[ Page 8257 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 49: minister's office (continued) –– 8257

Mr. Levi, Ms. Brown, Mr. Gabelmann, Mr. King

Tabling Documents

Commissioner of Inquiry on British Columbia's Requirements, Supply and Surplus of Natural Gas Liquids, technical and summary reports.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 8269

THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 49: minister's office, $262,008.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: As we left this subject late yesterday, there was a comment made by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) with reference to the job action program. A pattern was taken from the program which we had looked at in the United States. I wish that the member had been in the House during the introduction of my estimates, when I reflected on that program and how successful it had been. I gave the history of the introduction of that program in our ministry. I'm sure that the member wouldn't have raised the subject yesterday, and would not have been querying it in the line of questioning that he did, had he been in the House. For his edification let me say this: we took a look at the program, and it was most successful there — one that had been copied throughout the United States. We think we improved upon the ideal of it. We did not purchase anything from the United States. We took a good idea and we think we improved upon it.

You intimated that, in any of the cases that we have before us in the job action program, perhaps we would be charged by some mythical somebody in the United States. I just want to disabuse the member of any suggestion that that intimation might be go abroad, because that's absolutely untrue. We did not purchase any program from the States; we initiated our own program with the input of our ministry staff, which we believe is very much better. The success of that job action program has been truly quite remarkable. It is a three-week program that is tremendously positive and has tremendous results in every area of the province. I think that was the most important point the member brought up, and I felt it needed to be spoken on immediately just in case the erroneous information would go abroad.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I read the minister's remarks about the program very closely in Hansard. I'm afraid that the program follows the same traditions as the garbage that was brought in by the previous minister which was called PREP, and also a program brought in by a former minister, which was called the Alliance of Businessmen. The thing is that you gave a speech the other day in which you said that you'd adopted a program which gave people three weeks training. You said it's been a very successful program, and you haven't produced one single fact around this program. The only thing we know is that the program costs $36 million. I asked you yesterday if you would mind telling us where the money goes. That's what I'm asking you. We don't want you to get up and make some fatuous remarks about the program. You haven't produced any figures, and we don't know what's going on.

Panama Bill is now leaving. My God, Panama dress is in these days. I feel underdressed. Even the comptroller is wearing a Panama suit. Where's your Panama hat?

The important thing is for the minister to tell us some details about the program. You're spending $35 million to $36 million on this program. You're giving people three weeks of instruction, probably based on the old Coué idea of "every day, in every way, I'm feeling better today." What else does it do? Thirty-six million dollars is a lot of money. Canada Manpower has such programs. You can get such basic education programs with that kind of approach from the junior colleges in some of the night schools.

What does this program actually do? What has it done? Perhaps the minister would tell us that, because this is one of these Napoleon Hill type courses. Napoleon Hill was a very famous individual who used to give you records that you could put under your bed and play while you were asleep. "I'm great today, and I'll be even greater tomorrow."

AN HON. MEMBER: Did they work?

MR. LEVI: They did not. I tried it, and I finally broke the records.

I would like the minister, because she's so enamoured with this program, to be more forthcoming and tell us where the money goes. What do people do? It's no good saying that 5,000 people have taken a three-week course on how to approach the job market when there are no jobs. That's the very thing that's been tried in this province for almost 20 years. I don't know why it is that the ministry insists on trying things that have previously failed. There is no quick fix for this problem. You give somebody a three-week course, and they do not get a job. What's the value? Thirty-five million dollars is an enormous amount of money to spend. That $35 million would be far better spent going towards the income maintenance part of the budget.

We have not heard some of the more important details of this program from this minister. She's not going to convince me that this is anything but a waste of money. It's a very poor attempt to try to prepare people for the market. How many? For once let's hear some facts from that government. That's what I'm asking the minister to produce.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'd be pleased to give you the information. What you are doing is taking a total in the estimates book and relating it to one program within rehabilitation or opportunities that we provide for our clients. Let me try to make it clear for the member, because the member seems to wish to attribute a total $34.1 million — or over $30 million — to the one job action program. I don't think even he can possibly believe that. You know that it's one part of the Individual Opportunity Plan. It's one selection, if you like. Not everybody who comes into income assistance will apply for or need the job action program. Not everybody who comes into income assistance will need upgrading in education. Not everybody who comes into income assistance is going to need any kind of intensive work program, such as a welding course or whatever, and not everyone will need day care. But some of those people will need some part of that program, while others will — as I said when we introduced these estimates — without any help at all from the ministry get work on their own — 50 percent of them, as a matter of fact — and be independent within three months of coming on income assistance.

[ Page 8258 ]

You say that this is just another make-work program...

MR. LEVI: No, I didn't say that.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: ...or words to that effect, just another program like others that have been its forerunners. I beg to differ with you. It is very definitely not just another program which will not do any good, or has not done any good, because we have actual cases, actual people, and tremendous success, particularly in that job action program.

Now the member asked me yesterday to try to sort out the financial "Opportunities to Independence" program, and that's what I will call it overall. The total of the programs in 1981-82 was $30.5 million. If you wish to compare that with 1982-83, it's $34.1 million today, which is an increase of 11.8 percent over last year. Those programs, which I will again label Opportunities to Independence, include: day care, which in 1981-82 was $22.8 million — in 1982-83 there is an increase of 13.6 percent, to $25.8 million; achievement centres — $6.9 million, increased to $8 million, an increase of 15.9 percent; work activity projects — an increase of 2.7 percent, and that's excluding money which has been transferred to the employment development account, but the Handicapped Guild was in that amount in 1981-82. So the total for those people that we serve, trying to get them into a more independent way of life was 11.8 percent, the overall.

Again to return to the job action program, it is not the total individual opportunities program. The individual opportunities program, for which the member holds the material in his hand right now, is the total selection of services and rehabilitation for people who need that extra help. Now people can say we should have people become independent and that the best life for them would be to have that independence rather than to live on income assistance or welfare. That's what the program is designed for.

However, some people need more help than others to reach that independence, and that's how the program has been designed. Some people need it because it's the kind of program that helps people who have lost their confidence to direct their lives in a different way. Some people, because they have lost their confidence, don't know how to ask for a job; that's how bad it has become for them. You can say there aren't any interesting jobs, but the job action program is exceptionally successful even during a downturn in the economy. The figures prove that people are going off income assistance and getting into a work place in spite of the downturn in the economy. I gave figures on that approximately a month ago.

During the month of November, 271 income assistance recipients participated in the job action program in 12 regions. We have conducted 107 job-action sessions, serving a total of 746 clients — this is going back to that date. Of these, 87 percent, or 649, have either found employment or become involved in another aspect of the individual opportunity program, such as education and training, an incentive program, or whatever. In other words, we've been able to direct 87 percent of them either directly to a job or into an area where they will go to a job. Now that isn't the entire $32 million; it's a small portion of the $30-odd million that the member wishes to attribute to just the job-action program. That is again misleading because it isn't so.

