[ Page 3675 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

School budget cuts. Mr. Rose –– 3675

Meares Island logging. Mr. Skelly –– 3675

Bus fares. Mr. Passarell –– 3676

ICBC premium payments. Mr. Cocke –– 3676

David Thompson University Centre. Mr. Nicolson –– 3676

Child car seats in motor vehicles. Ms. Brown –– 3677

Sale of liquor on Sundays. Mr. Howard –– 3677

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

On vote 39: minister's office –– 3677

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Reynolds

Ms. Brown

Mr. Rose

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Blencoe

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 14). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 3698

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 1984

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I have three separate introductions. First, visiting Victoria from my constituency is Glenn Gark from Campbell River, and I would ask the House to make him welcome. Second, I notice an old friend of mine from Vancouver in the gallery, and I would like members to make Paul Gill welcome as well. Finally, visiting us in the Legislature this afternoon is a fourth-year exchange student from Japan who is studying industrial relations at the University of Victoria. Her name is Miki Muramatsu, and she is accompanied today by Art Rippon. I would ask the members to make them welcome.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, visiting our precincts this afternoon are two of my constituency directors. I would ask the House to bid welcome to Mrs. Lynne Kemp and Mrs. Lynne Morris from sunny Coquitlam.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, visiting the Legislature today is the president of the Young New Democrats, Anita Kam, and I would like the House to welcome her.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is a friend of mine who has a business in the riding of Burnaby-Willingdon and a residence in the riding of North Vancouver–Capilano. Representing his company, which is one of the leading consulting engineering firms in not only B.C. but Alberta, is Mr. G.W. Elkington.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I can't see them, but I know that in the gallery are 28 students from the community social services program at Douglas College. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Loma Kirkham. Would the House join me in bidding them welcome.

MR. HOWARD: On a question of order pursuant to standing order 25 and the motion on opening day relating to the special report of the Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, in order to preserve the integrity of question period and the interpretation thereof by Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could discover whether any cabinet ministers have any lengthy answers to give to questions posed earlier today. If so, the House will be quite prepared to give unanimous consent for them to do that.

MR. SPEAKER: The point raised by the member is neither a point of order nor a matter that can be discussed at this time. The Chair so rules.

[2:15]

Oral Questions

SCHOOL BUDGET CUTS

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education; it concerns my riding of Coquitlam. There is a $2.1 million shortfall in the school operating costs in Coquitlam, which means that on a per student basis Coquitlam receives about $100 less per student for operations and maintenance than any other district in the lower mainland. I'd like to ask the minister whether he has decided to increase the budget for School District 43 by $2.1 million.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROSE: Well, we heard the same story about Surrey yesterday. Since a lot of the trouble results from the faulty formula, I wonder whether the minister decided to suspend his formula for a year or so, so that something more appropriate to the needs of children can be developed through consultation with the school trustees and the teachers.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROSE: I would like to ask a supplementary question to the Minister of Human Resources. Since the Minister of Education refuses to increase the funding for Coquitlam, one of the consequences in that district has been that the school board has been forced to close Brookmere Elementary School and abolish the Glenayre Learning Centre for multiply handicapped children. In view of this fact, I wonder if the cabinet would reconsider this whole formula, especially in view of the fact that this is Learning Disability Week. I wonder what steps the minister is planning to take to accommodate the absence of this vital program at Glenayre.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I want you to understand that the Ministry of Human Resources is financing the program. This program takes place in an educational facility which is under the jurisdiction of the school board. I have to say — and I'm going to be very frank about it — that I think, when it comes to deciding on priorities, the school board should be making the decision on the basis that the priority is to serve the handicapped youngsters in that community. I was disappointed to read in the newspaper the day before yesterday that handicapped youngsters are becoming pawns in a dispute over educational funding.

[2:15]

But having said that, and in response to a member who is asking a caring question about a group of handicapped youngsters, I will say that the funding of that program will continue through the Ministry of Human Resources. The problems over its location, I suggest, could be solved by the school board of that constituency. If that member has any sway with that school board, I'm sure he will bring pressure to bear in that area. In the meantime, please let me assure you that we will certainly do our part of the job.

MR. ROSE: On a supplementary, I wonder if the minister would assure the House that she will use her massive persuasive powers on the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) to persuade him to stop robbing the school districts.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order.

MEARES ISLAND LOGGING

MR. SKELLY: A question to the Minister of Environment. A number of residents of the Tofino area, including the district of Tofino itself, have written to the minister to ask him to reconsider the November 10 ELUC decision to allow logging on Meares Island. Has the minister responded to the people from the Tofino area, including the district of Tofino, and has the minister now agreed to extend the moratorium on Meares Island under section 4(c) of the Environment and Land Use Act?

[ Page 3676 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I have responded to some and not to others. No, I have not considered putting a moratorium on it.

BUS FARES

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Human Resources, who is responsible for transit. Can the minister confirm that bus fares for people who commute from Surrey, Coquitlam, Delta and other such areas to Vancouver will increase from 75 cents to $1.25 to accommodate cutbacks in transit funding by this government?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No.

MR. PASSARELL: Another question to the same minister. Is the minister aware that many commuters in the lower mainland find the 67 percent fare increase exorbitant? What consideration is the minister giving to restraining user charges alongside the slashing of government funding?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'd be pleased to bring the new zonal fare formula back to the House. I think the member is taking it a little out of context, because when we mention Surrey, White Rock, etc.... The fares have been set not by government but by the transit organization responsible, and they are represented by elected officials in the lower mainland. The fare from White Rock ten years ago was the same price that it is being increased to at this point in time. I think the zonal fare system is a very fair one, if you'll pardon the expression, Mr. Speaker.

ICBC PREMIUM PAYMENTS

MR. COCKE: I would like to direct a question....

It's so sparse over there it is very difficult to direct questions to anybody. Seven cabinet ministers away. But I'll direct my question to the minister....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: In any event, some of the more mouthy ones are here. I'll direct a question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. The motor vehicle branch office in Victoria no longer provides motorists with the service of purchasing ICBC insurance. Will the minister advise whether this policy has been applied throughout the province?

HON. A. FRASER: The answer is yes, pretty well throughout the province.

MR. COCKE: Is the minister also aware of the inconvenience caused to the B.C. motorists by this action, and is he prepared to review the decision in order to minimize inconvenience to the motoring public?

HON. A. FRASER: I think the opposite should be happening. There should be far more outlets for the public, not less.

MR. COCKE: It would appear to me that the minister has missed the point. He has closed down outlets, and now he suggests there should be more outlets. Can we have some consistency? Do you agree that there should be more outlets?

HON. A. FRASER: There are more outlets; they've been turned over to the private sector.

MR. COCKE: He has closed down a number of outlets, and he says he has turned them over to the private area. Would the minister confirm that the private outlets that are out there now will be further enriched, but that we have lost a number of convenient outlets?

HON. A. FRASER: As far as outlets are concerned to the public that we're all serving, I hope they'll have more outlets than they had in the past.

DAVID THOMPSON UNIVERSITY CENTRE

MR. NICOLSON: I have a question for the Minister of Education, whom I notice is jumping to the alert as soon as I stand up. Because of the failure of the minister to respond to any of the specific proposals to save David Thompson University Centre, the city council voted to make an offer to purchase the centre from the province for $1 and operate the institution. Has the minister decided to consider this proposal?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The proposal has been received in the form of a telex and, it seems to me, yesterday or the day before was confirmed in writing. I have no further comment.

MR. NICOLSON: Notwithstanding that, under the terms of the offer the provincial government would have to recognize and treat the centre as it does other institutions in providing for formula funding. Has the minister decided not to discriminate against the Nelson proposal in terms of formula funding?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The decision with respect to the closure of David Thompson is a decision which has been made. I think I have advised the House on a number of occasions — the population, some of the curriculum, where the students have come from.... I also felt that it was patently unfair that the funds which were going into that particular institution were in excess of double the amount elsewhere. Advancing the concept of using formula funding for that particular project does nothing more than detract from Selkirk College 25 miles away, who were also competing for the same student population.

MR. NICOLSON: I ask the minister: who is the source of that information — Mr. Grant Fisher, a former administrator of Selkirk College?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I don't know whether Mr. Fisher was an administrator of Selkirk.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, you should know what the prejudices are in your ministry.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I do know that he was the principal officer at Camosun, but I just want to verify that the information which I had was confirmed with David Thompson and Selkirk College, and it wasn't that which was

[ Page 3677 ]

advanced exclusively by the ministry. I've made that clear before as well.

CHILD CAR SEATS IN MOTOR VEHICLES

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I'm asking it on behalf of the 500 British Columbian students and teachers who attended the conference on traffic safety and youth leadership which was co-sponsored by ICBC and the Ministry of Attorney-General. It has to do with restraints and car seats for children under the age of six. Has the government decided to bring in regulations under section 217 of the Motor Vehicle Act requiring the use of child seats and restraints in motor vehicles?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

MS. BROWN: A press release issued by the government stated that it is estimated that the community-wide effort involving police, schools, medical, etc. — the Click program — resulted in a decrease in fatalities and injuries equalling $1 million in ICBC claims. Does the minister not think that that kind of protection should be extended to cover the children of this province?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, the government is still looking at bringing in those regulations. There are lots for those regulations; there are lots against them, too.

SALE OF LIQUOR ON SUNDAYS

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Inasmuch as public funds were used to distribute a questionnaire by the minister with respect to the sale of booze on Sundays, would the minister be prepared to table that questionnaire and the responses to it?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the questionnaire that the member is referring to. Maybe he could clarify it.

MR. HOWARD: I asked the minister, because of his lapse of memory, about a questionnaire that he submitted. Included therein were questions relating to the sale of liquor in pubs on Sundays. That's the questionnaire that I asked the minister if he would be prepared to table, together with the responses to it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of my ministry having issued a questionnaire recently regarding the sale of booze on Sundays.

MR. HOWARD: Is the minister saying that he did not submit a questionnaire?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the bell terminates question period.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 39: minister's office, $208,514.

MR. BARNES: I'm looking forward to some response from the minister to questions I put to her yesterday. If she would like to respond to those questions, perhaps we could move on to some of the other matters.

Just to refresh the minister's memory, Mr. Chairman, I was inquiring as to the procedures involved in the issuing of court orders respecting the apprehension of children at risk in the home. I had asked the minister to indicate specifically what the procedure was involving the case in Cranbrook. With respect to the situation, we didn't want to dwell on the case as such but just the procedure involved as far as the ministry is concerned in following through on a court order involving supervision as opposed to apprehension. I would like to know if the minister has available the specifics of that court order — that is, the salient points, the directive that was issued by Judge Nimsick — stating precisely the procedure that the ministry must follow in satisfying the supervisory stipulation. I was asking the minister as well to provide for us statistically the number of visits with respect to that court order which took place in that case. I didn't hear the number of visits. I'm speaking of the second order. As Mr. Chairman will recall, there were two orders issued, one in August and a second one in October,

[2:30]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I think all of that information on that particular case.... I thought we canvassed it rather well yesterday, considering that we still have a coroner's report to be made public and that we are restricted — both you and I — in discussing that case in the absence of a coroner's report.

I did give you the numbers of visits. I'm going now by memory because I don't have it with me, but I think I said that there were 22 visits, six of which I believe took place after the second order. I think I mentioned the six. There were three agencies involved above and beyond the visits that the social worker made. There were other people in the community, all of whom had, on return to the court, given a report of very good progress. I don't think I mentioned yesterday that the concern of all seemed to centre around the capability of the parenting. I think I reiterated my concerns that when there is a tragedy like this, often someone is looking for a scapegoat. I appreciate that you're not, but unfortunately the press reports on this case seem to indicate that the Ministry of Human Resources was in some way at fault.

During my discussion on this case yesterday I had hoped.... It was very clear to me — again, we all have to wait for the coroner's report — that a lot of attention was given to this family. The court order you asked about was to make sure that the live-in friend of the household kept away from the household. That was, as far as we know, complied with. Again, the visits were all made in a very spontaneous way. The household did not have a telephone. Our staff went at any given time and I think surprised the family at any time,

[ Page 3678 ]

and they did confirm that there was no extra person living there other than the mother, the father and the child.

I just now have, as a matter of fact, the dates and so on of the case. It stretches in time from August 23, 24, 26, 30, 31, September 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 25, 27, 30 to October 6. At that time a less concentrated arrangement was made. That is usual: once the family starts to improve, the daily or the three- or four-times-a-week visits are discontinued and the amount of time spent is diminished, but only diminished according to the results. Every case is different. If in another case, results weren't obtained, the concentration of the visits would be continued.

Then they were continued on a weekly basis beyond that: October 11, 19 and 27 –– I think you and I talked yesterday about there being an intervening time when there was a strike. It's a very difficult problem for all of the children in British Columbia during a strike. It gives me pause, to think that there should be some better arrangement in terms of protection during that kind of a time. It's also a very sticky problem for people who on the one hand are finding a strike and on the other are trying to give service. It's very difficult.

The other dates, which I didn't have when I first got up but have now, were when the family was seen on a less regular basis. Again, this was matched to progress of the family. They were August 16, September 29, October 6, November 23, December 1 and December 16. As you know, the court order ran out on January 6, and we had no jurisdiction.

We have had a lot of publicity of late that we walk into people's homes and take children without jurisdiction, and the media reports on that come down pretty hard on my ministry for doing that. As I reiterate — and I really do this for the students in the gallery, who weren't here yesterday — our ministry has absolutely no capability of seizing a child for his or her own protection and keeping that child beyond seven days. The Family and Child Service Act makes it mandatory for anybody in the province to report child abuse or child neglect. Our ministry then, on an allegation, suspicion or direct charge, can go in and take the child for his or her own protection. At that time we alert everyone in the community that we have that child in our care. But we cannot keep that child beyond seven days, according to the act that was passed in this House. The decision then goes to a court, and the judge makes that decision; the Ministry of Human Resources does not make it. The court makes the decision. They have all the evidence and witnesses, and — as I refrained from saying yesterday and now want to make clear — we have all the legal counsel there to support our social workers. We always have that, and we do our best on behalf of the child. That's our uppermost obligation and responsibility. After that is decided — and although it may well be that we might differ, we are not above the court of law and they make that decision — we follow whatever course they ask us to take.

