[ Page 7593 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

B.C. Rail shares. Mr. Macdonald –– 7593

Financial disclosure. Mr. Macdonald –– 7593

Northeast coal. Mr. Williams –– 7593

Expo 86. Mr. MacWilliam –– 7594

Premier's principal secretary. Mr. Stupich –– 7595

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Human Resources estimates. (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)

On vote 42: minister's office –– 7595

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Ms. Brown

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Williams

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Nicolson

MONDAY, APRIL 7, 1986

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, yesterday Vancouver was 100 years young, and I know that every member in the House would like to join me in expressing every best wish to that which so many of us consider to be the most exciting city in British Columbia, in Canada and, indeed, in the world. So happy birthday to you, Vancouver.

It is a great pleasure for me this afternoon to introduce to the House Mr. Theodore Arcand, who is here with his wife. Mr. Arcand is the chief of protocol, Department of External Affairs, Canada. Delighted to have you both here today.

Oral Questions

B.C. RAIL SHARES

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask a question of the Attorney-General. He's not here so I'll ask a different question of the Minister of Finance.

The Minister of Finance undertook to bring to the House information about his purchase of B.C. Rail shares. Has he decided when he is going to do that?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the question was posed to me on March 13. The member will realize that I was rather busy with budget preparation and budget matters. I answered the question in part on that date, and will bring back the balance of the answers later this week.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

MR. MACDONALD: To the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker. Dealing with the general subject of the strengthening of the government back bench, in view of the return filed by the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) under the Financial Disclosure Act, where he did not list the corporations in which he held shares or that were held for him by a trustee, as clearly required by the act, is the Attorney-General looking into that with a view to the infraction that seems to be very apparent?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, this matter was apparently raised on Friday by the Leader of the Opposition, who had caused a letter to be delivered to me on this subject. Apparently he was of the view that another member of this House, the Minister of Tourism, had violated the Financial Disclosure Act by filing a disclosure which revealed a blind trust.

I can tell the member, and the Leader of the Opposition, that my ministry reviewed that issue some time ago, and we again reviewed it and obtained a confirmatory opinion — that is, the procedure of revealing holdings in a blind trust does not violate the spirit and purpose of the Financial Disclosure Act. In fact....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, if there are defects in this legislation, one might look to the authors, drafters and introducers of it. I'm terribly sorry that the opinion isn't as the member would like it. The opinion is, nevertheless, clear: it is not a violation of the Financial Disclosure Act to so reveal your assets.

I have answered the Leader of the Opposition in that form in a letter which I have just caused to have sent to his office, and I will table with the House the letter that he delivered to me after his press conference on Friday and the letter which I am now sending to him in conjunction with this answer today. With leave, Mr. Speaker, I would file that correspondence.

Leave granted.

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. WILLIAMS: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The $501 million rail line to Tumbler Ridge in the northeast coalfields was to have been paid for by a surcharge of $3 a tonne from Quintette and $2.50 from Teck, the two operating corporations up there. Can the minister advise me if those amounts have been discounted?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I take the question as notice and thank the member for the question.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister has been asked this question for some time. Is notice really necessary? Can the minister advise the House whether he knows the answer to the question?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, a question taken as notice cannot be the subject of further question or debate.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister is saying he does not know if there has been a discount, is that correct?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I sat here in opposition from 1972 to 1975 where that member rarely answered a question. Not only did he just take notice; he rarely answered a question. As an honourable member of this House I tell the member: I will bring the answer to this House. Mr. Speaker, I take it as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS: Can the minister advise this House if the shortfall with respect to payments on that line is being capitalized; i.e., is the debt ballooning well beyond the $500 million that it cost us in the first place?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the member is attempting to ask much the same question as that which I have taken as notice, and I will happily....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Much the same. I did not say identical. I will happily bring the answer back to the member and to this House in due course.

[2:15]

MR. WILLIAMS: Can the minister advise us, Mr. Speaker, if he received a letter from his own back bench two

[ Page 7594 ]

months ago suggesting that the debt would balloon to $700 million by the end of this decade? Can he confirm that he's considered his correspondence or answered his mail?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I deal with correspondence daily.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, such questions on correspondence stretch the limits of question period.

EXPO 86

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Tourism. Recently management at Expo 86 has recorded the forty-second firing of senior managers in the short life of this project. Forty-two heads have rolled. Has the minister decided, in light of this evidence, to reveal how much severance pay the public is liable for as a result of this revolving-door policy that there presently seems to be at Expo?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It is the policy of the corporation that we do not discuss individuals and the reasons for their leaving the corporation. Suffice it to say that some have left because their jobs have been phased out or have expired. Perhaps they were in the construction or planning stage, and their jobs have come to an end. I am sure that even the member can understand that we are now approaching the operational phase of the fair, and that therefore planning and construction have come to an end. Some of these people were under contract and the contract expired. Without question many more people will be leaving the corporation over the next little while.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Expo spokesman, George Madden, has said that the government has been provided with information regarding the actual cost of severance for each of these 42 fired executives. These are people who are head to tail at the public trough — paid for out of public funds — and I would suggest that the public is interested in knowing what the cost of servicing these severance packages is. I would ask the minister whether he has decided to make this information — which, I remind him, is available to him and which he has in his possession — available to the public, which is in essence paying the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister may detect a new question.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Well, the member makes a false assumption that I am aware of all the details about all the personnel leaving Expo. The government of British Columbia is kept informed as to the financial status of Expo on a weekly basis.

MR. MacWILLIAM: A supplementary to the minister again — and I think this is an important point to make. Officials at the exhibiting pavilions have been complaining that they are finding it very difficult to do business with the Crown corporation because as soon as they get to know somebody and get working with them, that person is out the door. I would like to ask the minister what steps he has taken to improve both the morale and the working conditions, to retain more employees who will actually earn their paycheques.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, it's still evident that the people on that side of the House still don't believe that Expo is going to happen and that it's going to be a success.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, I know. Even Mikey likes it now.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, after spending the last three days on the Expo site with visiting dignitaries, with volunteers, with the speakers' bureau.... People have gone out and volunteered their time over the last three years to make innumerable speeches on Expo's behalf, on behalf of the people of the province of British Columbia. The morale at the corporation has never been higher, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you that the awareness of this fair and the expectations around the world have never been greater for any event, ever. I would only urge those people across there to find some time in their busy schedules, if they can, to visit the site. I'm sure they'll be pleasantly surprised.

MR. MacWILLIAM: In order that the minister thoroughly understands the importance of the question, which he obviously seems to be taking too lightly, I will rephrase that question one more time: what is the total amount of the severance package that it is costing the taxpayers for the firing of these 42 executives? What is the total amount of that package? Will the minister please respond?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, order, please. Clearly that is a question which could be placed on the order paper, and cannot be expected at question period. Further questions?

MR. MacWILLIAM: One last question for the minister. The minister has publicly acknowledged that the affairs of Expo 86 are fully accountable under present legislation regarding Crown corporations. I would ask the minister if the minister has decided at this time to table a full financial analysis of the Expo 86 Crown corporation, as has been requested numerous times in the past. Has the minister decided at this time to table that financial disclosure?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm sure the member understands that at this moment, when there are 24 days left to go to open this magnificent project, the people at Expo have better things to do than to provide you or me with a list of exactly what it's costing us for people leaving the corporation. That will all be published in due course as a matter of public interest, Mr. Speaker.

I have asked the corporation to provide a detailed list as soon as is practical, and with 24 days to go to open a project that is costing $802 million — none of which is coming out of the public treasury, I might add, Mr. Member.... You know full well that when you say it's coming out of the public purse, you're incorrect; yet you keep saying that. Your supporters out there keep saying that it's coming out of Education, it's coming out of Health, it's coming out of Forestry, when you know that that is not true. Yet you keep misleading the people of this province by continuing to say that.

