[ Page 5967 ]

CONTENTS

Ministry of Forests Act Amendment Act, 1985 (No –– 1) (Bill M208). Mr. Howard.

Introduction and first reading –– 5967

Ministry of Forests Act Amendment Act, 1985 (No –– 2) (Bill M209). Mr. Howard.

Introduction and first reading –– 5967

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

On vote 42: minister's office –– 5967

Mrs. Wallace

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Lank

Mr. Williams

Mr. Gabelmann

Ms. Brown

TUESDAY, MAY 7, 1985

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

MINISTRY OF FORESTS ACT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1985 (NO. 1)

Mr. Howard presented a bill intituled Ministry of Forests Act Amendment Act, 1985 (No. 1).

MR. HOWARD: In explanation thereof I point out that the Ministry of Forests Act fails to recognize the great contribution that small businesses make to the economy of this province. The economic orientation and emphasis of the act states that the purpose and function of the ministry is to encourage large integrated timber-processing facilities. This orientation is accompanied by having the act state that one of the purposes and functions of the ministry is to "encourage a vigorous, efficient and world competitive timber processing industry," which in itself favors the larger integrated corporate structure.

It is the purpose of this bill to add a clause stating that it is a purpose and function of the ministry to "encourage a vigorous and efficient small enterprise timber harvesting and processing industry in the province." Statutory recognition of the need to encourage such a small timber harvesting and processing industry will provide continuity of attitude and consistency of programs. Without such a legal requirement, any small business programs rest upon administrative and political level variables. We simply cannot afford any longer to have such variables be the foundation for a revival of the forest industry.

Bill M208, Ministry of Forests Amendment Act, 1985 (No. 1), 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.

MINISTRY OF FORESTS ACT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1985 (No. 2)

Mr. Howard presented a bill intituled Ministry of Forests Act Amendment, 1985 (No. 2).

MR. HOWARD: In explanation thereof I would point out that when the concept of responsible government became part of our parliamentary system, it was a progressive move. Prior to that time, government was a representative government — that is, it represented an aristocratic and moneyed class. The concept of responsible government was simply that government would be responsible to parliament and through it to the people.

Over the years, the concept of responsible government has been diluted to a theory. The Ministry of Forests Act now states: "The minister shall preside over and be responsible to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council for the direction of the ministry." The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is now only a powerless figurehead of the Crown. The historic power of the Crown is now fully exercisable by the president of the executive council, otherwise called the Premier.

The effect of the Ministry of Forests Act now is simply that the Minister of Forests is responsible to the Premier and the cabinet. This amending bill proposes that the Minister of Forests be made, by statutory declaration and force, responsible to the Legislative Assembly, and that declaration in itself says to the people of British Columbia that their Minister of Forests is responsible to them. Hopefully such a declaration will result in the Ministry of Forests being administered in the interests of all of the people of this province, not just in the interests of those who happen to exist as corporations.

Bill M209, Ministry of Forests Amendment Act, 1985 (No. 2) introduced, read a first time and placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

On vote 42: minister's office, $214,384.

MRS. WALLACE: This debate would not be complete unless we dealt with a group of women which I feel very close to, and that is the older women in our province. It is a group that is in a very unenviable position, because so many older women live in poverty. So many of them are dependent upon this ministry for their bare subsistence. It's true that once a woman reaches 65 years of age she is eligible for the old age pension, and if she is the spouse of a person who is 65 years old, and if she is over 55 years old herself, she is eligible for some spousal allowance. But the problem occurs when that woman's spouse dies or if she doesn't have a spouse. Very often women are alone through divorce, separation, desertion or death, We have a habit of marrying men who are older than we are, and we also have a habit of living longer than they do, so the average woman can look forward to 12 years of widowhood, statistically.

The woman in this position is very often one who has not worked at a so-called productive job — that is, work for pay — for many years, or she may never have worked for pay. She has been busy raising a family and looking after a home. As a result she is not eligible for Canada pension, and she is faced with a dire financial position when she finds herself on her own or when she is no longer able to work, if she has been working. Statistics show that very often women work at much lower-paying jobs than men. Many of them work part-time, and as such are not eligible for many of the benefits that a lot of us take for granted. They are hard done by, Mr. Chairman.

[10:15]

A few years ago we conducted a task force on older women. I think the results that came out then are still very valid. The thing that it stressed the most was the financial thing; next was loneliness, isolation. But financial pressure is partly responsible for that loneliness, because when you are pinching pennies, it's very difficult to involve yourself in social activities. What happens with this ministry, Mr. Chairman, and generally with ministries that deal with older women is that many penalties are put on.

[ Page 5968 ]

I think that one of the saddest things that came to my attention just recently was one of my constituents who is 64 years of age. She did menial work in a local motel for 14 years — always on call — with no benefits. She finally got to the point that she could not deal with this any longer. About two years ago she left that position. She collected her UIC until it finished about the end of last year. Her husband is 72 and suffers from emphysema, which requires oxygen, for which there is no funding. Last February, of course, their car insurance and licence fell due, and a few other outstanding bills.

Forty years ago that women had managed to save $500, and she had invested it in a bond that obviously bore very low interest. In February, because of these extra expenditures, she decided to cash it in. I don't know whether the minister can remember 40 years ago, but I can: saving $500 was quite a feat, particularly if you were working as a chambermaid or a waitress. She had saved that and she had invested it. After 40 years she got for that.... It was obviously not wisely invested — and that's another point where women certainly need financial counselling, because very often older women particularly, as shown in our task force studies, have not had access, have not had the opportunity to learn how to conduct business or how to deal with financial problems. Many of them had never written a cheque until their husbands had passed away. So this woman had invested that $500 and in 40 years it had gone to $1,097. She cashed it in, paid her ICBC — got her husband's car insured — and paid off a couple of outstanding debts. You know what's happened, of course: her allowance, which was $186.67, has been cut to $66.05, and her husband's allowance has been cut to $220. Here they are, two of them — one is 72, one is 64 — obliged to live on $286.05 for some six months until this $1,097, which they received as a result of cashing in a bond that she had saved 50 years before to pay off their ICBC premium.... They are being penalized to that effect.

When she phoned me she said: "I went to see my doctor, and I told my doctor this, and he couldn't believe it. He said: 'Phone your MLA."' So she phoned the MLA, and she was somewhat surprised to find that the MLA was a step ahead of her every step of the way, because this is not an isolated instance. We've seen it happen so many times that I knew as soon as she started to tell me the story what had happened.