I want to tell you again that the initiatives taken under that program are quite startling. I read the reports that come in from the Kootenays, from the cities of Vancouver and Victoria, from upper Island. I get letters from people who have been involved in those programs, and it is absolutely different from anything that has been done before. Everything that's been done in this province, by our government before and following — the NDP did the same thing — tried to put into place programs that tried to connect the client with the job. In so doing, they asked people in the business sector to please provide jobs, and, to their credit, people in the private sector were very good at doing so. But there was a difficulty in doing that, which the member, with his experience in social work, would understand. You don't just place people where you can find jobs for them; they have to want that job, and they have to want to work in that setting. Unfortunately, the rate of disappointment, if you like, within the private sector in those people who took positions and then, because of lack of interest or because they didn't really want to be in those jobs — they wouldn't show up for work, and this would disappoint the employer who was also disappointed in the ministry that had employed them to make a job available.... We had all those disappointments. You had them before us in the government in which you were the Minister of Human Resources. We had those disappointments in the previous Social Credit government. It will happen over and over again when you put people into places.... Although a percentage of them will work out, a very high percentage will disappoint the employer and themselves. Those people don't need another disappointment. As it is, they have had disappointments all their lives. As it is, they come to us with lack of confidence. By the time we are getting them a job and putting them into a space.... As it is, they have no self worth. They need to go into something in which they can feel good about themselves and keep to the job. Over the years, maybe half the problem in their lives has been that they have not had that opportunity, or maybe they haven't taken that opportunity. Whichever it is, that was a fact of life in those programs. This program is different.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you that throughout the province we have tremendous cooperation with the Canada employment centres. We have tremendous contact with the employer sector of the province. But at the end of this program these people get their own jobs. We do not find those jobs for them. They get the jobs that they want to be in. At the end of the job action program, when they have an offer of a job, it's the job they want to be in, so the success rate is much higher.

Again, I want to tell you that the tremendous initiatives which have happened through this are exciting. It happens in every region in the province. I could go through the regions, but I don't want to take up the time. I want your questions to be asked, and I'm going to do my best to answer all of them. In every region of the province this is happening. It is really exciting. I'd love to give you some case examples. I've got one from Coquitlam which you'd enjoy hearing about. I hope the member is clear about the difference in that one section, the job action.... Don't attribute a $30-odd million program to the job action program. It's not so.

MR. LEVI: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm absolutely humbled by that incredible invective from the minister in respect to my questions. What am I supposed to do? I'm just a poor little member of the Legislature who picks up your

[ Page 8259 ]

annual report and the estimate book. You are so happy about this program that you don't even accommodate the members by producing a report about it. Nobody knows. In the great tradition of the Social Credit job creation program, the businessmen's alliance, PREP and so on, there's absolutely no information.

She tells me that I'm wrong in suggesting that $34 million is going towards an employment opportunities program. If this program is so good, produce a report. Nobody has ever got a report on PREP or on the program you're doing. I did a report on the businessmen's alliance, and chopped it two weeks after we came into government because it was so nonsensical.

The point is that this is what we've got to look at with this thing: how could you carry on with a program like this in the midst of the largest number of unemployed that we've ever had in the province? Do you think that you can give somebody a three-week opportunities kind of discussion — talk, talk, go out there, feel good about yourself, and get a job? Don't come in here and tell us that. It's a misuse of money to do that kind of thing. We have to look at the motive behind why you do it. When I was the minister, we didn't do it that way; we made use of the agencies that were specializing in it. We went to Canada Manpower and said to them: "Look, we want to do a program in which we are prepared to discuss with the recipients the question of moving them to different areas of the province where there is work. We will work out an arrangement for the travel costs and everything." We did that in 1973-74, when unemployment was tough. We also employed people through the department; over 1,000 people gained employment through that department, on a six-month basis. Out of the 1,000, some 300 people were retained in jobs in service. They got an exposure to real job experience.

Going back to what the minister said, this has always been the underlying weakness of the programs that people have tried to do in respect.... You have never produced any facts. Don't tell me that there's one person in Coquitlam who took this program. There are about 1,800 people unemployed there. Tell us what you're doing. We've never understood what the other guy was doing with PREP. My god, it was incredible. If you think you've got to have credibility, produce the facts.

There was time when I used to do estimates the way you're doing them now. I'd have a deputy next to me and a crib book. We could answer every question that we were asked. We have not had any answers with respect to how many people and how much money the program is costing. Don't tell me that $34 million is not the total cost of the program. You talked about the handicapped and their opportunities. Your own Individual Opportunity Plan says right at the beginning: "The Individual Opportunity Plan is a unique plan to help British Columbians of working age, through personal guidance and skill improvement. It is designed to help you get the skills necessary to become a self-sufficient wage-earner." That's the program that came up from Orange County in the United States. It's no different, frankly, than the businessmen's alliance approach. That was 10 or 15 years ago. It's the same thing. The underlying thing is that you go to the businessmen and say: "Will you cooperate?" They have enough problems.

Give us some facts. I don't want to go through it with you again, and I don't want you to get up and say the same things. If you think this is such a good thing, have one of your staff produce a four- or five-page report with some stats. Let's look at how many people. That's what we're asking for. On another page, tell us what it costs. Obviously, it doesn't cost $34 million, so what does it cost? Just give us the information. It's a very poor attempt, in my opinion, to do that.

MS. BROWN: I hope that my hearing is incorrect. Did the minister say that there were 271 recipients from 12 regions who went on the job action program? There are 139,000 people in receipt of income assistance in this province. We have something in the order of 148,000 people looking for work, and the minister says that the job action program dealt with 271 people in 12 regions, and that of this number some got jobs and some went on to education. What is she talking about? That is the reason we haven't got a report. There were 21,538 single males on income assistance who should have been looking for work in January 1982. In January 1982 there were 10,183 single females in receipt of income assistance who should have been looking for work. The job action program addressed itself to 271 people, and some of those people went on to further education.

I have an invoice in front of me that shows that the minister spent something in the neighbourhood of $48,000 advertising this program on BCTV, on CKVU, on CBUT, on CJDC in Dawson Creek, and on CKFG and CFTK in Prince George, Kitimat and Terrace — to put 271 people on a program. Then she tells us that there was an 85 percent success because some of them found jobs and others went on to education. I know that that's not the total Individual Opportunity Plan.

I want the minister to give us some figures. I'm not asking for any editorializing; I want figures. If the deputy minister is listening, maybe he could make a note of this too. In her opening remarks, the minister stated that the individual opportunities program went from areas where there was 100 percent success to areas where there was 70 percent success. What figures are we talking about? A hundred percent of how many people? Two people? A thousand people? A hundred thousand people? How many people actually went onto the Individual Opportunity Plan in 1981? How many people? Figures, not editorializing. Of that number, how many people secured permanent jobs? Not casual jobs; permanent jobs. How many of those jobs were full-time jobs, not part-time jobs? How many of those jobs paid more than the minimum wage?

I'm going to go over those questions again because I want to get very accurate figures. How many persons used or were referred to the Individual Opportunity Plan in 1981? How many of those people actually secured permanent jobs? How many of those jobs were full-time jobs? How many of those jobs paid more than the minimum wage? For both the Individual Opportunity Plan and the job action program, what is the average income recipients receive when they secure a job, either through the Individual Opportunity Plan or through the job action program? If the minister doesn't have the figures, that's fine. I am willing to wait a couple of minutes or half an hour or so until I can get those figures. This business of 271 welfare recipients in 12 regions using the program, 659 of whom either went on to education or found employment.... I'd like that figure broken down. How many of those 659.... Well, that doesn't even make sense, because she went on to talk about surveying 746 people. However, how many of the people on the job action program secured permanent, full-time jobs, and what was the average wage earned by those people?

[ Page 8260 ]

Is the minister...?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'll take other questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye!

MR. LEVI: Who said that? This is the most important ministry in the government. The most unimportant one, apparently, is the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing.