I think what you're really concerned about is that we actually did what the court asked us to do. I want to say again today, as I tried to make clear yesterday, that I believe our ministry staff did very well. We could have done better if we had been with the child 24 hours a day. But if a court order requires 24-hour daily care of a child, it would not be to visit with the family in the home; it would be to remove that child from the home entirely. So you see, this order was to maintain liaison and keep the child in the home. That was the order of the court, not us. We followed that order, and then we followed the steps which were asked of us in the order. I'm sorry I don't have a copy of the order here. It's public business and yesterday I undertook to get if for you. Essentially it said that we were to make visits and help the parenting skills of the couple involved; that we should seek as much help as we could — which we did within the community, from three different organizations who are all very adept at helping with family support and teaching parenting — and that we would ensure that the boarder was not in the home to cause or pose a threat to the child. We followed that; he was not there, and as far as we know he was in Alberta — those were the reports we had through our office.

I don't know what I can do to elaborate more for you, except to.... If we move away from that case and address the general situation, I think you know that the act itself gives us great power; but it's a limited-time power, because the power rests with the court, where it should rest. Quite frankly, we never asked for that power; we don't want it. We believe it should be in the court, and we're content to leave it in the court. By and large I think the act has stood the test of time and has been a very good act for us to work with.

MR. BARNES: I really must thank the minister for clarifying a few more points. She's quite correct that my concern is the successful implementation of a court order, and I have some general questions about that procedure and how it happens. It's true that we are talking about the Cranbrook case, but it certainly is not the basis upon which I am asking my questions. It just happens that in that case, I think, those of us who are concerned about justice and fairness and respect for families and all of those....

MR. R. FRASER: We're all concerned about that.

MR. BARNES: I think I made that quite clear. I said "those of us."

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Okay, you'll get your opportunity to speak at some point, Mr. Member, and with respect I would appreciate it if you would realize what we're saying this afternoon; we're not attempting to offend. I am trying to discuss this matter as rationally as I can, and I think the minister is doing likewise. There is no intent to offend you.

What I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, is that the procedure involving court orders respecting the apprehension or supervision of children in the home is a very serious question, as the member has pointed out. I'm concerned that the procedure is consistently carried out, that it is not a system of — let's say, for want of a better term right now — a sort of hit-and-miss or casually implemented phase of the process. I can appreciate the minister's interpretation of that, but I'm not sure who actually receives the order and how stringently it is carried out.

In this particular case, as the minister points out, the child was only under an order until January 6, after which the ministry technically had no responsibility. But did the ministry withdraw from that case in a formal way? In other words, was there any formal procedure with respect to terminating that order, although it was in effect, presumably, for 60 days? I'm not certain. I haven't seen the order, and this is one of the other problems I have. Presuming it was in effect for 60 days from perhaps the end of October to January 6 — or maybe from November 6.... But whatever that date was when that termination took place, was the minister satisfied at the

[ Page 3679 ]

time that the case should not be continued? Obviously there was a serious concern.

Perhaps the case was brought to the attention of the minister through the Helpline — I'm not certain. There are some questions with respect to any case involving Helpline calls where a decision has to be made with respect to entering and intervening in that home. I think the ministry would want to ensure that there is no misinterpretation of its role or no misunderstanding of how those events happened. I think that that's what we want to establish in the House.

Let's say it's a question of general policy and procedure that I'm concerned about, and I'm not clear with respect to who assumes the responsibility. Is the order served on the superintendent of child welfare or is it served on a regional director? What are the obligations of the ministry with respect to fulfilling...? What kinds of back-and-forth communication take place to satisfy this legal document? This is not a casual order; it's a very serious order involving someone's home and someone's children and involving the reputation of the ministry. So I would just like to know if that procedure is clarified in specific terms, and are we legally bound to resolve it at the end of the order? Could we clarify that?

[2:45]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I appreciate that you are not familiar with the procedures, so I'm pleased to go over them. But in order to save the House time, I think you should really read all of the procedures in our policy manual, and also a full description of the procedures. They are detailed to our staff, and they follow it very clearly and very exactly.

Let me look back now on the case of any supervisory type order. The supervisory type order can vary from one that is given to us because a household is perhaps not providing proper nourishment — a form of abuse but not physical abuse.... It could be a complaint received by neighbours, as this was, on poor parenting skills, not abuse. This complaint did not come through the Helpline; it came from the surrounding neighbourhood — concerned people who thought the parenting skills were less than adequate. There may have been a deeper reason behind that complaint, but that was the nature of the complaint. I'm not saying they weren't suspicious of other things, but nothing came out in the subsequent hearing. That kind of supervisory order can be a very limited one. The court gives the order and then it's really at the discretion of the staff, whom the court recognizes is better on the ground, knowing what the situation is. In that case they obviously gave a fair amount of attention to it, including the medical doctor who examined the child early in the case. When we first took the child into care for her own protection, there was a medical examination, and the result of that medical examination was that there was nothing exceptional. The child was healthy and there was nothing exceptional to report.

Again, if I go back to this case, to answer your question, it didn't come through a complaint through the Helpline, but in the ending of the thing. You asked, in the first part of your question the last time you were on your feet, whether there is formal termination. The order dies with the date. That's the termination. The order terminates itself. There isn't a formal going-back to the court to say that this case is ended. I believe it would probably be better left that way unless, in exceptional circumstances, we feel there has to be more attention given. In this case — and everyone agreed — there wasn't any more attention needed; everyone had done what they had promised to do, including the parents, and there wasn't anything more to be done.

Moving away from the specifies, though, the supervisory orders are really quite limited, they are not concentrated at all. When you think about it, we've had many, many cases — hundreds, I suspect — in the province where there has been an order, and we've done our best and brought the families along. We've kept the families together and they've lived happily ever after, as far as we know. They are success stories because you don't hear anything of them. This one case is a very dramatic case. There is nothing to say that had we kept on with this case or had we been in the case earlier, the same result wouldn't have happened. There is nothing to tell us that. In all the time I've had the Ministry of Human Resources I've never, ever, talked to a parent or parents or family friend who has admitted to child abuse — not once. They always blame somebody else. There is always some other circumstance: there's always somebody else. And when a child dies of child abuse and hits the headlines, I find that people look around for a scapegoat every time.

But let's be realistic. There are charges laid in this case and so we can't take it any further. It will be for the court to decide who is to blame. What we are doing in the ministry for prevention of child abuse is the most important thing we should be talking about in this instance. Long before child abuse was a popular, if you like, social services phrase in this province or this nation, this province decided to wage a war on child abuse — four and a half to five years ago. We have done that, we are doing so now, and we will continue to do so. I think that's your answer to child abuse — making sure that everybody in this province knows that there is a possibility of child abuse and to be alert, and that it is their absolute responsibility by law to report any idea, notion, suggestion, allegation or suspicion of child abuse. Further, those people who, through some problems that they have within themselves, feel they can take advantage of children are given the warning from all of us that we will not tolerate child abuse in this province. We have all the law and the power, and all the checks and balances on that power, to protect those who may be given an allegation of child abuse erroneously. We are very conscious of that and very concerned about that.

We believe that we have probably the best system in this nation against the possibility of child abuse. When we meet it, we do the best thing we can with it. There are going to be some who slip through the net, because we have strange people in this world. Better than that, I can't help you with any more legislation or any more policy — with any more commitment than we have from this ministry. Everybody in our ministry is concerned about child abuse, whether they are a typist in a office, a family financial-support worker, a social worker or a clerk somewhere who is receiving and filling out forms. They are all concerned. Just as we took on the responsibility of teaching other people in our Ministries of Health and Attorney-General, we also went outside government to other agencies such as the nursing profession, physicians and surgeons, hospitals and the teaching profession — anyone who cares enough about the subject. We have gone out, and we have helped them to understand how to deal with it at the community level. We will continue to do that; we do it all the time. There is a commitment within all of my staff.

So when I respond to you, you can be assured that the process is being followed properly. Your continuation of this subject today after having the same explanation yesterday

[ Page 3680 ]

leads me to believe that somehow you don't believe that there's enough of that within the system. I want to assure you that I have followed it very closely, and that I believe those kinds of protection and insurance are not just in one person's hands; other people are checking that one person within our ministry so that it doesn't get off the rails and maybe into one person's file and not be bothered about. I want you to be assured that that doesn't happen.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the minister. There probably aren't very many more questions that could be asked on that specific case. I am satisfied with the sincerity of the minister responding.

My concerns, as hers or yours, are with respect to ensuring that these young people are protected and that the system works efficiently. I know that four or five years ago the minister was concerned enough about the integrity and security of families in the province to assist those in stress and at risk, those under the threat of breakup or disruption due to economic situations, social stress and so forth, and she introduced the family support workers. At that time, I think, the deputy minister as well as the minister expressed enthusiasm about this program. They felt it to be a cost-efficient system permitting families to remain together and reducing the likelihood of apprehensions of young people from families. At that time it was described as a cost-effective and efficient way to provide services of an extra-statutory nature. From a fiscal point of view it was a good idea and probably saved hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions of dollars.

I'm asking the minister now — and I am away from that specific issue — to address the decision to remove the family support workers on the basis of the economics involved. I know there are other factors; in other words, there are philosophical differences involved as well. There are people who are of the view that the community, for better or for worse, is the best option with respect to assisting people with social difficulties, and there are those who feel that the time has come in our contemporary society for realistic social programs, in terms of the complex nature of society, and that it is not possible to rely entirely on the good will of neighbours, churches and community organizations that in the past have provided a valuable service. These institutions themselves are under stress and just aren't able to absolutely take that responsibility.

The Ministry of Human Resources took an initiative at that time which was in fact given considerable praise. It was a very good initiative that, I think, was looked upon as a model. It was the same with the PIRT program, which involved assisting families who had retarded children or stress problems in their homes. I believe that was another one of the ministry's initiatives that was an attempt to keep families together, to avoid institutionalization of people — taking them out of the homes. To be fair, initiatives have been taken, and at the time the attempt was considered to be respectable and hardly politically motivated. I acknowledge that. My question centres around the government's change of direction from concern about this kind of cost-saving to a different approach. It is as though the government has made an about face fiscally in terms of its responsibilities to provide services for the family, particularly in the Ministry of Human Resources.

One of the problems, as I said yesterday to the House, Mr. Chairman, is that to take a ministry such as Human Resources and make charges without any substantive base is probably not that productive. So I'm not inclined to take that approach, because I don't believe that. I was a social worker for 15 years myself, and I know the difficulty involved in working in the human services with affairs connected with people. It doesn't tend itself to too much rigidity. I think we have to accept that as a fact of life.

[3:00]

So with respect, I am asking the Ministry of Human Resources, which does distinguish itself from the other 19 ministries in the government, because it is dealing specifically with people requiring assistance.... We have several statutes with respect to how this can be done, so if we can think in that context when we talk about the budget, we may have some hope of shedding some light on priorities, based on quality — not just based on economics or on dollars and cents. As I listen to the people in the community speak about the government's restraint program to senior citizens who've lost their day centres.... You have Silver Threads here in Victoria, and the problems they have.... Mind you, they had a fire that caused some problems, but also there is something better than $163,000, I believe, that was involved in their grant from the government which is being cut back. That is one, and there was another one in Vancouver — the 411 Seniors' Centre, I believe, on Dunsmuir. They're all over the province.

But the point is that these centres represent a connection for elderly people — counselling services, supportive services, interpretive services with respect to different government programs that are available to them — so there is a vital service in place. The government has decided not to fund these centres any more. It has stated that there are other centres in the province, and they are not receiving any service, so why should these 24 centres? I believe there were that many that the government is ceasing to fund.

With respect to programs for the disabled, programs for the mentally retarded, support programs for families in stress, programs in the schools that were assisting people who were having difficulty coping in a regular setting and required support.... We can go on and on and on with special programs that are not statutory obligations. They don't come strictly under the concept of social assistance, in terms of providing a means of income, but they are support programs that the government has stated quite clearly that it does not feels do not come under its purview or its responsibility.

This contrasts with the government's position of a few years ago when it recognized the need to assist the family because it was a major institution in our society, and hopefully still is. In fact, I believe the government has recently announced the month of May as family month — for good reason, because I think families should be supported. We all believe that families should be supported, but families are made up of all these individuals we are speaking of. They're made up not only of a husband and wife, or maybe even a broken home, where there's no husband and no wife....

A family is a unit of people — two or more who are related in some way.

There are many ways in which this can happen in our society. I support that concept, but I have some problem trying to relate the budgetary thinking of the government to the strict concept of saving money. We are asking these questions of the government on the opposition side and in the community, realizing the difficulty and trying to elicit a response that will satisfactorily explain the government's

[ Page 3681 ]

thinking. The problem that we have, and that I'm sure the government has, is that to measure the dollar savings probably will involve some biases — matters of opinion. Many of the people in the field of human services take the position that preventive programs.... Any program that will keep a person out of stress, will keep them from being unemployed or will keep them from requiring special assistance is a good idea. Once they get into the system of economic and social deprivation through the judiciary or corrections system, or find themselves in need of long-term maintenance and extended long-term services at the taxpayers' expense, it gets very complex and costly. But that is indirect and you can’t make that case as easily, because that person may be anywhere and requiring help at any point in time. The supportive concept has been the basis of experience and understanding; people who are emotionally and psychologically healthy, and economically secure; who are able to feel that they are productive and have a place and voice in society; who have access to some power and are regarded with respect. All of these rather intangible qualities matter in the long run, and this is the question that I think we have to address when it comes to a debate on government spending priorities and spending policies.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair]

I appreciate that there will not likely be a general consensus in this debate, especially at this point; nonetheless, if we can begin to think a bit about it perhaps that is the direction we should be going. We aren't going to have an absolute accord on these points. Quite obviously there are those who believe that people should pull themselves up by their own boot straps and not be assisted at all. They believe that people should be subjected to the "survival of the fittest" concept and that they should make it on their own. Having been a football player, an athlete and a competitive person for many years, I can understand that. I've had to do a lot of bludgeoning from time to time in my profession in order to stay alive. But at the same time it isn't necessarily the only option open to us in terms of the overall benefit to the community, or to one's self, because there is a price attached to any direction you take. If you exercise great force to get what you want, there is a price to pay for that, as there is if you are a passive quiet person who believes in cooperation and consultation, in trying to reach mutual consent on a given question.