[ Page 7595 ]

PREMIER'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

MR. STUPICH: I have a question to the Minister of Finance. According to order-in-council 726, Mr. Jerry Lampert has been appointed to the position of principal secretary to the Premier at a salary, I'm informed, of $76,992 per year. Will the minister advise whether or not he approved or considered this expenditure of taxpayers' money to hire Mr. Lampert?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in answering the question from the honorable member for Nanaimo, I take him at his word with respect to the salary he has quoted. Certainly, unlike what may have been the case during the 1972-1975 period, the Premier of this province keeps his Minister of Finance fully informed as to expenditures and commitments out of the Premier's office. There were times when that member, as the Minister of Finance, didn't even know what his Premier was committing to in 1975.

I think the question could more properly be directed to the Premier, who is travelling on government business for a few days. I will check the order-in-council with respect to....

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You never had one, did you? You had three, four, five.... You had so many political hacks that constituents couldn't get into your office.

MR. MITCHELL: Could I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. MITCHELL: I'd like to take the opportunity at this time to introduce a, you might say, endangered species. I believe this might be the last group of 34 youths who are training out in Naden under the Katimavik program. They are here in the precincts with their instructors. I would ask everyone to welcome this endangered group and wish them luck.

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, $216,236.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: In some introductory remarks to the vote under consideration at this time, I would first like to mention to the House the pleasure and privilege it is to be the new Minister of Human Resources, to be able to have the opportunity, through this office, to assist many people in our province who are in need of assistance through various programs, whether it be income assistance programs or other programs which are developed to assist people more directly rather than simply by augmenting income or providing certain funds.

The Ministry of Human Resources routinely and regularly assists hundreds of thousands of citizens in the province with various difficulties in their lives on a daily, sometimes almost hourly, basis. To a very large extent we are able to fulfill our obligation to the citizens without much difficulty at all.

We are forever going to see the headlines and sensational stories relating to difficult cases that have perhaps developed further difficulties. Sensational situations that are reported on occasion seem to attempt to suggest that that is the norm or the manner in which every situation is handled. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Almost a million people a day may be in some level of assistance from the ministry. In most cases, the vast majority of the difficulties are handled promptly, professionally....

[Interruption.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please. I'll ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to maintain order in the galleries, please. One moment, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On a point of order, I would ask that perhaps the standing orders be considered and such people who may choose to be interrupting the procedures of this House be removed from the gallery.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The Ministry of Human Resources staff, to a very large degree, come into daily contact with situations that the average citizen of the province would seldom even be aware of. Many members within the Ministry of Human Resources staff are required to make decisions and to frequently take action under very difficult situations. They are dealing with individuals with problems that are frequently difficult for them to handle on their own. The workers within the ministry are very often asked to make decisions and to be judgmental, with the constant difficulty and concern that their actions may be questioned later as being incorrect.

It is not unlike other procedures where post-mortems may occur or inquiries may occur after the fact. As we are aware, hindsight is always 20/20. In many cases the Ministry of Human Resources, or perhaps a member of the staff, may indeed react differently in one specific case than they would have had they had the opportunity of viewing the matter after the fact. So I commend the members and staff within the Ministry of Human Resources for doing what I think is a most commendable job, frequently under very trying circumstances. I support them 100 percent.

I'll be the first to admit when errors have been made by the staff within the ministry, where errors of judgment have been made, but I would expect the people of British Columbia to be able to understand that errors are going to happen when you are dealing with hundreds of thousands of individual cases on an ongoing basis. So I offer no apologies, in a general sense, that some errors indeed are going to be made, because we're dealing with an imperfect society and we're dealing with very, very difficult problems.

The estimates of the ministry reflect the government's continuing concern for the well-being of the citizens of British Columbia. Caseloads have risen during very difficult economic times. The ministry has provided temporary financial assistance to people in need. Over the four-year period of 1981-82 to 1984-85, the average monthly number of recipients under the GAIN program rose from 130,000 to

[ Page 7596 ]

232,000, an increase of 78 percent. During those same years, a total of $2.54 billion was expended in payments to GAIN recipients. In the last fiscal year, about $927 million was spent on income assistance programs, and that includes the health and dental benefits.

[2:30]

It is anticipated that the 1986-87 expenditures will not exceed those of the previous year, but to ensure that these costs are controlled, while the maximum possible number of needy British Columbians still receive assistance, the rates are remaining at the current levels. There have been many inquiries made with respect to increases. At the present time, the rates are remaining as they are.

As has been emphasized in previous debates on the Ministry of Human Resources estimates, the income assistance caseload is not static. About 70 percent of the clients move out of the system on their own initiative within eight months. For those clients who need help— help in becoming self-sufficient and moving out of the system — the ministry directly operates its own job readiness program. The ministry works with the federal government and other provinces to ensure that income assistance recipients are referred to training programs and employment opportunities. Negotiations are underway right now with the federal government involving the Canadian Job Strategy. The governments of B.C. and Canada are close to an agreement whereby each would contribute millions of dollars toward the development of a range of programs to enhance opportunities for those on income assistance.

Mr. Chairman, today I announced a proposal by the ministry with respect to introducing changes to the earning exemption policy, in an effort to encourage citizens to earn as much as they possibly can. Efforts would be rewarded with an opportunity to retain more of earned income. I might point out that earned income may sound redundant, but it's a definition which all governments adhere to. Earned income is defined differently than what is referred to as unearned income as it relates to certain other benefits which are available to some of these recipients.

The formula for the enhancement is complicated — and not simply by making it difficult to understand. The formula must adhere to the Canada-British Columbia agreement and be within certain parameters to be acceptable to the federal government, and to ensure that British Columbia does not suffer penalties because of certain exemptions which are above what the agreement calls for.

I would be pleased to go into more detail with respect to the proposed plan. I have instructed staff within the ministry to begin the process necessary to have the program in place as soon as possible. It would require reprogramming the computer system. It would require new training programs for staff to be able to comprehend and calculate the opportunities of an enhanced program for recipients. It is a very major undertaking because it involves literally hundreds of thousands of people in slightly different circumstances at any given time. We hope to have the program in place as soon as possible, and we are prepared to listen to those who may have different ideas, although the plan was vetted by several organizations prior to today's announcement.

Mr. Chairman, one of the major concerns of citizens in British Columbia is child protection. Unfortunately, over the past while we have become increasingly aware of the number of incidents with respect to child protection, or the need for it primarily ones dealing with sexual abuse of children which have been reported, which have been investigated and which in some instances have gone through very long court procedures. It is a concern which the government recognized some time back and, through the interministry committees, took action to try to address. Information was made available to the general public, to ministries and other organizations with respect to child abuse. A program was developed whereby access to the Helpline was available to the children of British Columbia. One result was an increased awareness of abuse. There have been many well-publicized cases of child abuse.

The Ministry of Human Resources is in a most difficult position at all times with respect to reported cases of abuse. It is somewhat difficult for the staff to be advised by way of the media that they were negligent in ignoring a report of abuse, only to see soon thereafter similar reports in the media that they were overactive in apprehending children in instances where there were reports of child abuse. The ministry staff takes most seriously such reports and is obliged by statute to follow through. It's very difficult for adults in our society who may find themselves being questioned by Ministry of Human Resources staff— or police — about reports of abuse. Frequently individuals being questioned are grossly offended that someone may have accused them of abusing a child. The investigations are very different from those routinely carried out by police officials on other matters. We frequently hear one side of the story as related by the person who may have been questioned with respect to the abuse. A response is difficult because of prohibition by legislation with respect to releasing certain information which might be required to remain confidential. Mr. Chairman, I will be recommending soon that consideration be provided to the superintendent of family and child Service to have the authority when in his opinion it is in the best interest of a child that certain information be available for release.

A superintendent of family and child service has been appointed. Mr. Andrew Armitage was formerly with the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing and has had an extensive career in social work, including a period of time when he was instructing in this matter at a university. Mr. Armitage is undertaking his new role with great vigour, and we expect to have the opportunity of seeing the results of his labours very soon. An associate superintendent, Ms. Leslie Arnold, has been appointed as well. The position will be responsible for ensuring the quality of child welfare services. A network of children's officers will be introduced over the next period of time— perhaps over the next year — throughout the province to coordinate with these two senior officials.