Now I want to talk to the minister. I want to give a case example without mentioning any names, and I want her to tell me what exactly is happening in her ministry. I'm talking now about how it delivers service, and I'm talking about what I characterize as the feeding trough that appears to be existing in the delivery of Human Resources services

I have a case that I'm dealing with through my constituency office. It's a case which is not completed yet, so I'm not certain about coming to the minister, because I want to see what goes on at the end. One of the things that horrifies me about the case — I'm not dealing with the details — is how many people have been involved in it: seven lawyers, four judges, two psychiatrists and between 12 and 15 social workers. This is a case right in the department. One of the, reasons I've raised this is that when I talk to people in the department, and I don't see them that often nowadays.... We attempted when we were in government to do something about the delivery of service and we created what we called a team approach. We eliminated what I thought for 20 years had been necessary to eliminate, the whole role of supervisors, and we did it on a team basis so that a case would not be spread over 10 or 12 people, but rather could be dealt with very closely by one or two workers.

Now what's happening in your department, particularly where there are family matters involved, is that it's become a feeding trough for the legal profession. You have a case in which there is a lawyer involved because it may be a case of a separation, then you have a lawyer for the child, then from time to time regional managers appear to find the need to have their interests represented, then you've got to call in a psychiatrist, then you have to go to court, not once but twice, and so on. Now what has happened, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, is that in your ministry they've got into a system where everybody is feeding off the taxpayer's dollar and the immediate presenting problem, as we used to call it in the business, is incidental to what's going on. All sorts of professionals are getting paid for doing things and the basic problem, which invariably involves children, is not being addressed. It has become an incredibly large bureaucracy. Now what has happened in that kind of thing? It's extremely costly to deal with a case, and that's wrong.

That's a fundamental problem that you have in your department; it has to be addressed. If you have a problem which involves the child, then you address the child. My colleague the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) has already gone over with you — not once, but in question period time and time again — the problems in relation to the legal system in child protection. But what goes on in the ministry is something that bears examining, because the taxpayer is paying twice and three times what's necessary to deal with a particular problem. That's the sad part of it: it's become part of that enormous feeding trough the professionals are feeding on.

A very serious problem exists where cases are prolonged. Why does it take so long to deal with a problem? It takes so long to deal with a problem because there are too many darned professionals involved, and each one has got an opinion, and eventually that's going to completely submerge the ministry in costs that it's never going to be able to meet. That's part of a very serious problem, and your ministry is caught up in this. Of course the issue of unemployment is important, but I'm telling you that the fundamental operation of your ministry is going to collapse under the sheer weight of costs of this continuing employment of professionals dealing with simple basic cases which do not have to be dealt with in that way. It's become an incredibly complicated and expensive problem. That's what has to be addressed.

Ten years go we attempted to address that by doing a decentralization of the administration, a team approach and the removal of certain people who are not necessary to the system. That was in the Human Resources ministry. But you now have all sorts of appendages. You've got to liaise with this department, liaise with that department; every time you liaise with a department it costs you money.

We have had a continuing debate in this House, Mr. Chairman, about exactly who is going to be responsible for children. I want to deal with that matter for a moment. It's my contention that one minister in the government should be told: "You are responsible for whatever happens to children. You deal with the services." I'm not saying that I don't want the minister to set up an interministerial committee on children such as they have now. I'm talking about one minister responsible for the needs of children who will then go to the various departments in government and purchase the services that those children need and not have to continually sit down in interministerial committees while each department of government argues its own philosophical and policy point of view. One minister making the policy and purchasing the service — that's the only way it can be done. It cannot be done with four or five ministries sitting down, carving up the child and trying to get agreement. That's what's happening today, and it's very costly. Somebody has got to assume the responsibility over there — a minister. If you want to call him the minister of children, fine. The main thing is, let's stop this continuing nonsense that somehow four or five departments of government can actually agree on how to administer the best policies for children. It's impossible; there are too many vested interests in each ministry.

One minister should be vested with the power of delivering the service, simply going to other ministries and saying: "We wish this kind of service for that child. We don't want any philosophical and policy arguments; we are carrying out the policy, you provide the service." If they can't provide the service, go somewhere else. That's exactly the approach we took with private agencies. I as the minister — and we dealt with children — went to the service and said: "This is the kind of program that we dealt with." The very man who coined the phrase is sitting right next to you. He said we didn’t want to take a child to an agency and have the agency say to us: "Well, we can't deal with that child." What we said to them was: "Look, this is the child, this is the problem, you come up with a program." That, Madam Minister, is the way you've got to approach this job. We had those kinds of problems when we were government; we're still discussing them. Somebody has got to take a stand: one minister for the responsibility of children, every other ministry understanding that that minister will be able to purchase services in a way that they need, without all the arguments.

[ Page 8261 ]

There are two issues that I have raised. The first one related to the enormous overburden of staffing in terms of cases. It's a very serious problem. If you think you've got some financial problems now, you're going to have a lot more down the road if that doesn't cease. You cannot have 10 or 12 people working on one case; it's crazy, it's too expensive and it does not solve the problem. I know of two or three cases, and there are literally hundreds of cases like that. Somehow we have to have an understanding from the minister of the philosophy of delivering service without all of this leaning over constantly to the idea that the professionals have to have a say in everything.

We also have got into an obsessive feeling about the legal rights of children — fine. Now we've got the legal rights of the regional managers, the parents — everybody is covering himself in terms of legal rights, at the cost of the taxpayers. You may have a case involving a child, perhaps a child-abuse case, in which there is an enormous amount of legal work, not for just one lawyer but for three or four. Everybody's got to have a lawyer and it's all off the taxpayer. What's going on? What does it do to the problem? I don't know if the minister is aware of this very serious problem. It's there in the ministry, and it's extremely costly. It's a very serious tragedy. I would like her to address whether or not she is aware of that kind of phenomenon. It does nothing to deliver the service they need, and we're dealing primarily with children in some of these cases.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Let me go back to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown); then I'll answer those that have been raised.

You ask for reports on the Individual Opportunity Plan and the job action program. They are both rather new. Job action is incorporated in the Individual Opportunity Plan, but the expressions are both new. I think the Individual Opportunity Plan was initiated about 18 months ago, and the job action program started four or five months after that. Both members who have spoken on that particular subject asked for figures and reports on the kind of success we are having. There is no need for you to take my word that it is successful; you can tell it is by going into the communities. That's a very good gauge. You have only to talk to members of our staff, which I know you do often. I do want you to know that we will be putting out a report which, with the experience we now have, can be put into a compilation that will be of some help to you in breaking it out of some of the other programs. For example, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) mentioned the incentive program. It still goes on. It's part of the Individual Opportunity Plan. For some people it's the answer and becomes part of their individual opportunity agreement.

To respond to that, yes, we will have a report, and would be pleased to make that available.

As well, I want to caution you in the use of the figures on income assistance. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds cited a figure of 122,000 dependants, but some of those are children who are not going to be working. So when we're talking about people becoming independent, try to keep it to heads of families or single parents, which is in the 65,000 area.

You mentioned that you are curious about the 100 percent program. That program is a very interesting one which is taking place in Vancouver. It's only available to single parents. It's specifically designed for single parents, for women with children. You asked for figures, and I'll try to get those for you. Don't take the 271 figure of the job action program itself, which was a November report. That represented the 87 percent figure of those who had been placed in job action and become independent; don't take that as the overall Individual Opportunity Plan. Again, you can't compare oranges and apples. You can't isolate that.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It's difficult when you don't have something written in front of you, and I appreciate that. A report which goes back to January of this year isolates 8,076 persons. In the incentive program there are 1,096; in education and training, 2,369; in the youth employment program, 102; in the job action program, 271 completed; work activity — and only six in the province during the month of November — 177; Individual Opportunity Plan, 2,816; job search assistance, 1,245. If I can get more detailed figures for you I will, but let me just assure you that we will have a report which will give it clearly.

The most exciting reports I can give you are actual success stories, case studies, and they are simply tremendous. Example: a single mother in her late twenties, with children aged 8 and 10, minimal education, limited work experience in waitressing. She'd been on and off income assistance for the last eight years. They did their intensive session of counselling.