We have differences in this House and I recognize them. However, the minister should stand and confidently explain to the House how we are saving money as a government and how the people of British Columbia are benefiting from the removal of specific programs — in light of the heavy stress placed upon the population today and the fact that in excess of 200,000 people are unemployed. Also, with a multiplier effect, there are something like 245,000 people on social assistance — the government refers to 113,000-odd single units of people. Large numbers of people in the population are under stress and trying to survive in society at a time when the cost of just about everything is going up, and the government is stating that it does not have sufficient revenue to provide these essential services. Although they are not statutorily the responsibility of the government under their existing legislation, it is still the government's concern and a matter of principle; it is a good idea to invest in encouraging people to be able to subsist in society.

There is the philosophic view and then there is the practical view. There is the problem of dollars and cents. The government, in its judgment, has reduced the Ministry of Human Resources' budget from something like $1.307 billion to $1.281 billion — about a $25 million difference, in round figures, What's the benefit there? In analyzing the budget and taking a look at where the costs have been reduced, I find it is primarily in the direct services field and in social assistance to the recipients. I would like the minister to respond to this specific question of economics, keeping in mind that the national poverty for a single person — you could take a couple or someone with children and so forth — in a city the size of my constituency in Vancouver, where there are half a million or more people, is in excess of $900 per month.

A single person in the city of Vancouver under our provinces social assistance program will receive $375 a month — and that's being generous, because they will get $325 if they're applying for the first time. This amounts to approximately $4,500 per year, clearly one-half of what Statistics Canada suggests is required for such a person in contemporary society. That is an unfortunate situation. What do those people do? How do they survive? How much money are we saving? What would it cost to provide them the minimum as stated by Statistics Canada? Would that be unreasonable? How many dollars are we talking about? Furthermore, where would those dollars end up? What would those people on social assistance do with their dollars? They'll pay their rent, they'll buy food and clothing, they'll probably enjoy a few amenities and take in a few cultural events. They'll perhaps have a holiday that they deserve, or maybe they'll even buy an extra pair of shoes. In some instances they'll get into the personal luxuries as well, and maybe they'll get some toiletries or whatnot. But on $450 a month, I think there's no one in this House who would deny that a person in that situation could hardly make a move. They would be lucky to be able to pay their rent, let alone go out and enjoy anything. What happens to the mind and emotions of a person like that? What do they do in their spare time? What kind of life is that for, say, 400,000 people in this province? What are all those people doing?

[3:15]

MR. R. FRASER: What jurisdictions pay more?

MR. BARNES: I think that is a specious interjection on the part of the member for Vancouver South. Mr. Chairman, I'm not interested in getting into confrontation; I'm trying to appeal to your sense of fairness. Now the member is suggesting that because someone is suffering more somewhere else, it's okay for this person to be suffering a little bit less. It's a matter of degree. It's a matter of attitude. We are hopefully attempting to give people the very best opportunities and options we can, and it's just a matter of priorities. When he says, "What other jurisdiction?" it begins to change my attitude, because it seems as though he prefers a debate in the confrontational sense rather than one where we can address these concerns with some sense of responsibility.

I've said all along that the Ministry of Human Resources is a unique ministry. It is different than the other ministries. It is not a ministry of small business, industrial development and the other things. We're talking about human beings. We're talking about the people who pay for the budget. These are the people we're asking to pay a 4 percent increase on

[ Page 3682 ]

their income tax this year and another 4 percent next year — 8 percent over two years — on top of what they're already paying. We're asking them to supply the main portion of the almost $8 billion budget this province has. Even major industries don't match what people pay out of their pockets in this province. So I think that those people deserve some attention, some respect and some opportunity. There are many tragic stories in this province as a result of restraint. I don't suggest that the economic conditions of the world are the fault of the provincial government, but I'm saying that the provincial government has a duty to do its best on behalf of these people in making its fiscal policies and setting the direction for the people of British Columbia, with a sense of achieving recovery.

So this is what I'm asking: does the minister feel that the Ministry of Human Resources should be viewed in the same light as the other ministries when it comes to cutbacks? We say that we can't hold people's hands and give them any more than we can afford, but I can say to you, Mr. Chairman, that we can't afford not to pay more attention to the crumbling homes and the suffering of people in this province.

The young people who are going to our high schools and our universities with the hope that they're going to be able to fit into the workforce are being sadly disillusioned and alienated by circumstances I think we could correct and improve upon.

I would like to address this question on the basis of the rationales with respect to the cuts. These are expressions that I'm carrying on behalf of people in the community; these are not expressions that I am bringing to you off the top of my own head. People in every aspect of the cuts that have taken place are saying: "Are they fair?" They are saying: "Are they economic? Are they going to be efficient? Are they in fact going to save money?" Some of them are saying that the government has another agenda; some of them are saying: "The government is philosophically opposed to doing these things; that's why they're doing it."

Now if the government is philosophically opposed, then I think that we have to concede that the government was elected and it is philosophically opposed and therefore it has a right to implement its philosophical views — political or whatever. But the government has said all along that it would not undermine the quality of service, that it would merely restrain the cost to government. It has said it would not undermine the quality, and that's where the problem comes in. We're asking the government to give us assurances. There are questions that we want to ask. How does a government follow up on the privatization program, for instance? A number of programs have been contracted out. Are these going to be further eroded after one, two or three years? Will they just disappear from government view and the view of the opposition, the view of all the MLAs? What will happen to those programs and what will happen to those people? Are they going to just disappear? It's okay for the privatization to take place as a method of providing service. But will it be an efficient method? Will people find themselves being rejected because they are too expensive? You know, the more troubled a product is — for instance, the transition houses are going to be taken over by private societies in the community.... If a difficult case comes along, and it's a fee-for-service situation where there are costs involved, there is a possibility that the operators of those facilities will begin to become selective in terms of who is the best bet in a numbers game, and there will still be those people who will be alienated and left without service. This is one of the concerns that, I think, we need to address.

I've been talking for about half an hour, Mr. Chairman, and I'm surprised that you haven't indicated that I should.... I suspect it must be getting close. However, I am going to address other matters when I terminate these comments. If the minister would like to respond, I will be pleased to take my seat.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the member has covered a wide range of subjects, but I'd be pleased to try to quickly address them, because I appreciate having the questions more than you having lengthy answers.

First of all, let's just take the budget in total. The total budget, which has been debated for the last two weeks, amounts to $8.3 billion. There are three ministries in this House, three responsibilities in this House, which have taken $5.1 billion of that total expenditure: Health, Human Resources and Education. Everything else in the budget — the building of roads; the paying of the ombudsman and the auditor-general; the Ministry of Agriculture and Food; the Attorney-General ministry; Consumer and Corporate Affairs and all of its services; Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, with all of its services for the mining industry; Environment; Finance; the great Ministry of Forests, one of the main revenue producers; Industry and Small Business Development; Intergovernmental Relations; Labour; Lands, Parks and Housing; Tourism; Transportation and Highways; Universities, Science and Communications; all of the programs for student employment and for transit services — comes in after the $5.1 billion spent for Health, Human Resources and Education. You asked me to justify cuts within the ministry, and I really will address that, as I have done before. Of those $5.1 billion, $1.3 billion will be spent this year on the Ministry of Human Resources.

In the past few years, prior to the recession, when we have had increasing revenues coming into this province, we had the capability, the opportunity and we also had the luxury of being able to do some programs which other provinces haven't done up to now and probably never will. We had the luxury and the opportunity and we had the delight of introducing new programs. I had to laugh, though, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre, when you said that we were lauded for those programs, because I'm going to tell you as clearly as I can that the only time we have been lauded for those programs is when they have been reduced or cut off. We have heard nothing of how good the programs have been. I can elaborate on that to a great extent, but I'm not going to take the time of the House. I really had to smile when you said that we had been lauded for them, because not from that side of the House nor from across the country have we been.... Well, from across the country we have been, but certainly not within the boundaries of British Columbia by representations from social services groups, because we have not.

What are these decisions based on? You covered a wide range, and I would really like to explain all of them. I have an explanation for every single one of them. For example, you mentioned the largest one, the one really connected with the case we discussed earlier today and yesterday, and that is the family support worker program. That program wasn't in existence five years ago. It's a short-lived program. It was one of those programs which was desirable in times when we had a lot of money. Referring again to the total dollars spent in help in social services, Human Resources being a very major

[ Page 3683 ]

part of that $5.1 billion of a $8.3 billion budget for the whole province for the whole year, I can tell you that revenues to that budget in these last two years have reduced dramatically.

Let's take the Forests ministry alone. It is only 40 percent of its capability — only 40 percent of its revenue coming into the province to spend on social services. When you get a dramatic decrease like that, when you have people laid off from work and not sending moneys to government, when you get all of the other attendant services, when money isn’t coming in, that is the practical place that we are in right now. That's what we are facing. It's just as simple as that. We have less revenue coming in so we are trying to retain the outgo of services to the best place, and we have to target it to the very best place we can.

You mentioned the family support workers. They were a good thing to do when we had the dollars, when we had the 100 percent of the forestry revenues coming in and 100 percent of all the others coming in. We don't have it today. That is one of the newer programs, and they were all based on a fairly consistent note. We are bound by statutory obligation to provide — morally, I might say, too — income assistance through GAIN for people in need. We will continue to do that. We have to protect that. Not only is it our responsibility and our moral obligation, it's also statutory in this province and all across this nation. We can't take a lot out of that, but it is increasing, as you have pointed out. We took a look at decisions based on the most recently added programs, because those were the ones that were put in when we had an awful lot of money. Secondly, the family support worker was supplementary help to the social worker. They were a supplement to what the social worker was already doing in that community. It was desirable and nice to do, but it wasn't done up to the point in time that we first initiated it in this government. It was one of those that had to go, because it did spend a lot of money.

[Mr. Passarell in the chair.]

The third thing and one of the other reasons that we made these decisions was that there are alternatives available. Let's take the transition house that you mentioned. You said you wondered if they are going to be selective. We have 600 services throughout the province all done this way. There are only 22 services in the city of Vancouver that differ from the whole 600 throughout the province, and that's the one we're putting into.... We're getting out of the business, is what we're doing. But we're still providing the money for an organization to deliver that service. And you ask if they are going to be selective. Are they just going to take the easy ones? That's why we put them in that agreement. We can cancel that agreement at any time. We can change the policy and agreement as times and the pressures on our ministry change. That is why we believe that the one transition house that's going to be changed will be as good a service as all of the others in the province — certainly as good as the one we've had there.

It also will be the same with the children's services that we are putting into an agreement, but we're still paying the money out. It's a fallacy to say that it is not going to cost the Ministry of Human Resources money, because it is.

MR. BARNES: Will it be cheaper?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, we are not really looking for cheaper. We are looking for better. I think that we will be consistent with the rest of the province, where a very good system is in place.

You asked about the seniors, and you mentioned the societies.... Again, you have to make choices. You want to make the choice that.... Perhaps you would like to say to the seniors that all the services we have.... Are you going to cut out long-term care for seniors? Are you going to reduce Pharmacare for seniors? Just what are you going to attack?

[3:30]

There was only one service to the seniors, and you mentioned it. The 411 Society and the Silver Harbour Centre in North Vancouver — Silver Threads here — were very good services. But over the years they have ceased to be volunteer services, as they started out to be. They have become staff-oriented services, which have been excellent. No one argues with the kind of service they deliver and what they do. But, Mr. Chairman, may I just say to you that there are 156 of those centres in the province of British Columbia. We only gave partial funding to 22 of them, and those are the ones to which we have given nine months' notice to find alternative sources. At the end of March we are not funding them any more. You could ask why we don't go ahead and fund them. But you tell me where you would have reduced it. You see, there aren't that many options in the Ministry of Human Resources; we can't take it away.

I want to address the group that you speak of — the young people. You say that according to the Statistics Canada poverty line these young people are going to be badly done by because of a new policy that we have just initiated. When they are under 25 years of age, we believe that they should have their income assistance reduced from what they had before. That was so we could retain families and children at the same level as they had last year. We would have liked to have increased it, but we have retained it at the same rather than reduce it. But you see, when you quote the yearly poverty line from Statistics Canada or from the Canadian Association of Social Workers or whatever.... Let me assure you that our statistics prove that young people don't stay on for one year. Thirty-eight percent of the young people who go on income assistance today will be off in one month; of the remainder, 50 percent will be off in the first four months of coming on income assistance, on welfare. So you see these people aren t staying on. They are the mobile group. They are the group that can go and seek jobs, whereas the families with three or four children cannot. That is why they are finding it more difficult, but we are retaining their income assistance at the same level. You wanted to know why we made the decision — that's why.

Let me just tell you again, talking about poverty lines.... The Statistics Canada poverty line as of October 1983 is $19,502 a year. That is what they consider the poverty line in Canada.

MR. BARNES: For what category?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: For a family unit of four — that would be one couple with two children or one mother with three children.

Now let me just address that. On income assistance in this province: a mother with three children, with one child in day care and two at school, has a gross potential disposable

[ Page 3684 ]

income of $15,880 per year. Let me take a clerical worker in my ministry, a financial assistance worker, who carries a lot of responsibility — she's the person you see when you go in to apply for welfare. A family assistance worker 2, step 4, who is a single parent with three children, and, like the welfare mother whom I just described, has one child in day care and two at school, has a net disposable income of $18,400 per year. She goes to work every day. She has to dress for that job and pay for transportation to that job. Her disposable income is $18,400 as opposed to the $15,880 of a single parent on welfare in identical circumstances. You can say that we're not paying financial assistance workers very much, or you could say that we should be paying the other person less in comparison. I don't know what line of reasoning you take from that. All I'm saying is that I believe very strongly that we are doing our best. If you are going to say that we are putting everybody on the poverty line, let me say that there are many people working in this province who, if they wanted to give up and didn't want to pay for their transportation, clothes, shoes and so on that they require for that job, would not really be very much better off. It is a very fine line; it is a very difficult decision to make. It is one of those problems that we always face in our society: what is the best decision to make in terms of income assistance and how much should it be. We do not want to kill people's incentive, but neither do we want to be told that we are keeping everybody on the poverty line, because there are lots of people who are working very hard to keep themselves off the poverty line.