Child welfare expenditures increased from $63 million in '78-79 to $95 million in '84-85, representing an expenditure of $7,138 per child last year, as compared to $4,500 in '78-79. The financial support for child welfare services will be increased in 1986-87. An additional $2.3 million will be directed to child care resources and further money will be made available to enhance child protection services. Fostercare rates and day-care subsidies will receive a cost-of-living increase of approximately 4.7 percent. The budgets for these child-care services will be $24.1 million and $26.9 million respectively.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a few comments with respect to the foster-care program in British Columbia. Some thousands of children are in the care of foster parents constantly— approximately 5,000 children. The foster parents have offered a tremendous service to the province. The

[ Page 7597 ]

cost of the program is considerably less, compared to alternative programs. It is only because the foster parents consider themselves to have a duty to our society, and particularly an opportunity and duty to assist children, that we have had the tremendous success with that program in British Columbia. I would pay tribute to the foster parents who have added a great deal of service to our province and have assisted youngsters in difficulty to have a much more pleasant period of time in custody— or in care — than would be so otherwise. Many foster parents in our province have been assisting children in this manner for well over 15 to 20 years.

The recent federal Badgley Report regarding child protection emphasized the importance of a coordinated approach in reporting and investigating child abuse. In our province much has already been put in place to this end. I mentioned the Helpline for Children. We receive hundreds of calls each month from people, including teachers, police, parents, relatives, neighbours and medical staff. I might point out, since it should be emphasized, that it is a statutory obligation on the part of citizens in our province to report incidents of abuse, whether it be a neighbour, friend, relative, medical practitioner, teacher or someone else in the position of suspecting that a child may be being abused. There has been a lot of argument about whether that responsibility should be carried out, and in what manner it should be carried out. It would appear, from the information we've received over the past year, that in certain instances that statutory obligation was not carried out by people in positions of responsibility. We will be doing some in-depth studies to determine why the system may have failed in certain specific instances.

[2:45]

There's been a significant increase in reported cases of abuse, particularly since the Helpline was introduced back in 1979. We try to look at the positive side and suggest that this increased reporting is because of the awareness of citizens within B.C.

Another initiative directed at meeting the challenge for a coordinated approach is the interministry child abuse handbook, which was the first of its kind in Canada. The book was developed by the Ministries of Human Resources, Health, Education and the Attorney-General. It details responsibilities and procedures.

We've also developed the child abuse training package, developed a few years ago to help social workers around the province upgrade their knowledge and skills in dealing with child abuse.

The Ministries of Health and Human Resources are reviewing the entire matter of child abuse, with a view to identifying potential changes needed in legislation, to ensure efficient and effective response capability.

The ministry also protects the integrity of the family by making available emergency accommodations for battered spouses and their children. Most of these facilities are operated by non-profit societies, assisted by the ministry.

Mr. Chairman, other special needs of British Columbians are also recognized by the government, through the Ministry of Human Resources. Where appropriate, mentally retarded adults have been provided with alternatives to institutional care. Programs such as Chance, the infant development program and special needs day care continue to assist children with physical and mental disabilities.

The ministry came under a tremendous amount of criticism a while back with respect to the relocation of some retarded citizens in our province to community-care level services rather than provincial institutions. The phase-out of Tranquille and the relocation of the people within that facility involved a political game for a period of time by some people who should have known better. There were others who were skeptical about changing what had been in our society for some time, who have since recognized that the program has worked and has benefited those people who have been transferred from Tranquille. In fact, some of the most vigorous opponents to the move are now the greatest supporters of the results.

There was an absolutely irresponsible advertising program carried out by the B.C. Government Employees' Union, which seemed only to wish to alarm people with scary caricatures of what they believe a mentally retarded person looks like — which I found offensive — plus literature and language which was wrong...seemed to be inflammatory. Thankfully, wisdom prevailed, and that advertising program was withdrawn. I was most pleased to see responsible people, representing organizations who deal with the needs of mentally retarded people, condemn that advertising program.

Mr. Chairman, we do face very serious problems in our society today, as we have in the past, as we will in the future, not only in British Columbia but in all provinces of Canada and probably most countries of the world.

We do have difficulties which have not been overcome, but we certainly offer programs and services to a vast array of citizens in the province which may not be available elsewhere. British Columbia may indeed have different problems than some other parts of Canada. If we are led to believe the results of various surveys, investigations and conclusions reached by people who consider themselves to be expert in those fields.... We see such stories being reported recently that most people in Canada, if they were to relocate, would want to relocate in British Columbia. We see stories offered to us by Goldfarb, the pollster, that some people believe they would rather be on income assistance in British Columbia than working in other parts of the country.

Mr. Chairman, whatever the facts of the matter may be, British Columbia does attract people from other parts of Canada for many reasons. We do have large numbers of transient people in the province, We do attract a lot of people who are attracted by the services available to them in British Columbia, and in many instances such people may become eligible for compensation or assistance under some of our programs. We've had good success. We must always continue to be most alert to the needs of those people who are less privileged than others.

Special needs is a problem that requires a tremendous amount of attention. Sometimes it is almost a single incident problem, where some programs simply do not encompass the needs of the individual, and a program must almost be tailor-made to assist them. Mr. Chairman, I regret on occasion when bureaucratic programs, regulatory matters, or even statutory, seem to prohibit attention being paid to an individual when it would seem that society in its wisdom, when drafting such legislation or regulations, really intended that individual to be in a position of receiving assistance. So sometimes the ministry has to find other ways to assist an individual who may not quite fall into the categories demanded by the regulations or policy. And I do not apologize for that need or that result.

There has been a tremendous improvement in the attitude of the public in general with respect to the capacity of some people who are handicapped physically, mentally or perhaps

[ Page 7598 ]

by a poor social history. I believe that our citizens by and large today have a far more positive attitude to what these individuals can accomplish if provided with some assistance, encouragement and intelligent planning.

So in conclusion, if I may conclude at least for this period of time, we face great challenges in providing assistance to British Columbians in need. Many of those needs have been met. Some of the problems have been overcome. There are many challenges ahead, particularly in facilitating client independence, integration of clients into the mainstream of our society. We've had good assistance from the federal government, community organizations, municipal governments and others, but we have not been able to overcome all the problems. We don't pretend that we will or that we can. But I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the Ministry of Human Resources has a dedicated staff to try to resolve as many of these problems as is humanly possible.

We welcome attitudes and ideas from citizens in the province with respect to how the job may be done better. We will not become engaged in partisan political games using the underprivileged as pawns. I leave it to others to do so, but I will not take part in that. I welcome those who are genuinely concerned about the well-being of our citizens. If they believe they have good ideas or programs that can be of assistance, they are more than welcome at any time to make contact with my office to discuss such matters. Mr. Chairman, I took forward to comments from others in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the next member, the Chair will draw the committee's attention to our revised standing orders with respect to debate in Committee of Supply, which state that leaders of recognized parties or designated members thereof have one opening statement not exceeding 30 minutes, and thereafter 15 minutes. The minister, of course, has taken that opportunity. The Chair is of no opinion on when the debate leader of another recognized party may wish to take that 30-minute opportunity, but if the debate leader would advise the Chair, it would be helpful to all of us. It's entirely up to you, Madam Member.

MS. BROWN: Do I have to indicate that at the beginning, or can I do it at the end?

MR. CHAIRMAN: As a matter of courtesy, it would be appreciated, Madam Member.

MR. ROSE: I haven't got the rule book before me, but I recall being part of the debate when we revised these things. I think it's fair to say that a person can speak for 30 minutes, uninterrupted— that is desired. But it is the tradition in committee sessions that if some other member gets up at the twenty-ninth minute and speaks for one minute, the debate leader has a reprieve and can go on and ask further questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All the debate in Committee of Supply can reciprocate until the vote is passed. It's just the time limits that we're discussing now.

MS. BROWN: We started out, at least certainly in my work experience in British Columbia, with the Minister of Human Resources of the day, Mr. Gaglardi, giving us a program called the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen, which was supposed to succeed in taking people off income assistance and putting them all to work. That program was such an absolute failure that his government was defeated and we haven't heard from Mr. Gaglardi since.

