[ Page 3699 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 39: minister's office –– 3699

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Blencoe

   THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 1984

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, today is a very significant day. I think it's appropriate that we do make mention of the fact in the House that today is International Women's Day. Our numbers really are insignificant in the House –– 6 out of 57 — but they are growing. I would ask that the members keep this fact in mind today when they are putting forth their submissions.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of introducing a guest today from Ocean Falls. This is a very rare occasion. Since the government closed Ocean Falls we have only about 80 people left in the community, and transportation into the area is so difficult. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce Mr. Tim Kendrick, a long-time resident of Ocean Falls.

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.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a word about a program which is of particular interest to many in this House, because there are members on both sides of the House who have had the opportunity to be foster parents.

Last evening I had a very nice opportunity to share in appreciation night for the Victoria region foster parents. I was reminded once again, in the midst of about 150 very eager and enthusiastic foster parents, of the service that foster parents give throughout our province. It is also the twentieth anniversary of the foster parents newsletter, which is to the credit of both the staff of the ministry and foster parent associations that it has been a bond of communication. Really, if members would realize then the history of foster parent associations, just 20 years back — just a short two decades ago — there was a very different attitude prevailing in our community regarding foster parenting. First of all, there was not the close association with ministry staff in those days; it was a little different than it is today. I'd like to tell you today that at the appreciation dinner in Victoria last night about 100 percent of our staff were there with the foster parents that they serve and work with. That's all done aside from their regular duties. They don't get paid for that, and I think it's worth noting. It's also worth noting that the parents themselves.... In that room there were perhaps 150 parents and perhaps — give or take –– 1,500 success stories at least. One lady received her 30-year recognition pin –– 30 years of fostering children. I met people who had one child now and had served four and five in past years, had seen them grow up and go out into the community as good British Columbians because of the help they had given. I know that very often they're sort of that unseen army of people who do a dedicated job and don't get a lot of recognition.

But let me just speak of the foster children themselves. These are young people who have been separated from their families for various reasons, be it accidental or be it for their own protection, or whatever. Some are very sad cases. In some cases they are very special needs children with multiple handicaps, sometimes mentally handicapped, sometimes physically handicapped, and oftentimes both physically and mentally handicapped.

I just want to make a plea, if I may, to each and every one of you to make sure that the help is given to the association within your own constituencies; as we all know, the need for fostering in our communities crosses all borders. On your desks this morning is their little symbol, which says that they wish to have foster recruiting. We always need more homes to give individual attention to an individual child in a home setting, not in an institutional setting, and it's really important that we spread that word. I think you'll note that the symbol on the little pin that is before you — I hope you'll wear it today — is: "Fostering. You Can Make a Difference." So would the House join with me in paying tribute to the many foster parents, and also to the many foster children who are experiencing a family of love through them. Let's pay tribute to them for making a difference in the province of British Columbia.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for sharing with us the celebration of the twentieth anniversary of the foster parents associations in the province. I would like to associate myself with those remarks and those sentiments, as the critic, but also as a former foster parent myself. A few years ago I had the pleasure of assisting a young man in the Victoria area — who is now doing quite well, I might add — so I can appreciate the value of fostering. I would like to add, however, that although there are many people who would like to be foster parents, there are some problems in doing that work. There is a need for support for foster parents. They take on some pretty difficult jobs. Although they are well motivated and well intentioned, they need a fair amount of support through other agencies when they run into difficulties. Certainly we on this side of the House would encourage the government in ensuring that they have the kind of specialized assistance from time to time that they require.

I would say with regret that I received a letter recently from a grandparent who wished to foster her granddaughter, but because of complications in the family and disputes with respect to members of the family, she was unable to do so. I think that's tragic, because it falls in line with the Ministry of Human Resources' idea of the extended family of community helping one another. Here is an example of a grandmother who loves her granddaughter and would like to foster her, but for some reason is unable to do so. She has no legal right to do this, of course, unless the daughter would permit that.

Nonetheless, fostering in this province is a major means of assisting young people in difficulty. I hope that everyone will appreciate that it is a difficult job from time to time, but a necessary one.

MR. BLENCOE: I too would like to echo the minister's words and those of the member for Vancouver Centre on the whole concept and program of fostering in our province, and relate it specifically to the organization that is alive and well

[ Page 3700 ]

and doing a tremendous job in Victoria. I would like to compliment them on their incredible work, which is sometimes extremely difficult work. I know the minister is aware that it is often very difficult to find families who will foster. It is a challenge, but thank goodness there are still those in our society who care about children and families in trouble and do respond. It also speaks well of people and speaks well of the government in terms of trying to continue this much needed program and giving their support to this program.

[10:15]

As the member for Surrey mentioned, this is International Women's Day, and it is particularly important to bring this forward in special recognition of women. Often because of the traditional role that they are still forced to lead — particularly single mothers — they do go through difficult times. I think it is incumbent upon all of us to recognize that in these difficult times it is often the women in our society who experience the ravages of unemployment and recession first, and often worst. So I'd like to add my support to the program and particularly mention the concept of International Women's Day.

In terms of the incredible state of poverty in our province, with families who are considered to be under the poverty line and children who are not getting the essential services they need, we do know, and the minister will probably respond, that many of the programs that were established to help children in trouble and families in trouble — I won't go into the reasons why; I'm sure the government will give them — have been eliminated or curtailed. The statistics in Canada now in terms of families living under the poverty line and families who are struggling on a daily basis is growing at an astronomical rate. It is one that I hope the government in the very near future will pay more attention to. For instance, in British Columbia now 68,000 poor families are considered to be living under the poverty line. There are 127,000 poor single persons in British Columbia, and the National Council of Welfare states there are probably as many as 200,000 British Columbians living below or at the poverty line. This really is an incredible statistic, and a high proportion of our population in British Columbia is in this category. I think it is incumbent not only upon the government but upon all of us to recognize this awful situation — this social ill that is plaguing our province — and to have resolve, understanding and compassion. A measure of a government or a Legislature or those who are in positions of power is to recognize those kinds of problems, to recognize that British Columbia is still one of the wealthiest areas in the world and that we do have the resources to help. That should be the highest priority during this depression.

Unfortunately, as I laid out yesterday when I mentioned basically the Victoria situation, we have some of the longest soup lines in the country now. We have a number of food banks having to be established to meet the challenge that I think the government should be meeting more. They do have a greater responsibility in this area. It is particularly the children to whom I feel we are just not paying enough attention. We know that if you leave those problems unresolved and cut back some of those essential services to those children and to the support staff and things like that, downstream costs to society are horrendous. The breakup of families and the kind of societal problems created by that immediately and in the future we all know, and it is a matter of trying to re-emphasize the concept of prevention. I think this is where the government, to a high degree, is not being particularly responsible and is removing itself from some of these traditional kinds of services.