I haven't addressed all of the things, because I could be here for the same 30 or 40 minutes. You wanted to know what we based our priorities on. We base our priorities in the Ministry of Human Resources on giving the best service and best care to the children's services. Family and children's services is really the largest part of our ministry. We hardly ever talk about it. We talk about income assistance because it takes so much money and so many people are taking it, but you very seldom hear talk of the family and children's services in our ministry. But I really believe that the decisions we have made have been based on a very clear understanding that those we cut out in this time of recession were those we had done without before — and very well — and can do without again, considering that those revenues aren't coming into government to pay for them. So we had to make some very difficult decisions, but I want you to be assured that the decisions we have made have been based on the best priorities we can have for the people we're serving, those people and families in the province who are most in need of the care and the help.

MR. BARNES: I'm going to let someone else speak in a minute, but I just wanted to remind the minister.... I'm not going to be very long; I'll let someone have an opportunity to intervene. But the record should clearly show that although the minister has given her and the government's rationale for the budget and the priorities they have set, it should be remembered that the government has also done something rather noteworthy: it has taken an amount of money from resource revenues that could have gone into consolidated revenue and could have paid many times over for most of these services. In fact, only a small fraction of the $470 million being made available to the B.C. Railway — which was a decision by the government to retire a historic debt.... All I'm saying is that that amount of money could have been active in the economy instead of sitting in the bank and being used for other purposes.

Obviously the government feels that that is the direction it wants to go in, but it is doing so at a price. I just wanted the record to show that when the government talks about it not being able to afford these services for people, that's just a matter, really, of what is important to the government. It is pursuing a course of action that some people describe as punitive and even vindictive in some instances. It's a course of action that seems to suggest that the government believes it has the power to implement programs of restraint despite the consequences.

I have to say that this is not a new initiative but one the government has undertaken for several months now, and we're beginning to feel the consequences. The Ministry of Human Resources is itself at risk. Although the base programs such as social assistance remain in place, they are being reduced instead of maintained. They're being reduced; that is the key point. The ministry itself is being subjected to a very risky kind of surgery, shall we say — maybe even open-heart surgery. We do not fully appreciate the consequences yet. I suspect that as the months go by, as more and more of these programs are privatized and as the government succeeds in convincing the public that it has no direct responsibility for these fundamental programs and services to people, we will experience increased costs in practically every other support system in the community. It will be one of those conditions that happens when people go out for themselves and don't pay attention to their neighbours. It'll be just the opposite, I think, of what the government is suggesting, because it's the government that must set the tone.

The government must show heart and take the lead, especially when stress as a result of hard times is upon all of us. It's not just visiting the so-called poor in the traditional sense. We have a whole new class of poor people in this country and in this province: people who have been active in the past, working people who have earned their way and have paid their dues, people who find themselves being crushed and being laid off by their employers as a result of restraint and so forth. Those people are the new ones who are being asked to reduce themselves to virtual poverty; to sell off their pensions; to get rid of their superannuation funds, their savings accounts, and so forth; to get rid of their camper or their extra automobile, their summer home or the endowment that they had set up for their children. All kinds of things are happening to these people, which throws them into the poverty line as well by virtue of circumstances. I hate to think that the ministry is viewing all those people out there as being indigent or being people who have not contributed to society and who do not have the right to fair treatment in return for their many years of contribution to the economy and to society.

Now where and who are these people? Well, they could be you or I; it could be those members over there at any point in time, and that is exactly what is happening. I could read into the record some of the tragic stories, but I think that I know what they are. These are people who could not believe.... And I'm sure many of them were calling people names who were on social assistance just a few months ago and now themselves are experiencing, unfortunately, the degrading situation that is involved in asking for assistance. I say "unfortunately" because no one should be ashamed to ask for assistance when they're in need in our type of society

[ Page 3685 ]

where we're ask to contribute and to keep the society together.

We're all asked to pay that price at one time. Hopefully we'll never have to collect, but when the time comes to collect, and you have to go and face the government and try to get some assistance on the basis of your personal situation, then you're reduced to the numbers game and are told: "Here are the regulations; here are the rules." You're going to be required to reduce yourself to a level of far less than what you're accustomed to, far less than what is good for your stability and far less than what is fair and right. Many of these people have temporary problems and should not be reduced to such a point that they're beginning to feel ashamed of themselves. So I think that's a factor as well that we have to consider when we have these rigid rules about everybody under a certain age — 25 and under — being treated differently than those 26 and over.

[3:45]

The minister said yesterday in response to some of my questions that discrimination came in many forms, that she was not setting a precedent, despite the ombudsman's ruling a few years ago with respect to the 31 and under age group concerning social assistance rates. But the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, under the chapter "Equality Rights," states: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has a right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability." So the minister may have been confusing imposed age restrictions, which is what she was saying yesterday about people who go into beer parlours, people who are retiring at a certain age.... She mentioned certain other examples of discrimination. I think the record should show that these are age restrictions, as she pointed out, based on some of the reasons she gave. But there is a difference between what she is doing to these people and what their fundamental rights should be, and I think that was made quite clear in the investigation by the ombudsman.

I will permit some of the other members to speak, Mr. Chairman, and I'll make some further remarks later.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I won't be very long, but I couldn't help but think, when I was listening to some of the questions from the member for Vancouver Centre, about senior citizens. When my colleague from Coquitlam came in here with his grey hair, I asked him if he knew very much about the senior citizens' counselling program. He said no, and I must admit I don't know an awful lot about it myself. I thought, well, the minister is here in her estimates, and it's one of the groups of people in our province, and I think it's a great unused resource that we could be tapping. I wonder if the minister, before I get into some of my questions, could explain to us exactly how the senior citizens' counselling program works.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I am really pleased to respond, because the senior citizens' counselling program is unique in this province. It was started by a member of this House who sat on this side of the House, a former Social Credit administrator, and she was very close to senior citizens' services. She was very good at addressing the concerns of seniors, and maybe some members of this House will remember Isabel Dawson, now deceased. Isabel brought in that program, and what she based it on was using the resources of these remarkable people who had been in all walks of life — some in business and some in service industries and so on — but who had reached that time in their lives where they shouldn't be put on the shelf but could be used.

We started the senior citizens' counselling service in about 1968 or 1969 and it has been going strong and growing younger every year. It really is a good service and I get together with them as often as I can. Every time I'm in a community I like to meet the senior citizens' counsellor, because they're just filled with inspiration of the work they do. Now let me tell you what they do.

They are listed and available to any senior citizen in the province. They are in every community. If they have out-of-pocket expenses, they can bill us up to $100 a month, but we seldom get a $100 bill in any given month. They answer questions around income tax time for seniors who have to file a return and help them with supplementary income questions for both the federal and provincial administrations. They will assist them in time of a bereavement, when one of the couple passes away and problems arise in terms of what to do with some of the papers that come to them. Some people get very confused at that age, and this really is a remarkable service. Some people use the seniors to a very great extent, but I am sure there are many people in our province who do not know that we have that service. It has been going on for many years. Once every two years all the seniors' counsellors get together to try to improve their knowledge and the service that they give. We have one person designated in our ministry who keeps in constant touch when there is a change in the federal pension program, as there has recently been, and we get the information out to the counsellors. They're bound to get a question just the minute it comes over the TV, so all the information is given out to them.

It is a very good service and I am delighted you gave me the opportunity to pay tribute to them; they do a very good job.

MR. REYNOLDS: I thank the minister for the explanation. I might suggest that she send a copy of the short speech she just gave to all the members of this House, with a list of the names of the counsellors around the province. We so often hear of people needing help and assistance, and I think it is extremely important that every member know who the counsellors are in case they get letters from people looking for some assistance.

I wonder if the minister has looked into the possibility — maybe the next time all the seniors get together — of trying to expand this program. The senior citizens in this country, especially those in British Columbia and the ones I talk to in mv constituency seem to appreciate this time of restraint even more than other people do. Maybe that's because years ago a lot of them went through a depression, that I certainly never saw. They seem to appreciate the fact that this government is taking the bull by the horns and tightening up levels of service and government expenditures. I wonder if the minister would consider asking the senior citizens at the next meeting for suggestions of where we could get other seniors involved in programs and use their experience to assist people in need.

When I was listening to the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) talking about how this government is punitive, I couldn't help but think of the minister's comments about a mother and three children — one in day care and two

[ Page 3686 ]

in school — getting a gross income of $15,880. I find it very hard to understand how any person or any member of any party could think that that was a punitive measure. That is certainly a considerable amount of money for a government to be giving out in assistance, and is not anything near a starvation level. It is an adequate sum of money, and I think the majority of people in this province would think that also.

The next time this seniors group gets together, would the minister consider having them come up with a program where we could use more senior citizens and the wealth of experience that they've gained in their lifetimes? When you look around this great province of ours and this city of Victoria, where there are a lot of retired people, you realize that people are getting younger. In my constituency there's a large percentage of retired people who get out and work at election time, and who do work in between those times. They're energetic, but they're not working anymore. They've done their time in the field of work and are on pensions and enjoying this province. I'm sure a lot of them would like some suggestions from the government as to how they could assist even more. As the minister said, they wouldn't be looking for money. That's why the majority of your senior citizens' counsellors don't bill up to the maximum; they just charge what their expenses are. It could be a very inexpensive way for a government to get assistance, and I wonder if the minister would consider that.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: A small committee of seniors is meeting to address changes or better service for those councillors — if it could perhaps be better. There may be a different delivery that we can do and an expansion, as you say. If you or any member of the House have any ideas how that can be improved or how we can improve our communications in that regard, I would be very pleased to receive those ideas. That small committee is meeting shortly, and I would like to have your ideas. You will be pleased to know the budget for the service throughout the whole of the province is $250,000. In any given year, it reaches just about the bulk of the seniors in the province.

I thank you for the question, and I will see that the list is distributed to all members.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions to raise with the minister, and then I want to make some comments about the decision to change the funding for the Vancouver Transition House.

The minister made a statement about the potential of a unit 4 to have an income of $15,000 a year. I wonder if she would like to break that down for me, because I recognize — if the latest figures I have are correct — that the basic allowance for a unit 4 is $450 a month for a single parent with three children. Shelter allowance is $455 a month, if necessary. In fact, if they have accommodation which is cheaper than that — if they should be so lucky, and I don't know if it is possible to get accommodation below $455 a month — then they don't get the full $455 a month. That adds up to a total $10,860. Day care allowance and earnings exemption are in there as well. If she would explain to me how those two figures bring it up to $15,000, I would be really interested. I also realize that if she becomes pregnant she gets another dietary allowance. Still, I think that a figure of $15,000 shouldn't just be thrown out; there should be some explanation, and the explanation should state very clearly that what we're talking about is a basic support allowance of $450 a month for a single parent and her three children.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The second comment I want to respond to was the comment about the termination of funding for the seniors groups — Silver Threads and others — which, I agree, started out as volunteer organizations and then evolved into being paid tasks, but not with outrageously large incomes. To suggest that one of the reasons for that is that most of the workers is those organizations are women.... More and more women are finding that one way to deal with poverty is to get paid for your work. Women are finding that they cannot live on pensions left to them if they are widowed — or have no pension at all. Rather than volunteering and then going on income assistance, they try to make an income for themselves, whether they are 65 or over. At a time when they are ready to break out of the poverty cycle by working, we're hearing that this is something that should not be encouraged and that everyone is being encouraged to go back to being volunteers again.

If you look at the statistics on poverty for this country, you will find that most of the poor people in Canada, including British Columbia, are older women. Many of them are volunteers. I have no objections to volunteerism; I think it is wonderful. But I think that if these women find that they can earn a decent living and be able to support themselves, this is not something we should be opposed to. I regret that the government finds itself in a situation where Silver Threads and other organizations like that are going to be forced to go back to relying on volunteer services — not because there's anything wrong with volunteerism, but because it says to me that there are some women who are going to lose their income and join that large group of the community who make up the poverty statistics of this province. That's the only statement I want to make on that one.

[4:00]

I want to speak specifically, though, about the decision to change the funding for the Vancouver Transition House. I think we need to put the Vancouver Transition House into perspective. This is not just one isolated facility serving Vancouver which, in order to take some cost-cutting measures or to balance the budget or whatever, the government is deciding to privatize, to take it out from under its jurisdiction and give it to the private sector. The Vancouver Transition House is part of the history of the women's liberation movement in this country. It's not something that was discovered by government and put into place by government. The Vancouver Transition House came about because women perceived the need for that kind of shelter, and women went to government and in an attempt to raise the consciousness of government suggested that this need would best be met by public funding. Prior to Vancouver Transition House, women were being battered; it didn't start with Vancouver Transition House. Women were being battered and abused then, as they are now. The difference is that wealthy women and middle-class women who could afford it would pick up their kids and go and stay in a hotel or move in with a friend or a relative, as the case may be. They would try to deal with that, and it wasn't talked about. Nobody wanted to talk about the fact that they were being beaten by their husbands, because there was shame attached to that.

[ Page 3687 ]

What happened with the inception of the women's liberation movement was that women said: "Until we start talking about the kind of violence we experience in the home, it's not going to stop. As long as we keep hiding it in a closet or pretending it doesn't exist, we will continue to be battered — some of us, as in the case of Maude Bevan in Prince Rupert, to the point where we become disabled for the rest of our lives, or, as in the case of Mrs. Dallowall in Richmond, to the point where we are murdered — dead — as a result." So women started talking about the violence taking place in their personal and private lives and in their homes. They decided that simply because middle-class and upper-class women had other resources was not a reason to ignore it, because most of the women in this province, as in this country and in this world, are poor and didn't have access to those resources. So they were forced to stay in those family units and in their homes, and take that beating year after year until one of two things happened: either their husband died, deserted them or disappeared, or they died themselves. Even to this day, when we look at the statistics on homicide involving women where women are the victims, we are appalled at the large number of them who are the victims of battering and murder by their spouses.