That is disgraceful: a woman who has saved money, worked that hard to save it, and the government has taken every cent of it, including that very low interest that it had earned over 40 years.

Those are the kinds of situations that face older women in our society today, the women who pioneered on our behalf, who raised their families under circumstances that we would scarcely consider adequate if we were out on a wilderness trip in the woods. It's a shameful disgrace that that kind of thing can happen to older women in our society. I know that the minister would agree. But why can't she do something about it? Surely women deserve better treatment than that. Surely women who have given their lives to work for this province and this country to raise their children to become citizens, to become the men and women who sit in this Legislature, who operate our businesses and keep our economy going, who work in our industries.... The older women of this province are responsible for the quality of people who live and work in this community, and it is shameful, a disgrace, that any person should find herself in the position where she and her husband are relegated to living on less than $290 a month for six months because the money she had saved 40 years before has been confiscated by the government. That's a shame. That's a disgrace in this province, and it should never be allowed to happen. Older women deserve better treatment than that.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It seems to me.... May I just ask the member to nod: was it the same case that you brought before the House last year? Is it that one individual case?

MRS. WALLACE: No.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: This is a new one. Okay. I'd be very glad to look into that case.

The reason I asked that question is because there sometimes are other circumstances, such as other benefits they are receiving. When we look into the case we find out they have other benefits; in other words, they have more assets than perhaps we've been told, or even more than a member of this House has told sometimes in explaining the problem. I'd be very glad to look into that case, and we'll certainly calculate whether or not there was.... If she hasn't got any other income, if it's just as you say, I don't think that could happen to her. Please let me have the specifics and I'll look into it. When such a case happens, it's usually calculated on the assets that the person has. Let me look into that one specifically. This is a problem that is not evident on a regular basis; it's a unique case. I'd be very happy to look into it for you.

MRS. WALLACE: I thank the minister, and I certainly will give her the information. But I think the rules are fairly clear that a certain amount is the maximum per month calculated, based on their assets. If you cash in those assets and have that much extra cash in your hand, your income is considered to be greater. Any time I've seen the rules applied, that's the way the system works. When those extra bucks are in hand, your income is reduced by that amount. That's the way the system works. That's what has happened to this woman.

I would appreciate it if the minister would deal a little more fully with the generalities of the situation of older women. Is she prepared to take any steps to ensure that older women do not have to face living in poverty? Is she prepared to ensure that consideration is given to the woman who finds herself a widow, separated or deserted living in the family home?

Now the allowance for two people has to support only one residence. But once that becomes a single-family unit, the shelter allowance is reduced. This means that if the woman is to continue living in her family home, she is obliged to cover the cost of that home out of one income, and it's not enough. To tear someone up by the roots like that, in her declining years, is a sure way to upset both her emotional and her physical balance. It's a way to ensure that we're going to have more health-care costs, more people unable to deal with life, to face life. It's going to mean that diets are restricted if they're to stay in their own homes, again with implications for health-care costs. I hope I'm not out of order, Mr. Chairman, talking about health care, as I am when I talk about education. But those costs are going to evolve.

I would urge the minister to consider some supplementary programs, because this is a large group of women I'm talking about. I don't have the statistics at hand that my

[ Page 5969 ]

colleague the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) had yesterday relative to the young people, or the people involved with income assistance; it wasn't a small group. It is not a small group of older women in this province; it is a large group, and it needs some consideration.

The minister has chosen to answer my specific concern and ask for more information. But I would like some expression of philosophical commitment from her that she is prepared to take some action to ensure that older women are not a forgotten group — not put on the shelf and asked to keep out of sight, or thought to be strange or peculiar because of poverty. That's what happens if people don't have the funds to dress properly, eat properly, and keep themselves clean and tidy. They get the idea of being "queer" — that's the perception of the public. There is loneliness, and that's something that can drive them into despair, into a lot of emotional problems. They can become hypochondriacs. We need things to keep their interest up. We need retraining. We need social facilities, and those are not there. There has been a valiant attempt by communities across this province to assist. But it needs some help from this ministry — more than she is apparently prepared or able to give. I think it is extremely unfair to older women who are facing this sort of situation and who have given so much of their lives to this province and to their country.

[10:30]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, it is not true that we have not considered this age group. We have. It is not that long ago that we brought into the ministry, for example, the policy that when the spouse of a woman passed away, that woman became eligible in advance for the GAIN for seniors. That has been brought in just to meet that very problem.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Sixty-four. They themselves then qualify for the program at 65. So that has already been of significant help to very many people.

What you're saying is that you want a philosophical statement from me. Well, the philosophical statement has been made by this government, and it has been made over and over by action.

The problem you've brought to the floor of the House today is a unique problem. Until one looks into the circumstances it could be any number of things which disqualified that person from being able to have something done with her financial planning which she perhaps wasn't aware of herself. Maybe she had bad financial and tax advice when she was not on a limited income. It may well be that she did not maximize her tax position while earning and did not take advantage of the tax write-offs she could have had in that bond situation. I don't know that by just a rather broad statement of one case.... I have to get the details of that case, and I assure you I'll look into it.

At this point I would like to say to you that throughout this province we have some excellent senior citizens' counsellors, who are ready and able to immediately take that case you brought to the floor of the House. They are available to give that kind of advice, and when they are not directly involved in the capability of giving tax advice, they have all the capability of getting it. There is no charge for the service. It's a personal, one-to-one, highly confidential service, and those people are available.

So may I just suggest to you that that group of people you speak of, who perhaps have assets beyond that amount of money, may well have been able to do something before reaching the birthday that has put them in the position where they can't work any longer and are not yet available for GAIN for seniors. Had she been married to someone taking GAIN for seniors, she would have been available for the spouse's.... So that loophole has been plugged in the past four or five years. If you wish me to look further into this particular case, I again say: just give me the name and I'll be glad to do that.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to be very long, but I do have some comments that I feel I must make under these estimated expenditures. I'm very concerned that this government has absolutely no concept of what grinding poverty means. I grew up on the Prairies in a coal-mining town. During the thirties there were many people within that little community in which I was growing up who faced grinding poverty. I had hoped that once I arrived in British Columbia and once the thirties were behind us, we would never see grinding poverty again. But we're seeing it today in British Columbia. There is no way that people can survive with any kind of dignity, any kind of health care — that is, in the form of nutrition — on the amount of money that's made available through this government and that ministry for those people who have no other source of income. We had the figure of $3.33 mentioned a number of times, Mr. Chairman. How can anyone survive one day, purchasing a nutritious diet on $3.33? It's not possible.