Let me suggest this to the members, because both members who have been on their feet this morning have had experience in social work. They have to admit that over the years there has been a great deal of cheque-taking and a lack of counselling, because there have not been the kind of responsibilities — the checks and balances built in that there are now through the Individual Opportunity Plan.... The singles have to come back every month for re-evaluation, and the families have to come in three times a year. The counselling is implicit, it has to be there, and it is done. We are having that face-to-face counselling and help for those people. I think that if nothing else were done in the program, that would be an exciting thing. We are there to give them help. We don't allow people to drift into a never-never kind of existence where nobody cares. We are caring, and they come in and talk to a rehabilitation officer, financial assistance worker or a social worker about their problems. We can work with them on a one-to-one basis.

Again, to get back to this one case of the single mother in her late twenties, the key decision was that this girl would enrol in the September clerical course at PVI. Furthermore, she would do so under the Ministry of Human Resources sponsorship, rather than waiting her turn on the lengthy Manpower sponsorship list. By the following April Susan had finished her course and found permanent employment. She's doing clerical work on the staff of a lower mainland school. She's supporting herself and her children, and she is delighted with her new life.

You ask about salaries. I can get actual figures, and if I go through some of these cases I can pick out some of them. May I say that there isn't any of them you could analyze who wouldn't be making more than they would on welfare. I know that the member will want to make the point: well, if they only make a few dollars more, why not stay on welfare? You see, that's the whole point of the plan.

MS. BROWN: Don't put words in my mouth.

[ Page 8262 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'll be very pleased, Mr. Chairman, to hear the member deny that kind of philosophy, because it is the kind of philosophy she's been stating on many occasions during my estimates.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

If we look at a 45-year old who's married with three children and who has been on income assistance for three years, he's working at a private recycling firm and he's working at $5 per hour. If you want, I can give you other kinds of examples, but you don't seem to be too interested in the success-story example.

Let me go on responding to the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) regarding the delivery of services. First of all, you seem to be highly critical of the ministry's deployment of services, or the use of services, suggesting that there are too many people working on a case, or suggesting some lack of responsibility on our part in that regard. Let me tell you that direct community services — that's the field operation, and this includes building rentals — represented about 10 percent of the budget last year. The central administration represented 2.2 percent of the total budget. That figure can be found on page 10 of the annual report. I'd particularly like to address the one area that you seem to zero in on, and that happens to be in legal services. We should give a great deal of credit to our Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) because that is where our legal services come from. He recognized that the legal services area of his administration needed limits set, needed to have limits as to the amount of fees that could be paid, and that has been addressed. It's interesting that you should stand in my ministry's estimates and advocate the saving of legal fees when your colleague for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) has been saying the exact opposite earlier in my estimates, and to the Attorney-General. She's saying that there is not enough being spent for legal services for children and families. It's incredible. You can't have it both ways, Mr. Member. I am just suggesting that you two should get together. You're advocating making limits. Limits have been set. When the Attorney-General's ministry estimates come up, I'm sure you'll get up and applaud him for that, because that's what you're advocating here.

I also want to caution you in terms of the number of people involved in these cases. You mentioned one in particular. I think I know the particular case you meant, and it is a unique case. You will have to appreciate that that is not one that is repeated time and time again. I think I know the one you're speaking of.

MR. LEVI: It's not the same case.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Okay. At any rate, it is the court that calls for expert and professional witnesses. The judges call for psychiatric reports, and the courts call for psychological assessments. So our control over that, in terms of expenditures, is very much in the hands of the court. I would say that if I were to make a judgment on behalf of the taxpayers of the province as to whether or not that is or isn't needed, I think the taxpayers of the province would probably uphold any expenditure in terms of services to children in a court situation. What you're really talking about is advocates in those sensitive types of cases where families are apart and children are in trouble. If you're advocating savings in that, we have to be responsible, yes, but, quite frankly, if there is a need for that, our ministry will provide it.

MR. LEVI: We've got a problem here. Unfortunately it's very difficult for me to talk about this whole subject without going back on some 18 years of experience that I had in the field. So I talk about something that I know about, plus the fact that when we were in government, we administered the department. We can have a candid discussion here and we don't have to get chippy about the fact that you say my colleague and I are apart; we're not. We're basically talking about the same thing, but the minister fails to understand it. Nobody's talking about taking away services. I'm telling you that a lot of the services being delivered are not necessary. That's the judgment you've got to make.

Nobody's going to tell me that we need five, six or seven lawyers on one case. I don't care if judges ask for it; it's taxpayers' money. That's the important thing that you have to understand about what's going on here. The whole thing is out of your hands, partly because of this nonsense of spreading children through a number of ministries, particularly with the Attorney-General's ministry. We made our remarks under another debate in this House recently with respect to the Attorney-General.

I'm not happy with some of the things that are going on there, but what we're doing is addressing how much money is being spent. In your estimate book you have an item "salaries" for $113 million. Then you have another item "professional and special services" for $110 million. That's in the estimate book. I know where that $110 million is going. You have to ask yourself if it is effective. You have to have a louder voice in the business. There's constant screaming from the courts that somehow you've got to get more of this and more of that because the judge says so. The difficulty in presenting any kind of idea about a case is that it's more complicated when more people are involved. It's become a game, and that's the tragedy. Everybody is covering themselves at an incredible cost to the taxpayer. What we completely lose sight of, is the case — the child or the parents. That's the important thing.

I want to go on to something else. The minister was talking before about service. Twenty years ago there was an exceptionally good project done by a woman called Audrey Selander. She's now dead. She was a very fine woman who did a project in Vancouver in an attempt to look at the delivery of service. It was called the area development program and was done in the early sixties. They put together a team of people and attempted to examine how you deliver services to people. That was why it was a highly successful project that led to what was called the "Vancouver East Prototype." It was a project that took place in 1971-72.

How do you deliver services to people? Do you know what came out of those two very fine experiments? One thing was that you don't tie money to service. You don't get trapped into the idea that because you're giving people money, somehow you've got to flog them social services at the same time. That's not what it's all about. You have gone right back to that whole philosophy that was rejected some 15 years ago. There's some suggestion that because people are having a hard time, particularly in these economic times.... It has nothing to do with their psyche or their ability to work if there are jobs. They don't need "you can have this if you'll take this kind of service." That's not the way services are to be delivered.

[ Page 8263 ]

What's happened is that you've become caught up in the same philosophy that your predecessor had. He decided to go out and belt and kick around the poor and the welfare recipients. He used to refer to them in Surrey as "welfare bums." Then, somehow, there was going to be an incredible watch on people who applied for welfare. You've inherited that, and you're still feeding into that kind of thing. We know that people are basically honest and forthcoming and will do the right thing. It happens to be a nice, political centrepiece that everybody can attack. You're feeding into the same garbage that he started some years ago when he became the minister.

Don't connect services that you're selling with the need for people to have income. It's completely wrong. It was rejected. When it was not being practised that way there was, first of all, some dignity attached to it.

You know, this ties in with the minister's thinking about her new program for maintenance and catching husbands who don't pay. Two or three weeks ago we had a long debate about this. We reminded the Attorney-General that he was being trapped by people who develop complicated systems — that somehow under that system you're going to retrieve money. It's a one-for-five thing: if you want to get a buck you're going to spend five. That's what you wind up spending.

The minister's program, which she's getting involved in and becoming obsessed with, is, again, part of her predecessor's psychology: "We're doing this program because those people are ripping us off, and we're going to go after them." That's the rhetoric that's been going on here for seven years. You're feeding into the same kind of reaction to that rhetoric, and it's wrong.