Then when the government was re-elected, the new Minister of Human Resources, Mr. Vander Zalm, brought in another program which was going to be the one that this time would get everybody off income assistance. It was called ZOOOM. ZOOOM zoomed right through the floor, because it was another failure, and in fact we found that far from getting people off income assistance, as a direct result of the government's policies in other areas the number of people on income assistance was increasing. So Mr. Vander Zalm disappeared.

Then we had a new minister, the past Minister of Human Resources, who came up with another program, and this one definitely was the answer to the world's ills. All income assistance recipients were going to have full-time jobs, retraining and whatever. But hers had a number of different names. First we had the PREP program, and when that didn't work, we had the opportunities program. That was a disaster and a failure.

Now we have the new Minister of Human Resources giving us another program which is going to bring everybody off income assistance and put them to work. His program is called "partners in poverty." Partners in poverty is the new program that, his press release tells us, will help people who are employable to phase off income assistance.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I can read the press release to you. The minister seems to have forgotten what his press release said. His press release says that this program of his, partners in poverty, is going to phase people off income assistance in the foreseeable future. I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that we will be hearing from this minister again under the Health estimates, when he will give us his "partners in sickness" program — and all of his programs.

[3:00]

It says: "The end result could be that a client could gradually work his way out of the need for income assistance." Now what does that mean to you? It means that this new program, partners in poverty, is going to result in clients being able to get off income assistance. Once again.... We've gone from PAB to ZOOOM to PREP to Opportunities, and now we've come to partners in poverty. Don't hold your breath. I don't think anyone should hold their breath.

In 1979 the Victoria earnings exemption project made a recommendation to the ministry. It said a number of things, including the fact that.... Its major thrust was that clients work when jobs are available, and that's what they want: they want jobs. The earnings exemption project of 1979 recommended the figures which we are now being presented in 1986. I wonder what a 1979 dollar is worth today, in 1986. I know that my colleague, the critic on income assistance, will deal with that. But what we have here in this brand-new, spanking partners in poverty program, which has been unveiled by the minister today, is an old 1979 recommendation by the Victoria earnings exemption project, which had as its major thrust that people want to work. Jobs are what they're asking for, and the increase in the earnings exemption, if and when it's introduced, should be within 1986 economic realities, not 1979 economic realities.

[ Page 7599 ]

In fact, Mr. Chairman, what this minister has done in the short period of time since he has taken over his job is indicate very clearly that he has become a part of his government's conspiracy to drive as many people in this province as possible into living below the poverty line and keep them there. That's what this partners in poverty program is all about. He has gone back and used statistics from 1978-79 and compared them with today. The reality of this situation is that within the last five years— between 1981 and 1986 — the number of adults in receipt of income assistance in this province, the number of heads of families, has gone from 66,000 to 125,000. That's an increase of 90 percent. At the same time, across Canada the number has increased only 37 percent.

A direct result of this government's policies in creating poverty, in increasing unemployment, in throwing people out of work, in destroying the small business sector, is that this minister can now come onto the floor of this House and introduce us to his partners in poverty program. Obviously he's going to sell this partners in poverty program, because a took at the budget for his ministry shows that the largest increase is for communications— 310 percent — while there's a decrease in services to seniors of $1.5 million; a decrease in rehabilitation and support services of over threequarters of a million dollars; a decrease in the GAIN programs of over $11 million. This minister is telling us that the number of people in receipt of income assistance is going to go down, when all we've had is an increase between 1981 and 1986 of 90 percent. And suddenly this year the GAIN program is going to drop by $11 million.

I'll tell you how this government operates. I don't want to go back and quote old statements made by the previous minister and the deputy minister and other people, but it is a tradition of the Ministry of Human Resources to deliberately understate and underestimate its GAIN budget. It's a tradition. Then what it does is it uses the warren system to put more money into the budget as is needed, so that we have overruns by the end of the fiscal year every single time. Every single time. And now we have this partners in poverty program of this government— another smoke-and-mirrors project. The only saving grace that we have to deal with, Mr. Chairman, is the fact and the reality that nobody believes anything that this government says anymore. Nobody believes them. Nobody trusts them. That's....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Well, listen. You know, Mr. Chairman, this is the government that introduced programs to help small business. Who remembers the LIFT program and all those other programs that were supposed to help small business— the small manufacturers assistance program, the small business enterprise program? In reality in 1983 by secret ministerial order those programs were eliminated, and the fact is that only one-quarter of the money promised for those programs was ever spent by this government. People remember that. People know that this government cannot be trusted. People know that this government does not honour its commitment and that its promises, as someone once said, are not worth the paper they're written on. So now this big unveiling of this partners in poverty program, and we are to believe as is stated in the words of that press release that in fact income assistance people are going to be able to get off income assistance? Right. Right into continuing poverty.

MS. SANFORD: Not a single cabinet minister in the House.

MS. BROWN: Well, of course. This is not an issue that interests them. Services to people — that's not an issue that interests them. There's a 310 percent increase in their communications budget to pay for TV ads. On TV we are going to find the minister of sickness and death, now the minister of poverty, with the B.C. flag behind him, talking about all these great promises that he's going to make for the disabled and the mentally retarded and seniors. Nobody is going to know the truth, which is that $1.5 million has been cut from services to seniors and $11 million from the GAIN program in a smoke-and-mirrors deal that shows this unveiling of this partners in poverty program using up $6 million of that and the other $5 million disappearing off into the sky somewhere. Services to rehabilitation and support services are cut by a quarter of a million dollars, and this minister stands there and tells us that he cares, that he is concerned, that in fact he wants to establish a network of children's workers as though he's going to be hiring new people. In fact those are not new jobs. By the process of attrition they are old jobs with a new name. That's what it is. In the same way that this partners in poverty program is an old program with a new name. We had it under PAB, we had it under PREP, we had it under ZOOOM, we had it under the opportunities program. It's the same old smoke-and- mirrors program that has been reintroduced.

The reality of the situation is that people in this province want jobs. If this minister is serious about getting people off income assistance, for Pete's sake do something about creating jobs. Get after those ministers who haven't got the interest or concern about unemployment in this province, and say to them that there's been a 90 percent increase in the number of people in this province dependent on income assistance because they have been thrown out of work by the deliberate conspiracy of this government to force as many people as possible into poverty and to keep them living under the poverty line.

That's what you are. You're not a Minister of Human Resources; you're a minister of poverty. That's what you are, and your commitment and your determination is to ensure that poverty continues in this province. That's what you are about.

First of all, less than two months ago this was a full-time Minister of Human Resources, we were told. "There are things, " he said, "in the department that I want to clean up. Like Humphrey Bogart, I am going to start cleaning up things in this department."

Do you know something? Never once in the history of his film or personal career has Humphrey Bogart ever been accused of picking the pockets of the poor, yet that is precisely what has been said about this Ministry of Human Resources and this province of British Columbia. It said here: "'Four provincial governments pick the pockets of the poor in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, ' said a study of welfare rates made public today." It says that British Columbia turned in the worst report card, according to the council, because it froze most of its welfare rates between 1982 and 1985. Single, disabled recipients got token increases, but not enough to keep them ahead of inflation.

What does that minister have to say about those welfare rates today? Did you hear what that partners in poverty minister had to say? He said that those rates are going to

[ Page 7600 ]

remain frozen. This is the government that has been accused of picking the pockets of the poor. Humphrey Bogart! If Humphrey Bogart were alive today, he would sue you for defamation of character. At no time has anyone ever been able to say that Humphrey Bogart would be guilty of picking the pockets of the poor.

That minister has the gall to come in here, unveil an old 1979 report, which may as well be 1794, in this House and tell us that this is his program, his progress in poverty program. The GAIN rates, which were inadequate when they were raised the last time and have been frozen for the last six years, we are told, are going to remain the same. This despite the fact that this very government is increasing directly and indirectly taxation on every British Columbian as indicated by the budget tabled in this House earlier by that Minister of Finance.

He tells us about services to children. Oh, his heart breaks for child abuse...

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: ...but the one program that the social workers in this province could depend on in terms of support — the one program that they could depend on....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Don't point your finger at me.