That's what makes grinding poverty: day after day after day to be faced with those problems. I know what happened to the families living around us on the Prairies. I know the kinds of problems that existed: child abuse, neglected kids, families that fought and squabbled day and night. It was largely related to the fact that they had an inadequate income. They could not manage on what was made available to them, and they felt they could not feed their children properly.

We are depriving the children of this province who are forced to survive on the amount of money made available to them through this ministry. We are depriving them of their ability to develop to their full potential, because when you don't have proper nutrition, you cannot develop to your full potential. There are enough studies indicating that that's the case. Compound that by putting those same children in classrooms that are too crowded, with teachers who are trying to cope with a system that has totally demoralized them, and then we are truly depriving those children.

I am wondering whether the minister or officials within the ministry have tried to come up with a nutritionally sound diet on the amount of money that's available to Human Resources recipients. You would think that the minister responsible for the welfare of those 220,000 or 250,000 — I don't know many people are on welfare right now, Mr. Chairman — would ensure that the amount of money available would provide a nutritional diet. Has she done that? Has she come up with a diet that shows the people of British Columbia, those of us in the opposition who are here questioning her about the amount of money that's made available to them...? Has she proven that the amount of money is adequate in terms of a nutritionally sound diet? I don't think she can do it. I have looked in the supermarkets. I have gone from one place to another trying to figure out how, with $3.33, I'd be able to come up with a nutritionally sound diet

[ Page 5970 ]

for a child. I can't do it. If that child is a teenager.... If you know anything about teenagers, then you appreciate that there is no way we can possibly expect that large portion of our population today to be able to come up with decent nutrition; they can't. The minister cannot ensure that those people have the basic diet that everyone requires in order to develop to full potential.

[10:45]

It seems to me very clear, based on the fact that we have soup kitchens and food banks all over this province, that the job she is doing on behalf of the people she represents is totally inadequate. The amount of money is inadequate. If I were the Minister of Human Resources, I would be embarrassed that there are food banks and soup kitchens all over this province; the amount of money made available through her ministry is so inadequate that they have no other choice. I would be embarrassed to go to a cocktail party costing half a million dollars when I know that those children are being deprived of developing to their full potential because of the position adopted by her government and her ministry.

Has she come up with a budget totalling $3.33 a day for a person on Human Resources assistance, to provide a nutritious diet? That's my question to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: No answer?

MR. LAUK: Is the minister indicating that she's not going to answer any more questions? Is the minister going to participate in her estimates any further?

I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS –– 12

NAYS — 25

MR. LAUK: I guess the minister's cabinet colleagues are a little puzzled why they were called in from their morning coffee this morning. Perhaps the minister could explain to her colleagues that she has steadfastly refused to participate in these estimates. She's given non-answers. She's given no research. She's ignored the legitimate questions of the opposition. Cooperation in this House works both ways, Mr. Chairman. She can't sit there and give those grade 3 arithmetic answers to serious sincere questions from members of the opposition. She did so yesterday afternoon; she's done so this morning. If you don't want to come back for divisions this morning and again this afternoon, then talk to the minister.

Participate in the honest way that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) did, and other ministers like the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), who gave answers to legitimate questions, and not silly half-hearted answers saying, "Gee, I think I can get that information," and not propagandist-type answers. We're here examining the budget of the Ministry of Human Resources. We're not here having a little propagandist's discussion about how everything is wonderful in Wonderland. We're here to ask legitimate questions. The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann)....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I'm sure all hon. members of the committee are sincerely interested in what the second member for Vancouver Centre has to say, and with that in mind, could we please be a bit more attentive and make less noise, please. I'd advise both sides of the House. We have a speaker who has entered into debate.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, it is a legitimate point to make on behalf of the opposition. The minister cannot arrogantly look at this committee and say, "All I have to do is ignore the questions and say, 'Carry on, carry on,"' like Marie Antoinette. People are raising legitimate questions. They want to know whether the minister has addressed herself to the serious problem of people receiving social assistance, at great cost to the taxpayer in this province. She has not done so. She has not discussed.... She is no longer on the employment committee of cabinet that doesn't exist. She does not apply herself to the problem of the unemployed in this province. She does not take her job seriously, except to get up and say that everything's rosy. The Pollyanna of the Legislature. She says: "I do not believe in negapolitics."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member will withdraw the personal reference. The Chair finds it unparliamentary.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Chairman, the expression is not unparliamentary. The expression is.... Does Mr. Chairman know who Pollyanna was?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The point that concerns me, hon. member....

MR. LAUK: Does the minister find "Pollyanna" objectionable?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It is a personal reference which I find offensive, and I would ask the member to withdraw it.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I did not address that remark to you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's to the minister and another hon. member of this House. I would ask the member to withdraw the statement or withdraw from the chamber.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the minister does not ask me to withdraw the statement; the Chairman does.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's correct.

[ Page 5971 ]

MR. LAUK: What right does the Chairman have to ask me to withdraw a statement that does not offend the minister? I wasn't referring to you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It offends the Chair, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: On what grounds?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I find it offensive to another hon. member of this House.

MR. LAUK: The word "Pollyanna"?

MR. CHAIRMAN: In reference to another hon. member. It's a personal reference.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, you're in charge of the committee, and I withdraw that word. Can I say that it's pollyannish behaviour?

The conduct of the minister, in her office, by coming into this chamber and expressing the view that she can get away with these ragtag, non-researched answers to serious questions of the opposition....

She comes in and says: "Everything is wonderful in Lotusland. All the little lefties are feeding other lefties at the food banks. Isn't that wonderful? We're not charging it up to the taxpayer, Aren't we getting away with wonderful things here in British Columbia?" What employment plans has she got? Nothing. She's said nothing about those people.