The decision to change the funding for the Vancouver Transition House and to dissociate ourselves from responsibility for that particular resource could not be coming at a worse time. We have one year left in the United Nations declaration of the decade to change the status of women in this world. If you look at the United Nations declaration, you ought to go back to 1948 to their declaration on human rights. Article 5 is the one that deals with torture, cruelty and degrading treatment. And the declaration of 1948 in article 5 proclaimed that that was one of the things that was the responsibility of governments to change — not individuals each in their own private lives, not non-profit organizations, not churches. It said that government should take responsibility to protect its people, its members, from being subjected to that kind of treatment.

Mr. Chairman, in 1975, the United Nations International Women's Year, at the international conference in Mexico which was at the beginning of the decade, one of the subjects raised at that point was cruelty to women. It said women all over the world should unite to eliminate the violations of human rights committed against women and girls such as rape, prostitution, physical assault, mental cruelty, child marriages, forced marriages and marriages of commercial transaction. The conference also requested that specialized agencies to provide assistance for the attainment of these objectives be the responsibility of governments.

So the Vancouver Transition House is not something that came full-blown out of the imagination of the NDP government, which was the government of the day, nor of the Social Credit government, which is the government of today. In fact, we were ahead of that conference, because at the Royal Commission on the Status of Women for Canada, one of the 267 recommendations of that royal commission report, which was tabled in Ottawa, dealt with the establishment of shelters for battered and abused women and their children. When we became the government in 1972, we didn't imagine, create or initiate that project; it was the women in Vancouver who approached the then Minister of Human Resources and said: "This should be at least a pilot project; this at least should be a beginning. Why don't we start here and see if in fact it has any impact on the lives of women in this city, if it does a service." The Vancouver Transition House, Mr. Chairman, started out being funded in a voluntary way — that was the beginning — and then it was changed, and the ministry then took on full responsibility for the protection of the women of Vancouver against violence directed at them by their spouses in the home.

It was never intended that that was the only transition house which should be funded that way. Many of the women who gave birth to that transition house are still alive today and are still involved in trying to fight against the violence which persists against women in our community, as evidenced by the federal commission report on violence in the family, which shows one in every ten married women still being battered by their spouses in this country. So the violence is not decreasing. But the decision was that that was to be the first of a number of transition houses, that there would come a day when there would be not one single community anywhere in this province which did not have a place of refuge, a place of shelter to which battered and abused women and their children could run, Mr. Chairman, when the need arose. That was the dream, the plan and the hope of those women who spearheaded this first transition house. It never came about; it never happened. As a result of that, non-profit organizations such as the Life Line Society in Burnaby, some of the church groups, groups in Fort Nelson and the Maud Bevan House in Prince Rupert, which came about as a result of that woman being battered to the stage where she spends the rest of her life in a wheelchair, moved into the breach and tried to carry on that task, but it was never the intention that they were going to be ultimately and permanently responsible for meeting that need. In fact, when you read their annual reports and attend their conventions, as I have year after year after year, they look at the Vancouver Transition House, and their aim and their goal is to be like the Vancouver Transition House in terms of secure funding, in terms of being able to pay their staff decent wages, in terms of being able to supply a service 24 hours a day. That was their aim and that was their goal.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we're being told that because the Vancouver Transition House is the best, because it has the most secure funding and because it is able to give 24-hour-a-day service and to pay its workers decent wages, the Vancouver Transition House is to be changed. It is to be turned over to a private society. Its funding is to become insecure, the way other transition houses are.

Let's use the transition house in my riding of Burnaby Edmonds as an example. It is funded by the Life Line Society, which is a non-profit organization perceiving a need and trying to meet it. Their funding is being renewed at the same level as it was last year, which means it has not taken into account any cost-of-living increases for the people who work there or the increased costs of heat, light, telephone and all the other services that go along with it. The result of that is that they're going to have to reduce their staff hours. The only way they can continue to have the staff without paying them starvation wages is to say: "You'll get the same pay, but you needn't work as long." Who is hurt by that decision? It's not just the staff but also the community that needs that service. The battered women in Burnaby are the ones who are hurt by that decision. They're the ones who suffer as a result of that decision.

The transition house cannot afford to have 24-hour-a-day staff coverage of that particular location. There is someone there from 8 in the morning to 8 at night, and that's it. After

[ Page 3688 ]

that, the people in the house are on their own. Quite frankly, I don't know how the people who want to come to the house get in after 8 o'clock, especially when we know that most of the batterings go on late at night. You know, he comes home drunk, and that triggers it off. According to the notes I've received from them, they have found that there is quite a problem because husbands know this. Once they have discovered the location of the house and they know that there is no staff on duty after 8 p.m., then they show up on the doorstep. Sure, they can phone the police, but it takes a while for the RCMP to get there. In the meantime, the women have to undergo the harassment and the threats, and they are terrified.

There is absolutely no way that the minister would say that that is good service or that it is adequate service. Anything short of 24 hours is not good enough. The house is authorized for ten beds, which is all they're allowed. Those beds are always occupied, and they have occasionally managed to squeeze in additional beds. They sometimes go up to 12 or even more, and then they find that they have to start moving people out. They have to refer them to other places and try to find other resources to put them up. What do you do? Turn them away? The Vancouver Transition House says that it had to turn 548 families away last year. That's the figure they give. No doubt Burnaby didn't turn away quite as many, but they had to turn some people away.

[4:15]

I notice the minister is sighing. I'm sorry that this is so tedious and repetitious for you, but I think it's something that has to be said.

They tell me that the staff are tired all the time, and they are discouraged and overworked. But they carry on, because they recognize the importance of the service they supply.

Life Line would like to be like the Vancouver Transition House. The Fort Nelson group would like to be like the Vancouver Transition House, and so would Fort St. John. Vancouver Transition House, prior to the decision of the government to change its funding.... I hope the newspaper quoted the staff person incorrectly, because we are told that if a new person isn't found to start a transition house prior to the deadline, battered women are going to be put up in hotels and motels until a new service is developed for them. I hope that's not true, because a whole new speech could be given on that one.

In any event, the Vancouver Transition House had a confidential address and protection and security for 24 hours a day. They were able to offer social services and emergency assistance when other agencies were closed. They had a 24-hour-a-day crisis line that was answered by one of their workers. They were able to give advice and aid to children as well as women who were in crisis and, if necessary, refer them to other resources. They also did quite a lot of telephone counselling. The Vancouver Transition House was involved in providing community education and legal, medical and financial information. They participated on community boards, such as the Justice Institute, the YWCA and Munroe House. They gave workshops and presentations on battered women. They worked with the police, doctors and many other professionals in the community. They also were a resource for all of the other transition houses in the province. They travelled around and helped other communities that wanted to establish transition houses, because they had the expertise and they had the longer experience, having been the first and the best.

They had a child-care counselling program, with two positions which offered appropriate intervention, educational programming and support to mothers. They worked as advocates for children and also would work as a liaison with community agencies and as a referral service for the appropriate community agencies. They had a very unique followup program. If you go to the annual convention of the transition houses around the province, they tell you that they haven't got the resources or the funding or the capability to do any kind of followup. But the Vancouver Transition House could, Mr. Chairman, because they had the resources and they had the secure funding. They could work with the family after the parent and children left the house, in terms of not just referring them to counselling but by monitoring them and helping them to establish a new life — one without violence or abuse.

The Vancouver Transition House also recognized that it has a social responsibility in terms of its relationship with government and the community. It felt that part of its job was to pressure government into taking more and more responsibility for meeting the needs of the community in this area. Raising the consciousness of government — that was one of the responsibilities which the Vancouver Transition House saw as being their mandate for existing. They believe very strongly — and I think everyone is coming to recognize this now — that violence is not something that should be left to the individual who is the victim to take care of. We don't do it in any other part of a person's life. If you're assaulted on the streets, if you're assaulted in a public place by anyone other than your spouse, the law steps in. The community takes responsibility for protecting you from further assault and for punishing the person who has assaulted you. The family is the only arena in which violence is allowed to proceed unchecked and the community and government says that it has no responsibility.

Battering is assault, as is every other kind of violence. It's a crime, and the responsibility that the Vancouver Transition House took in this area was to try to petition the Attorney-General's ministry, as well as the federal Minister of Justice, to have the laws of the land not just amended so that they would take more responsibility and jurisdiction over this area but to have even the weak laws that existed implemented in a way that they're not being implemented at this time.

I was at a conference at which the keynote speaker was a family lawyer by the name of Nancy Morrison. She was once a judge on the family court bench, and her argument was that we don't really need transition houses and wouldn't need them if the law were implemented and if the law was doing its job. Unfortunately the law is not being implemented, and the law is not doing its job. Unfortunately governments and society abdicate their responsibility in this area. The one resource that we had in this province which served as a model, not just for British Columbia but for other provinces as well, is being gutted and destroyed by this government.

Mr. Chairman, there is absolutely no question but that the quality of service which that transition house will be able to give will be reduced. Look at the other transition houses struggling to survive as non-profit organizations, unable to give the 24-hour coverage, unable to give followup service, unable to deal with the counselling and the referrals. Understaffed as they are, underpaid as they are, with insecure funding, limited community education and no continuous child-care programs....

The withdrawal of the government's commitment to battered women and children could not have come at a worse

[ Page 3689 ]

time, because it's coming at a time when women are losing support in a number of other areas. They're losing the Human Rights Commission, they've lost the rentalsman, and they're losing legal aid and legal services because of the cutback in that area. They're losing the financial aid services and emergency services. Cutbacks in the native court services and the wiping out of the Women's Health Collective, the Vancouver Status of Women, Planned Parenthood, post-partum counselling, Project Parent, homemakers, community involvement services, Mosaic — which worked with immigrant women — and a number of other services which women have come to rely on, not because they want to be dependent but because they have a need for those services.... All of them are being cut out from under them at the same time as the government has chosen to launch an assault on the one transition house service in this province and country which should be a model for all other transition houses and services in terms of meeting the protective and support needs of women who continue to be battered by their spouses, and their children.

By withdrawing these vital, essential services, more pressure will be put on the already overburdened and underfunded private agencies and volunteer groups. They can't pick up or meet the need, or deliver the service to the extent that it is needed. It can't be done, Mr. Chairman; it is a step backward in the government's recognition of and commitment to women and children in this province. It is a further assault being visited upon those people by an uncaring government.

As I said, it couldn't come at a worse time. One more year is all we have to meet the mandate outlined by the plan of action for the decade of women, as established by the United Nations in 1975, and instead of working toward our goal we are working away from it. We are leaving women at risk and increasing the jeopardy in which they find themselves, and we're being told it's happening because the Vancouver Transition House was better than the others around the province, so the Vancouver Transition House had to go. What about a commitment to excellence? I thought that government had a commitment to excellence. If that were the case, then the commitment would be to raise the other transition houses to the level of delivery of service that the Vancouver Transition House is at, not the other way around.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, let me go back to the beginning of the address by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. I really want to read this into the record because I had planned to do that when the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) took his seat.

When I made the comparison earlier today between the single parent with three children, one in day care and two at school, I said the gross potential — notice I said potential — disposable income was $15,880 a year. If she was on welfare, that would include everything that she gets on welfare, and so it should. Because she gets some of those funds from the federal government in terms of the child tax credit, for example, should not...?

The member sighs. Why should you sigh? All of the information, income assistance, maximum earnings extension, Christmas bonus, day care, school start-up allowance, family allowance, child tax credit, medical funding, etc.: the comparable person in the same community who is going to work, a single person with three children, one in day care and two at school, has a net disposable income in reality — and this is one we can say in reality and not in potential, because we took an actual case — is $18,400 a year. So that just clears that up. Just for the record, I'm pleased that you asked the question. I don't want to be accused of saying something that is a little exaggerated, because it isn't; it's reality. That's exactly the amount.

I also want to refer to the member's comments regarding the seniors. You were mixing apples and oranges just slightly there, if you'll forgive me for saying so. We were talking about a seniors centre with paid staff. I made the comment that they had nine months' notice to make alternative funding. I do expect there will be some paid staff there; it doesn't mean that all paid staff will go. If you look back in history, those centres were started voluntarily. Of the 156 throughout the province, many are totally voluntary. Only 22 of them were partially, not totally, funded by us, and it is only that service in itself that is being taken away. It amounted to approximately $1.1 million in our total budget last year. It was an option we took because we think they can find alternate funding. We believe they will be able to.

You make the comment about these elderly people being in the midst of poverty. I think you are quite aware of what the OAS federal amount is. Also, depending upon other sources of income, if one is in need, the GIS is added and they get the GAIN for seniors provincially. So in total, a single in need.... You are only talking about those in need, because if they have other sources of income.... Not that you are not concerned about them, but you weren't bringing that to our attention. What you are concerned about is that category in need. The single is $568.26 a month, and a couple is $1,036.94 a month.

[4:30]

We also know that that is the group that doesn't need as many clothes and things like that as they do when they are younger. They are of that age group that makes. In fact, I have really, frankly, had great comments from seniors in our province who feel that for the first time in their lives they have some disposable income, which they never had before when they were raising their families, and that they are better off today than they have ever been before in their lives. Now I know there are some exceptions to that, and I am certainly not disagreeing with the exceptions. The trouble is that in this business we tend to blanket. We tend to do that and make blanket statements, and then we are caught up in that and that is used as the actual statement. I suggest that that has been done a fair amount, especially in discussions on social services, for some reason or another.