I would like for the minister.... She may be aware of it, but I think it's important to put it on the record. Let me say that on a daily basis now in our community office on Blanshard Street.... We are now up to 400 to 500 new cases a month, many of them from the ravages of unemployment and the economic recession — desperate problems. We all know they're there, but I think it's a matter of recognizing it and being prepared — jointly, I think — in this Legislature; it is something we have to tackle. I know the minister is also well aware of these kinds of problems, but perhaps she's having a tough time in cabinet getting support.

The poverty level, as defined by Statistics Canada, for a single person living in a city the size of Victoria is around $9,085. If that person received income assistance at the old rate, the annual income would have been $4,500: that is, $4,585 less than the poverty level. In the province of British Columbia today, a single person is being asked to live on less than half the official poverty level in this country. I think the minister has got to respond to that incredible statistic.

The majority of these people do not — despite what the common perception in some ranks might be about these young people, and many of them are young people — want to be on $4,500 a year and enjoy living on that amount. The reality is that nearly all of them want to have a meaningful role in society and in their community and have opportunities to succeed and get ahead. We know that many of the services are there to help them do that — I know that the minister is not responsible for education, and we won't get onto that till later, but the educational kinds of things that are being reduced — so these people can try to get ahead and remove themselves from this incredible level of poverty.

How does the minister rationalize reducing the rates for income assistance even further, when already a single person is living on an annual income of half what is considered to be the poverty level in this country? By eliminating the earning exemption, does the minister not feel she has eliminated the incentive for trying to get even a low-paying, part-time, temporary job? What concerns me, and I think concerns many people in this province, is that you are forcing people into a position where they lose hope. They lose the desire to try to improve themselves. You've only got to visit the soup kitchens and food banks here in Victoria only a matter of a few blocks away; it is an incredibly depressing situation. You talk with people, and indeed they virtually have given up and see no hope. There are thousands of British Columbians in that position today.

As I said, there are 200,000 families now at or below the poverty line in the province of, British Columbia. It's something we cannot ignore, and future budgets must address it and at least show that there is a caring, understanding and determination to turn that around. The budget, as we all know, did not talk about any of these kinds of problems that reduce many of the services that would help. The regional board of health estimates that in order to feed a male a minimally nutritious diet in Victoria costs $115 a month, Madam Minister. As the support allowance for a single male is, as of April 1, 1984, reduced to $125, that leaves this man $10 a month to cover the cost of transportation, clothing, laundry, medical, insurance premiums, getting a haircut, or anything that might help him try to find a job. There is $10 a month left for those thousands of single young British Columbia people to try to pull themselves up off the floor. It

[ Page 3701 ]

cannot continue, Madam Minister. It is a long road to further desperation and deprivation on the part of these people. There are thousands of them in my riding who, initially at least, would just like some indication from the government that there is a sense of caring and compassion.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I hope you, along with your minister, will demonstrate that in the future.

Perhaps the minister has some advice on how to manage with this sum of money. How do you expect, Madam Minister, the single males, of which there are thousands in the province of British Columbia, to manage on $10 a month, and at the same time allow them to try to find a job or get themselves into a position to improve themselves? It's a no-win situation that you're putting them in, and that's got to be looked at and discussed.

When I again relate to the social concern officer of St. Vincent de Paul, I have to say, as I did yesterday, that we all owe an incredible debt of gratitude to the various groups that are helping this community for the hours and hours they are all putting in, particularly organizations like St. Vincent de Paul, the Salvation Army, the Mustard Seed, the Upper Room and St. Andrew's. Without them responding to your elimination of various programs, cutbacks and reductions, Madam Minister, I would fully envisage that the lawns of this Legislature would be full of people camping out and telling you clearly that you are putting them into a position of no win. There has to be some resolve to address that particular situation.

Let me give you some of the reports from the social concern office of St. Vincent de Paul. They are again being forced to take up the responsibilities of this government which, I believe, is abrogating its responsibility. In August 1983 the staff and volunteers, with particular thanks to a number of people, completed a survey of clients taken between January 1 to July 31, 1983; It was an eye-opening report in terms of the drastic situation of single people. It's still available to those who may be interested. This is an organization, I can assure you, that is very reluctant to get into these quite drastic statements, but they are having to state these things now.

During November they had the highest number of interviews –– 784 — effectively helping 1,383 people. During December, between the Christmas list and their regular services, they assisted 1,027 homes; well over 2,000 people were affected and helped. The total number of clients for 1983 in the social concern office was 6,898, a dramatic rise, I might add, over the previous year. Many of those people were supposedly on social assistance or trying to get some aid from this provincial government. Unfortunately they were being turned aside. I have to emphasize again that without these organizations stepping into the breach where the government, I believe, is abrogating its responsibility, the city of Victoria would be in far worse condition than it is today. It is desperate today, I have to tell that minister and her government.

The report from the Community Council of Greater Victoria, which is also trying to find ways to deal with the major cutbacks and this whole philosophical direction of this government, in removing itself from some of serious social responsibilities to the people of British Columbia.... I'll read some of their report, because I think it should go into the record. These people deserve to have their reports recorded for the people of British Columbia, because they spend many hours helping people. This report was compiled on January 6, 1984, and, as I said, it is from the Community Council of Greater Victoria. Michael Clague is the executive director: "The provincial government's changes of the summer of 1983 in the human services sector represents the beginning of a dramatic shift in the relationship of government to the provision of human services. The full dimensions of this shift are as yet unknown" — if I may put in my own little bit here, they're becoming clearer on a daily basis — "but the impact of change to date is becoming apparent. The community council, in September 1983, canvassed some 60 agencies in the private sector of the human services to discover the impact of these provincial government changes."

I think the concluding statement of the background statement by the council is a very important one: "The climate is one of uncertainty, frustration and low morale." That goes back to some of my earlier comments about what you're doing to single people and young people who, through no fault of their own, are unable to find employment in the province of British Columbia. In Victoria today we have the second-highest unemployment rate in the country for metropolitan areas.

[10:30]

The 60 agencies who were contacted report:

The following report is of the major concerns in order of priority: (1) loss of staff; (2) termination of the community involvement program; (3) reduction and/or loss of other programs and services; (4) reduction in the ability to plan for service expansion in response to need; (5) loss of preventive functions; (6) worry over limited availability of funds in the private sector and the possibility of excessive competition among agencies. "Conclusions. There is an increased need and demand for services and a coinciding decrease in the ability to provide these services." In other words, it's getting worse. "The most vulnerable members of our society, low- and fixed-income citizens, seniors, disabled, disadvantaged and children, are those most affected." They are the ones who are having to pay for the philosophical direction of this government. They are spurred on, I might add, by that weird institute, the Fraser Institute, which has no idea of compassion and understanding in difficult times. That's where you're getting your ideas. "In addition to the pervasive unhealthy economic and unemployment situation, enormous additional stress has been placed on both individuals and services as a result of these changes."

