate to. The fact is that we are attempting on both levels of government to look after our senior citizens in this province, and statistics indicate we are doing just that.

MR. LEVI: The minister might be able to answer this. She's using statistics which I understand are from 1976. Is she talking about January or April of 1976? Let me say why. If you're using even the April 1976 figures, there was a $30 increase — I'm pretty sure it was $30, because it went to $265 over the first of January. What happened was that from October 1975 to October 1976 there was a lump-sum increase made by the provincial government — not the federal government. The provincial government made a lump-sum increase that was announced in October 1975. That came into effect on January 1, 1976. The point that the previous speaker was trying to make was that the increases had been passed on.

What we're saying is vastly different, and that's probably why we will never meet on the same grounds. If that lump-sum payment had not been made as of January 1, 1976, the Mincome level would be substantially lower than it is today. The provincial share was increased by $30. The only answer we want from the minister is when they are prepared to increase the provincial share again. Don't keep telling us about what you pass on. Simply tell us when the government is going to do what happened under the previous government. They gave a lump-sum increase. That's the difference.

There is nothing sacred about the level of GAIN for 65 at the level it's at now — $442. It could be $462 or $472 simply by having the government put more into the pot. That's the basic issue we're talking about. However, if that lump-sum payment had not been made, effective January 1, 1976, these levels would not be anywhere near as high. First of all, the indexing is not really tied to the true cost of living. There's a limit on the indexing in those kinds of things in the federal government. That's basically the question.

The previous speaker talks about people coming in and saying that if they could get a non-interest-bearing account.... We became aware of that, yes. So then we imputed assets. That goes on today. People's assets are imputed. Nobody can sit there with a non-interest-bearing account and expect to continue to pick up income. The interest that they would have made is imputed and is deducted. But all of that is aside from the basic question. Because the minister

[ Page 5980 ]

is so deep in discussion with her deputy, I don't know if we're going to get an answer.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I don't think we're going to resolve this difference, because I think we're talking about two different kinds of senior citizens. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and the government members are talking about senior citizens with stocks, bonds, large sums of money, non-interest-bearing accounts and savings certificates. The senior citizens like the one who wrote the letter I read, and those on whose behalf I speak, do not fall into that category. I'm speaking on behalf of senior citizens who do not have these stocks and bonds. I don't believe that most senior citizens fall into the category to which the government keeps addressing itself.

The Minister of Agriculture said that the total amount the seniors ended up with in terms of pension at the end of the month wouldn't be any different. This is not what's revealed in this letter. This gentleman made it absolutely clear that there was a diminishing total he had to deal with. In December 1979 the total of the old-age pension, the Canada Pension and the GAIN for his wife and himself came to $757.95. As a result of various reductions, including GAIN being reduced to $13.83, they ended up with a total that was $15.76 less. That was in April 1980. In 1981, again as a result of various reductions, including a reduction in their GAIN cheque down to $4.83, the total reduction was $18 in that month.

I'm not quite sure that there is very much to be gained from continuing this discussion because the minister has made it absolutely clear that the base which was brought into effect in October 1975 still exists. That's the situation.

I would like to move on to something else, if you have no objections and if the minister has no objections. A document has come into my possession pertaining to a cabinet submission dealing with services for the mentally retarded. This is not the document dealing with the McAlpine report. It would be nice if that could come into our possession too. This is a submission to cabinet, which presumably is either about to happen or has happened already. It deals with recommendations to do with community-based services for the mentally retarded. It starts out saying: "The purpose of this submission is to obtain endorsement for a new government approach to delivery of services for the mentally retarded, emphasizing community-based services. Any approaches must involve all ministries represented by the Cabinet Committee on Social Services."

I wonder whether the minister would like to address herself to this document. In fact what it does is support everything that the B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded have been asking for, and which she in her statements yesterday and the day before said was not possible and couldn't happen. In terms of this submission, which is calling for cooperation from the Attorney-General, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Human Resources, is the minister going to operate in terms of her advocacy responsibility to ensure that this submission is received favourably by cabinet? Are the recommendations which the B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded have been asking for these many months and years going to be honoured and represented? If the minister has not yet received her copy of the document, I would be very happy to let her have mine.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: First of all, I'd like to respond to the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King). I'm sorry that he's not in the House at the present time, but I guess he will read this and get his answer.