I'd like her to go down to the food banks and soup kitchens and talk to those people. They're not the regular chronic unemployed or chronic welfare recipients. Those are people who have had families and jobs, and in many cases houses and mortgages; in many cases they have voted Social Credit in the past, and they never will again. Nobody they talk to ever will again. What is she doing for those people? They're not fooled by her saying: "It's the international recession. There's nothing we can do about it." Champagne Charlotte and Champagne Charlie — $500,000 cocktail parties, and legitimate questions from the member for North Island and from our critic, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, have gone unanswered.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

When a series of questions are proposed to the minister this morning by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), she says: "Carry on." Carry on! Does she think she's going to sit in her chair and hope that her salary is going to pass, and the opposition is going to roll over and play dead? Or is she going to have us dissolved, like the government dissolves other locally elected people in this province? That is why, Mr. Chairman, it's going to be a long, hot summer, and her cabinet colleagues and the rest of the Social Credit members can thank her for it.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to ask the minister, Mr. Chairman, if she has reviewed the United Way report that was published in the last year, with respect to the inadequacies of assistance in British Columbia. That is my question: whether she has reviewed the United Way report of November 1984, with respect to the adequacy of support payments.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, let me just catch up on three comments: first of all, the one from the member for Comox, who asked a question regarding diet and income assistance recipients, We do, through the Ministry of Health....They look after that kind of thing and give that kind of advice throughout the province through the public health nurse. But we do not, in our ministry, except for a pilot project that we pay for indirectly in the city of Vancouver. If I may say, it's more in counselling when people come to us; it's done in a counselling way. So in a way we do it, but not on an overall basis. Nor do we give advice to people who come to us on income assistance. We don't interfere with their lives by giving them advice on landlord-tenant relationships or diet supplements or any of those kinds of things. If they seek advice, that advice is given through the social workers and through the financial support workers who are in our ministry. So that advice is available if they wish it.

Now the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) was mentioning targeting for employment for welfare recipients. That very question is one which all provincial governments are wrestling with. I am glad to tell you that British Columbia was the province that brought to the federal-provincial conference a few days ago in Ottawa the fact that we should begin in this country, which we haven't up to now.... We have been trying in this province to target job opportunities to welfare recipients, but that has not been a policy of the federal government under CAP. It has not been the policy of any other jurisdiction across this country, but we got our message across loud and clear about a week and a half ago.

We think there will be some changes in the philosophy of CAP, so when that kind of opportunity is available, we will be able to take advantage of it. In other words, those people who are in the income assistance group will not be isolated from the opportunities that are given to all people. We've been working very hard to get a change of philosophy nationally, and I'm working hard with the Ministry of Labour and the Minister of Education, as I told the House yesterday, in just that kind of targeting for opportunities. That has been working; it's been working through the Individual Opportunity Plan. But in any new programs that are joint programs with the federal government in which we will join, that kind of targeting will be one of the first priorities, I'm quite sure, having been to a conference where we think that our point was not only well received but was also embodied in a motion by the whole group, including the federal minister.

Now to the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), all of the reports which come to us — for example, the United Way report — have been studied by my ministry. All of those reports are well critiqued by my ministry and sent to me. Yes, I do see them all.

MR. WILLIAMS: I can say that I see a report too, Mr. Chairman — just took at the report: "See Jerry run." That's not the answer. Has the minister read the report? Has the minister looked at the numbers that the Vancouver health department says are minimum basic numbers for food for families, singles and the like? Has she gone over those numbers?

She nods her head. She says yes. The health department tells us that certain basic numbers are absolutely necessary in terms of decent food for families to get by — for single parents and their children to get by. The gap is significant. What does the minister say about the gap? How do you deal

[ Page 5972 ]

with that gap? You can read the newspapers and find that the cost of food in British Columbia is higher than anywhere in the nation. Check the supermarkets in this city, in Vancouver or elsewhere. The cost of food is higher than anywhere in the nation. Our support system, if we're serious in terms of looking after families in need.... As the member for Vancouver Centre says, the countless families that no doubt voted Social Credit and were working before their disastrous economic program have borne the fruits of it.

All of these people are now impacted by a welfare system that is inadequate. They're getting a taste of what others in our society have had all too often. So how can the minister sit here and say she has reviewed the Vancouver health department's figures in terms of a minimal moderately low-cost budget for food, see the gap between what she provides and what's needed, and live with it and accept the ministry that she has?

You know, when ministers in Britain have problems with their conscience, they resign. Is this a problem of conscience in terms of inadequate food and shelter and the rest for people that now need more income assistance than has ever been needed historically in the province of British Columbia?

[11:00]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 42 pass?

MR. WILLIAMS: Is there no response, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I have no difficulty responding question by question, but it really does take up a lot of time of the House. I don't mind doing them all at once, but if we do two or three together, I think it's a lot quicker.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: the member brings up the question of poverty levels. There are several. There's more than the United Way, there's more than the health department and there's more than Stats Canada. There's a different level all across the nation. I think what the member has to understand is that when we strike a budget for income assistance, we have to do so compared, firstly, to the dollars that we have in hand — those which the taxpayers are sending to us, and in relation to the economy and where we are going in the province. Right now, this ministry is the third-highest spending ministry in this province. The three social services ministries — firstly, the Health ministry, secondly, Education, and thirdly, the Ministry of Human Resources — spend the largest amount: beyond $5.5 billion of the total budget.

This ministry spends $1.4 billion, of which almost $1 billion goes to income assistance. It is true that we are serving more people, that we have more people on income assistance, and therefore that is the burden that the treasury, has carried. There is no possibility at this point in time of increasing the rates, and that's what the bottom line is of the question from the opposite side. But when one looks at some of the income assistance levels that we have in the province, we compare very favourably to other jurisdictions, although we are pleased to say that we have increased the turnover. In other words, there are more people going off income assistance more regularly and more often so that they only need to use that assistance for a short period of time. It is true that you can find just about any spokesman in Canada who will give you a level that is different or who will give you a different report to the one that the member mentioned.

For example, there are many benefits that are not counted in such reports. We just get the bottom line. We don't get all the other benefits, like the medical benefits and the dental benefits. The member knows full well that he can take any statistical figures, and you are comparing oranges and apples all the time.

What we are striving to do in the province is to create opportunities so that those people who are on income assistance today will be off income assistance in as short a time as possible and will use the service for as short a time as possible. I'm glad to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that that goal is being reached by this ministry, and we're pleased that it is. There are a lot of success stories that you don't hear. You know, the members opposite and even members on my own side of the House can talk about some tragic circumstances, and we always will be able to. We were able to do that during the most affluent times in our history, and they will probably be there when this province reaches it peak again in economic development.

However, there are many more success stories. There are people who have got off welfare and become independent, and it is because of the people in my ministry; it is because of the work and policies of this ministry. I believe there will be many more if our negotiations with the federal minister.... I think that was an exceptional conference of cooperation the week before last in Ottawa. I really believe we're going to target a lot more help to those who are unemployed and those who are on income assistance at the present time.

MR. WILLIAMS: How, in all honesty, can this woman stand up here and talk about her success stories? We have more people on welfare now in British Columbia than ever before in the history of this province, and she has the gall to get up and talk about what a great success story it is.