I am really anxious to address all of the comments that you made on Vancouver Transition House. What is your point? You've made a comment, Mr. Chairman, and your whole address is surrounding...all of your comments are as if Vancouver Transition House or the service for battered women in the city of Vancouver will no longer exist. You know and I know — and hopefully the world will know one of these days if many, many people don't try to disabuse them of the suggestion — that we will have a service for battered wives and battered children in the city of Vancouver. It will continue. Let's go back to the history of it as you did. I give great credit to the women who did bring to the attention of everyone and anyone who would listen to put such a service. Yes, Vancouver was the first, but I also give credit to this ministry, who saw that it was a need not just in the city of Vancouver but throughout the province. We expanded the service to all of the smaller communities in the province, and

[ Page 3690 ]

we now have 22. But if there is a need in a tinier community that can't afford...if there is not a viable need for a 24-hour or a 7-day-a-week service, we also have a financial capability to assist those small communities for a safe home situation — not on a month-to-month basis but on a needs basis, which is the most practical way to address the very tiny communities. So in effect we have all through the province a service, and we are very pleased that we have it. You see, we're not changing the program in the city of Vancouver; we are getting out of the business of operating it ourselves. That's really the difference.

Let me tell you what the cost is of operation. The cost of operating the transition house in the city of Vancouver is around $350,000 a year. I am going to get you that figure in about two shakes; I had it here a minute ago. At any rate, I want to read into the record what other people are saying about the transition house. Let me just read you one particular letter because I think it's important. It comes from the community of Richmond, which is close to the city of Vancouver; it is in the area just outside. There is the Chimo personal distress intervention service in the community of Richmond. Let me just quote from a letter that they sent to the supervisor and staff of Vancouver Transition House:

"Dear Staff,

"On behalf of the board of directors of Chimo Personal Distress Intervention Service in Richmond, I wish to take exception to some of the comments made by your spokesperson, Donna Clay, that recently appeared in the press. These comments implied that all non-profit society transition houses provide a second-rate service because of the understaffing. Despite the fact that our staff salaries and benefits at Nova House are considerably less than those of Vancouver Transition House, we have nevertheless been able to attract highly qualified staff, whose dedication has compensated for the less than desirable level of staffing. Not only have we been able to serve a similar number of clients (109 women and 160 children in 1983) and contrary to Ms. Clay's comments, we have provided an educational program whenever a request has been made, and have conducted a followup of our residents.

"One other point deserves comment. It is the board of directors of a society running a transition house that must 'hustle for funding,' not the staff, whose sole responsibility is to serve the clients.

"While we agree that it would be desirable to have government-operated transition houses throughout the province, and higher staff levels, we think that this point can be conveyed without denigrating the services offered by the other transition houses and, most important of all, without leaving women, who might need to avail themselves of transition house shelter, with the impression that no good service is available to meet their needs after March 31, 1984.

"I trust that future statements will be more carefully worded so that we can work together to support each other in providing the best possible service to women in need."

This is signed by Dr. Lois Karabilgin, who is the vice-president of the Chimo personal distress intervention service in Richmond. I think she makes the point that if we are all as concerned as the member for Burnaby-Edmonds conveys to this House and as concerned as the women who represent the service in the city of Vancouver, then I think we should not prejudge. We have had an excellent service through the whole of this province. It has grown very quickly within the last four years. We have 22 transitions houses throughout the province in just four years' time, including a service in tiny communities in just a very short time. I don't think we should have a blanket condemnation in advance of those very good organizations which have applied to operate this house. We may perhaps even have two services in the city of Vancouver when need be. Why should we condemn them in advance?

I think that what we are doing is simply making the Vancouver service consistent with the rest of the province. It's going to be under new management, true, but let us not condemn in advance that new management. I trust they will do a very good job, and like all of the 600 other services we purchase on an agreement basis with societies and organizations throughout this province — a very varied group of services, such as services for children, battered women, the mentally retarded, or whatever the service is — the city of Vancouver will be consistent. And if they're not delivering the service, as the member for Burnaby-Edmonds suspects they will not be able to do, I can tell you here and now that that group we will be having an agreement with will not be providing the service; we'll find somebody who can properly do it. That's the flexibility we have with these agreements, and that is the responsibility and the accountability we have with these services. So let's talk about the kind of service that will be there in the city of Vancouver for the women in need and not give the impression that there will not be a service there after March 31.

Vancouver Transition House, as I said, had a budget of $350,000 in the past year.

MS. BROWN: Once again I just want to get the figures straight, because the minister throws out figures and I wouldn't want to leave the impression that Vancouver Transition House is a luxury hotel by any means. I want to make some comparisons. Vancouver Transition House last year, for that $350,000, dealt with approximately 350 families, which works out to about $1,000 per family, who would stay there for an approximate average of about two weeks, I think. I want us to compare that with what it costs in corrections, for example, where the figure is something like $60,000 a year to keep one person in jail. For that $350,000, Vancouver Transition House hired ten workers, two child-care workers and one supervisor to provide service for 24 hours a day, around the clock. If it costs us $1,000 to help someone who is being battered, I don't think that's so expensive. I don't think that's unreasonable at all.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We're not arguing that.

MS. BROWN: Okay, so we're agreeing on that. That's fine. Let the record show that the minister didn't throw that figure out to show that Vancouver Transition House was being overfunded in any way.

I don't mind the minister taking credit for the fact that there has been some expansion. There are now 22 other transition houses around the province. But let the record show that every single one of those transition houses had to fight to come into existence. I was a part of some of those battles for those houses to be licensed and made legitimate by the ministry. It wasn't easy. The ministry didn't go out and

[ Page 3691 ]

initiate the establishment of any of those houses. The communities perceived the need, and then they had to sell that idea to the ministry and convince the ministry that that need had to be met in that particular community. Once it's in place, take credit. But let the real credit go where it starts, and that is to the women in the community who tried to raise the consciousness of this government in terms of its responsibility to women.

The minister asks what I want. I do not want Vancouver Transition House to be contracted out. That is the bottom line. I am saying that despite the quality of service that other transition houses, including Chimo, Life Line, Maude Bevan and the others are able to give as a result of being part of a non-profit organization, their quality is not as good. They have not been able to meet the needs in as effective a way, despite whatever letters you may get from whomever. I do not want to become a part of that internecine battle that is going on there. The quality of service that you can get from an organization that is open 24 hours a day, staffed 24 hours a day, with adequate staffing and secure funding, by workers who are making a decent income, cannot be compared with.... As I read into the record and said to the minister about the funding that comes for an organization like Life Line in Burnaby, where they have had to cut back their hours, where there is no staffing after 8 o'clock at night, where the women get harassed if their husbands find out what the address is.... I'm not saying that the other houses aren't doing the best they can; they are doing the best they can. But their best is not as good as it could be if they had the kind of secure funding and protection that Vancouver Transition House has been able to have simply by virtue of the fact that the government took full responsibility.

The decision now to contract it out to the private sector is not a good decision. It is going to affect the quality of care. The decision that, in the event it is not possible to find someone to deliver that service by the deadline, the ministry is going to put the battered women and children into motels and other short-term accommodation.... If this comment is correct — and I hope it isn't — then that really is a giant step backwards. The kind of service that a family gets in a transition house is not delivered by a motel or a hotel.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Why would you say that on the floor of the House and leave that impression?

MS. BROWN: Is the Ministry of Human Resources intending to put battered women and their children into motels and other short-term accommodation in the event that no agency can be set up and arrangements made for financing a shelter by the deadline established by the ministry?

The other thing is that service to battered women is not one where individuals, groups, societies or boards should be out "hustling for funds," as was read by the minister out of that letter. That should be a responsibility of the community at large, as manifest in our government. We take responsibility for education and health. We take responsibility for violence directed to everyone else in every other circumstance except violence in the home. It's time for us to recognize that we also have to take responsibility for the violence that children and spouses experience in the home. That's all I am saying.

[4:45]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, we have taken responsibility, and the record of this government is clear. I've already said it. I don't need to repeat it; it's taking up the time of the House. But I do want to respond, because it is in the record now and it will probably be in the press that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds is accusing the Ministry of Human Resources of putting up battered women and their families in motels as a solution to closing out their direct service in Vancouver Transition House. The answer is no, no, no. We are not going to take that route. We have every indication that by the time we need to change management we will have sufficient — in fact very adequate — services to put in their place to continue the service and not change the policy or the service. But to just do it under different management — that's what it's all about. I would like to give credit to the ministry, who have, I think, a good record in the past in this regard; I'm proud of my ministry's record in that regard. I think we have proven that we can deliver a service throughout the province, and we can have good accountability through that kind of delivery of service. So just in case there is any suggestion that we are going to have that service in an inadequate way, please let me set the record straight.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, like all speakers, I promise to be brief; like all promises, I probably won't be. I have two or three short questions to place before the minister before I get into the other part of my remarks. They are in a sense statistical. She may not have the numbers at her fingertips, but if the numbers aren't present, the policy responses will have to do for today.

I want to ask whether it's customary of Human Resources to demand a wage assignment if a citizen in need of money is awaiting a WCB appeal. Is that question understood?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, it is.

MR. ROSE: All right. I want to know if it's possible for the minister to tell me how many citizens are under a wage assignment when receiving social assistance while waiting for WCB appeals. Finally, under what legal authority are wage assignments required?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: To the member for Coquitlam-Moody, the answer to the question is yes, we do require a wage assignment, or in some cases ask for a wage assignment. The reason is that it is a payment that is given....

Once the WCB payment comes through, it is given retroactively back to the ministry to provide to other people who are in need. I don't know how many — I can't give you that figure, and I don't know if we could get that figure. I'm not so sure; we probably could do so with a lot of work. I don't think, though, that for purposes of discussion you really need the number. It isn't a great number, but it is a fact that that is our policy.

But overall, that authority is given through the GAIN Act, and if one looks at what income assistance is all about, it's help to people in time of need. If, when that need is over, they have a lump-sum payment, which again would be retroactive in this case, you can hardly expect us not to have an assignment. We could be highly criticized, as a matter of fact, for not taking an assignment of wages. I don't think there is anybody who is awaiting WCB payments who wants us —

[ Page 3692 ]

the province, the state or the taxpayer — to pay twice. They want to have their WCB payments because they cannot work, but once they get that lump sum, I don't think they also want to retain the other, which is the income assistance payment which the taxpayers provided to hold them over. So it's on that basis that we take the assignment. I think it's a fair policy, and we haven't really had any problems — I personally haven't had any as a minister in this regard.

MR. ROSE: Well, thank you, to the minister. I'm quite certain that many people would agree with the minister that no one should be paid twice. I wouldn't suggest, however, that it's likely that many of these people would be running around in Cadillacs because they were paid twice.

I'm concerned about this for a couple of reasons, and I'll get into those shortly. I'm looking at the Canada Assistance Plan, and in the preamble it says that "...persons in need and the prevention and removal of the causes of poverty and dependence on public assistance are the concerns of all Canadians," and that parliament "is desirous of encouraging the further development...." Then they go on in the act to define what need is. "'Person in need' means a person who, by reason of inability to obtain employment, loss of the principal family provider, illness, disability, age or any other cause...is found to be unable, on the basis of a test established by the provincial authority...." It goes on from there. So need is defined there. The trouble, as I see it, is that even in the Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act it is not always applied in a regular way. It is sometimes applied fortuitously, and sometimes it's not applied. The GAIN act says that the director, at his discretion, may authorize the benefits to a person. Some directors are probably more discreet than others. In other words, they offer more in that way than others do.

Another anomaly in this whole thing is that while the minister protests that no one should be paid twice out of the public purse, if there is a lump sum paid on the Canada Pension Plan disability, that is not recoverable, even though the person has been in need and on social assistance prior to that lump sum. So while a person awaiting WCB payments or an appeal has to wait and has to pay back his money, someone on a Canada Pension Plan disability does not.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, the minister can contradict me there.

Then you can have a situation in which a logger, for instance, whose unemployment insurance has run out has to ultimately end up on social assistance. When that person goes back to work, even though his earnings may be exceptionally high for a short period, he also is not required to pay that money back.

The other thing that bothers me a little bit is that, according to the information I have, the Canada Assistance Plan allows for unconditional payments and allows for the sharing with the province of the expenditure of assistance payments, and no recovery is contemplated under the Canada Assistance Plan. So we could be in a position here where the province has received its 50 percent share of what they pay out to this person who is on social assistance and awaiting a WCB payment, and it recovers its portion, and this may go unreported to the federal government. According to the Canada Assistance Plan, it is not considered to be either a loan or a lien. If it does operate that way, it's not cost-shareable, unless the province is going to pay the feds back 50 percent for the recovery. In this situation, the province could be operating.... Well, I would not want to suggest they'd be operating illegally.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: It's called the old cash flow. I'd be interested in the minister's response to that.

There was a court case in Manitoba in which the federal court of appeal ruled that when the province docked 5 percent of a client's monthly social allowance for 46 months, claiming that he'd been overpaid earlier, this reduced his benefits below his basic requirements, thereby violating the terms of the plan. So there is some legal precedent to at least question the manner in which these overpayments are recovered.

There is a final point, which is entirely a provincial one. I will attempt to make the point as briefly as I can. Many people have been discouraged from taking their WCB decision to appeal, even though we know that when they do they win about one-third of the time — or maybe up to 40 percent. In other words, initially the board makes burn decisions 40 percent of the time. If the money that would normally come from the employers through WCB is going to be returned to Human Resources, many people wonder why they should bother with an appeal if they're going to lose the cash anyway if it's a lump-sum payment. If it's a difference between payments over a lifetime, that does make a difference; I suppose that wouldn't discourage somebody from making an appeal.

I think this is an area that the minister might well concern herself with. Somebody someday, I think, is going to take this matter to court. There is going to be a court contest on this subject. Regardless of how commonsensical it may appear, it may be contrary to the Canada Assistance Plan. It may be that the feds don't recover equally to the provinces. It may be discouraging WCB appeals. Further, it actually is discriminatory, because the unemployed logger isn't asked to pay back his when he returns to work, and the Canada Assistance Plan people don't either.

[5:00]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, let me take the last point first. You're talking about the party who will not go through with an appeal to Workers' Compensation. First of all, that's a reflection, I think, on those who are going through an appeal. I frankly think that you're really suggesting that they are saying that they'd rather not pursue the appeal. They can't be eligible for income assistance and refuse to pursue other means. You can't be eligible for income assistance if you have other means of support or you are in the midst of an appeal from anybody where you will have moneys coming to you. They could make themselves ineligible for income assistance by doing just that. If you really do know of someone who has suggested that they won't go through with an appeal, they would perhaps make themselves ineligible for income assistance.