We debated the validity of looking at alternative ways of collecting this money which were less costly and more realistic. If somebody is working, then they can pay; so you go to the income tax. If they're not working, you're not going to get the money. That's what it's all about. You don't need complicated systems. You don't need a team of lawyers to tell you how to chase these people, with costly appearances in court and sheriffs running around serving subpoenas, For what? For the one-to-five. The government wants to collect a dollar, so they're prepared to spend five to do it. That's what is not rational in what you're talking about in terms of your project. It's all tied in to that reactionary predecessor of yours, who has now twisted the whole direction of social services in this province to the business of: "We're going to catch the offenders. And if the services have to suffer, then that's too bad." Well, you want to get out of that. Don't get trapped in the idea that somebody in the Attorney-General's ministry or even in your ministry is going to sell you a mechanism whereby you're going to be able to collect maintenance. It's not going to work. If at the end of four or five years you're going to tell me that it's successful, and we find out that it doesn't cost $5 to collect $1, but $10.... If you think that's successful, I say to you that it's not. It's a terrible waste of scarce resources.

But it's partly political, isn't it? When you go after the husbands who won't pay maintenance, it makes you look good to the people out there. "Oh, they're going after the husbands." It's a story that we've heard in this province for 25 years. It's never worked in the United States, where they spent a lot of money researching this kind of thing. It doesn't work. What you're doing is creating a big feeding trough again. It's a waste of scarce resources. It's all built into the kind of reactionary psychology towards the whole human resources field. That's the tragedy of it.

When we talk to you about the idea that people on welfare want to work, please don't set up a whole new set of machinery, when taxpayers' dollars are going into the machinery of Canada Manpower and all that. We know it doesn't work that well, but the answer isn't for you to substitute for it, and certainly not in the middle of the worst unemployment crisis we've had. To stand up and, in attempting to answer my colleague, come out with some of the most fatuous remarks about what is successful.... She tells us that there is one person in Coquitlam, but I couldn't stand to hear it, because some 68,000 people live there. More than 35,000 work there, and 1,800 are directly unemployed at the moment in respect to the forest industry, and she's talking about one case. Don't get trapped in this kind of thing.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair]

You have a big budget; it's $800 million. In 1972 that budget was $140 million. When I left in 1975 it was $516 million, and I think they spent about $480 million. The budget has doubled in the space of six years. When we look at the caseload figures, they are up. The staff figures are up. The effectiveness of service is what is being questioned here — the minister's penchant for running into new quick-fix ideas.

There aren't any quick-fix ideas with people. The main thing is that the people with whom you deal in the system are primarily those who have serious problems because they don't have enough money. The answer to that is not spend almost $400 million. That's half the existing budget; $400 million goes to income maintenance and $400 million goes to something else. My gosh, for every buck you want to give out you've got to spend a buck. It's crazy. You don't get the money to the people who need it. So you come up with all sorts of systems. One system is going to train people to think positively about employment, in the midst of a time when people who have worked for 30 years without a break can't even get a job. There's something wrong with that kind of psychology. It's wrong. That's not leadership; it's a reaction to the worst aspects of our society, unfortunately. At this particular time it may suit the minister's purposes to talk this way because people out there are having a rough time, and they are looking to look down on somebody. That doesn't do anything for the delivery of services in the ministry.

Nobody is questioning the idea that there should be adequate legal services. We have never said that. What I'm saying to you is that where you need one person to work on a case you've got eight or nine. That's what has happened to your department. That's what you're trapped with. It's dangerous, because it's going to sink under the weight of that kind of approach. That's what I'm talking to you about. It's basic to the way that the department runs. The minister doesn't understand it.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm not going to be very long this morning, and I intend to change the pace a little bit from the macro issues to some to the more micro issues. Before I do so I just want to make one or two general comments.

The first is that I regret very much that Human Resources continues to be the most politicized activity of the government in an area that should be the least politicized. That terrible trend began with Phil Gaglardi, was continued by the

[ Page 8264 ]

current Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), and has not stopped under the present minister. I think that that's a great tragedy. Earlier in the session I made a comment to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) that I felt that in a different but a comparable area of government service, the area of probation within corrections, the government has managed to have a non-politicized, very effective delivery of service. That level of service is being provided by workers in the field in the Ministry of Human Resources as well, but in a very different way. I don't know about other MLAs, but I know that as one MLA I can walk into a probation office anywhere in this province and not have the sense that the workers feel that it better not happen that the minister or their immediate superior or their regional manager or someone else find out about it. They don't mind that I walk in there, but I tell you that every back in the office goes stiff when I walk into a Ministry of Human Resources office. People who work for that minister are the most intimidated group of public-sector workers in this province. It's because she has continued the Phil Gaglardi tradition of making it into a political ministry rather than into a service, rather than into a helping ministry. The government's whole approach to Human Resources is that it is an opportunity to create votes for itself by dumping on poor people, and they do it. I don't mind so much the minister doing it herself, because that's a political decision, but what bugs me and makes me angry about it is that she involves the workers in that process too.

Workers are even afraid to have a telephone call from their MLA. That doesn't happen in Fish and Wildlife; that doesn't happen in probation; that doesn't happen in Highways; that doesn't happen in Forests. I can walk into the regional Forests office and people are glad to see me. They shake in their boots when I walk into a MHR office because they're afraid that the minister might find out that they've been talking to the other political party. That's an abominable situation. It's not the workers' fault; it's the fault of a government that has decided to make this aspect of government service a political issue. I think that it is reprehensible. Despite all the minister's nice talk and pretty stories about one person here and one person there, the reality is that there is an overview and that there is a collective vision and a collective impression, and it's very, very different from the individual stories she trots out ad nauseam. I'm appalled by it.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to get into the details of the one particular case, but I happen to be involved indirectly in an apprehension case — following up on what the member from Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) and the member from Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) have been talking about. His a case where there are five lawyers involved in one apprehension case. I don't know whether it isn't time, as we've done in labour relations, to get the whole legal system completely out of the business in the case of children. Quite frankly, they screw it up, and I just think that the best interests of the children are not being served by making it into such a highly legal situation. In that same case, the worker involved said that she felt that one of these days she might be charged with child neglect because she was never home to look after her own children because the demands of her job were such that she was working 12 and 14 hours a day. The day that I talked to her about the case was the third day into her holiday, and she still hadn't been able to leave because of the pressures of work in that ministry, the way in which it's organized and the priorities they have.

I'm not going to say more about that now. I just want to say that in no other ministry estimate debate do I feel as angry about what the government has chosen to do in exploiting a group of people. The Phil Gaglardi tradition is being carried on very well by this minister; he couldn't do it as well.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I want to talk about three specific programs. Two are in the ministry and one is not, but I want to talk about it as well. The first is the CHANCE program. The minister said yesterday that the interministerial report on severely disabled children would not be released because the report that hasn't been released isn't the report — words to that effect. I assume there is going to be some rewriting of that report by cabinet before it's reissued. I hope that in that rewriting the recommendation of the committee to put CHANCE into Education and take it out of MHR is followed through with; I hope that the recommendations of the committee that prepared this report are followed.

The CHANCE program is a good program, and I want to make that very clear. The CHANCE program in the school district of Vancouver Island North has been a boon to those communities. People have nothing but praise for the program, and I can't do anything but echo that. But it's an education function. When you're dealing with a severely disabled child to help that child to dress or to be more ambulatory, that's teaching; that's learning. It should be considered part of the Education ministry. I said that to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) in his estimates, and I'm pleased to know that he agrees. I hope the minister agrees with him and with me and with the committee that she's charged with making a report on that.