These people are the mechanics of the provincial economy as well in British Columbia. They're the ones who have let our forest industry slide. They're the ones who let newsprint plants locate a hundred kilometres south of the border, built by the CPR, as is currently going to be the case, and we don't renew our own plants in British Columbia where most of the machinery is over 35 years old. No wonder we're in the economic straits that we are. We're the creatures of our own destiny in this province. It was created by that administration. You've had a decade. We are now getting the results of Social Credit economic planning, and they are arriving at the minister's door. That is the end result of ten years of Social Credit economic planning: the highest numbers on welfare in the history of British Columbia. That is the end result of all of that brains trust over there. That is the product of your system, your inadequacy, your ignorance, your flying around the world, your empty-headed twaddle that we get day in, day out in this Legislature. There is no end to the emptiness from this administration.

We asked a simple question. In terms of the health department's figures for the city of Vancouver, how can you live with the fact that the numbers are so inadequate? We have the highest-cost food in the land. On that basis, if British Columbia were to be equitable with the other provinces, then indeed we would have to have the highest food supplement available

[ Page 5973 ]

for people on assistance. Wouldn't that follow? It's not, well, you're just asking about apples and comparing oranges. We're talking about simple food, not apples and oranges, and it's inadequate.

All the figures are clear: we have the highest costs in the land, and just about the highest unemployment and worst economic performance in the land. Given the resource base of British Columbia, it's all inexcusable. These are all products of human beings. The economy does not rain down on us from the sky. It is the product of people's work and efforts, and the genius of man or the lack of it. The problem we have in this province is the lack of it.

Does the minister say that the United Way figures are out of whack? Look at this. An unemployed childless couple, 45 years old, living in Surrey. Look at the numbers there. She's looked at those numbers; is she saying that they're grossly inflated? Look at the modest figures for clothing in the allowances. The minister at least should understand what clothing costs in British Columbia. The minister especially should know what clothing costs. Does she think the clothing allowances are adequate in terms of what she provided for the 237,000 citizens in this land? Might she indeed compare it with her own budget?

I don't think one can separate these things. I don't think you can say $3.33 is adequate for food for a single person, and then spend 10, 20, 30 times that yourself. I don't think you can do that in all conscience. Maybe you can. Let's hear from the member for Surrey; let's look at the numbers for Surrey in terms of the new welfare. Let's look at the new welfare recipients in Surrey. Could anybody on the other side attempt to get by on that basis? Three dollars and thirty-three cents a day. It doesn't pay for a cocktail, for God's sake. That's what you were providing the other day in Vancouver. It just doesn't begin.

We are the expensive part of this land. We have a high cost of living in British Columbia, and you're not delivering. You're not delivering in terms of the provincial economic performance, and you're not delivering in an honest way in terms of the need that's out there.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, yesterday I asked a whole series of questions of the minister, most of which she was unable to answer. I've waited now for just over an hour, expecting that the minister would have come back, having had an opportunity overnight to consult with her staff and get us some answers to some of those questions.

For example and I'll start with the individual opportunities program yesterday she said, after being asked several times, that each and every month approximately 7,500 recipients of income assistance are in an individual opportunity plan. Any fair-minded person reading or hearing that would assume there are 7,500 people receiving assistance who each and every month go onto the individual opportunities program. That's the clear impression from that. Yesterday I said that those numbers would mean 90,000 people were on the IOP every year, and the minister didn't even have the knowledge or the ability or the skill to recognize that those figures were nonsense. She didn't even attempt to correct me on those figures, simply because she doesn't know the numbers.

There have never been 90,000 people a year on welfare who then go on the IOP. When I suggested that that's the logical extension of the numbers she gave us in the House, she didn't even have the knowledge or the ability or the skill or the concern to say to me and to this House: "Those numbers are nonsense" — because they are. The 7,500 figure that she would have us believe is a monthly figure is in fact a figure that she tells us might be the total number of people on the individual opportunities program.

Let me start again from the beginning on this particular topic, before we go to others — and I want to go to some others. How many people a year enrol in the IOP? How many people successfully complete the program? How many people get a job upon completion? And for those who do get a job, how many still have a job three months later, six months later and a year later?

[11:15]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I did answer this question yesterday. It may not have been to the member's satisfaction, but I answered it. You're taking out of context something I said yesterday. I said that at any given time this year there would be 7,500 people each and every month involved in the Individual Opportunity Plan. It's quite evident that the member hasn't taken the time to read what an individual opportunity plan is. It is a program which is designed on an individual basis to meet the concerns and the needs of an individual. Each individual varies. For one person it could be the job action program, which is really a very short-term reorientation into the workforce. It takes under a month. Surprisingly enough, the success rate of a program that only lasts a month is in some cases exceptionally high. That's true throughout the province. There is a very good success rate in that one program. However, not everybody qualifies nor is the job action program for everybody. So there's a selection of other things under the Individual Opportunity Plan. For example, it may well be that somebody needs retraining. That program could last up to two years. Some of these people in the program today are working toward that goal, but they may be with us for 24 months. But that's better than being with us for seven or eight years. That's the whole idea of the program. If the member would only understand what the motivation and the goals of our ministry have been for these past few years, he would understand that that is a lot better than people being committed to a life of welfare. The point is that welfare should not be a way of life for our fellow British Columbians. We want to get them into a life of independence as soon as possible.

You asked a question, and it's different. It's not to say that the 7,500 people who are on the Individual Opportunity Plan today are going to be off that plan today. It means that of the 7,500 who are on this month about 1,100, depending on the month and depending upon the make-up of that 7,500, will be in a job and will be independent.

I told you yesterday, in answer to your next question, that we do not keep statistics on those who are successful, other than knowing that when they are off income assistance and no longer need it we know they have been successful. I'd also like you to know — and I did refer to this yesterday — that we do not take the easy way in terms of getting people into the job market. We do not take the easy ones; the easy ones are the ones who apply for income assistance today, because 50 percent of those people will be off on their own. We take the more difficult cases, where they've been on for a little while, and then we give them that concentrated help. Most of the people who come to us today will manage on their own to get their own jobs and be off income assistance. No, I don't have those statistics. We have not kept those statistics on the IOP, because success is getting them from welfare dependency to

[ Page 5974 ]

independence, That's the success of the program; that's how it works.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Alice in Wonderland.