MS. BROWN: Humphrey Bogart didn't care. You can't be Humphrey Bogart and get all nervous about a finger being pointed at you. One thing about Humphrey Bogart, he was cool.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The minister had his place, and he'll have his opportunity to respond.

MS. BROWN: That's right. Humphrey Bogart was a very cool man. I never saw him lose his temper. He said: "Play it again, Sam." Right?

AN HON. MEMBER: He never said that.

MS. BROWN: Oh, wasn't that Humphrey Bogart?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Why don't you get serious for a minute, instead of playing games?

MS. BROWN: I thought that you were going to get serious. I expected you to be serious, and when you were appointed Minister of Human Resources, I congratulated you on that because I thought it was going to be a full-time job, and instead of that, it's a part-time job. You're now responsible for sickness and death in this province as well as for poverty. Yes, you are the minister of poverty and the minister of sickness.

You stand on the floor of this House and tell us that the income assistance rates, frozen at the 1982 level, are going to remain there despite the fact that you have the statistics that show that 82 percent of the people in this province who use the food bank are income assistance recipients and do not have enough money to spend on food. You stand there and tell us that those income assistance rates are going to remain frozen. Why don't you get serious?

[3:15]

I sat in absolute silence, Mr. Chairman, and listened to that minister, because I thought that he would have something to say. In fact, all that he said in his statement indicated his clear commitment to participate in the conspiracy of this government to drive as many people as possible into poverty and to sustain and maintain them there, living below the poverty line. That is absolutely disgraceful, to try and use smoke- and-mirrors things and think that people are going to trust you and believe you when you unveil an old 1979 program and tell us that this, in your own press release statement, is going to get people off income assistance. Get them off income assistance into what? Into continuing to live in poverty, and continuing to live below a poverty line that existed even in 1982. That's the disgraceful kind of thing that's been happening with this minister.

I want to point out that in 1981 the total number of people in this province who were in receipt of income assistance — and I'm talking about not just adults, not just the 66,000 adults who could work, but everybody, their dependents and everyone — was 128,000. That figure, in the minister's own words, is now close to a quarter of a million people who are dependent on income assistance. That minister has the gall to tell us that he can deduct $11 million from his budget because, as the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) said, things are improving in British Columbia and there are going to be fewer people in need of income assistance. He is telling us that his partners in poverty program is going to assist people in getting off income assistance. It's not going to happen.

I want the minister, when he responds, to tell me exactly how many jobs are going to be created at what works out to about $80 per job per adult in receipt of income assistance. If you use that 125 adults in this province who want to work, who can't find work, who are living on income assistance, who are supposed to be benefiting from this $6 million program of his, it works out to something in the neighbourhood of about $70 to $75 a job. How many of those people are going to be able to find jobs as a direct result of this program? The unemployment insurance figures, which are even more frightening than that, are there.

He has not dealt with any of the number of programs that were deliberately either eliminated or cut back under the previous Minister of Human Resources and that resulted in this province having the reputation of turning in the worst report card in Canada as far as dealing with poverty is concerned, in that report. I want to remind you that this is not a poor province. We have natural resources here, and if we did not have a government that was so committed and dedicated to the poverty of others — not to themselves, of course — then we wouldn't be turning in the kind of report card that that report was talking about.

The community involvement program, which allowed some people to earn $50 a month and which was cost-shared with the federal government, was first eliminated and then reintroduced in a limited way in 1984. Now it is only available for those GAIN recipients who are disabled, handicapped. Before it was eliminated in 1983, single parents were eligible as well as the disabled. Now that's not the case. What's going to happen to CIP? The $1.5 million wiped out of the budget for services to seniors — part of that used to be used to cover the cost of seniors' day-care centres. Those were eliminated in 1984. Are they going to be restored? The renter's tax credit, which was of benefit to people who were

[ Page 7601 ]

living below the poverty line, went in 1983. The personal income tax credit went in 1983.

Every day now we are getting in our constituency offices letters from people living in B.C. housing telling us that their rents have been increased from 25 percent of their income up to 30 percent. We're talking about people living on very limited income, because you don't get into B.C. Housing with that kind of income — unlike co-op housing, which the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Kempf) was able to get into with his $71,000 income and pay $475 rent for. You have to have limited income, yet now they're receiving letters saying that their rent has gone up from 25 percent to 30 percent of their income.

What about the family support worker program, that preventive program that went into families and was the first to spot when there was a crisis looming and could move quickly and efficiently to deal with that? Two hundred and fifty-nine positions; something in the neighbourhood of 226 people terminated in 1983. What about that program? That program did more to cut down on the incidence of physical and other abuse of children and families than all the crocodile tears being shed by this minister of poverty on the floor of the House today. Income assistance coordinators, mental retardation coordinators, family and children's service coordinators — program coordinators terminated. What about those programs? An increase of 310 percent in communications to go on TV and do a gavotte and talk about your partners in poverty program, yet these people who work directly with families and children in this province were terminated and their programs eliminated.

What about the provincial in-service resource team eliminated in October 1983? They worked with disturbed and disabled children, the same ones that the crocodile tears were dropping for a few minutes ago, Mr. Chairman. Is that program going to be reintroduced, or are all of the increases still going to be in terms of that minister's communications budget, occupancy budget, travel budget, the budget for computers and all of those kinds of things? Moving further and further away from direct services to people and more and more into all of the flimflam that we see. No money to serve people, but money to go on TV and look soulfully into people's eyes and say, "Trust me," knowing full well that it's useless anyway because nobody trusts you; nobody believes any of those crocodile tears.

You have an opportunity to become not just a minister of poverty but a genuine Minister of Human Resources and put into place the programs that would do something about the abuse of children in and outside of the family. There's absolutely no indication from anything you've said on the floor of the House today, nor from your budget, that you're going to do just that. Post-partum counselling, child-care resources, family and children assessment teams, the specialized child abuse team — gone. The nutritionist program: everybody knows the studies that have been done between lack of nutrition and inability of children to learn and progress in the education system, which is precisely why that program was so important. It's gone too. It wasn't a million-dollar program; it wasn't as expensive as some of the other things that money is being spent on. It only had five workers. That's all it was. But that program is gone.

The child-care counsellors in the Vancouver schools were terminated in 1984. An increase in the Pharmacare deductible from $125 to $175, at the same time as those people's rents are being raised from 25 percent of their budgets to 30 percent. And once again no change to the GAIN rates. No changes whatsoever since 1982, and that minister has the nerve not only to take on another job but to again shortchange the people in need in this province by becoming a part-time minister. He now has two jobs. Not only that, but to stand on the floor of this House and tell us that his partners in poverty program is going to get people off income assistance, and for that reason the disabled and the unemployables — the people who can't work in this program — are going to be condemned to live on the same GAIN rates, the same inadequate income that existed in 1982, four years ago. Despite all the increases in taxes, hidden or otherwise, introduced by this government, despite all the increases in the cost of living, hidden or otherwise, introduced by this government, that minister has the gall to stand on the floor of this House and tell us that those 1982 rates are going to stand again. Life is not a party for people living on income assistance. It was hoped that that new Minister of Human Resources, who in an interview in the Vancouver Sun said he was so thrilled, that he really wanted this job.... He was going to do great things here, even though one of his running mates in Richmond indicated in the same newspaper that they don't want any more wimps in Victoria. That's right. At the same time as he is saying, "Oh, I love working with the disabled," the person seeking the nomination to run with him is saying: "We don't want any more wimps in Victoria."

AN HON. MEMBER: That's you.

MS. BROWN: If I'm the definition of a wimp, then I hope we have lots more of us in Victoria.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member loves to play political games. I suppose there is no price too high to get a vote. I do not appreciate, nor do I want to get involved in, trying to outbid for the votes of the poor. I think there are certain levels that one can avoid with respect to trying to bribe the electorate, when it comes to the poor, the impoverished, the handicapped, the unfortunate. The member said: "Life is not a party for those who are poor." I guess not. I agree with the member that the best form of social assistance is employment. The best form of social assistance for those who are employable is employment.