There is going to be a meeting on the 21st of this month, in four days, between Education in the Vancouver Island North region, the Duncan region, between MHR, Education, various special-ed coordinators and what not, to discuss the further implementation and possible reduction of the CHANCE program in various parts of the region. I just hope that when those discussions take place the minister makes certain that unless the grant money is replaced by Education, it not be taken away by MHR in the Vancouver Island North School District. Those 11 positions are vital.

I agree with people on her staff who tell me that the CHANCE program may be a more tightly defined program than it's being used for at the present time. What I'm trying to say is that the definitions for eligibility are tougher than the current operation of that program, and that's true in terms of the original definitions of the program. But when you're talking about blind kids and kids with Down's syndrome, when you're talking about kids who are severely disabled but don't need the strict criteria, those kids still need the kind of special-attendant help that the CHANCE program provides.

I happen to think it should be in Education, but in the process of making that change, which I hope is coming, I hope that the program isn't eliminated where it's doing some very good work at the present time. That school district up there is talking about firing 41 special-ed workers at the end of this month and replacing them possibly with up to 18. That's going to be a severe problem for children in the part of this province. I won't say anything more about CHANCE other than that I would welcome the minister's comments about it and be pleased to learn that she agrees with her colleague the Minister of Education.

[ Page 8265 ]

The interministerial report also discussed the infant development program, and that's another program that I think should be moved out of MHR and into Health. In that sense I agree with the recommendations of the committee, and I hope that that's what the revised version of this report is going to recommend when it is finally released, I hope soon. I hope the minister will indicate her support to that too.

In talking about infant development I want very briefly to go through a really bizarre story in the Vancouver Island North area. I go back to last year. The Mount Waddington family services society in that area made a proposal to establish an infant development program. There was virtually a year's worth of negotiations attempting to establish the program. There was some quarrel over how much money the ministry was prepared to pay. The ministry refused to recognize pay scales in that area. It was determined that they wouldn't pay the kind of money that other workers pay in that area. There were threats and what not during the negotiations that if Vancouver Island North didn't take the $31,000 or $32,000 that the ministry was prepared to pay, instead of the $38,000 that they wanted, all the money would go to Nanaimo or somewhere else. These were the kinds of things that were being said during the negotiations. There was less concern about the need for an infant development program up there than there was about a stupid set of negotiations.

I'm not going to go through all the details of those negotiations, but near the end of them, the region proposed a perhaps unique solution to the problem. The society in that area said: "We'll take the $31,000 that the ministry is offering, but we'll run a ten-month programme" — in the summer in that kind of an area there's less need for the program in any event, because a lot of people leave with fire season in the woods, etc. — "and we'll then be able to pay the infant development worker the same level that other people in that profession receive up there." The ministry said no to that, and then made no further communication to the family services society.

Then, on about January 10 or January 11, 1982 — I'm not sure of the dates — I found, on my desk, a press release in my mail, issued by the MHR, regarding new infant development programs in Port Hardy. It said: "For further information, contact Rick Quibell in Duncan. The press release basically said: "The minister announced approval of funds totalling $12,250 to enable the Comox Child Development Association to offer the program to several children in the Port Hardy area who are requiring consistent skilled help...." My immediate reaction was to call the society. They hadn't been contacted. This press release had been in my office for a few days before I got to it, so there had been plenty of opportunity for the ministry to talk to the society and say: "We have turned down your proposal. We are not going to allow you to run the program. We've given it, instead, to an outside group some three and a half or four hours driving time away."

I was surprised that the press release or notification hadn't gone to the society. I called them, and it was all news to them. I thought that maybe press releases only went to newspapers, so I called the newspaper in Port Hardy. They'd never heard anything about it, so I read them the press release. They then reported the story on the front page. Two issues later there was another headline saying: "Infant Program to Get $31,000." The minister has reacted to my comment about a $12,250 grant being granted to a Comox group to provide infant development in North Island. She criticizes me for having false information, when all I'm doing is reading her press release which announces $12,250.

The society that is in the program also publicly criticizes her for two things: one is the amount, but secondly and more importantly, they're taking the service out of the region and down to another part of the Island, which further hampers the ability of that family services society to provide a full range of service, because it means they have less income to provide for themselves. At the same time, or earlier, the homemaker program had been cut back. Their ability to function as an organization in that community is virtually on thin ice. If they can't administer programs locally, they don't have any reason to exist. To take that society and virtually say, "We don't want you in existence up here anymore," is really pretty scandalous.

What concerns me is that the minister attacked the chairman of this society and me in the paper for reading to the paper her press release which says: "Funds totalling $12,250...." In great, high anger, she phoned the paper — or had somebody phone the paper and say that it's $31,000. The society still hasn't been told. They still don't know, except through me and the paper, that the infant development program for the Port Hardy–Port McNeill–North Island area is going to be run out of Comox — by a good group, incidentally. There's no problem with the Comox group. They're doing a good job down there.

MR. LEVI: They'll spend more on travelling time.

MR. GABELMANN: It's ridiculous. I'm not going to say much more about it.

When you have people in the community who are prepared to volunteer their time.... These are professional people who work in some other helping ministries and people who are involved in church groups. The chairman of the board happened to be a minister. There are people who are prepared to give of their spare and extra time. In a region like that it means a lot of travelling — sometimes going as far as two hours away from home to go to a meeting. They then find that their recommendations and application to provide an infant development program, which is desperately needed in that area, are totally stonewalled by the ministry. Then the grant is given to somebody from halfway down the Island, and the local people aren't even told, much less consulted about it. That's another example of the kind of thing the ministry does that makes people pretty cynical not only about the ministry and its programs but about the minister herself. I could go on for an hour about this particular case, but I'm not going to. I've made the essential point I want to make. I'm still angry about it, and particularly angry that the minister would attack me and the chairman of this society for reading her press release to the newspaper.

There's another thing about this press release. I went to the library this morning to get another copy of it as my file copy was presumably in my riding office. They didn't have it. There was no copy of this press release there. I checked with our research office, which gets copies of all press releases from government ministries. They never received this press release. The newspaper in Port Hardy never received the press release. I got the press release, but I don't know who else got it. I don't understand why a ministry would issue a press release about a Port Hardy program and not send it to the Port Hardy newspaper. It's absolutely bizarre.

[ Page 8266 ]

My final issue — and I'm taking more time than I'd planned to — is an entirely different kind of issue. There is a group in Campbell River called the Sexual Abuse Victims Anonymous — SAVA. It's a very difficult area. We're talking about sexual child abuse primarily by parents or relatives. A group of people spearheaded by one person in particular, a woman named Linda Halliday in Campbell River, decided that they were going to try to make this issue a public one. They initially met immense resistance from the community, because nobody wants to talk about sexual abuse of children by relatives. The statistics demonstrate that one out of four females will be sexually assaulted before they're 18; one out of every ten males will be sexually assaulted before 18; 99 percent of the offenders are male; 93 percent of the victims are female; and 75 percent of offenders are known to the child or the child's family before the assault. It's a pretty difficult area for people to face up to because it touches a lot of people's lives. This woman had a lot of courage and a lot of guts, quite frankly, and she decided to go public with it, having had a lifetime of experience with this particular situation. She developed a little group to help her in promoting community attitudes on the issue so that more could be done to assist the people involved, kids who have been affected, and also to attempt to heighten community attitudes so that this kind of abuse is reduced in the future.