He wanted to know about Spallumcheen Indian band. As I said yesterday — again, he wasn't in the House yesterday for my answer — there's no delay on the part of the provincial government in our negotiations with the Spallumcheen Indian band. We have a unique new agreement with them, one which I hope will become a pattern and I believe it will. Because it's the first in Canada, it will be all the more important that all the details are well figured out.

I made that agreement with the band in the afternoon in Vancouver. That evening I met with the federal Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, the hon. Mr. Munroe. I explained to him that the agreement we had with the band was that they would take on responsibility for the role which we have traditionally had responsibility for from the federal government. That is in terms of the protection of children. I said that as long as the protection of children is guaranteed, as it is apparently being guaranteed by this Indian band, then I had absolutely no concern about transferring those responsibilities that the federal government purchased from the provincial government on behalf of the Spallumcheen band. You must understand that that transfer of authority or responsibility truly rests with the federal government. When the Spallumcheen band came to us in the first instance it was because they wanted jurisdiction over their children on their band property.

I think a lot has come of that agreement, and I want to emphasize there is no delay on our part. The delay now rests with the federal government, and the Spallumcheen band is negotiating with them. I want to reiterate that that is where the delay rests. It must be recognized that we, the provincial government, have very clearly stated our place, and in fact have initiated an agreement that has never before been initiated in this country, as far as I know. I suggest that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, who brought this to the House again today, read the Blues from yesterday, and from today, since he isn't in the House to hear the answer. Please be assured that this government has very clearly offered that kind of agreement and help, and we will continue to do so. Our staff is meeting with the band continually, and it is very much on its way as far as this government is concerned. We must get some responsibility and some answer from the federal government, and the Spallumcheen band is in negotiation at the present time.

The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) said that there were fewer children in care than I had mentioned and that they're not all in foster homes. Again, that member is out of the House; that's too bad. In response to his question: he completely ignores group homes, children in the care of relatives and treatment centres and children in foster homes. The total stands as I gave it earlier: there are 8,500 children in foster, special-care, group, relatives' and treatment homes.

I want to refer to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) and her comments that I stated it is not possible to address the needs or concerns of the B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded. This is not true. I said that it was not possible in some cases. There is a difference. There are some cases of very severe profound retardation, and there are some clients, patients or residents in institutions at this time who will still require round-the-clock service; they cannot speak for themselves and they will need multiple assistance, if you

[ Page 5981 ]

like. They cannot be in individual homes, one patient to one home. They will require paid assistance for the rest of their lives. I think I mentioned that approximately ten may be in a home or what is as close to a residence as possible. I name that figure just as a figure so that the member could understand that it would be better to have multiple staff assistance for that person who cannot speak for himself than to put that person into a sole home with no kind of accountability, if you like, between staff members, which goes on at the present time. I want to emphasize that that accountability is very definitely there at the present time, and they are being very well looked after in our institutions, which have been mentioned. I just say that so that the member will not go from this House out to the public and give that kind of statement again, because that statement is not true.

The Association for the Mentally Retarded brought a brief to the government. I mentioned in my earlier remarks that the brief has been before the ministries of social services in our social services meeting. We had a good hearing. We had the association before us. They presented their brief. I wish I had the dates in front of me. It was approximately six weeks ago. They had their concerns. Our ministry had already been working on a document which we were ready to discuss with them. We are getting more information from the different parents throughout the province. With their input and the input from our ministry staff, who have a tremendous history of input and dedication in terms of serving the retarded in this province, we are coming to a program where we can say for the decade of the eighties and for the years beyond that this is where we are going in mental retardation services in the province.