Recently we had the opportunity of attending certain functions where construction has been completed or is nearing completion, where people have been employed; where they have been able to take care of themselves and their families, because they've had the opportunity to work on projects that the opposition said they would have cancelled, not permitted to go ahead. They would have cancelled those projects because they're megaprojects, according to them. I remember their former leader said: "We would cancel all megaprojects in B.C." Those people who worked on those megaprojects would therefore have been unemployed. They would have exhausted their unemployment insurance. They would have been on income assistance. And that member would have said: "Why don't you find jobs for these people? " They found jobs for these people. Many of them have worked a great deal of time on these projects and have been able to sustain themselves and their dependents and their families.

Of course there are going to be people unemployed. Of course there are going to be people in need of assistance. But, Mr. Chairman, for the record, that member was part of a

[ Page 7602 ]

government in 1972-73, and is part of a party, which is on record as being opposed to, among others, employment-creating projects. The project I was speaking of is the Annacis bridge, which provided employment for many hundreds of workers in the province and which the NDP said they would have cancelled. Mr. Moser, your Delta candidate, said that it was a decision by the party not to go ahead with the bridge if they won that election. Was he not telling the truth?

[3:30]

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: What's it got to do with welfare? There are many people today on income assistance who are on income assistance because they are unemployed. There are many people who are employed today on these projects who might otherwise be unemployed and on income assistance. To suggest that none of these projects go ahead would mean more people unemployed or on income assistance.

They were opposed to the ALRT, which employed many hundreds of people in my constituency of Richmond to produce the beams for the trackway — many hundreds of people for a considerable period of time. They were opposed to Expo, which will employ thousands of people and has employed thousands of people. They were opposed to B.C. Place, which employed a large number of people, and still does. They were opposed to the Coquihalla Highway and northeast coal, which have employed thousands of people. Mr. Chairman, they simply can't stand up and say: "You're opposed to employment. You want to create poverty." What nonsense! What absolute garbage! Madam Member, you'll never see me drop a crocodile tear. You may not believe that you do not have a monopoly on caring about people, but I can assure you, you do not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the minister address the Chair.

MS. BROWN: Oh, I don't mind the minister addressing me.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That member for Burnaby-Edmonds has certain pet projects, which the member believes are the only important items in this world; others do not, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Certain pet projects. Listen to her! "Children are not important!" Madam Member, this government has done more to assist families and children than you care to remember. You have a very selective memory. You have a very selective manner of criticizing a ministry which is providing tremendous service to the citizens of British Columbia. The member comes up with something cute for the media. Is the media listening? Partners in poverty! Let's tell people who need assistance that they're partners in poverty. And then the member says: "Oh, you've recycled some...."

When you attempt to introduce a program, the problem is that it's never good enough according to the opposition. It's never good enough. Where was that great program the NDP introduced when they were government? Why didn't it solve all the problems of poverty? Because the situation is not static. You can't introduce something today and expect it to last forever. You have to respond to the realities of the day.

It's fine for the opposition to come in with their cute little phrases and their asides and their nonsense — their funny little things. They come up with selective reports from some outfit in Toronto that doesn't have to come up with a dollar to provide services to anyone. They can come up with all the reports they want; in fact, they bloody well better: they might be out of a job if they don't keep coming up with the reports. How many jobs have they created? How many people have they helped?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MS. BROWN: Aren't you ashamed?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No. I'm ashamed of your remarks. That's what I'm ashamed of.

Mr. Chairman, that member believes she can get away with anything, because she is a self-appointed expert on everything — on all the woes of the people in the province. She has all the answers. It's very, very different, Mr. Chairman, when people within the Ministry of Human Resources have to deal with those on an hour-by-hour, day-to-day basis — real situations, not theoretical. Real situations. It's different when a government must come up with hundreds of millions and billions of dollars to provide those services during a declining economy. It's different when you have to do the job. It's not hard to write a textbook. It's not hard to come up with theories. Get in the field. Do the job. That's what the people in the ministry have to do every day.

MS. BROWN: That's where I started.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That's where you should have stayed perhaps.

MS. BROWN: Yes, that's possible too. That's possible too.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, Ms. Negative of 1986 is not going to help one person in this province with that attitude. It's easy to be critical.

It's absolute nonsense that the government is attempting to keep people under the poverty line — attempting to make people poor. For what purpose? What would the purpose be?

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, my God!

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, every member of the committee will have ample opportunity to present their own opinions.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, it is a conspiracy of some kind.

MS. BROWN: ...into a banana republic.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: A banana republic. A conspiracy. I wonder why it is that this great conspiracy has failed so

[ Page 7603 ]

miserably when you look at the numbers — the dollars which have been provided for services to people. Have a look at the previous years to see what has been happening. The member likes to join with some of her colleagues talking about communications. I believe, unless I'm in error in what she was saying, that that translates into public relations or something. The increase in the communications budget is in such strange things as telephones and data processing equipment. They cost money. Telephones have increased. The costs have increased. Our share is $1.5 million more. Data processing, an additional $2.5 million. That's communications. Money must be spent on that.

The member says no money is being spent on direct programs to people. No money is being spent on.... Take the opportunity of looking on page 120 of the estimates. You say there is no money being spent on people. This says: direct community services, $102 million; services for families and children, $101 million; rehabilitation support services, $148 million; day-care and achievement centres, $33 million; community residential care services, $46 million; community contracted services, $6,900,000; special programs for retarded, $61 million; GAIN programs: income assistance, $876 million; opportunities to independence, $6 million; health care and dental services, $36 million; Pharmacare, $148 million; services to seniors, $28 million; seniors supplement, $15 million; Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters, $8 million; bus pass program, $4 million; seniors counselling, $250,000; for a total of $1.48 billion.

Yes, money is being spent in the executive and program support. We do need staff and we do need supervisory staff. We do need management staff. But don't tell me no money is being spent on people. Who, then, is in receipt of this amount of money?

Mr. Chairman, the ministry works very hard and diligently to try to serve the needs of the citizens of British Columbia. There is no Ministry of Human Resources anywhere that is going to be beyond criticism, and certainly there is no government program anywhere that is going to escape the criticism of those who oppose, because that's their duty. But don't give me that bit about crocodile tears. I take that as a personal offence, which doesn't mean much to that member; I couldn't care less. But don't you tell me that I'm spilling crocodile tears when I tell you that I have a genuine concern for those in need. That's offensive. I would not question your sincerity when you speak about concern about those in need — particularly children in need.

Mr. Chairman, the proposal released today is to permit those who have the capacity of earning to retain some of that earning, to encourage them to see if they can develop their earning capacity to such a degree that they no longer would be in need of income assistance.

Part of the conspiracy to keep people poor. I appreciate that the member and the critics and others feel it's necessary to be as negative as possible about government programs. That's fine. That's part of life. But I take offence when it's suggested that the government is deliberately attempting to cause people poverty. I regret that some of the programs that some people in the province who like to see retained, developed, invented, changed or whatever, may not occur. Not everything can be done; not everything will be done. But the ministry is doing a good job in dealing with very difficult positions in great numbers.

I make no reference to the comments made about cooperative housing and other things that relate in no way to the ministry. There is much to be said about all of that, and I'm sure it will occur at some time.

Mr. Chairman, it's unfortunate that there's so much negativism when it comes to government programs to try to create jobs. I just received a printout of the small manufacturers assistance program from my constituency of Richmond — who's been assisted by the program. The member mentioned that we do these things. I haven't time to read it all, but I may later. New jobs created under the program by industry: in this instance, eight, eight, five, four, three, two, two, two, two, ten, six, two, nine, two, four, two, six, two, five, four, three, six, four, two, two, four, six, four, five, three, nine, ten, ninety-two, three, three, two, five, four, four, nine, two, seven, three, five, four and four. And it continues: two and two, one, three, one, two, one, two. Precisely what the programs are intended to do, to create jobs.