I want to make one more comment before I make a request to the minister. It is amazing to see the response develop in the community of Campbell River. Initially, when Linda Halliday would go to meetings of the Rotary or to other groups in the community to talk about it, she was met with fear, a great deal of nervousness, and almost a kind of tittering response. They didn't want to hear from her. It's got to the point now where that whole community is talking about it publicly and welcomes the discussion. The RCMP is involved, the court systems are involved; and everybody is involved in talking publicly about sexual abuse of children. It is one of the best things that I've seen happen in that community in the last couple of years. It's just been a really good thing. But the problem is, the group is going to go under. It's funded by this woman, who happens to have three jobs as well as organizing this group. She spends all of her own money travelling to speak, and printing leaflets like this one. She and a small group of other people have been spending their own money. They have made an appeal to the ministry for funding. I've written a recent letter to the minister, indicating my support for the request by the chairman of SAVA.

I'm not critical of the ministry about this, because there hasn't been time for the ministry to develop a policy or to respond. A reasonable period of time has yet to elapse before I could be fairly critical about the lack of response. I think this kind of program is essential. Again, it's a group of people in the community who are giving up a lot of their own time and money. It's in an area where the government has a responsibility, because we will be saving taxpayers' money over the years if we manage to reduce the incidence of child sexual abuse. For a few dollars of public tax money expended in assisting a group like this, we will reap many more dollars' worth of time and effort from people who are concerned about the issue. So I urge that the minister respond to the letter from Mr. George Piercy, chairman of the group, and to my letter, and ask that she seriously consider some financial assistance for the group. I wouldn't expect her to make a commitment immediately on the floor of the House. I hope that she would have some of her people sit down and talk to be board of directors of SAVA and work out the best way in which assistance could be provided; but assistance should be provided.

MR. KING: I have a few small matters to raise. I want to comment on my colleague's representation, particularly on behalf of the group called SAVA.

I think it was yesterday that I watched a portion of a television program relating to this very matter on the "Donahue" show from the United States. Quite frankly, I was shocked and amazed at the number of people who experience sexual abuse and molestation, in a high number of cases by parents, and certainly by people, as my colleague suggests, who are known to them. I think one of the things that happens when there is a heightened public awareness is that some of the very deep and profound psychological scars visited upon the young victims of this type of thing, which last throughout their lifetime, can be eased and unburdened somewhat with a sharing of experiences in public discussion about the motivation involved and the problems of the people who do this kind of thing, because obviously they have some very deep-rooted psychological problems too.

As my colleague suggests, I think it is a worthwhile kind of organization to fund. If, through this kind of activity, people who have suffered that type of experience can be assisted in adjusting better to life, then we are probably saving more money than we are investing in the support. Interestingly enough, in the case that was on the "Donahue" show the other day, the young lady who had been abused by her father was in attendance before a large group of 4,000 people with her mother and father in attendance, which took some courage. She was talking openly about it and trying to analyze just what had happened, how this came about. But her life experience following her childhood, the marriage breakdowns and the tremendous social trauma that she had gone through was a pretty clear indication that perhaps if she had not felt so guilty, had she been able to share that and understand that she was not alone and not guilty for the happening, it would have probably been a great saving to society in terms of the tragic social cost to her family and, I suppose, to the system too. So it's certainly worthwhile looking at. Tragically, I think legislators must become more aware of the enormity of the problem; certainly I was not. It's an alarming thing.

I wanted to raise a local matter. I want to say to the minister that I've had correspondence with her and her colleague the Attorney-General regarding Eagle Rock Ranch in my riding, which is a youth facility. I'm not raising this matter with the minister to make it a political issue; I want to assure her of that. The only reason I'm raising it is that I have some concern with the response I got, both from the minister and from her colleague the Attorney-General. I received a letter, as she knows, from a former social worker at that institution who made some very serious allegations of physical abuse against the owner of the ranch. Now I think I know, and the minister knows also, that that owner is well known for some of his political connections in the community, and I don't think that's a valid area of concern, except that it's well known in the community.

I think that when serious charges are raised, there has to be an impartial investigation. Those charges should be prosecuted fairly and impartially, and the overriding consideration should be the welfare of the children. There were children located there. They were referred there by the probation

[ Page 8267 ]

service under the Attorney-General, and also from the Ministry of Human Resources. The Attorney-General says: "Well, we're not making any further referrals there from probation." So as far as he was concerned, apparently the problem was solved — and they were the older children who, apparently, had been more problematic.

But the Ministry of Human Resources' response has been: "There is a bit tighter control through the Ministry of Human Resources, and for these younger children who were referred by the Ministry of Human Resources, they are not the same behavioural problem as those who were referred through probation." That's the area of my concern, Mr. Chairman. If the owner of this ranch in fact was capable and did in fact visit physical abuse on any of the children involved, then it's my submission that that person is not competent and trustworthy to be the custodian of any children be they of a younger age or not. The reason I raise it here is that the response I received from the minister didn't recognize that simple fact. Rather, the response was: "Well, we're going to have people from the Human Resources office in Salmon Arm go out there a bit more frequently than they were able to in the past, and we're going to supervise programs more tightly" — and that's fine. But the overriding concern is that the allegation of physical abuse has not been answered, and that institution should not be operating until that question is answered — particularly, as I indicated earlier, when the man operating it has the connections which he has in the community and which are well known in that community. People are looking at it with a very jaundiced eye. So I appeal to the minister to have another look at it.

I am not in any way prepared to act as the judge in the matter and say that the guy is guilty — I don't know; I have no idea — but the point is that the allegation has been made. It is of such serious import that until a proper investigation has been made by competent people and a decision has been made as to whether indeed there was physical abuse or not, I don't think we can afford to place children in jeopardy. The institution should be terminated pending a full investigation of those very serious charges. So I wanted to make that submission to the minister as strongly as I can. That's the issue; let's get at the truth of the matter, and if in fact the allegations are true, then I submit that that person with the facility that he has developed should in no way be approved as an appropriate custodial institution for children in this province.

I have one other matter to raise, an unrelated one. Perhaps the minister wishes to answer this point first.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Regarding the last subject — I'll go that way, if I may, in answering these questions — I recall the investigation. Rather than get into the specifics of that investigation, I'll have to get back to the member, which I would have done at any rate. I know the point that he brings up. Quite often — and I'll say this in a general way — allegations are made. At times it has to do with some human problem. Maybe someone has been fired; they get upset at being fired, and allegations are made. It's a human nature thing sometimes. But I take the point that you make properly and kindly. There's no question in my mind, if there is an allegation with any foundation, that we have those children in our care. I believe our ministry staff follow that rule.

The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) and the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) have both mentioned the SAVA group, and those groups that have an interest in better education and better understanding of the tragedy of sexual abuse and the growing incidence of sexual abuse in this nation and on this continent. We have anticipated this for some time. The Helpline for Children has certainly caught a number of these cases. This related to us the need for a very good educational program, within the professionals, within the community. I don't know if the members know that we do have an excellent training program. It's not the child-abuse handbook which is available in libraries all over the province; it's in every school in the province; it's in every doctor's office in the province. Above and beyond that our ministry also has an excellent training program which covers sexual abuse, as well as all other child-abuse problems — how to treat them, how to meet them. Our ministry has gone out of our way to get into other areas of the province, not just our own staff. We also reach out to other disciplines — police forces, nurses, doctors, any professional that would be working with children, so that there will be an awareness. That has been going on in a very aggressive way. So good is that training program that our ministry staff, at the time that it was all put together, did say that they should actually copyright it. It has been that successful. You should maybe take a look at that. It's in three large filing cabinets, and the whole program takes some time to give. It's very good. Our social workers are available throughout the province to assist in cases of sexual abuse. They are well schooled in how to treat those problems. It is not being ignored in the ministry. We have not only recognized this phenomenon but also recognized the need for this kind of education. I thank both members for bringing it to our attention.