Although I applaud your desire to make sure the federal government recovers anything that they can, and I know that you're concerned for their treasury, let me please tell you that we do....

MR. ROSE: A little shot there, was it?

[ Page 3693 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, I know that you've been in the federal House and you know how concerned they are, and I appreciate that we all are. But any recoveries that we make are shared on the same basis as any revenue that we get from the feds to provide that service. Any recoveries we get are recovered back to the same percentage. As you know, the Canada Assistance Plan is a fifty-fifty sharing situation, and the feds get their fifty back when we recover.

You mentioned the IWA person, and you have to understand that individual cases are in every case adjudicated on the case. The IWA worker who has been on unemployment insurance and then goes onto income assistance, which you made reference to, and then gets a job again is not asked, you point out, to pay back income assistance. But that's a little bit different than the case where they are waiting for a retroactive payment, and there is a delay in the decision. We come along, as the Ministry of Human Resources — those people may not even be eligible for income assistance — but we are asked to help them over their time of need. In those cases we take an assignment for the time when their retroactive payment or their payment in full — either a total lump-sum payment or a decision is made which gives them retroactive payment.... In effect they are getting help from us from January to June, until the decision is made by WCB. Then that decision is retroactive to January and is paid January to June, whether it be a lump-sum payment or whatever. We have taken an assignment on that so that we can get back those moneys so they are not paid twice. If you have a specific case and you feel there has been hardship, please let me look into it. I'd be pleased to do so. I don't think I'd have any problem at all to get a specific answer.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The Canada disabled one, again, must be an individual case you're referring to, and I'd be glad to look into it.

We have to credit the federal government or else we get into difficulties. There would be no cost-sharing, and that's part of our agreement. The federal government requires an assignment on the Canada Pension Plan or the OAS too. Otherwise there would be duplication of payments. It isn't just our provincial government. That's consistent with the federal policy as well when they deal with their own particular programs.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, just a few words about that. I asserted that it was likely that numbers of people would be discouraged from pursuing an appeal to the board of review for a couple of reasons. It had nothing to do with whether or not they were being criticized as lacking in spirit; those were words that the minister put in my mouth. It has been shown that unless they have an advocate, they probably have less chance of winning an appeal, but what I'm saying is that sometimes they are discouraged because they haven't got an advocate or they can't do it, and because their money is going to be taken away from them anyway. The minister also said that they may be ineligible. Well, they may be physically unable to work; that's why they've got the WCB appeal coming up. So I don't see how that would make them ineligible.

In any event, if somebody reaches a decision by the board and accepts it, it's not necessarily that they have received a payment, but there's no law that requires them to appeal. I agree with the minister that the public would object to their being paid twice. I don't argue that. I'm not sure, though, that it doesn't discriminate to some extent. This is an argument not with the minister but with the WCB, and in that sense it's slightly out of order, but I won't be out of order very long. The WCB act permits them to send the money directly to Human Resources, rather than have Human Resources collect it from the person they advanced it to in the first place; this is, I think, in itself a bit demeaning. I'll continue that one later when the WCB act or the Minister of Labour's estimates are up for discussion.

MR. COCKE: I noted that the minister, in discussing the whole question of seniors and seniors' assistance, has indicated very clearly that that funding is gone. I think that's probably one of the most shocking things this government has done in terms of their care and concern for seniors.

In 1969 in New Westminster, the Senior Citizens' Service Bureau was put together. It started with, I believe, an LIP grant or one of those grants from the federal government. Since 1969 there have been a succession of people working through the Seniors' Bureau, starting out with people with a good deal of lack of confidence, and so on, working along and aiding seniors, and at the same time building their own confidence. In 1973 the provincial contribution began and that gave them the life that was needed in that particular bureau. Their funding has remained the same in real terms — that is, in the inflated dollar — since 1975. Their funding is a minuscule — believe this or not — $55,000, and I want to tell you what they're doing with that money. The Seniors' Bureau provides 2,500 services per year — that's just the paperwork. They continually get referrals from GIS and from Human Resources. Their outreach to homes is incredible; they provide the assistance within the homes that keeps people at home who otherwise would not be able to stay in their own homes. You say: "How could $55,000 possibly provide this?" They do it with volunteers.

The $55,000 provides the catalyst: the staff to coordinate the volunteers. This government has been screaming their heads off about the need for volunteer work within the community. I don't know how many times this government gets their money back from savings in Health and in Human Resources just by this little, teeny catalyst. I can't imagine anyone as short-sighted as the decision-makers over there on the treasury bench. I'm not being accusatory with the minister, although I think her idea of priorities is nuttier than a fruitcake in this particular instance. I realize that she has statutory things she must do, and if her budget is cut to the bone, then I guess the non-statutories suffer. That's the way it has always been in government. But here is a non-statutory that I believe is utterly essential for that community. They have, for example, 50 seniors who are homebound; all their shopping is done by volunteers. Who is going to coordinate those volunteers a year from now? They may survive for a year, but they will not survive, I predict, and I believe that it's essential that these services go on. They've got 40 or 50 who require visiting — again, people kept in their homes by this very important service.

I have had a very close connection with this particular bureau since its inception. It came on to the scene at the same time as I came on the political scene. As a matter of fact, during my first three years in opposition I set up a little office so I could do a bit of consulting — in those days MLAs were not paid exactly the greatest stipend in the world. I shared my office with this beginning bureau. I have seen women go to

[ Page 3694 ]

work for that bureau who were on welfare, who had been deserted by their husbands, who were totally defenceless, and I saw them gain confidence and go out to work in the community, and some of them are very successful people today. That has always been the way that they've worked. I'm talking about the staff people; they are just absolutely invaluable. Instead of being cut back, this should have been increased. Talk about a preventive service! This is one of the greatest proved preventive services that we have seen in our community. It's not me talking; it's every person in that community that knows anything about that service. It's respected by people of all political leanings and is known to have helped so many of the people in our community that it has earned that kind of respect. They have 500 clients for their handyman service — the frail and elderly, as the minister knows, who again are able to stay in their own homes because somebody will come along and give them the assistance that's required.

We worry about the extended, intermediate and personal care levels of services, which are very expensive indeed, Mr. Chairman. One person in any of those levels of care could very easily take up the entire $55,000. I don't, know how many times — tenfold or more — we get back as a result of having this catalyst within our community. I know that certain things happen. For instance, there are people who don't get outings, people who just cannot get out. So what did these people who are assisting that community of people do? They wrote to Rotary and asked if they would give them a hand getting a handicapped van.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, they did.

Then they asked the lotteries, and they helped. They put that together and now they've got that service. They have been imaginative in every respect and way possible, and they encourage the very thing that is absolutely essential, according to this government, and that's the volunteer input into the community. Without that catalyst, however, it fails. The minister says let the churches do it. The churches have tried, and they contribute a great deal. As a matter of fact, the churches are part of this whole system in that particular community. They are coordinating the volunteers. Virtually every bit of work done on a person-to-person basis is done by volunteers, not the staff. Heavens to Betsy, $55,000 doesn't go anywhere in terms of providing service to the community. But that $55,000 provides the coordination of all those volunteers — and they are manifold.

[5:15]

I suggest that if the minister really follows what she professes, and that's her love for the volunteer service, she would go back to Treasury Board and say: "Look, we're doing them in. We're doing the volunteer services in when we suspend funding to this particular group." They have a liaison with the HandyDART, which is all very important. This is the lifeblood of the senior services in New Westminster. They're deemed to be essential by both levels of government service in the community — federal and provincial. As I said before, they make a point of hiring special-needs people, people who will come to work there and ultimately gain the kind of confidence or the experience that is necessary for them to get back into the community, working wherever. Their success in this has been incredible.

Mr. Chairman, I have asked a number of people associated with the board, people I know who have been connected very closely with this over the years, and they tell me that it will go down the tube without that core funding. Maybe not tomorrow — oh, yes, they're out right now hat in hand, trying to raise the money to make up the difference. You know, if government is to play a role in human services, this is the kind of role that government should be playing — a role that over the years has given back many, many, many times what it has taken in terms of our resources. If anybody should be leaning on this minister it should be the minister who is sitting right beside her at this moment — the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). He has saved huge sums, despite his magnificent budget, just by the fact that there are such things as the senior citizens' bureau in New Westminster.

Mr. Chairman, I remember some time ago, not long after they started their outing service, when they went around to some of these private rest homes and so on. One day I was told about a woman who had not been outside the door of this particular rest home for ten years — not once. That's what that kind of service does — it breathes a little bit of life into human beings. For heaven's sake, if we haven't got that kind of understanding and that kind of heart, we don't deserve to be in government. It's absolutely essential that this be understood. I'm sure there are other bureaus around the province that are in exactly the same situation. I believe ours is one of the oldest and certainly one of the best run. It's the only integrated bureau in the area. As a matter of fact, we handle people from the Fraser Valley and around. They collaborate with all the churches and put everything they've got into this. They have husbanded their services during this time of restraint, by far better than government. In my community, one out of every five people is a senior. You can talk about Victoria and the aged here, and you can talk about other areas, but in our particular area one out of five is a senior.

I believe we should be fighting as hard as we can for this service. I don't think they should be taking away from their catalyst role and running out into the community trying to raise a few dollars here and a few dollars there. The money they get is the best spent money of government, and they're not going to be getting it after April 1. I think it's absolutely shocking. There's no excuse for it. It's a first-class service and will continue to be a first-class service. It's staffed by the most dedicated people you ever want to find, and for us to give them the back of our hand during these estimates would be less than responsible, in my opinion.

I ask the minister to rethink this whole question. I can't speak for all of them across the province, but I do know that in her own words it is something in the order of $1 million that is being spent. I do know, however, that the fraction being spent in our community is being spent as wisely and with as profound a return as you could possibly get out of any buck ever spent anywhere. So I ask the minister to rethink this whole question. Inasmuch as New Westminster is concerned, my request is that the minister restore the funding to one of the most important and one of the oldest seniors' services bureaus in the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: I wonder why the minister won't answer that question. My friend wants to speak. We have two people on their feet. You know perfectly well you have been answering every other question as it came up. The fact of the matter

[ Page 3695 ]

is that the minister doesn't want to answer this question. She knows perfectly well that it's in total....

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

MR. COCKE: I'm in order, Mr. Chairman. What's wrong?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's proceed without....

MR. COCKE: The minister doesn't want to answer the question for this reason: she has professed to be in favour of volunteer services in this province; she knows — it goes without saying — that this is proven to be the way to make volunteer services work; yet the funding has been withdrawn. There's no excuse for it. As far as I am concerned, if the minister doesn't want to answer, then I guess the answer that she gave to my colleague the member for Burnaby Edmonds is the answer. I think it's a shocking shame.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Stay in the House and you'll get an answer. Your colleague wants to talk about the same subject.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss....

MR. REID: It's 25 after 5.

MR. BLENCOE: Boy, the member from Surrey is a little rambunctious, Mr. Chairman.

MR. REID: We're tired of listening to you even before you start.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, perhaps you could control these people over here a little bit.

I want to ask the minister to perhaps respond to what is happening in the Victoria area. Yesterday I asked the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) to try to elucidate and let this House know a little bit about his concerns regarding the unemployment picture and some of the trying times that are happening in this area. Of course we got no response. Today we are dealing with the estimates of the Minister of Human Resources, which deal with the result of that lack of response from this government. I'm sure the minister is well aware of the very difficult times that this Victoria area is experiencing. I'm sure she is aware of the incredible unemployment rate that is currently plaguing this community. She probably saw the Vancouver Sun story that was done over the weekend, showing the incredible results of the recession. One of the more obvious signs of the recession in this area, and I think a lack of response by her ministry, is that Victoria is becoming nationally known as the place where you can get the best soup in the soup kitchens of this country. The story went into some of the ramifications of what is happening to families and individuals in this area and an appearance by this government of not really appearing to care very much about many of those people. Indeed, in the budget the minister reduced the amounts available to single people on welfare.

I would like to read into the record the statement put out by the Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of B.C., which have their headquarters in Victoria. It is appropriate that they are headquartered here, given the situation we have in our community. I think it is a very important statement and one that hopefully the government will listen to in terms of the crying need for thousands and thousands of British Columbians and, indeed, thousands of Victorians. I will go into some of the statistics shortly. The minister may not have gotten this press release, but I think it is a reflection on this government. Certainly it is a reflection on this ministry.

"The proposed cutbacks in welfare are punitive in nature and some are actually discriminatory, being based purely on the age of the client. To discriminate against people is bad at the best of times, but to discriminate against these young people at a time when the employment rate for their age group is double the general one is reprehensible beyond belief. Most clients of the Ministry of Human Resources are already dipping into their support allowances to help pay the rising costs of shelter. Now the ministry is going to be taking more out of the support allowances for longer periods of time. The result may be greater health and legal costs. Poorer diets lead to more illness. The anger, frustration and injury to self-respect lead to crimes like vandalism. The deprivation felt by people who cannot afford decent food and clothing leads to shoplifting, purse-snatching and muggings. Not every victim of the cutbacks will turn into a mugger or a prostitute, but we must consider the cost to society for even one who does.

"The purpose of the GAIN act is to 'relieve poverty, neglect and suffering.' The proposed cutbacks will create more poverty and suffering. The government tries to justify this betrayal of the spirit and purpose of the act and their abandoning of an essentially powerless section of our society by telling us that young people can go elsewhere to find jobs. Unemployment is a problem all across Canada. This government can only succeed in creating a rootless, itinerant class of young adults travelling to find work, and finding only more rejection, frustration and deprivation. These young people are not seen as 'the deserving poor,' the people the government is willing to help be poor. These are not the disabled, the elderly or the single parents, who, judging from the help they still get, the government feels deserve to be poor. The 'deserving poor' have not had raises to help them cope with rising food and shelter costs, but neither have their rates been cruelly cut back. These young people are seen as the 'undeserving poor' because they are young and able-bodied. Their energy and talents are being wasted because they live in a society and a time where jobs do not exist for them. They do want to work, to be independent and to get the material things they have been taught go with the 'good life.' They want to afford to travel and learn. They want to afford to get married and raise children with decency and dignity. They have hope and ambition, and do not want to be poor and a 'permanent drain on the welfare system.' Their very numbers, their lack of work experience and training, and the rampant unemployment in this country all conspire to leave them helpless to find work, hopeless of attaining their dreams, and confused and frustrated by the treatment they receive at the hands of an unsympathetic government. They have done nothing to deserve such harsh punishment.