There is concern that volunteer resources are being stretched to capacity beyond numbers, knowledge, skills and experience, Madam Minister. It is also unrealistic to rely on volunteers to provide professional and/or statutory services. I'll recite that again: it is unrealistic to rely on volunteers to provide professional and/or statutory services, Madam Minister. The Community Council of Greater Victoria and its staff — most of which is a volunteer staff — will continue to do what they can in this desperate situation in Victoria and the province of British Columbia.

Another serious indictment of this government and its social programs: a report from the Canadian Mental Health Association. We All know that last year the admissions to mental health institutions in British Columbia had a dramatic rise. I don't have the exact numbers before me, but it was something like 3,000 the year before, and 8,000 last year — an incredible increase.

[ Page 3702 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mental health would be a different ministry.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, you're quite correct. But it reflects on what's happening in terms of the response that is given or not given by the Ministry of Human Resources.

The Canadian Mental Health Association reports that unemployment contributes to a host of social problems, including suicide, mental illness, alcohol abuse and family breakdown.

You know, there is really — and we can't overemphasize it — a crisis in the province. I think the minister is well aware that if we don't come to terms with it, the costs to the taxpayer and to society downstream will be horrendous. Unemployment is destroying the lives of more than two million Canadians, of which we have hundreds of thousands in the province of British Columbia.

The report, which I won't go into in detail, is an excellent report about the ravages of unemployment and its impact on body and soul. The Canadian Mental Health Association says: "impact on body and soul." That's something we have to recognize: that people have feelings, pride and needs which are very hard to put into statistics, very hard to compute. But some of the current direction of this government is, in my estimation and in the estimation, I think, of thousands of British Columbians, indeed soul-destroying.

Madam Minister, I've asked you some questions about the problems of single people on welfare. I've said that they are half of those at the poverty level in British Columbia. How do you expect them to try to achieve a meaningful place in our communities in British Columbia? It's extremely difficult, and you're making it far worse. How do you respond to that? If your desire is to see those people improve themselves and get out of that pit of the one-way street — and 200,000 British Columbians now are on a one-way street — how do you see them doing that when you continue to degrade them and cut their support? How can they pull themselves up by their own bootstraps? It's a question that has to be answered, and I'm wondering if the minister has any kind of answer.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I'd be pleased to respond. I just thought that I could do them all at once, but if you want me to do them singly....

Let me respond, first of all, to the last question regarding single people. I don't know how many times I can repeat to really have you understand what the caseload is in terms of income assistance as it pertains to young people in the province of British Columbia. Please don't look at the total caseload, be it families and children, whether be it middle aged or young people, as being the same people always on the income assistance rolls, and they just keep getting added to each and every day. That is not so. There is a turnover that is constant. In the case of young people, it is very quickly turned over. Young people under 25 are usually coming from a job or from a place where they have had support of some kind, and they're going to another job. Statistics prove that that is the case. You can claim all you want that there are no jobs for them to go to, but surprisingly enough they have actually gone to paying positions, and 38 percent of those who come onto the welfare rolls today will only use welfare for one month. They are not on it for one year and part of the statistics of the poverty-line people in one year; they are on it for one month. A full 50 percent of the group that is left, if you start with that one group that comes to us for income assistance today, will get a job on their own within three to four months. Those people are a very fast-turnover group. It's on the basis of that that we made the decision to reduce by $25 and $50 for that group. They are most able and have by history and by experience shown that they move off more quickly.

Most of your address this morning has been asking for more dollars for that group, another group or for yet another group. What you're talking about is the subject of unemployment. That's not the subject of my ministry. With the greatest respect, it is the subject of perhaps other ministries, it's certainly the subject of the private sector and it's certainly the subject for many other areas in the province. It is not the subject of this ministry. We respond to the need when unemployment is prevalent, but it isn't really our objective. We have to respond to a very great need. We aren't the job creation group in the province.

I also want to say that the subject of unemployment is an international subject; it's not a B.C. subject. It's a Canadian subject, it's an American subject, and it's a world subject. Again, one can't give an answer to when the recession is going to completely end. We have had many statements in the last few weeks saying that it has certainly rounded the corner and things are looking brighter. I tend to believe that, and I certainly hope that the next time I stand here to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources, it will indeed have been put behind us and be diminishing. We are simply a reflection of the times. When unemployment is high, welfare is high. When unemployment is low, we reduce our figures accordingly.

I want to talk about the poverty line, which you are fond of quoting over and over again. There are several poverty lines in Canada. There's the Senate poverty line, there's the Statistics Canada poverty line and then there are several organizations which produce a poverty line. They all differ. They use different criteria. I guess the people who know best what the poverty line is are those who are in poverty. Those are the ones who truly understand the poverty line in Canada and in this province. What we are doing — in the case of the young people you discussed in the latter part of your speech — is trying to protect the services for those families who are in poverty. We're trying to keep the services intact in order that we may preserve the services and the dollars for that group of people.

We've been trying to protect the people who are least able to help themselves. There are those who can help themselves, who have supports in their own families, who can leave a suite that they've been renting and can go home and live with mom and dad again. They're under 25 — they're maybe 22 or 23 years of age. Let the family embrace them once again. Perhaps that isn't too bad a thing, either. It's an individual decision, and it's an individual case one has to look at. You can't blanket it all, but it may not be all too bad for some of them to go back and be embraced by their family again.

I want to refer to one statement you made about some comment being made by someone to the effect that you can't rely on the volunteer for statutory services. We're not relying on the volunteer for statutory services. We never have, and we won't. The reason we're saying that we hope the volunteers, in many cases — and it has been proven they will.... In those services which we can no longer afford — and there are some that we can no longer afford — we are hoping the volunteers will take their place. I want to make it

[ Page 3703 ]

very clear today, if it has been unclear before, that I did not say, or ever expected, the volunteer to pick up every service of human resources or social services in the province. I guess it's good politics for the socialists to say that the Socreds want everything to be done by volunteers. We know everything can't be done by volunteers. Maybe that's good politics for you, but the practical thing is that we all know that's not possible.

I also want to give credit to the many volunteers who do a great job in this province of British Columbia. I'm talking about church organizations. Our ministry has relied on so many good groups. I name the Salvation Army as being an outstanding organization for delivery of services, and we have a very good partnership with them. We have a good partnership with many organizations that provide some voluntary work and use government funding, but we aren't in any way saying it can be done totally with volunteers. There are some things that can be done totally by volunteers, and in this age of responsibility and accountability, I think we are giving volunteers an opportunity to do just that.