This discussion paper is to be put back into all of the ministries of social services — Education, Health, my ministry — and all of the other areas that have references to social services. That discussion paper has been put together, leaning very heavily on what the B.C. association has given to us and the kinds of consultation we have had — our own study that we have done with parents of the mentally retarded. This initiates review by all social service ministries after the discussion paper will be circulated, and they will bring a coordinated set of alternatives before the cabinet. I did stress yesterday that that was before us, and in response to all of your queries regarding this I said that we were actively pursuing it and that within the next month or five or six weeks we plan to have something not only before the association but for all of the parents and families of those retarded whom we serve.

I stated in the House that the future will probably not be in large institutions — I think we all believe in that — but in some form of small institutions for severe cases. Again, I reiterate my statements about groups of ten. I'm only taking that as a figure; I'm not taking that as the binding figure of what the committee will come up with. I just want you to know that all of this needs careful planning.

If we got a comment six weeks ago from the association, and then have something that has not been acted on in six weeks.... I don't apologize for six weeks; I think that's pretty good results.

The discussion paper on the cabinet submission, which has been made public, I think, only goes to prove that this ministry — and this government — not only has been acting to phase out institutions but is serious about doing it. If the member across the way thinks that the members of the opposition can take credit for that, let me say that in all of these weeks and weeks and months and months of our ministry working on phasing out institutions, it's interesting that not once has any one of those members come to me and discussed phasing out institutions. The first we've heard about it was yesterday and the day before during the estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources, and I think that it was interesting.

The first thing I must point out is that the discussion paper is for discussion purposes only. It outlines the problems that government must address in coordinating interministry planning for services. It examines the responsibilities of each ministry involved and proposes a tentative time-frame for phasing out the institutions and replacing them with community-based services for the retarded.

We have not made any decisions on the future of the three institutions. If I were to confirm that we had, I would like to say that you would put fear in the hearts of some of the parents who now have security in knowing that their children are extremely well looked after in those same institutions.

I'd like to emphasize that, because the people working in those institutions really have a difficult job. Their job is not made any easier by flippant and irresponsible statements to the effect that perhaps by a week from Monday all of those patients will be out of the institutions. It's just not going to be done by a week from Monday, and it puts fear into those parents. I want to assure those parents that we will be doing what is best for the retarded clients, patients and residents of those three institutions. That will be our first and foremost responsibility.

The deputy ministers of social services will be bringing proposals to cabinet, and it will be cabinet which will plan and decide on the development of a network of community-based resources and support services. I think it's important to note that a committee of cabinet and the cabinet itself feel so strongly about this subject that the whole route of this plan is going that way. We have been working toward more community placements for the handicapped throughout the seventies and this process will continue into the eighties.

So may I conclude my comments on the report that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds has brought to the House today. In terms of her comments on the discussion paper, all I can say is that this ministry and this government has a discussion paper because of our concern and because of the initiation of our staff and our people in government who feel very strongly about this subject.

Vote 117 approved.

On vote 118: direct community services and administrative support, $85,100,643,

MR. LEVI: If we can get the minister's attention, we'll talk about something entirely different. We won't be overly critical. We're just trying to understand a little bit about what's been going on with respect to comprehensive auditing. Maybe the minister hasn't had a chance to read the auditor-general's report regarding this. We did have an opportunity to have your deputy minister and associate deputy minister at another forum.

There were a number of observations made in the report. One of them, on which I have to state one basic criticism, is that as the department grows — and it's certainly grown — the annual report becomes less informative. As a matter of fact, one of the things the group that looked at comprehensive

[ Page 5982 ]

auditing recommended was that if you're going to have an annual report with respect to a department the size of the ministry the minister's responsible for, you're simply going to have to put far more information into it.

There are great problems with trying to understand the workings of the ministry from the report. Frankly, I don't find that that annual report has in any way grown since I was responsible for the department. It's very unfortunate. You've got to be able to broaden the amount of information that comes into a report. Maybe the minister doesn't pay too much attention to the annual report. But Mr. Boisclair and his group made an observation that that's crucial. When we talked about comprehensive auditing in the public accounts committee — and we're talking about it here now — we were talking about the concept of value for the dollar. It's based on information. The department's standard information vehicle is the annual report. It's not an adequate report in terms of us understanding exactly what goes on in the various divisions of the government.