Mr. Chairman, in the beginning of her comments just now the minister suggested that I didn't understand what she was saying. I didn't trust my memory; I trusted Hansard. She said yesterday: "Approximately 7,500 recipients of income assistance, each and every month, are in an Individual Opportunity Plan." What she meant to say yesterday, and what she tried to say today, is that at any one time there are 7,500 people who are on the IOR. Yesterday when I said, in response to that, that listening to her, it would mean there were 90,000 people a year through IOP, she didn't contradict that; she accepted that yesterday simply because she didn't know.

Because she's not involved in the day-to-day administration of her ministry, she doesn't know or care about what happens in that ministry. All she wants to do is paint a rosy story. She knows if she ever took the time to get the facts, to understand what was going on, she wouldn't be able in all conscience to paint that kind of rosy story. That's the reality in that ministry.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Not true.

MR. GABELMANN: It's true. We listen to it every year. Every year we go through these estimates, and we hear this twaddle and this claptrap and this nice, rosy stuff. Some years we let it go, and we think we can't deal with this woman, because she never, ever deals with reality. This year we're going to try to get something out of this.

How many people in 1984 were enrolled in the IOP?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the reality of the situation is that my colleague is asking questions that would have been included in an annual report, if we'd had one since 1982; 1982-83 is the last annual report to come out of that ministry. That's the reason we're asking these questions. Either the minister is going to do her job one way or she's going to have to do it another way: either we get an annual report telling us what happened in 1983 and 1984, or the minister is going to have to answer these questions.

I'm not surprised that she's embarrassed about the Individual Opportunity Plan, because, quite frankly, she's been kneecapping the plan herself. The CIP program, in which she's been depriving those people of their 50 bucks a month; that's part of the Individual Opportunity Plan. Did you know that? That's part of helping people to get off welfare. Even when they took her to court and won their case, they still can't get their $50 a month. The job action program for the disabled, which she talks about.... Again, that's $50 which they are being deprived of. That's part of the Individual Opportunity Plan. That's the reason there are no statistics and information on it.

I think my colleague from North Island should not despair; he should continue to ask those questions until we get an answer. That's the only way we find out what's going on in this minister's ministry, since she refuses to publish an annual report.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, it's a matter of public record that income assistance recipients, for the first eight months, are not eligible for earnings exemptions. Can the minister tell us how she thinks that is going to help people to begin to work their way back onto the job market, if they're not eligible for earnings exemptions in those first months of being on welfare?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: This decision was made because that's the quickest turnover that we have. The singles are the quickest in the under-eight-months group to get back into the job situation. The policy was decided a year ago in order to make accommodation for the families rather than those that are on longer than eight months; rather than those that are not the most mobile group, the ones that are more long-term. So that decision was made to accommodate the ones who stay with us longer and need more attention, as I had explained earlier.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could just make an introduction while I'm on my feet. I'm really pleased to see that Nancy and Warren Hansen are visiting the House today. Their home is in the city of Vancouver. I'm very pleased to welcome them to the House.

MR. GABELMANN: It now being five minutes, and I think sufficient time for the minister to have discovered the answer to my previous question, can she now tell us how many people in calendar 1984, fiscal 1983-84 or fiscal 1984-85 — I'm not fussy — were enrolled for whatever length of time on the IOP?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, my associate deputy minister, Ev Northup, whom I should have introduced — Mr. Noble, who was with me yesterday, is in Ottawa representing our ministry today — has told me that it would be approximate; he hasn't got the exact number with him. It's quite possible to get that for you. But it's approximately 15,000 or 16,000 people per year.

MR. GABELMANN: Approximately 15,000 people are being assisted in whatever way — without making a qualitative evaluation of the program, which I want to get to in a moment — and at the same time, during the course of the last couple of years we have had between 55,000 and 75,000 single adults on assistance at any one time. Let's call it 75,000, because that's what it is — slightly over that — in February 1985: single adults, male and female. By the minister's calculations these people come on and off at a rate of about 10,000 a month. It's mostly singles who come on and off, if one is to believe what she tells us. It's hard to calculate how many people came on and off welfare in a year, but you could say it would be about 120,000. We are talking about probably a couple of hundred thousand single persons who have been on welfare at some point in the year, if what the minister tells us is true. Some 15,000 of those people, or 7 percent — 5 to 10 percent, to be generous — have had an opportunity to go through the IOP program? It's no wonder that people on assistance, in my constituency, are constantly coming to me and asking how they can get on it, if 5 to 10 percent of the recipients are actually given an opportunity.

The fact is that that is a public relations program, and the proof of that isn't just in the minimal numbers involved; the proof of it is in the fact that there is no evaluation in the

[ Page 5975 ]

ministry of its success, because the minister still hasn't answered the questions about how many of those approximately 15,000 people got jobs. How many got jobs in the first place — even a job that lasted a day? How many got a job that lasted at least a month? How many of the people, let's say in fiscal 1982-83, because there must be records...?

I can tell you, if the Premier heard about the fact that there programs of this magnitude and this cost that weren't being evaluated, he would soon have a discussion with the minister about that, I can tell you. So there must be an evaluation. I just can't believe that there's a government program of this magnitude that isn't evaluated to see whether it's worthwhile. Therefore I'm sure it has been and that the figures must be available. The reason the minister won't tell us is that almost none of those people go into permanent jobs, because they don't. If they did she would stand up in this House and brag about it. Mr. Chairman, have the minister tell us how many of these approximately 15,000 people a year end up in full-time employment that lasts for at least a year.

MS. BROWN: I just want to be sure, Mr. Chairman, that you don't pass the vote because no one's on their feet. But if the minister is ready, I'm happy to sit down.

Okay, I'll tell about one of the people who took the program, because I have a letter here that says:

"Yesterday in Hansard I noticed that Mrs. McCarthy spoke in the House about the Individual Opportunity Plan. This program is supposed to help people with few skills to get a job. The government offers employers up to $2.50 an hour for hiring and training these people. Anyhow, as usual, things are not as they seem. I was on this program, and I was not offered any help, other than one interview and use of their photocopier.

"Also, a friend was on this program, and she was sent to an interview along with another person who is also on the program. The position was as a receptionist in a lawyer's office, and the employer was willing to train someone in return for the financial compensation. Needless to say, my friend did not get the job, as the employer chose the other applicant because she was a person experienced in working in a lawyer's office, who just happened to be unemployed.

"Now the person with few skills is back on income assistance, the person with previous skills has the job and the employer has an experienced receptionist and is getting part of her wages paid by the Ministry of Human Resources."

This is an example, Mr. Chairman, of how it works.