I remember reading — and it wasn't that long ago; it was in the latter part of 1983, somewhere between October and December — in a publication on the North Shore where a service club was actually advertising, not in a paid advertisement but through the editor of the paper.... It was asking for people to come forward to give them ideas where they could spend their money. Now that's incredible, but it isn't unique. There are organizations which raise money in various ways — lotteries and everything else — and which are sometimes hard put to know where their funds are going to be placed. You can argue with that, but what you have is a very healthy volunteer organization and group. On the one hand you have need and on the other hand you have expertise, and what volunteerism really is is just marrying the two, making sure that they provide help to those in the community who need that kind of assistance. There are opportunities there.

[10:45]

1 also want to touch on one program which seldom gets mentioned but is totally successful, and I think highly of it. When there was not a recession, it was an incredibly successful program, but it is successful even now; it is the job action program. It was started as a pilot project in Victoria, and the kinds of things we are doing with people in that job action program, which is only three weeks long.... These people dial a phone and get their own jobs. I've spoken about it before. I can't spend the time of the House telling you how successful it is, but I'd like you to look at it. I appeal to all members of the House to get in touch with me, then go and sit with a class and find out what it does, because it is quite remarkable. The clients from income assistance who come into the job action program and go out the other end are different people in three weeks' time.

I am going to quote a couple of letters, and I won't take too much time. Here's one:

"I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the Ministry of Human Resources for sponsoring me to the job action program. It is an excellent, well-balanced program and provided us with a teacher, Mindy Wilson, with much expertise. The job action course changed the whole outlook of myself, and gave me new hopes and confidence toward finding employment. I sincerely believe that it would be a definite advantage to keep the program running for the benefit of people on social assistance."

And another one:

"The program is excellent because I have learned self-motivation, self-confidence and better communication. It is not only these; the counsellor taught me different techniques in searching for a job. I have spoken to many prospective employers, and am getting some interviews too. I have not found one as of now yet, but through my motivations and confidence I am well on my way. Therefore I think that this program should go on for the benefit of those who are reentering the workforce."

In response to the member from Vancouver Centre, if you would like to share with me the name of the grandmother who wants to foster her own grandchild, you are aware that we have a program which is a child in the home of a relative program, and it is just that: some assistance to a family who may not have enough funding to assist but do want to have the child who is a relative. We could maybe assist that grandmother. However, I have to say that there sometimes are lots of reasons why a child can't be placed in the home of a relative — they may be too close to the danger which took them out of the parent's home in the first place. But you know that. Let me have an individual case and I'll work on it, because we believe.... It goes without saying that a grandmother, an aunt, an uncle or a relative would be so much better. Also, Mr. Chairman, I have in my possession today the copies of the two orders which the member for Vancouver Centre asked for yesterday, and I would ask that I be able to table them at the end of the session. And may I send them over to the member in the meantime so that he can read the two orders, which will then be tabled for House information.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. BLENCOE: I didn't get too many answers there. I guess we are not going to get any; the process and the attitude of the government is not going to change, it would appear. I would only add to the minister, who states that there are jobs available and people are finding work, etc.... I am going to remind the minister that in this area there are 18,000 people looking for that work. Just six months or a year ago, when about 40 jobs were listed at one of the local hospitals, about 3,000 people applied for those jobs. A construction site recently had 15 jobs and over 300 people applied. There are a lot of jobs for sure, Madam Minister, in this area; yes, indeed.

I want to leave that, because clearly we are not going to get very far with it, and move on to mention the problem that our senior citizens' Silver Threads Centre is having, and the government's and minister's decision to totally eliminate funding for the senior citizens' centres in the province of British Columbia. The Silver Threads in Victoria is an organization that served close to 5,000 seniors and has given years of service to the senior community, and it is 100 percent supported by this community. To remove all funding from them.... Words escape me; we have all said them and there are no more words to describe it. We have young people being cut off; no employment opportunities. At the other end we have our senior citizens. At the time when they can expect just a little bit of return for all the effort and time they've contributed to the community and to their country, they have this little bit of support removed by this government. Again,

[ Page 3704 ]

the words have all been used, and I.... How this government can bring itself to cut off senior citizens, and particularly the Silver Threads centre here in Victoria which has done so much work in this community over the years, is just incredible. I have to say to the minister that you have shocked 5,000 people and support people beyond belief. We can only hope that this government will come to its senses and reinstate this necessary support for Silver Threads in this community.

I have to say that the senior citizens' centre here has done, as I said, incredible work, been open many hours, has dedicated staff who are on minimum salary or no salary at all, and now, at a time when they have been eliminated, they go through a dramatic fire in Saanich. They are, indeed, in financial straits, and there is much question whether they will be able to continue many of the services they have offered to this community. Those kinds of centres, Madam Minister, are prevention centres in terms of keeping senior citizens not only physically healthy but mentally healthy as well. It saves the taxpayers a lot of money to ensure that those centres are alive and well.

You know, it's a very sad.... Well, I won't say how sad it is, because clearly the members across there are not prepared to listen to anything. Everything you do is totally right, and no criticism or suggestion for change can be accepted. That's the sad state of affairs in this province with this government. Nothing can change. You are on your mission to radically alter the social fabric of this province, and you will continue to do that despite what's happening to thousands of British Columbians. When will this government come to its senses and recognize that it's socially and economically affecting thousands and thousands of lives with its wrecking policies?

Now you're cutting off the senior citizens of this province, and all those centres and all the work they've done over the years: the hot meal programs, lunches, support programs. You've not only declared war on young people and families; you're now also taking on the senior citizens of this province. That minister over there should be ashamed of herself for cutting off the Silver Threads centre here in Victoria, for cutting off those 5,000 or 6,000 senior citizens. She says that volunteers can take over the job that government should be doing. How many volunteer organizations do I see this government...? It's giving more and more money in terms of not taking revenues from the big corporations and organizations. How many M&Bs and Daons are running soup lines? How many banks are running soup lines in the province of British Columbia? It's always the same people who have to do the support. And now you cut off 100 percent of the support for the little bit of help that the Silver Threads centre here in Victoria can give to those seniors in their last few years.

If I didn't know better, I'd say this government doesn't believe there's a constituency of Victoria. There isn't a constituency; they've eliminated it. We all know why. It's because over 60 percent of the people of this area supported the principles and ideals of this party. We will stand up for those principles and ideals, because the things you are doing to the people of Victoria and this province are not acceptable and have to be turned down.

I ask this minister to seriously consider reinstating immediately the funding for that Silver Threads centre, particularly in light of the financial crisis they are now facing because of the fire they had in Saanich. This community is a retirement centre; people come here — and many of them have lived here many years — expecting just a little bit of extra sunshine in their last few years. And now they're taking on those very programs that provide that. Madam Minister, I hope you will seriously reconsider your cutting off of the Silver Threads centres and the other senior citizens' centres in the province of British Columbia. You have penalized them beyond belief, and you are now saying that somehow or other they will miraculously come up with a.... And we know the newspaper stories that have been appearing; they are very much concerned about whether they are going to be able to continue the sorts of things they have done over the years. They provide comfort and friendship, and this government is spurning that and turning aside those senior citizens' centres.