Mr. Boisclair stated specifically in relation to the look they took at the Ministry of Human Resources — because it in fact volunteered to participate in this plan — that:

"...the audit took into account the work of other audit groups, including the MHR internal audit team and the officers of the comptroller-general internal audit group and certain work done by the British Columbia Systems Corporation operational auditors. As a result we were able to adjust our audit work in the electronic data processing area. Where we could not rely on the work of other auditors, we recommended courses of action so that in future, if they're implemented, we might be able to place reliance and thus adjust the scope of our work. We also briefed the office of the comptroller-general and the Treasury Board staff about our audit design."

They had some hard comments to make. They could probably make them about every ministry in the government, but they were dealing here with the Ministry of Human Resources. The comments that they were making, as I understood them, were basically that here is a ministry that spends over $700 million and there is a very serious question of accountability. In fact, the mechanisms for accountability have not kept pace with the increasing size and increasing budget of the ministry.

One of the interesting things that came out in the discussion with Mr. Boisclair was how accountability is forthcoming. I used the example that if you took the whole ministry in the shape of a large triangle and turned it upside down and just put the apex on one particular category of person in the Human Resources ministry who was the first line of entry of accountability, you wound up on the financial assistance worker — the FAW. Whatever is going to happen in terms of money — that's what they deal with — their accuracy and ability to deal with the system was crucial to the whole ministry, because they were the ones that made decisions, albeit in connection with various instructions.

I was particularly interested in the FAW because, as I pointed out in the committee, the FAW are very important people who are really locked into a non-career position. That's the point I want to make with the minister. There's got to be a serious look at the whole question of career potential for these people if that job is to remain — and it will remain — crucial to the input of accountability systems. Those people — as I remember, there are 450 or 500 of them — are crucial to the system. These people have got to be able to have some kind of career potential. They don't constantly need further training, but ironically that's the basis of the system. Years ago we split the system between social worker and finance. Because the ministry is so large and your income maintenance budget runs to about $450 million, which is a little more than half of the ministry expenditures, it all rests on relatively low-paid, not-so-well-trained people. I think that was the point Boisclair was making. He made that point very clearly.

I want to make the point to the minister that something has to be done in terms of these people and the issue of career potential. I can recall years ago having a discussion with the Public Service Commission. I couldn't get them to understand what an FAW was if I jumped up and down for three weeks. They have a very simple concept over there. You either have grade 12 or you have a BA degree or an MA graduate degree, but there's nothing in between those things. Nobody lives or exists or breathes who has anything in between. FAW is so crucial to that ministry in terms of the effective running of it that that ministry has to take a close look at them. The whole issue of career potential is crucial in that kind of job. People get locked in. Eventually, not because they want it to, a kind of slothfulness takes place. You can't afford that at that level. If you have it, you're in trouble. If you start getting sloppy input and information going into the computes, it's going to be terrible.

That was a basic observation made by the comprehensive auditing team that came in. If you put that together with the observations they made about information.... I might quote from the statement made by Mr. Boisclair. He said: "There are other important forms of performance information which can be used by management on which to base decisions about control systems and resource allocation, and which can also be usefully reported to demonstrate accountability in the estimates." Public Accounts and annual reports are the two examples he gave. I've talked about the annual report. The other day I gave the minister an example of Public Accounts. I hope that on the next vote we might get to that particular question I asked under the family and children's service. We as members can only rely on the information we get from the annual report, what we can get by talking to the staff, and certainly we can always ask the minister. So basically the accuracy of the information contained in your report is crucial, as it is in Public Accounts.

Mr. Boisclair goes on to say: "However, we noted that such data were not sufficiently available and reliable. This was because indicators concerning productivity of staffs have not been fully established, and operational definitions, both quantitative and qualitative, have not been established." We did have an opportunity to talk to the deputy minister in the committee about that. There are some changes in terms of workloads, caseloads and that kind of thing. That's something that you people can deal with. I'm asking, first of all, for more published information. It should be more specific. It helps us. It makes the debate a lot better if we are not constantly having to wring out facts, but rather they're there and we can just talk about them. Public Accounts are important in terms of the veracity of the information.