[11:30]

My question is: does the Ministry of Human Resources not check to see if employers receiving the financial compensation are in fact training someone, or are they just getting jobs for people with better qualifications and being subsidized for it? "What is the program really doing?" This woman signed her name.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to the IOP numbers. I'll quote the minister from Hansard of April 30, 1985 — not very long ago — on page 5896:

Surely the Individual Opportunity Plan has been one of the most innovative in this country, and it is looked on as a model by my colleagues across this nation. The job action program, which to this day, in the midst of an upturn in the economy, and in the past, when we were in the midst of a recession, has a 70 percent.... Seven out of ten people who come to us, even in the last two years. have found themselves off welfare within a very few weeks of taking a job action program.

Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of twaddle and bafflegab and nonsense that we're trying to get a handle on. A casual and even a careful reading of that statement would suggest what? It would suggest that seven out of ten people who come on welfare go through the IOP and are off welfare in a few weeks. That's what it says: "Seven out of ten people who come to us, even in the last two years, have found themselves off welfare within a very few weeks of taking a job action program."

Now you can read that several ways. But the clear reading that any fair-minded person would give to it, and what the minister intends it to be interpreted as, is that once you come into welfare you then go onto IOP, and then you're off in a few weeks thanks to this marvellous program. It's all nonsense. First of all, you have to be on welfare for eight months to get on. Seven out of ten people who go onto assistance don't take the program and don't get off in the first few weeks.

It's that kind of misleading, half-truth kind of approach that this minister takes to her ministry. I didn't accuse of her of lying; I'll have to do that in the hallway, Mr. Chairman. I can't do it in the House, so I won't.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Parliamentary language, parliamentary phrases, please.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm being very careful about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please do.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, the minister would have people believe things which aren't in fact accurate, or aren't so. Now people can make their own judgment about what kind of behaviour that is. She does it in careful, manipulative ways, and a good....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MR. GABELMANN: I'm reading from Hansard: seven out of ten people who come on welfare take the IOP and are off in a few weeks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we may have differences of opinion in this committee, and I'm sure that probably happens throughout the debate. But to impute an improper motive to another hon. member of the House is quite unparliamentary. Now the member can continue, and I'm sure he's quite aware of what constitutes proper parliamentary reflection on another member.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we're trying to do here is to get some accurate information from the minister. Her approach to her job is to talk in generalities, to be vague, to talk about individual cases as opposed to the quarter of a million, to find a ray of sunshine in a thunderstorm and to ignore the fact that it's pouring and to talk about that ray of sunshine. That's okay once in a while, but not when you deny the existence of the thunderstorm.

Why won't she tell us about the program in specifics, in detail? Why won't she give us the numbers that I asked for

[ Page 5976 ]

yesterday in terms of caseload? The numbers she gives us are just not believable. If 10,000 new people come on social assistance every month in this province, and when you recognize that those are cases, not people, that number in fact represents 20,000 people. In a year, that's a quarter of a million people who've come on assistance, and she says that that many people go off assistance as well. It doesn't take very many years before the total population of B.C. has been in and out of the system, and there are still more coming on. Where do they come from? The numbers are not credible. It's because she prefers the bafflegab. She prefers the PR. In the Health estimates you ask the minister a specific question, hoping to get an answer, and he gives you that answer and ten times more. In this ministry you ask a specific question and you get nothing, except a speech about how wonderful things are.

Let me just go back to this April 30 quote in Hansard: "Seven out of ten people who come to us, even in the last two years, have found themselves off welfare within a very few weeks of taking a job action program." Now someone who isn't familiar with the details would assume that they come on welfare and they're shuffled off into the office next door which is the.... The FAW says: "Now you've got to go into the IOP office, which is next door." And a few weeks later seven out of ten are off. That's not how it works. The minister would have the population of this province believe that. In fact, what happens is that they're not eligible for this program. She tried earlier this morning to justify that, on the basis that people who come on go off very quickly, so we don't have to worry about them — it's the others.

But yesterday she told us, in effect, that only 25 percent of the 240,000 — 237,000, but call it 240,000 — who are on assistance are chronic. The numbers just don't add up, Mr. Chairman, because of those chronic ones, how many are unemployable, by the ministry's definitions? Let me ask that question as well. Maybe if we keep asking enough questions, some will get answered eventually. How many of the social assistance recipients in British Columbia are categorized by the ministry as employable and how many as unemployable?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I believe the member, in quoting Hansard of last year, is quoting the job action program. Is that correct?

MR. GABELMANN: I know the minister can't wait for Expo 86, but this is still 1985. The quote was from April 30, 1985. That was last Tuesday, if my memory is correct. I quoted this excerpt three times, Mr. Chairman, and I'll do it again: "Surely the Individual Opportunity Plan has been one of the most innovative. Seven out of ten people who come to us, even in the last two years, have found themselves off welfare within a very few weeks of taking a job action program." Maybe the word "very" means hundreds.

Let me ask the other question then, since she doesn't seem to understand anything at all about this subject. How many people who are on assistance today are categorized by the ministry as employable and how many as unemployable?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We have that figure, and we'll give it to you in a minute.

MR. GABELMANN: Okay. We're beginning to make some progress. She tells us that we'll get that answer in a few minutes.

Have enough minutes elapsed for her to now tell us how many people of the 15,000 who were in the IOP program are now working full time?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the member really wants to get into a whole numbers debate so that he can confuse everyone, including those who will perhaps be hanging on every word. I see there are none, in the gallery. At any rate, I know exactly what he's trying to do. It's a great ploy by the socialists. They love to do this because, you see, they really don't want to believe that there are some success stories. They really don't want to believe there are people....

Now in answer to your question regarding the percentage of people who enter into the Individual Opportunity Plan, the job action portion of the Individual Opportunity Plan does have a success rate, even in difficult times, of approximately 70 percent. Seven out of ten people is an exceptionally high record of achievement for any social services program, and it is true that in the past three and a half years that we've had the Individual Opportunity Plan, of which the job action is a part, it has been a leader in the country. So when I said that, it is true. It's just in this last month that the rest of the nation, the other provinces, are even catching up to what we have done in British Columbia. It is looked on as a leader in the field. So that's not an exaggeration. I don't make any apologies at all for making statements like that, because I think there's great credit to my staff and to the people who work in my ministry for delivering such a program. So don't try to tell me that I'm exaggerating. I don't exaggerate about the people who work with me; I tell the truth. They're terrific.

You have asked for the number of people who are employable or unemployable; whichever way. We estimate that at the present time the numbers in the province who would be classified as unemployable now — not necessarily next month or next year, but right now — are approximately 37,000.