Perhaps the minister can give me her rationale as to why she would totally eliminate funding for Silver Threads centres in Victoria, particularly when this is a senior citizen's town. Does Victoria still exist in the mind of that minister? Do senior citizens not matter any more? Is it just like the young and unemployed, who don't matter any more? Maybe the minister will respond. If you cannot respond to that.... There are thousands of senior citizens in Victoria who would like to hear your rationale in this House, Madam Minister. This is the first opportunity we've had to ask you questions about the elimination of funding for Silver Threads centres.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I would like to bring to your attention that any questions to the minister should be directed through the Chair. I would request that you do not converse directly with the minister.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Last night a similar question was asked on senior citizens' centres, and I purposely didn't respond to the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), because the second member for Victoria was halfway up on his feet and I thought he would be bringing up the subject in the same debate on seniors at that time. I purposely kept my seat waiting for that, and I had the same kind of barrage from the seats opposite because I wasn't going to answer the member for New Westminster. So I answered him. I'm quite sure the second member for Victoria stayed in the House to listen to my answer, and it was a like answer.

[11:00]

We have very many seniors' services in the province of British Columbia, and in order to retain them.... I think of Pharmacare, the counselling service that we have, the GAIN for seniors program, bus passes, long-term care, the homemaker service and all of those other services we have for seniors, When it came to making decisions, there was one area that was not consistent throughout the province; it was different. There are 156 centres in the province. Some are large and some are small; some were funded and some were not. There were 22 partially but not totally funded: We gave nine months' notice to those 22 to find other funding and to reduce their costs, because their costs had gone from the original volunteer services, up to, in the case of the service you're speaking of — not in the case that the member for New Westminster brought before the House.... Some of them were very lean operations and others had very large staffs. But in terms, of that, they've done a very good job. I met with a group from Silver Threads, and I have met with the various groups that have come to me on the very same subject. Some

[ Page 3705 ]

of them are doing an excellent job of budgeting themselves, getting funding and so on.

Mr. Chairman, all I can say is that as Minister of Human Resources it would really be very nice to be able to stand here and say that everything that was in place two years ago is still in place. Everything is not in place. Nor is it in place for the people who were working two years ago. It isn't in place for the IWA worker who was working 18 months ago, it isn't in place for the department store clerk who doesn't have a job today, and it isn't in place for some of the services that we were able to offer when times were good. I'd like to be able to say to you today.... Sure, I agree that it's a great service. There are 156 great services in this province, of which 22 were funded. We are not funding the 22 after March. I'd like to, but we won't be able to, and I'm really sorry that we can't. I'm glad to tell you that we are supporting, almost totally.... Every service is intact for seniors in every other facet. This is the only one area which we are cutting out; all the others are intact. They are very good services, and I think they're very much appreciated by the seniors in our province.

MR. BLENCOE: I have a very simple question for the minister. How hard did you fight the half-billion-dollar bailout of BCR at the expense of these senior citizen centres and other programs? That's what it's about — that massive bailout by your government because of the mistakes you made.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that question does not relate to the administrative function of the office of the Minister of Human Resources.

MR. BLENCOE: That's the priority — bailing out the mistakes and the incredibly bad deals you've made at the expense of these people I'm talking about.

Madam Minister, I don't know if you're aware how serious the Silver Threads situation is in Victoria. They are in desperate straits. They've had this massive fire out in Saanich, and there is a real question whether they can continue. Is the minister prepared to take a special look at the situation in Victoria, in light of the very unfortunate event that happened a few weeks ago in Saanich? The programs are indeed jeopardized. Is the minister prepared to take a look at that on an emergency basis and see where she can help?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, so far I haven't had that request from the organization.

MR. BLENCOE: If it does come, through you, Mr. Chairman, is there a good chance that the minister will be able to respond favourably?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I don't know the background of that, so I'm sorry I cannot answer that with any intelligence. I would assume there is something to do with insurance; we're talking about a fire, and I would think there is a response from the insurance company rather than from the government in this regard. So I'm sorry, I can't responsibly answer the question. I don't turn anybody away who wants to see me, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BLENCOE: One final area — a totally different issue. We know that the Vancouver Transition House has been fairly substantially reduced. I'm wondering if the minister can inform this House what her intentions are in terms of the Victoria Transition House.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The government's intention has been very clear regarding transition houses. Since four years ago we aggressively built on the original transition house that had started in Vancouver, and we put in a program where we would finance societies to begin transition houses throughout the province. I'm glad to tell you there is something like 22 now in the major centres, and Victoria falls within that area, so it would be unchanged. Transition houses throughout the province will all remain; they will all be funded; the service in tiny, little communities that do not have a full transition house but need a safe haven every so often will continue to be funded through our ministry in tiny, little hamlets. So you can say that the full province of British Columbia is covered.

There is only one difference: the city of Vancouver. We had a very good debate on the floor of the House yesterday with the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) on this subject. In order to make the Vancouver one consistent with the rest of the province, we are getting out of the business of staffing directly, through the Ministry of Human Resources, the Vancouver Transition House. It will now become — like the Victoria one and all others throughout the province — a transition house which is funded by the Ministry of Human Resources through a society.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I would ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES: I understand that the president of the B.C. Association of Social Workers, Mr. Roop Seebran, is in the galleries with his wife Yvonne, Mark and Andrew, and I would like the House to make them welcome.

The minister probably noted in the Province this morning an article entitled: "Incest Counselling Service to Move to New Westminster." I just wanted briefly to mention a story written by staff reporter Keith Morgan, which states: "A man convicted of sexually assaulting his adopted twin daughters has opened an incest counselling service in Vancouver." The man stated that he didn't want any publicity at this stage, but said yesterday, as he closed his apartment door on the Province reporter, that he was operating his Magical Child Counselling Service, without a city licence, from a basement apartment suite on the 2900 block of Alder Street in Vancouver.

"Because there are no regulatory laws or supervisory bodies, anybody can set up such a counselling service without recognized qualifications. The man pleaded guilty in a Sidney court on April 8, 1980, to assaulting his adopted daughters. He was given a suspended sentence and two years' probation. The sentence included taking courses relating to child sexual abuse.

"The man now touts those courses as his qualifications in a publicity handout. He's offering advice at an undisclosed hourly rate and has invited lower mainland child welfare agencies, police and the Ministry of Human Resources to refer victims to him.

[ Page 3706 ]

"'The service is a concern inasmuch as we have to be careful in the interests of the victims of sexual assault,' said Sgt. Gordon Howland, head of the city's sexual offences squad. 'People who get involved in such counselling must have the highest qualifications.'"