[ Page 3696 ]

"The Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of British Columbia call upon the government to rescind all cutbacks immediately and to institute immediate raises in GAIN rates across the board to assist the poor in coping with the increases in the cost of living that have happened in the two years since the last general raise. We also demand that the government stop labelling people 'employable' and 'unemployable.' It is ridiculous to call someone employable at a time where there is institutionalized unemployment and cruel to punish that person by giving them even less money to survive on. It is time that all citizens of British Columbia realize that this government regards being poor as a crime, and that the punishment they mete out is inadequate and debilitating welfare."

That was from Robert Arnold, the vice-president of the Federated Anti-Poverty Groups.

[5:30]

Madam Minister, there is indeed in this province — and I obviously know this particular region the best — a crying-out in terms of suffering, need and crisis. You only have to visit St. Vincent de Paul, the Salvation Army, St. Andrew's, the Upper Room or the Mustard Seed, which on a daily basis are serving people. The majority of them are under some kind of assistance from your ministry, but yet, of course, are not receiving adequate support. There are 200 to 300 people on a daily basis now at St. Andrew's, and I will go through some of the statistics from St. Vincent de Paul. It is an incredible reflection on this government, an incredible reflection upon this ministry, that we have thousands and thousands of people who are not being supported adequately in this recession time. In Victoria, which has a veneer of affluence and things being okay, I can assure this minister and this government that there is severe suffering and there is a crisis in terms of need.

The unemployment situation is getting worse on a daily basis. I have to compliment the Vancouver Sun and reporter Gillian Shaw for doing an excellent job of reporting what is happening in this particular area, with an in-depth analysis of the suffering that is happening here. I would hope that this minister would take some responsibility upon herself on an individual basis to, perhaps, take a look at some of the things that are happening in Victoria and visit some of these places to see if there can be some greater response given. This government has refused to answer the need, in terms of job creation and stimulus to the economy, to help the 18,000 to 19,000 people that we know about that are unemployed in this region.

I want to go through some of the things that Ms. Shaw found out on her travels around Victoria, which I think are an incredible indictment of this government and its lack of action. The phrase "deserving poor" has taken on a new meaning in this province. What it means now is that if you're poor you indeed deserve to be poor. We all know that it's not only our local press or the Vancouver press but it's the national and international press that is covering what's happening in British Columbia and, indeed, covering what's happening in the city of Victoria.

Let me read some of the things that were discovered about Victoria. Indeed there is a crying need, and this ministry is not responding.

AN HON. MEMBER: Doom and gloom.

MR. BLENCOE: It may be doom and gloom, Mr. Minister — or Mr. Member. You hope to be a minister right now. I know you hope to be a minister. I may be doom and gloom, but I have to say, Mr. Chairman, that in that doom and gloom there are thousands and thousands of families in this area....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: They don't want to hear about this stuff, Mr. Chairman, because they know darned well that they have abandoned the unemployed and those on welfare in this province. There is not a word in that budget. They have abandoned the poor in this province. They're not a political issue any more.

Let me just go through some of these things, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MOWAT: He's tedious and repetitious.

MR. BLENCOE: "Tedious and repetitious." Well, I'll tell you that I will be repetitious until the message gets across to this government that there are people and there are needs and there are families and children in trouble, and there must be a response if government is to remain compassionate and understanding of the times we live in. I will continue to repeat that on behalf of my constituents, thousands of whom are unemployed or on welfare in this area. I won't back down from that until there is some kind of response not only by this ministry but by the Minister of Finance and his cabinet colleagues.

AN HON. MEMBER: You should read standing order 43.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, he's going to read the standing orders to me.

Let's go through some of this stuff: "Victoria: A Tough Tale of Two Cities."

"The postcard-perfect picture of tourists and well-heeled retirees sipping afternoon tea at the Empress Hotel...."

MR. REYNOLDS: On a point of order.

MR. BLENCOE: Here we go; I don't want to hear it.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, my point of order, under standing order 43, is that the member, I think, is being repetitive. He has also been talking about unemployment now. He's reading out of the newspapers about tourism, Mr. Speaker, and that's not the minister whose estimates we're reviewing. I wish you'd bring the member into line.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm sure the member is well aware of the requirements of the debate and will speak to the subject of the administration of the Ministry of Human Resources.

MR.BLENCOE:

"Down the street the doors to St. Andrew's Cathedral soup kitchen open at 7 a.m. to serve some of Victoria's 18,000 unemployed. A pregnant woman is first in line. The minute the doors are unlocked, she walks in, settles down...and goes to sleep. Behind

[ Page 3697 ]

her a young couple wait, sharing an inexpertly rolled cigarette. Dressed in.... But they take their places in the tiny church basement. When a volunteer brings them coffee, they clutch the steaming mugs as if they're the last source of warmth left in the world.

"The room fills with people, some who have slept outside, waiting for a bowl of soup to calm a growling stomach. For some it's been a long night in the park, under a bridge, in a car or, if they're lucky, somebody's garage.

"There are university graduates, truck drivers, construction workers, forest workers — some who never knew what it was to be out of work. They take their places with street people to whom this is a way of life.

"'Well, you know, Victoria has the best soup kitchens in all of Canada. Breakfast here is really nutritious.'

"Marilyn Kosh, St. Andrew's parish coordinator, says she thought the soup kitchen would just meet a temporary need when it opened 15 months ago. 'Instead,' she says, 'it's just growing; it's not decreasing at all.' The kitchen serves 150 to 200 meals every morning. It's a chilling contrast with how the other half is living.

"Just a few blocks away in the Legislature, the government introduces a budget that doesn't mention unemployment."

There is a little bit about the Minister of Human Resources, and I won't go on to say what they have to say about the minister.

"Workmen in the Legislature are busy putting in tens of thousands of dollars worth of work, building new cells for the press gallery's radio reporters. At Harbour Towers, the hotel where Premier Bill Bennett keeps a suite, a VIP suite overlooking the harbour that can be had for $150 to $200.... Within walking distance is the Mustard Seed church, a food bank facing demand so heavy it had to shut down at noon recently because there were no supplies left."

I believe the employment action centre has written to you, Madam Minister, asking you to participate and take a look at some of the things that are going on in Victoria. I understand you haven't responded to that.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: You have responded? Good. I'm glad to hear it.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: I know it's embarrassing to this government. They don't like to hear that it is known all over the country what kind of government we have and what their attitude is to people in trouble.

"The $25-a-month cut to young people starting to collect welfare will only leave more people hungry, say the people who run the city's soup kitchens and food banks. Forrest says the average bachelor suite in Victoria rents for $285 a month, and that's 'borderline slum.' For a young person starting on GAIN's new $325-a-month rate, who has to carry out 'an active job search, ' that leaves $6 a week for food.... When GAIN goes up after the first month, there's $11 a week for food, and after eight months that goes up to $16 a week.

"Panic among young women who are afraid of going hungry has spawned another social dilemma. Unable to survive on their own, the young women, mostly still in their teens, get pregnant. It's a ticket to more welfare benefits.

"Reduced payments to single people will only encourage teen pregnancies, says June Akehurst, a worker at St. Vincent de Paul's."

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you believe what you're saying?

MR. BLENCOE: These people believe it, and they see it happening.

AN HON. MEMBER: But do you believe what you're suggesting?

MR. BLENCOE: Just listen. This is what you're spawning, and if you don't do something about it, it's going to get far worse in the province of British Columbia and the city of Victoria.

People from St. Vincent de Paul and other church organizations who have worked with these people for years say: "I see young girls hooking up with a guy and getting pregnant.... Then you've got a single parent and Human Resources doesn't mess around with her welfare payments. Security for those girls is having a baby in a crib." That is starting to happen in this province and is something that should be seriously thought about and considered when you are cutting back welfare rates and with what you're doing in terms of your policies on human resources.

Mr. Chairman, just to go through some of the statistics, the number of people receiving food from food banks or soup kitchens in British Columbia — and that's because the government is not responding on an adequate basis.... On February 14, 1984, Madam Minister, in the lower mainland there were 16,280 people receiving food in food banks or soup kitchens; on the Sunshine Coast, 356; in northern B.C., 2,008; in the interior, 3,860; on Vancouver Island, 12,305. That's a total of 34,800 people having to go to other sources for food and soup in the province of British Columbia. What an indictment, in one of the richest parts of the world, that we have to see on our books 34,800 people — who we know about — having to lower themselves on a daily basis to participate in such ventures as going to a food bank.

[5:45]

The St. Vincent de Paul statistics, I should think, are very interesting for the minister, and I hope she'll respond. Here's a summary of some of what St. Vincent de Paul is doing in Victoria. These volunteer agencies are having to take up the role of government. Government is supposed to help people, but these church groups are being asked more and more to give when they don't have more to give, and they're stretching their resources. A summary: 82 percent of their clients came for groceries in 1983 — in 1982 it was 77 percent; 11 percent of their clients came for clothing; 3 percent of their clients came for miscellaneous items; 2 percent came for furniture. "MHR has decreased the number of our clients it supplies crisis grants to by 65 percent, thereby increasing our responsibility and in current costs by 65 percent over 1982." Fifty-one percent of their families are single parents — 42 percent in 1982; 12 percent of their clients are involved with UIC, applying for or receiving or experiencing delays with claims; 15 percent of their clients have no income when they come to St. Vincent de Paul; 18 percent of their clients — here's an interesting one, Madam Minister — were referred

[ Page 3698 ]

from the Ministry of Human Resources or other agencies; 29 percent of their clients were referred to MHR or other agencies; there was an increase in social assistance clients from 48 percent in 1982 to 62 percent in 1983. Persons needing help more than once a month have declined by 60 percent.

These are the organizations in this town that are having to do the job of the Ministry of Human Resources now. They are having to take up the job that government traditionally has responded to. I think the minister must respond to the people of Victoria and the province. How much more are you going to remove yourselves from your responsibility in terms of helping those in need? How far do you think these private agencies can take up the slack? Do you expect them to carry on your job ad infinitum? Is there an end? I can tell you, Madam Minister, in the Victoria area they are getting to the point now where they cannot cope with this problem. Perhaps you could respond, Madam Minister, and I have some more things for you later on.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to respond to both members who have been on their feet in the last 40 minutes.

First of all to the member who has just taken his seat, the second member for Victoria. After reading newspapers and everything, the basic question asked is: how do we respond to any community that has a high unemployment figure? Well, we are responding in many ways. My ministry hasn't been the ministry that has been responding in that regard. In this last two weeks you have had a response from the Ministry of Labour in terms of the very young people that you make a case for on the floor of this House. There are two programs for young people right now out there in the community. We respond in various ways in promoting jobs in the private sector. Hopefully those jobs will be coming forward in the Victoria area. I see the Victoria area with fantastic potential for jobs — an absolutely incredible potential.

If I were the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), or if I were a member who had the responsibility of job creation, I think I could give a pretty good speech on how we could create jobs in the Victoria area. But because I'm not the member for Victoria, and because I'm not the minister responsible for that.... I will tell you, however, that I believe this government is responding to people in need in a very real way in this province. I don't want any of the members in this House to feel that we are not responding adequately, and as best we can under the circumstances of today in this province. In this year, we will be spending three-quarters of a billion dollars on the very people you have been talking about.

I find it interesting that in one breath you talk about people with very difficult circumstances. For any individual case that you can portray, I can portray one from actual experience, from talking to people. I don't have to read a newspaper. I don't think many people on this side of the House have to read a newspaper, because they get out into their constituencies and find out what's happening there.

You've mentioned the people under 25, and you make a good case for the young people. But I want to tell you that we feel that the families with children who have those responsibilities, who cannot move away from home, cannot pick up and go and seek a job elsewhere, are the ones who should be retained at the same level. We would have liked to have increased it for them, but we can't under these circumstances. At least we're holding our own in that regard. We're asking those under 25 to share the burden as much as the IWA workers who are out of work and whom everybody is making a case for — and for all of those people who have been laid off throughout this province and don't have a job to go back to.

I think it bears repeating that the group that we have asked to give a little bit back is that group under 25 years of age. They are the ones who are the fastest in moving off welfare; they're the ones that have the quickest turnover — 38 percent of them only take welfare for one month. I'd be mightily surprised if they are the ones who've been lining up at the soup kitchen that you speak about. Fifty percent of the balance of the under-25 age group are off welfare on their own — not with any help from anyone but themselves and their initiative — in the following four months. So what we're saying is that that's the group that can bear the diminishing amount of income assistance, because they use it for such a short time; they're not going to see it over a matter of months and years, as the older ones and also those with families do.

To the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) — and I'll be quick, because there is not much to tell him, except that I agree with his description of the services of the various seniors' bureaus; they all have a different service, one kind or another, but they're all very worthwhile services.... There are 157 of them throughout the province, and we partially funded 22 of them. Yes, we have said that we are going to discontinue the funding for those 22. The member makes a very good case for retaining that service, and I can make the same case. But I want you to realize the choices that we had to make — every minister and every portfolio in this government — to fit our budgets to this recession, to the times in which we live, just like the people being described by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) and members earlier — the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), who described the plight of the people who are out of work. Just as they have had to make an adjustment, we are asking that small section of services to seniors to make an adjustment. We haven't asked them to reduce their Pharmacare; we haven't asked them to make differences in all of the other services. We have retained all of those services, not just in my ministry but also in Health — remarkable services. The response I get from seniors is that they can live with adjusting in such services as that, and they will. I'm sorry there won't be a change; I'd like to give you better news, but it will not be changed, because I don't have a budget for it this year.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

Introduction of Bills

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Income Tax Amendment Act, 1984.

Bill 14 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.