The other thing is the FAW. We've got to look very seriously at those people. I'm opting for talking about those people, because they're crucial to your comprehensive audit and crucial in the system. Social workers and other people in the department have done well in where they are in terms of

[ Page 5983 ]

advocacy. They happen to be a group of people that are well defined and don't upset the Public Service Commission when you're looking at definitions; but FAWs do. I recall that we were once asked if we would make it a mandatory condition of employment that people complete the registered social worker certificate. At the time I said: "No, I wouldn't, because I don't believe in saying somebody is an RSW. If you don't tie any money to it, there's no point in it." Again we went to the Public Service Commission, and they were as much in the dark about the RSW as they were the FAW Nevertheless, in terms of what the comprehensive audit is talking about, your whole system will live or die by what happens to financial assistance workers, because they are the first recipients of information. If the input from that is accurate and well drawn, you're going to do okay; if it isn't, you're going to be in a lot of trouble.

I want to talk for a minute about the question of supervision. Later on in his report he said:

"In the area of supervision the supervisory process was very clearly provided for. There were supervisors everywhere, but there wasn't a clear understanding among supervisors we interviewed as to exactly what the job entailed. What we did find were very inconsistent approaches from location to location. Some supervisors were closely involved in looking at the work of their subordinates and others were not. They were basically interpreting that themselves.

"Secondly, in the area of supervision the manner in which supervisors were being held accountable for the responsibility given to them had not been clearly set out."

This is one of the horror stories that always comes with a ministry that's growing. The ministry grows, and obviously the bureaucracy grows. According to Mr. Boisclair and his team, who are people who primarily — I think we should underscore that — have an accounting background.... Maybe the minister might find out from the deputy — I didn't ask him when he was before the committee — if, in fact, that team had any social work input at all or whether in fact any were social workers. I think that would have been useful. If they didn't, it would have been very useful, because you can't have a social worker or supervisor talking to an accountant and somehow have him understand from that brief discussion exactly what the level of supervision is. That whole comprehensive audit team had some shortcomings of its own. Again, he was looking at the department. He was looking at accountability and the supervision aspect.

He carried on and said:

"We look at questions very importantly as to how the ministry satisfies itself that the training it does give has been worthwhile and effective. Once again, the ministry had recognized this problem and was starting to do things, but at the time of the audit they did not have the mechanisms in place to know whether or not they were getting value for money from their training. That's one of the most critical control functions in the ministry."

He's pointing out some very significant factors in terms of: if the government has a philosophy to comprehensive auditing.... It certainly has up to now. That is the framework the auditor-general operates in. The government participates in the federal auditor-general meetings. Everybody is trying to look at value for dollar. It's a nice catch-phrase, but as Mr. Boisclair is pointing out, it's full of traps if you don't have the mechanisms in there.

There is the whole question which I asked the deputy minister. You spend $25 million to administer a $450 million program of income support. That's all of the income-support systems that you have. You have an administrative cost which has gone up from the basic administration cost, as I understand it, five times in a matter of five years. It's gone from just over $3 million to $15 million.

Within your income support systems, your caseloads are no higher — in fact they are substantially lower in some respects — than they were back in 1975. At the moment you have approximately 115,000 to 117,000 people in your welfare caseload. The number of people you have on what used to be called Mincome is down significantly, yet your bureaucratic costs are quite large. These are large costs, considering that you have a declining number of caseloads. What you get to is whether you have a very dramatically increased cost in the administration, because of the bodies who were supposed to be there presumably looking at accountability. If that's the case, we look at Mr. Boisclair's criticism that the accountability is really not there at the moment. As one of your colleagues on that side pointed out in the committee, if we're going to go into accountability any more than we thought we had, we'd be spending more money looking at how we spend the money than on the money that we're actually spending. That was a very interesting point for him to make. He wandered into a minefield that could have gotten him into a lot of trouble; nevertheless, that's true. It's the great horror stories of large-spending ministries. It's just where the money is and how it's being spent. Because of the size of the ministry, I think the cost of administering all of that is horrendous in terms of what you're spending in a department. Let's talk about dollars. I don't want to talk about percentages, because I don't think percentages really register. They're spending a great deal of money in the department. On one program alone you're spending $25 million to administer $450 million, which is going to a smaller number of people than it was going to five or six years ago. What have we gotten into? What are the problems for which you are spending this incredible amount of money?