Could I also respond to the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann)? I always think to get into these kinds of things, when we have so many big things such as the one we've just discussed, is just a little bit small, but because you raised it I'll respond to it — that's to do with the press release. The press releases for the infant development program went to all the daily papers. Unfortunately in this case my information services, just now, have come forward to say that they missed the weekly ones. They went to the dailies; they missed the weeklies. That's unfortunate. I'm sure that since that experience they've corrected that. I do want to tell you that, contrary to the statements that were made surrounding that, the point that you failed to mention when you were trying to put some kind of disregard in terms of our ministry, and me in particular, regarding the new development program....

First of all, you forgot to give some of the facts of the case. The $12,250 that was suggested was intended for the first few months of the operation, not for the entire year. It wasn't two different grants at all. The other suggestion you made was that we would perhaps have a lot of travelling time, etc. I'm advised that it was Waddington that was asking for a level of funding. You didn't quote Waddington, but you said in your area their request for funding was higher than for any other area of the province. It was excessive. But the group you spoke of in Courtenay did take it on. They would put in a worker, and although the service is being given in Waddington, it is run out of a group that is farther away, but the service is still being given there, and you failed to mention that. I think it would be fair if members when trying to make political points would make those points.

MR. GABELMANN: I said that it was being provided by Comox. It's just like your secret police, you can't ever keep to the truth.

[ Page 8268 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the member squirms when he's talking, and when someone has straightened out something for him. I know what he's trying to do; he's trying to....

MR. GABELMANN: I squirm at distortion.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, you distorted the story, so I would like to straighten out the story, and straighten out the distortion that you gave. It's just as simple as that. It's just as fair for me to do that, and it's just as easy. Mr. Chairman, it's easy for the people on the socialist side of the House to dish it out, but they sure can't take it, can they?

You said something about the political issue. You opened your remarks in a political vein and you said you can't walk into any office of the Ministry of Human Resources as a member of the Legislature without feeling uneasy. You said that this ministry was politicized. Well, I'll tell you: the only people who are politicizing this ministry are the members of the New Democratic Party. They like to use the poor as pawns in order to make their political points, so anxious are they for power. Let me respond by saying that if you cannot walk into your Ministry of Human Resources office, maybe it has something to do with the trip the New Democratic Party took in North Island. They put out a press release in upper North Island. It was called the NDP caucus northern tour. I quote from the press release:

"Meanwhile, Rosemary Brown took a close look at the Human Resources facilities. In general terms, Ms. Brown said that these social services are 'inadequate for this fast-growing area. Local staffing has made the operation very ineffective in Port Hardy — continuous turnover of staff at all levels, including family-support workers, financial aid workers, social workers and district supervisors.' The caucus northern tour was attended by Dennis Cocke, the NDP member for New Westminster, Rosemary Brown, the NDP member for Burnaby-Edmonds, Graham Lea, the NDP member for Prince Rupert, Alan Passarell, the NDP member for Atlin, and Colin Gabelmann, the NDP member for North Island."

It's interesting that after the release of that press release, it came to the attention of the district supervisor in the Port Hardy office, who said.... Let me read this for the record, Mr. Chairman. It's addressed to the MLA for Burnaby-Edmonds, Rosemary Brown — and I quote: "Dear Ms. Brown...."

MR. KING: Just the way you dictated it, eh?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, I had nothing to do with dictating it. Frankly, I read this to you and share this with you because there would probably be a very good reason why that member across the way says he has such difficulty in an MHR office. I don't think I've ever heard that from any other member of this House. But if you have had problems, maybe it's because you create those problems yourself. I don't always have people on my own side of the House happy with every single thing that goes on. We have 200 offices in this province, and we have 5,000 employees, and I can't tell you that every single person on my side of the House is excited about every single thing that happens in our ministry or in any office. But I'm going to tell you there isn't any member on this side of the House who has any trouble at all communicating with any of our ministry offices, so it has to be your own actions that have done that.

This letter is dated December 3, 1981.

"Dear Ms. Brown:

"Thank you for your letter of November 10, 1981. Your interest in and concern for this district office is very welcome. The confusion created by the reporting of your comments in the Nanaimo Times is unfortunate. I received the clipping of the Times prior to receiving your November 10 letter, so I was relieved to learn from you that your impressions of this district office were not as reported in the Nanaimo newspaper.

"At present we are at full staff, except for a family support worker position for which we have recently interviewed and for which we appear to have recruited a suitable applicant. Recruitment of staff has been a problem for us in the past and a real concern of mine and my regional manager. We have two social-worker vacancies at present; however, both positions are filled with competent auxiliary staff. We expect that in January both positions will be filled by regular staff as a result of recently held interviews for the two vacancies.

"In the spring of this year our social-worker complement was increased by one position from three social workers to four. The addition of a fourth social worker has allowed us to be even more innovative and effective in meeting the needs of the people we serve.

"Morale is high as we grow together as a district office team, and the staff here are committed to providing quality service and to being in Port Hardy for some time to come.

"In July of this year we acquired a house trailer for staff use, and the staff member living there now has his rent subsidized by the ministry. Since July rental accommodation has become more available with the building of more apartments and townhouses in the area, and fortunately accommodation for people coming to North Island is not as acute a problem as it has been in the past.

"I was confused by your reference in your letter to a visit you had made with my staff and I. You and I did not meet personally, and I wondered if you had confused a meeting you had held with another district office with a meeting you held with us. I would ask that, if you have any concerns about the service this office provides, you feel free to direct them to my attention. Thank you very much."

And it's signed by the district supervisor.

It's interesting, Mr. Chairman, because, you see, there isn't a district office other than that in that area. Yet the press release talks about visits to the area, visits to these people, and looking over these Human Resources facilities. I guess we are to assume that the press release was partially a figment of imagination when the district supervisor took it upon himself to correct the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. If you think any politicizing is being done in the office of the Ministry of Human Resources, it is not being done by this side of the House. I like to think the Ministry of Human Resources is one area of government responsibility that can be non-partisan. I haven't always found that to be so in dealing with the people on the opposite side of the House, but

[ Page 8269 ]

I do like to think that most of us come to this House and serve the province of British Columbia in order to help those people who are in need, and specifically to give our attention to those people who need the help most.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I'd like to address the other question from the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). He talked about five lawyers on one case; he talked about the abuse — as did his colleague from Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) — vis-à-vis the numbers of legal counsel attached to cases in the Ministry of Human Resources. Two people on the New Democrat side of the House have now stood on their feet. My colleague the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) will be very pleased that you are confirming what he has said. As you know, the Ministry of Human Resources receives legal counsel from the office of the Attorney-General and the finances are taken on by the office of the Attorney-General. I'm pleased that you agree with the Attorney-General, who has said that he wishes to bring some responsibility....

MR. GABELMANN: Another distortion! I never agreed with him.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Again, these members are having a difficult time. On the one hand they say we've got to cut down on legal services, there are too many, and on the other hand they accuse the....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All members will be allowed to participate in the committee debate.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, may I also respond to the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi). In terms of the kind of team work, I really want to emphasize that that has been the philosophy of the ministry and has continued to be over a long period of time. I don't know of any ministry that has done more to initiate that with the intergovernmental children's committees at the local level, field level and headquarters level. The kind of cooperation we've had from the ministries of social services has been very good indeed. In fact, when we get special cases with special needs, there is a very great awareness and there's even counselling together in that regard.

I'm sorry that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) has just left. I can give him some information on Eagle Rock Ranch, which he brought forward earlier, but I think I'll wait until he gets back into the House to respond to that.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. McClelland tabled the technical and summary reports of the Commission of Inquiry on British Columbia's Requirements, Supply and Surplus of Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids by Dr. George Govier.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.