According to that member we should cancel the programs because we might have people employed, and then she couldn't say: "Look at all the poor people." For some reason, some members of the opposition believe that misery can be exploited and mined like an oil reserve, for political gain.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the minister waxes indignant, waves his arms, shouts, has to be warned by the Chairman about his language, hoping, I suppose, all the time, that the more he huffs and puffs, the more smoke he emits, the less aware people will be that there really isn't any light there. The more embarrassed he is about his own conduct, the more embarrassed he is about his own conduct as Minister of Human Resources. For him to stand up and say that he has kept the budget for GAIN at the same figure as it was last year, even a little less.... I thought you did in your opening remarks. You said you'd been able to keep the figure the same because you were interested in keeping costs of the total budget down. I thought there was something like that in your opening remarks. Maybe I took it down wrong, but that did come to me.

[3:45]

Yet this, I believe, is the minister responsible for income assistance programs. Reading from his ministry's own report: "The purpose of income assistance programs and services is to provide a basic income for British Columbians and to assist people in need to become independent and selfsupporting." That's there as well. That's the second purpose; the first is to provide a basic income. As the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) has pointed out, if it could have been described as a basic income in 1981, and in the knowledge that the cost of living has gone up 25 percent since those figures were last increased, then certainly it's much less than a basic income today. The minister is failing totally in providing what was considered to be by his administration a basic income five years ago. He's done nothing at all to improve that since.

When he tells us that the program that he is bringing in now is one that will help people develop their earning capacity, then I have to remind him of the many people who have come to my constituency office and complained that if they do anything at all to try to improve their own earning capacity, then they are cut off social assistance. Unless they can show that on a day-to-day basis they are available for work, or if they go to school and try to improve themselves to increase their earning capacity, they no longer qualify for income assistance. Mr. Chairman, how does that fit with what he said

[ Page 7604 ]

is one of his goals, one of his purposes as minister: helping people develop their earning capacity?

Mr. Chairman, he spoke about the number of people who are receiving — I don't know whether it was GAIN or.... It was help from his ministry, in any case. The number has gone up from 130,000 to 232,000 in the last four years, an increase of 75 percent. That doesn't mean that there are another 102,000 people in British Columbia who just don't want to work, who could find work if they wanted it, or who, if he persuades them to go out and earn a little bit, would be able to get off social assistance totally. It doesn't mean that there are 102,000 more jobs out there waiting to be filled.

I would remind that minister, through you, Mr. Chairman — and I have quoted him from a previous occasion when the president of the Bank of B.C. was speaking in Victoria two weeks ago to the certified general accountants — that one of the things he said was that for the last five years and for the first time in the history of British Columbia there has been a net migration of people from B.C. going to other places to look for work, going to Manitoba, going to Ontario. I would remind him of the stories about Ontario, where the contractors are saying they are going to start advertising in British Columbia for people to come and work. They expect to have to go to Europe to find enough to fit the needs of the developing economy in the province of Ontario.

He's been a minister in this government ever since December of 1975 — a government where the things that have really prospered have not been people on welfare. The number has gone up and the amount of money being spent in total has gone up, because there are many more people getting welfare because of the lack of interest of this administration — and that minister in particular right now has the responsibility for this ministry — and the lack of wanting to do something constructive in the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, he has the nerve to tell us that they built a bridge to create employment. If that was the only reason for that particular bridge, then they should have done something else. He might even say — he didn't mention it, I'll give him that.... He didn't say that we spent $1.2 billion of public money to dig holes in the wrong place up in the Peace River. At least he didn't say that. It provided employment, but that isn't good enough.

We're in favor of employment programs. We know that it isn't enough year after year to come in with one program after another to help business and industry create employment. It isn't working. You've done it for year after year after year and it hasn't created new jobs. The number of unemployed has gone up; the number on social assistance has gone up. There's no more money to give to these people who need it. There's no more money to give to the people who could spend it in their communities if they had it. At least consider bringing their amount up to the 1981 level. The dollar that they had in 1981 will buy only 80 cents worth of food today. They were spending every cent of it then. It means they're going without the things that they need today. Mr. Chairman, B.C. could be better.

The minister promises to do things for people. He promises that if they'll get out and find their own jobs.... Since their programs to try to get industry and business to provide jobs aren't working, it's up to the people least able to provide employment, those who can't move around. Their mobility is certainly curtailed, particularly if they have families at all; they can't move; they can't go anywhere. They don't have any capital to start any kind of enterprise at all. These are the people who are being blamed for the increase in the number of unemployed and for the increase in the amount on social assistance.

It is the government that is at fault, because the governments in other jurisdictions have provided the kind of economic climate where employment is increasing, where bankruptcies are going down, and where the number of people drawing income assistance is going down because there isn't that need there. B.C. Is the outstanding example of the wrong way to go about doing things.

Mr. Chairman, we could be doing better. The minister talked a little about his concern for the needy, those who are unable to look after themselves, unable to care for themselves. Certainly there are the medically unfit, but there are also those extra 102,000 people, in the minister's own figures, plus the migration of people that the president of the Bank of B.C. referred to — I use him because he is the most recent — all of those people have left B.C. to go to other jurisdictions to look for work. They've been chased away by this government's lack of concern for them. They're going to other places looking for work. There are still 102,000 more here, and what is the government doing about it?

The government is saying to the people who need the help most: "You go out and help yourself. We'll encourage you. We'll say if you make some more money, you can keep a little more of it. But we're not prepared to provide any job opportunities unless we can do it through private business and through industry, unless we can somehow or other give them more tax breaks and provide more gimmicks, more investment opportunities, more ways of reducing their income tax. If we can somehow through that means encourage people who have the material wealth to provide job opportunities, we'll do it." But in the meantime the thrust of his conduct as minister responsible for looking after the needy — not the greedy, Mr. Chairman, the needy — will be to say to those who need help the most and who are most unable to help themselves: "You go out and look after yourselves. I'm washing my hands of you. There's no more money for you, because I have to help balance the budget." That's the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. If that minister had stood up and said, "Look, I recognize that people receiving GAIN need more...." He didn't say that.

Not once during the course of his remarks did I note him expressing any concern for the very limited amount of money these people have. He seems to feel they can get along. After all, if they got along five years ago, why can't they get along today? They've had five years in which to learn to get along with 25 percent less money. They're getting good at it, I suppose. But that seems to be the extent of his care.

It isn't good enough for B.C. In 1986 to be so poor compared to the rest of Canada. It isn't good enough for B.C. to be following policies and to be led by a government which sees as the only way of reducing the number of unemployed in B.C. as being to encourage them to move to other provinces. We were told today that the Premier is visiting with the Premiers of other provinces. One has to wonder whether he's back there dealing with the Premier of Quebec and the Premier of.... What other province? Another little Premier. He's back there trying to encourage them to take some of our unemployed and some of the people receiving social assistance off our hands. We can't do anything with them, so perhaps the Premier can persuade other provinces to take these people away, since they're a bit of an embarrassment to the government.

[ Page 7605 ]

I can only put the minister's attitude, when he responded to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown).... I've never seen him quite so wild in the House.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: He was controlled, but I've never seen him quite so wild.

I can only think that he's embarrassed at the way in which he's caring for those who are, according to his own ministry report.... He's responsible for helping those people; but there was not one word saying that he tried to get more money from Treasury Board to help these people — no real concern for them.

His attitude was one of criticizing a member who dared to raise in this Legislature the fact that there are people out there with problems. They're there because this government put them there. They are suffering because this government makes sure that they suffer. They are trying to get by on 25 percent less spending power than they had five years ago because this government says: "You're to blame if you're not able to look after yourselves. It's your problem; you sort it out. We have fixed the amount of money in the total budget that we're prepared to make available for your needs as we see them, and it's up to you to get along with that. Whether you can or not is your problem."

It isn't good enough. It's time for a change in B.C.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I appreciate that in debate the member for Nanaimo frequently speaks from that — no offence intended — financial-analysis point of view which his training has provided him with. Frequently his numbers and thrust of debate are in a slightly different manner than other members, and he's therefore somewhat easier to understand.

It's very important for members to know that basic income assistance is meant to be temporary assistance, and that about 50 percent of those who are on basic income assistance are off by the fourth month. The intent is temporary — it is to assist people for a period of time until they are able to take care of themselves again. The proposal announced today is for employable recipients. If it is to a person's advantage to be reclassified as employable under the program, that would be considered. But it's for employables. Also, it is in response to the request of a number of so-called anti-poverty organizations who have made similar suggestions, to see if this would assist some people.