Then Mr. Boisclair comes in, and he wasn't in there for one or two days; he was in and out of that whole ministry for several months. This particular report that he has is going to take a lot of analyzing not only by you people but by us on this side as well. What I find is that the administrative costs of the department are up. That's leaving aside percentages and talking about raw dollars. As Mr. Boisclair, who is the comprehensive auditing man, says, the net gain for all of that expenditure is not very good supervision or accountability.

This may be a subject that the minister is not too familiar with. She's spent quite a bit of time talking to her deputy. Let me just recap what I'd like her to address herself to. The question of the annual report I think is important from the point of view of the MLAs. The question of the FAW, career potential, training and where these people go is crucial. The audit team found that. They are the inverted apex; everything rests on them in the first instance. Not to give those people a better career potential is really crazy, because the whole system and the results can be skewed because of that. Then there's the whole question of costs. I hope the minister stays away from percentages and talks about hard dollars, Nobody can understand what 3.5 or 7 or 8 percent means in relation to all that. We're talking about hard dollars. It's my contention that there is a great deal of money being expended on the administrative side of this which does not really produce the

[ Page 5984 ]

results, according to Mr. Boisclair. That's Mr. Boisclair's main thrust. That's what he went in there for: to look at the adaptability of comprehensive auditing. In doing that, that's what he found out. These are the observations he made. I'd like to hear from the minister on that.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: First of all let me just address myself to the first question regarding the annual report. We were very pleased to participate in this experimental audit process. I believe our ministry was the first. Members of the public accounts committee made the point very well during that time. I had a report immediately after the public accounts committee that questions of control and accountability must be viewed within the environment of a decentralized income security service. They were concerned that we would get too much on that accountancy side and not enough on the humane side. There's a limit to the efficiency of controls; the auditor-general recognized that point after it was raised in committee by members of both sides of the House. Could I tell you that plans are underway to change the annual report; I assure the member of that. That was what he was concerned about. As a matter of fact, we are hopeful that in the next annual report more information will be provided. I believe you will be happy to see the changes. We're working on that at the present time.

You mentioned the financial assistance worker. They do a tremendous job in the province. As a matter of fact, we have the same understanding of their capabilities and responsibilities. I take the member's points in that regard as well founded, and I will certainly address myself to that. May I, though, just really take exception — and I'm sorry I have to in this one — because I think you have misread our annual report. That could quite easily happen. Will you turn to page 7, which you are quoting from, on the expenditures of the ministry of $730.3 million. You are accusing us of spending $25 million to administer $450 million on the income support program. Please don't let that statement go abroad. It is not true. If you look at page 7, at the expenditures of the ministry, the administration for the total $730.3 million is $15.5 million. You don't want percentages, but I'm going to give them to you anyway — it's 2.1 percent on the total $730.3 million expenditure. I believe that the $25 million point you picked up is perhaps the $25.9 million, which is provided just above that — the GAIN for seniors supplement. I believe that's where the confusion is. It's an easy mistake to misread a figure. I just want to make it clear, though, that the administration costs are $15.5 million on our total of $730.3 million expenditures, not $25 million on $450 million, as given to you on the floor of the House.