I have a question to the minister with respect to privatization of services. She could perhaps reflect on this as an example of one of the things that we've stated on this side of the House we hope will not happen. I think this clearly states the concerns we've had with the government's initiatives respecting privatization of services to families and individuals.

Over the February 11 weekend, the ministry advertised for proposals to privatize a variety of residential and treatment facilities for children. I would like the minister to please confirm what kind of information packages were made available for potential bidders to supplement the information in the newspaper ad. Could she indicate whether or not a deposit by the bidder was required? As well, will the minister confirm that the bidder will be bidding on the care of a specific group of clientele; that is to say, will the children and families involved continue treatment uninterrupted? Finally, what information is available to the bidders respecting personal information of these families and children?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: First of all, in response to the so-called counsellor who has had some publicity in the paper this morning, I'm sorry I can't respond to what that's about. I'd be very glad to look into it. As far as I know, one can't call themselves a counsellor or get a business license for being a counsellor without.... There are all sorts of reasons why they can't, including the very evident one that the member reiterates. But the business licence and the health authorities all have a part to play in the decision as to whether someone can set themselves up — hang a shingle, if you like — and say they're a counsellor. So I'll certainly look into it with my colleague the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). I'd be very pleased to do that.

You asked about the the 22 services that we will.... They will be operated. They will have agreements. They will have the same reference to a code of ethics and responsibilities as the 600 that we now operate all through the province do. As far as that goes, they'll have the same kinds of attitudes of responsibility that our own people have. You know, we have 5,000 people in this ministry. We hire 5,000 people.

I think the service that you're talking about, again, is for I think he's advertising for offenders, not for children. I think that should he made clear. But it doesn't make any difference. Anyway, I'm sure the question raised regarding the business of us getting out of the business, in terms of whether or not those who take over the service will have the sense of responsibility.... I can tell you what our experience has been in 600 services throughout the province. That experience tends to show us that we will have good success in the 22.

MR. BARNES: I neglected to thank the minister for the order issued by Judge Nimsick respecting the case in Cranbrook. I will be reviewing that. Thank you for that.

I understand there are no specific regulations respecting people who wish to call themselves counsellors. This is my understanding, and it may not be correct. Obviously this person has been able to operate without such obligations under the regulation. I would hope that the minister will consider that in light of the risk that could be involved respecting privatization of services where we don't have any way to scrutinize or control the risk factor concerning these young people. I raise this as a concern. I'm not prepared to state the situation as it exists, because I'm not familiar with it.

I would like to ask the minister another question. Under the Family and Child Service Act, a child is described as a person under 19 years of age. The ministry also has a pamphlet entitled "The Helpline for Children." I wish the minister would clarify for the committee, Mr. Chairman, an explanation for this category under The Helpline for Children, which states: "What is child abuse and neglect? An abused child is any person under the age of 17 who has been abandoned, deserted, physically ill-treated or who is in need of protection for any reason. Abuse can be physical, emotional or sexual. A child can also be harmed by neglect, which includes malnourishment, lack of essential medical care and unlawfully being kept from attending school."

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, 17 years of age was under the previous act. We changed it on the floor of the House when we put in the new Family and Child Service Act. I don't know what publication you're reading from. If it is current....

MR. BARNES: It's '83.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We're in the process of updating our interministerial policy directives, and it may just not have been caught. At any rate, all of those will be changed in the updating process. It is very definitely up to 19 in the act, and it will be in all of the directives and advertising.

MR. BARNES: This series of questions have actually been talked about in sort of an ad hoe way, but to clarify the record I would like to ask the minister to explain the following step by step. It has to do with child apprehension. The presentation in court for child apprehension initially sets a date for a hearing only. Between the hearing and the initial presentation, what is the procedure for placement of the child? Where is the child kept? What are the options for the ministry with respect to this? Is the child left in the home? Is the child placed in temporary custody? Is a lawyer always available to the ministry's social worker for child apprehension hearings? Are social workers ever expected to enter court without legal representation?

I add some other questions relating to a subject I just talked about. Who responds to a Helpline call on a zenith line — specifically in the Vancouver, Nootka and Salmon Arm areas? What are their criteria to determine if a child is in immediate peril? If such danger is determined, what is the process? For instance, is a social worker called at 2 a.m. in the Nootka area and asked to apprehend a child?

I have one other question that we've certainly canvassed quite a bit, but I would like the minister to specifically address this question. If the court orders in-home supervision of a child in need of protection — in the past this presumably has been the family support worker and, as we know, these people are no longer in place — what category of social worker is assigned to do this?

[ Page 3707 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It is the court's decision as to what will happen to the child in that interim period. It is not up to us. It is the decision of the court.

Yes, lawyers are made available to a social worker in presentations in protection cases and in child-abuse cases. They are always made available. If there is a case that you know of where that hasn't happened, I'd like to know about it. They are available, and that service is given for very good reason. We want all the support we can have in advocating for a child.

The Helpline is a very responsive and very well-organized program. The Helpline service for the whole of British Columbia is in the city of Vancouver. It originates there, and it receives calls in off hours — 24-hour-a-day service. In the off hours the calls to the Helpline all go into the emergency Zenith 1234 number. The people who are staffing that are very adept at what they are doing. They know how to recognize an emergency call for help. I don't know of any error that's been made. Because we pioneered it, that's a great credit to the staff.

Every town and community in the province is computerized on the little computer beside their desk. If a call comes in from Pouce Coupe, they press a button and Pouce Coupe comes down, and as they are listening to the child to find out the nature of the call, they know right away who's in Pouce Coupe: maybe it's served by the RCMP; they know who the health nurse is, who the various ministers in the town are, the social workers' home phone numbers and any help that can be given — hospital, emergency, everything. If it's an immediate emergency call, they can be dialing on another phone as the child is calling, and help can be there within, frankly, seconds in a small community. Again, let me emphasize how well trained they are. They really can figure out when a child is calling because they're afraid that their marks are bad, and they don't want to tell their parents, and they're upset and afraid that their parents will get upset at their school work or something. That may not be quite such an emergency as a child who is maybe calling from a phone booth and frightened for their life, or for someone who is calling for them. That's how it's handled. During the day those emergency calls go immediately into the actual office in Pouce Coupe or wherever. It's very well organized and has been exceptionally successful — copied, by the way, by Alberta and just recently by the province of Ontario. We're very proud of the fact that we led the way.

I think I've answered everything. If you go through the Family and Child Service Act you'll find the steps and you'll find the protection. It really does evolve in steps. The child who is in the most difficulty and needs the most protection is well protected under the act. Also, the person who is facetiously accused of child abuse is also protected inasmuch as we cannot detain that child away from the family unless the court tells us to. They are well protected. If you read that act through clearly, I think you'll be pleased that it has all the protection we need.