MR. GABELMANN: I want to pursue the success rate. Let me just ask two simple questions about the "success rate." First, seven out of ten is how many people? Obviously, if she's able to calculate it as seven out of ten she must know the total numbers, and I'd like to know what those numbers are. Second, how is the success rate measured? Is it based on getting a job? She nods her head. Right. The success rate of seven out of ten is based on getting a job. If the job lasts for one day and that person doesn't work again, they're still in the seven.

Mr. Chairman, the whole program is a fraud. You do not measure success rates in being able to get back into the workforce by simply asking the question: did you get a job? The more important question, to see whether this program is all that it's made out to be, is: how long did the job last and what happened to the individual? I assume from the minister's response that once that person gets a job there is no longer any concern in the ministry as to whether or not that job continued. Is that correct?

MS. BROWN: I just want to clarify the goal of the job action program and read it back to the minister: "The job action program is a classroom program designed to teach recipients how to prepare for and obtain an interview and a job." So if someone registers for the program and stays until the classroom courses come to an end, that's a success. That's

[ Page 5977 ]

it. Seven of the ten people who sign up for the program have to stay until it's over and that's a success. They don't have to find a job.

[11:45]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Chairman, both members would love to leave that inference, and it's absolutely incorrect. You can read what you want from the manual. It is a general description of how you apply or how you get into the Individual Opportunity Plan or into a job action program.

Again, you were kind enough to send over the quote that you have just read. I didn't say the Individual Opportunity Plan has a 70 percent rate of success; I said the job action program.

Now let me talk about the job action program, because the member for Burnaby-Edmonds brings it up. The job action program is by no means rated a success just because we enrol people in it. It is rated a success when those who who take the program, not just to be taught how to write a resume and how to go out and from the Yellow Pages of the phone book look for a place.... They do not even go to the "Help Wanted" in the Sun or the Province or any newspaper in the province. They go to the Yellow Pages of the phone book after they have been taught how to approach people for a job. It is that program that has had.... Six, seven, sometimes as high as eight people out of ten in that program have been successful in getting a job within the three-week program of job action.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

It is a very successful program. Our ministry is extremely proud of it. We have had ministers and deputy ministers from across the nation come and visit it. Just this past few weeks we have been told by Alberta that they are aggressively putting it together for their province, as they did with the Helpline for Children. They are going to be the first in the nation to copy it from British Columbia. So don't tell me that the success is that they enrol. If that were the success, you would say that everybody that enrols in a school system is a success. That's not true. Everybody that enrols in the school system is not going to be a success. But the point is that we count the successes as they have a position to go to, and that's the success. The member for North Island asked how we measure a success. It's when they are no longer taking income assistance and have the independence that we want for each and every British Columbian. That's how we count the success.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, this lady with numbers is like an accordion player. You know, a couple of minutes ago it was seven out of ten. Then she says: "Well, six" — open it up this much — "well, seven, maybe eight." 0 sole mio. Anything goes. What's the music you want to hear? There has been no annual report and no firm data presented to the House. It's just an accordion player with numbers that's before us today. Whatever music we want to hear, whatever she thinks will sell today, that's the tune that's peddled.

Yesterday she gave this House the impression that there were 90,000 people going through this program. The member for North Island talked about it. Well, if there are 7,500 a month, we put that together, and that's 90,000. Then the assumption is, well, if it's a seven-out-of-ten success rate, then the success rate is what? Sixty or seventy thousand people. My God, what a successful program! It isn't even there; it's all evaporated. Once you start working on it, fold up the accordion. All the air goes out of the machine. It's just hot air in the accordion. That's all it is.

We still haven't had the firm numbers in terms of the success rate. We've now narrowed it down to only 15,000 a year — not the 90,000 we were led to believe yesterday. Fifteen thousand a year; that's it. She now says it's seven out of ten there. Well then, what's that, Madam Minister? Is that 9,000 people, maybe? We still don't have the firm, specific numbers that the member for North Island has requested for lo these few days. We still don't have the numbers.

Can the minister give us the precise annual figure for the last reporting year? We still don't have that report, which I think is nothing short of scandalous — that the annual report was not deposited with the Legislature before the estimates came up. I think it's unheard of. But what are the actual numbers? We're descending now from some 60,000 to probably 7,000 or 8,000. That's the kind of misleading material this House has had. Can we have the precise numbers now?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No.

MR. WILLIAMS: Are there no precise numbers?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Not today.

MR. WILLIAMS: Not today. It's as the member for North Island says: what kind of operation are you running? It's costing more and more. What kind of evaluations do you have? Is it just a PR sham? Is that all it is? You don't run operations this way. I cannot believe that the numbers are not available. I cannot believe that the annual report is not complete. I think a conscious decision has been made, once again, to withhold information from the Legislature. The report is not filed, the numbers are not provided, and that allows the minister to do her concertina number. Any number will do. It simply isn't adequate. We expect more; we expect better.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the reason that I say no is simply because I don't want to give a figure that is misleading, and I don't want to give an erroneous figure. You mentioned the annual report. I understand the annual report is in the printing and will be on the floor of this House in about four weeks' time.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I don't call the time for the estimates.

You know the number of people who are on income assistance. There are approximately 126,000 cases in the province. That number has been given over and over again, and that number is available. If you want to know the success rates of those programs that have been mentioned, they vary depending upon.... There are some people we count as a success simply because we have them in a program — an educational program or a retraining program. That is a success. They may not be off income assistance, but we feel that it is a success. Those programs vary anywhere between one month and two years. So they are all at varying degrees of

[ Page 5978 ]

success in graduating, if you like, from income assistance rolls.

MS. BROWN: Again, Mr. Chairman, I think the problem that we're having getting the figures is because in fact, as my colleague said, the program really is a sham. The job action program is a classroom program, which you are not eligible for until you've been on income assistance eight months; you get $50 a week while you're on it, for a maximum of three weeks. So in order to get 50 bucks a month — a little bit extra, so you have more than $3.33 a day to eat — you go on the job action program, stay on it for three weeks, and it's measured as a success. That's what it is.

Now the minister says I'm now to pay attention to the policy manual. The annual report which is in printing is the annual report for 1983. We haven't received anything since the 1982-83 report. How can we discuss and analyze what is going on in that ministry when a 1983 report is not going to be available for three or four weeks? The job action program: there are no statistics; there are no figures on it, because in reality, Mr. Chairman, it's fantasy.

I think that I should move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, and the whole bit. After lunch there will be some more information forthcoming from the minister.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Schroeder moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.