MR. LEVI: We better stay on this one, because I think we've got a great deal of confusion here. I asked this question in the public accounts committee. You've got your diagram here that says: "GAIN Seniors Supplement, 3.5 percent," which is $25.9 million. That's not referring to the amount of money that you give out, because you give out $450 million. That's what we were told by the deputy. What, then, is the 3.5 percent, which is almost $26 million? What is it? You've got it there. I'm telling you, Madam Minister, that it is the administrative cost — or whatever you want to call it — to give out that money. It's there; that's what it is. You add that to 15.5 percent, which is your administrative cost of operating your minister's office and all of that kind of thing, put them together and you've got $41.4 million. It's there, and you haven't explained it all. All you're telling me is: "Disregard that." I'm not going to disregard it; it's in the book. We had the deputy in front of us in the committee, and that's what I asked. "It is $25 million to administer $450 million?" Well, I don't want to get anybody into trouble. My God, that's not what we're here for. Just understand your own report, that's what I'm asking you to do. You know, this is the second time during the minister's estimates, Mr. Chairman, that I've had to point something out to her. She tells me that it's not so; it's in black and white. The last time it was in Public Accounts; now I'm looking at her annual report. I want the minister to tell me what the $25.9 million is for then. It has nothing to do with the money you give out. What is it for?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, the GAIN for senior supplement is $25.9 million.

MR. LEVI: Do you mean that out of the $450 million — I'm having trouble here — the GAIN for senior supplement is 3.5 percent? What does that mean? We've got to have a much better explanation than that. As I understand it, the figure that we got in the committee was $450 million in income support programs; that's what we were told. Now you're telling me that only $25.9 million out of that $450 million goes to GAIN for senior supplement? That makes it even worse.

Mr. Chairman, the object of questioning the minister in estimates is to get answers to questions. I'm afraid the minister hasn't answered that. What is she saying? Is the GAIN for seniors only $25 million a year? That's the B.C. share. That's all you put in — $25 million. You are beautiful people. You've got a budget of $6 billion, you put in $25 million, and then you stand up in the House and tell us what great people you are. Is that what that refers to? Are you going to tell me that you operate your whole ministry on a $15 million administration cost? Come on, you've got to do better than that!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I think the member wants to change the subject since we got out of....

MR. LEVI: No, he doesn't.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, I think you do.

MR. LEVI: I want to go right back to the subject. I'm going to quote the committee to you in a minute.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Anyway, let's take a look. The GAIN for seniors supplement is $25.9 million. You fail to give — and you just have to look on the graph above it on page 7 — GAIN for seniors 60-64, and those over 65 not in receipt of OAS, GAIN for handicapped and income assistance. That amounts to $366.5 million. If you want, you can add $366.5 million and $25.9 million together, and that takes a very large amount of our $730 million total expenditure. But you don't want to took at that. You want to take it out of context to make the worst possible picture that you can and leave an erroneous impression.

To go back to the total administration budget, I am told by the comptroller that the total of administration and field operations, which is different from what we call administration alone, is $85 million. That includes direct services. Therefore we separated them on the graph, giving the $15.5 million for administration alone. The member perhaps would

[ Page 5985 ]

like to discontinue the debate, which showed him telling us earlier in this vote that we are spending $25 million on $450 million. I was simply correcting that erroneous impression. If you wish to take in field operations, including direct services, rather than take it solely out of administration, we're spending $85 million on $730 million.

MR. HALL: The comprehensive audit of the Ministry of Human Resources was, as the minister said, the first conducted, not only in this province, but in Canada. It was the first examined by our public accounts committee. It's also going to be examined, I'm sure, by a lot of legislative committees across the country. I'm told it's going to be showcased — if that's the new term — at the meeting of legislative auditors in New Brunswick in July. I'm certain that a lot of those new centurions, otherwise known as chartered accountants, will be talking about it for a number of years in the sense that if we're going to talk about accountability and value for money, no matter how far along that line we go, at least this is one of the places where we started.

To that end, I think we should congratulate not only the auditor-general but the ministry. It was the ministry which volunteered. It wasn't selected or dragooned. That may be the last thing I say about it that will receive all the smiles; nevertheless, we should congratulate the ministry.

I have a number of questions that I want to go through, particularly related to this comprehensive audit. I'll continue this afternoon.

The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:03 p.m.