MR. BARNES: The next series of questions concern the present complement of full-time equivalent positions that the ministry now has. In the 1982-83 fiscal period the ministry had approximately 6,000 staff — 5,990 to be exact. This was reduced in the fiscal year just past — 1983-84 — to 5,443. It is estimated that in the current fiscal period, the final complement at the end of 1984-85 will be 4,928. This is a full-time staff reduction of approximately 1,058 since 1982, representing something like a 17.5 percent decrease in full-time staff at a time when caseloads have obviously increased dramatically — and we've discussed that at some length. Social assistance figures have risen from a total of 132,205 in 1982 to 245,650 in December 1983 — an overall increase of 86 percent or 113,445. With the reduction of staff and programs, more and more pressure is being put on the staff that remains.

I would like to know, and I think the committee should have an opportunity to review, the impact of the loss of such large numbers of staff. Will the minister please tell this committee how many staff are involved in administration, how many in planning and research policy, how many in direct child welfare services, how many in supervisory and managerial positions, how many in working specifically with the mentally and the physically handicapped, how many in institutions of one category or another, and how many in senior citizen work and day care? The minister has often referred to social workers as being available in large numbers throughout the province. How many are in the social worker category? Associated with this, I would like the minister to also advise the committee on the extent of workshops and training sessions now taking place. I think I will leave it at that right now.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm not going to be able to give too many specifics just off the top of my head. I'd be glad to get those figures, and maybe that isn't a bad question to put on the order paper. Generally, I think you're fairly accurate in your overall figures. I think you mentioned that the reduction has been down to 5,443; that's quite accurate, I think. I haven't checked that, but I believe it is. The largest reduction has come, overall, in the financial support worker category — or family support workers, I should say; one tends to get those two mixed up, they're so close. It was 260. There was a very great reduction in administration. That and the reduction of Tranquille in 1984 will probably take up the bulk of that. But I can get you further....

[11:30]

When you look at, say, the reduction of Tranquille, you also have to understand that that isn't a service.... That was an enhancement of a service. We are paying tribute to placing the mentally disabled in community-based facilities. That was a request long lobbied for by the B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded and also by many families in the province. So that's something the people have asked for. A very large part of that will be the Tranquille staff. But it's good to know that those mentally disabled young people in our care will be into smaller community-based facilities closer to their homes. So when you say that it's a dramatic 17 percent reduction, you have to balance that with the decisions that have been made for, in the Tranquille case, I believe the good of the clients we serve there.

In others, it's a question of reduction of administration. The family support workers were the largest group of all, with 260. But there has been no reduction in social workers and no reduction in financial assistance workers. It's as good a time as any to say that in spite of the increased workload, income assistance being one of the largest programs of our ministry, taking up three-quarters of a billion dollars, it's a great credit to the staff and the financial assistance workers who take those cases that they have been able to encompass

[ Page 3708 ]

that added workload and serve the people of British Columbia so well.

So I thank you for the question, and I'll get the details later on, if you like.

MR. BARNES: I thank the minister. At this point you may note that I'm not contesting your responses. We've spent considerable time debating back and forth, but I think that in a ministry as important as this, we should have statements with respect to government policy on various questions. Obviously, this isn't a one-, two- or three-day operation; it's an ongoing concern and an ongoing responsibility. I certainly would like to have as much information as possible respecting the minister's policies for future reference. So this primarily is the objective I have in mind, Mr. Chairman, in raising some of these questions at this time.

Two years ago the minister justified the increases in social assistance rates by explaining that the increases were made to assist recipients to keep up with the cost of living increases and escalating shelter costs throughout the province. I think that the minister at that time was applauded for recognizing that need. However, given the increases of the cost-of-living and shelter costs over the past two years, I wonder if the minister could explain her rationale. Although I know she has given some indication of her thinking on this subject, my specific question concerns her rationale, because two years ago it was her view that the increases were necessary. Is she saying that today times are better or times are worse? Just what kind of explanation will she give?

Obviously the primary purpose of the GAIN Act is to relieve poverty, neglect and suffering. There is the question that the cutbacks that have been carried out will aggravate the objective of the Act. I would like the minister to indicate whether she is, in fact, with these cuts achieving the objective of relieving poverty, neglect and suffering under the requirements of that legislation. The minister, of course, has commented on the fact that rates have been reduced some $25 to $80 per month generally, but based on the categories within the rates, this represents an amount of $3 per day for food in some instances. I would like the minister to remark upon that. She has, of course, advised us why she has made these reductions, but could she explain the singling out of the unemployable for the reductions as well? These are people clearly demonstrated to be unable to find employment; yet they are in that category for the lowest income assistance for some reason.

You commented earlier, Madam Minister, on the job action program, and you indicated that it was a program that all members should attempt to visit and appreciate in terms of the value made available. I would like you to indicate the specific success regarding finding of employment. In other words, are these people being trained at the cost of $1,000 per person? Is that the figure? The information I have is that the contractors are receiving approximately $1,000 per client. This is a cost that may be quite important, as you pointed out, in terms of personal development and as an investment in the future. Are these people able to find jobs? You indicated something about them making phone calls themselves and showing some initiative, but I would like to know how successful they have been.

There was one comment I wish the minister would clarify. You have stated that the reductions in the social assistance rates would discourage people coming here from other provinces and expecting to collect income assistance. Given the fact that the immigration rate is down considerably from previous years, would the minister tell the House how the reduction of rates will discourage interprovincial migration?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Let me first of all correct something I said in the answer to the last question, and forgive me for misleading you, because I did say there hasn't been a social worker position terminated. That's not true. There have been 88 FAW positions, social work and supporting clerical staff positions — a total of 88 reductions in the whole component of reductions totalling 1,498. I just wanted to correct my previous comment. I now have the details of that. If you want it broken down further, if you'd like to put it on the order paper.... On the base of 5,990 ministry staff there have been headquarter reductions totalling 155, field reductions totalling 729 and institutional reductions, the largest being 584 at Tranquille and 30 at Woodlands. The total — headquarters, field and institutions — adds up to 1,498.

Again I go back to the reason that there were not increases made in income assistance. There were decreases in the under-25 group that we've discussed quite well, I think, in this debate. Again it holds true that we have still protected those who are most in need. I want you to know that 76 percent of our clients, even in a recession, are independent in eight months time. For those who have to stay on longer, we've been able to retain the same level of support. I appreciate the point you're making, that when costs go up for them, that's a reduction. But then, you see, the taxpayers haven't had a raise either. It's the same thing for the taxpayers, those who are not on income assistance and have to pay the bill for those who are. It's been a very static economy. There have not been increases to take care of sending moneys to government to take care of those in need. It's a time when we can't give those increases, because there are more — as we've all noted — on income assistance than ever before.

You asked about the statistics on job action. In non-recession times in the city of Vancouver — the city represented by the member who has asked the question and by myself — the number of success stories through job action was phenomenal. A three-week job action program resulted in somewhere as high as 95 percent. In one directed particularly to women it was 100 percent; in some cases 98 percent in the city of Vancouver. That's in non-recessionary times. On Vancouver Island it was around 80 to 85 percent, and in some parts of the province it hovered between 80 percent and 100 percent. Now that the recession is on, jobs aren't as easy to obtain. You will recall that I read a letter from one young lady who said that she did not yet have a job, but she certainly had all the confidence and the tools to get a job. She seemed to be filled with confidence that she would soon get a job because of the job action program. We're not saying that everyone who goes through those job action programs gets a job, but the overall percentage — again, it's from the very highly unemployed areas to the lesser unemployed areas — now runs around 50 percent.

You asked about costs. I don't know if I can give you the cost of that, but I can bring it to the House. My deputy assures me it's not $1,000. I can say from visiting them that there are somewhere around 12 to 15 in each class. They go through a concentrated three-week course, and there are usually two instructors. I don't think that it comes out to anything near the $1,000 you mentioned, but I'd be glad to get that information

[ Page 3709 ]

for you. I'm wondering if I answered everything you asked of me. If not, you'll remind me.

[11:45]

MR. BARNES: The only point I think you may not have commented on was the deterrent effect of the concept of lowering the rates in order to affect a....

Before you answer that I'll just give you another one; you can perhaps respond to the two at once, because there is some relationship. This one deals again with a question I raised yesterday on age discrimination. I'll ask just one question so you can deal with it. You were the minister, of course, at the time when the ombudsman ruled it to be unfair to discriminate on the basis of age exclusively. Obviously there has been some consideration of this question, and notwithstanding the ombudsman's interpretation of the situation and his recommendation that this practice be ceased, it is being reintroduced, creating exactly the same situation that existed in 1980. I would appreciate it if the minister would comment on this, just to assist....

Yesterday I pointed out to the minister that under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, equality rights are stated in subsection 15(1): "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the 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." I added, as an example of the problem, that when you talk about discrimination, an imposed age restriction, referring to a driver's licence, for example, is not the same as is being referred to in the act. There are valid reasons, obviously, for age restrictions. There may be instances where someone is going to a liquor outlet.... To protect that person, or to protect the values of society, or for various specific reasons.... I am asking the minister if she would comment upon the fairness of this approach in light of the law and the ombudsman's previous ruling.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Let me reflect on the other question first if I may. I never did say that I felt our new policy regarding under-25-year-olds would make any difference to the people coming from across Canada. It may have an effect, but I didn't say we were doing it for that. I want to make that clear. I never thought that we would ever arrive at the time, and I never want us to arrive at the time — nor can we legally arrive at the time, with the Canada Assistance Plan — of closing the borders of British Columbia. We don't want to; we won't; this government will never do that. Besides which, I think that has been well debated in the media. I want you to know that I personally never said that, and I don't believe it either. It probably will have an effect, because we do get a lot of people coming into British Columbia because of our weather and because young people are mobile and can move from A to B with a lot more ease. We probably see more than Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or whatever. At any rate, frankly we don't think that will make an appreciable difference.

To address your other question, we don't agree with the ombudsman, and we told him that we didn't agree. I see the ombudsman's responsibility as being one in which he, on behalf of a complainant, will point out to government if, in his opinion.... He doesn't form government policy. He can certainly make recommendations, but we did not agree with that recommendation, for the reasons I gave you the other day — the reasons being that there are many forms of discrimination. I mentioned them; you have mentioned a couple. We discriminate for good reasons, not for bad reasons. For example, we discriminate when we give a senior citizen a pension and say there are others in the community who cannot have that pension. You have got to be a certain age to get it. That's discrimination. That's discrimination for good, I suggest, because we can afford to give the seniors that amount of money. We couldn't afford to give the total population of Canada that amount of money. The word "discrimination" is not in itself bad. It's bad discrimination, I think, that you are really speaking about.

MR. BARNES: Unfair discrimination.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Unfair? Yes, unfair discrimination. There are lots of things that are done in our community which discriminate by age, so we didn't agree with that ruling. When we did make the change at that time, it was done in the broader context of income assistance changes. It's not going back on something that we had decided. It's an evolution of our policies, and almost every year that I've had this ministry, Mr. Chairman, there have had to be changes made in policy because of the changing times. So that's just what we're making. That's why the change in the policy at this time: to retain the amounts for those who are most in need and to take — yes, take — something away from those under 25, because they are not the most in need. They are the ones who are off income assistance quicker than any other group. Thirty-eight percent will be off in a month. They only use income assistance for a month. So I hope I've answered that to your satisfaction.

I want to thank the member who has carried the debate for the opposition. It's not that I think it's coming to an end, but I have a feeling that we might be adjourning until after lunch, and I just want to say to the member for Vancouver Centre that I think we've had a very fair hearing of the Ministry of Human Resources. I'll continue to hope that it will continue after lunch. Maybe the member will have another question.

MR. BARNES: We just have about five minutes or so. I agree with the minister that we've had some fruitful dialogue on the ministry's responsibilities, and I hope that this tone can be continued, because the matters that we are talking about are far too serious to be flippant about.

I would like to ask the minister to explain, to the best of her ability, the large and proliferating numbers of people attending weekly food banks. As she knows, these are temporary facilities set up to assist people in need of daily sustenance, and tragically.... Keeping in mind the concerns we all have about restraint and hard times, nonetheless, about 85 percent of the people who are in these lineups — and we're talking about thousands of people in the province — are also social assistance recipients. This clearly indicates an inadequate amount of funds in order to maintain themselves, and raises questions with respect to maintenance of good health and the ability to function in society without creating extra problems indirectly as a result of the lack of sufficient funding through the social assistance program.

I would just say, as we said yesterday, that although the national poverty line is probably the ideal line — and for a single person it's something like $9,500 per year; that's ideal — we're talking about people who have less than 50 percent

[ Page 3710 ]

of the ideal, with $4,500 per annum under the British Columbia assistance for single persons. I wonder if the minister would comment on that before adjournment.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I have to give you a couple of statistics to respond to that. First of all, how are we meeting this question? We're meeting it with three-quarters of a billion dollars. That's a lot of money from the taxpayers of the province.

I want you to take an individual case. We talk about the poverty line and food banks and so on; I want you to take a look at the amount of money.... For example, let me give you a unit of a couple who.... I'm hoping to find one with a family, because I think that's the one you're most concerned about. I don't have it with me. Do you want me to do that after lunch?

MR. BARNES: Sure.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'd really like to respond to that in full. And so, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I'll bring that information to the House after lunch. I move at this time that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.