In February 1986 there were 1,234,000 people working in British Columbia. In February 1985 there were 1,184,000 working in British Columbia. From February 1985 to February 1986 there were 50,000 more people working. Surely that is what we all would like to see. If we all worked at trying to increase employment opportunities, to give people the opportunity of being employed, it would resolve many, but not all, of the problems we see in social assistance, because employment is by far the best form of social assistance or income assistance.

The political differences between the parties represented in this House are such that we probably can simply not come to agreement on what programs would be best for people. But I can assure you that the government of the province, through the ministry, has over many years introduced programs, modified programs and improved programs to try to assist people in need. They're certainly not perfect — I doubt if they ever will be — but every sincere effort has been made to try to assist people.

The member for Nanaimo mentioned people who wanted to improve their skills and were told that they would have to get off income assistance. We have specific programs which encourage income-recipient clients to retrain, to become better educated and improve their own position so that they can become employed. We have in place $5,203,000 for the Individual Opportunity Plan, with incentive allowances for employment, educational, vocational, rehabilitative services, job action, Ministry of Labour/Ministry of Human Resources joint training assistance program, work activity project, work clothing and transportation, employment initiatives for the handicapped, youth incentive, resource placements. Education training by the ministry, 3,044 clients as of January '86; education training by a non-ministry, 2,964; incentive program, 472; work activity program, 40; employment opportunity program, 103; counselling, 705— until we reach the total of 8,346. Indeed, we encourage people. Our eligible clients are encouraged to improve their skills. It's part of the program.

Mr. Chairman, we support people directly to retrain and improve their education under different programs. Government is obviously not attempting to make it impossible or more difficult for people to become independent, because it is of benefit to everyone in the province to have the greatest number of people independent of government for sustenance, for assistance. The whole thrust of all the programs is to try to do that. It's very important, I believe, that governments stimulate the private economy to create jobs that are going to be around for longer than a very short period of time; to get people to add on to their business, redevelop their business and develop new businesses so that permanent employment is a factor of life. We're never going to agree on the numbers. We're never going to agree on what is the best opportunity to maximize employment and opportunities, but we're working as best we can, with the best advice we have, with the hope of minimizing the poverty within our province.

[4:00]

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, first I want to take the opportunity to congratulate the hon. member on his appointment to the Ministry of Human Resources. I would say that at least he is willing to express himself on all of the subjects that are presented by the opposition, and that in itself is an improvement. Hopefully we can shed some concrete light on our differences.

I think we've learned one thing: that the minister certainly takes offence at being described as uncaring. I can understand, after listening to his explanation, that perhaps he just cares in a different way than others. The concept of caring is not really the issue; it's the results. It's the actions that follow that really put substance to whether the minister indeed does care. I'm curious, for instance, whether the minister has given much thought to the standards by which the Ministry of Human Resources operates. If he would, I would like him to express his view or regard for the idea of the poverty line as such as a measuring device, supposedly the very best instrument we have for determining a person's ability to function at a minimum level of decency and self-respect, maintaining a degree of motivation and a sense of personal esteem that allows them to function in society in that spirit under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[ Page 7606 ]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I would like the minister to specifically address this question of the poverty line. I know he has had very few compliments to give to the Social Planning and Research Council of British Columbia study that I talked about recently. He suggested that that's just one point of view. But if we don't respect the very best scientific approaches and analysis that we have available through our academic community, our professional community, through those people who are supposedly arms' length, objective practitioners who have no axe to grind as such — as he was pointing out earlier, who are not playing politics but are sincerely attempting to practise their profession and skill and make it available to the public on a non-political, non-partisan basis, which is what I believe the SPARC project and the SPARC program and SPARCs across Canada, as far as that goes, are attempting to do....

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds commented earlier about the headlines that were in the paper over the last weekend that the government was robbing the poor or something to that effect, or had their hands in the pockets of the poor, and being one of the worst provinces in Canada, next to one of the provinces in the Maritimes. But that study, again, was supposed to be an objective attempt to describe the realities of living in society. Hard times or not, there are still basic facts. People still have to live. Now the question of how we measure.... What commitments we make is what I am concerned about. How do we measure government responsibility and commitment under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in terms of every citizen's constitutional right to live at a minimum level of dignity, to have access to the justice system, and to have the right to seek, obtain and maintain adequate employment? These kinds of things, Mr. Chairman, are the things that I want the minister to sincerely address.

Now the minister has some options at his disposal, and I am sure he knows as well as anyone, having been a minister of other portfolios, particularly Health, that the federal government participates on a cost-shared basis...usually 50 percent of costs of social programs. We talked about the CIP program, which was only $50 a month, and how the government decided to scrap that program and other programs for youth, etc. All of these programs are cost-shared at 50 percent dollars.

The minister reflected on a statement made by one of the members of the opposition recently that "we cannot afford to raise the GAIN rates. It would cost us $800 million." Now it wouldn't cost $800 million or anywhere near there, but the point is, what the minister failed to say is that in total, half of that would be paid for by the federal government. But if he were to be even more specific, in terms of raising the welfare rates or the GAIN rates right across the board, which, by the way, were not that outlandish under the SPARC report.... They were somewhere between 7 percent and 40 percent, because of the different categories and the purchasing powers, the number of people and families, etc. It's not a blanket situation. The only thing that should have been established as fundamentally entrenched in the statutes is the cost-of-living increase, which is one of the most shameful derelictions of responsibility on the part of this government that they have undertaken yet.

That's the one thing I really find very difficult for the minister. Even though he protests when someone says he's uncaring or that that government is uncaring, I really find it very difficult.... Actually I find it impossible for him to say that he cares when he won't give people something that the federal government has constitutionally made available to them: that is, a cost-of-living increase.

All we've got to do is proclaim a section of the GAIN Act which, strangely, has never even been proclaimed, suggesting to me that the government has no intention of even coming anywhere near helping people subsist. We're talking about 50 percent less than what people need to have as the very minimum amount of assistance, economic muscle and means. This is the question. This is the fundamental question that the government is not answering, is not addressing: the philosophical idea of a poverty line, recognizing that there is a line below which no Canadian should fall. But this government is not only not recognizing that line, it is not even participating in a program that is available through the Canada Assistance Plan to assist people. Funds are available — 50 percent dollars. How could the government possibly refuse to pass on something as economically attractive as that?

For four years we haven't had an increase to assist people in a province that has a depressed economy. Five years ago there were half this many people on unemployment, despite the fact that the government says it's had a 50,000 — job increase in the past fiscal period. More and more people are out of work, more and more people are on social assistance, more and more people have given up and there's a greater exodus of people from the province, as everybody has pointed out already. These are facts.

The government doesn't wish to be condemned for not caring. Okay, the government cares. You care; you just have a hell of a way of showing it. You care. You care, but it's the kind of care that is very depressing and is very debilitating and is very discouraging for a lot of Canadians, a lot of British Columbians, who have contributed to the tax system and to the development of, this economy for most of their lifetimes, and who find themselves for the first time unable to function, unable to live in dignity and pride, and who are told that they've got to get rid of all of their resources. They've got to reduce themselves to paupers. They've got to visibly show that they are destitute before they can get the slightest bit of recognition and respect for something that they've contributed to most of their lives.

This is the thing that I am asking the minister to address. Where are your moral sensibilities? Where is your conscience? Do you care? Do you recognize the need to know that there is a line below which no Canadian should drop willingly and no government should accept willingly? That's the question.

It's not a question of whether or not we can afford it, because that is a debate that I'm sure would go on forever. The government is not operating on the basis of affordability. The government could never afford to put on Expo or build the ALRT or put up the Coquihalla highway, or do any of those things — northeast coal. That's nothing to do with affordability; it's political decisions being made by a government that has a certain ideology, a certain way of doing business. Let's face it, if the government cares about these people, why doesn't it invest in these people? What about a megaproject for people, giving people some money and letting people spend the money? You know they're not going to bank it. We're not talking big bucks; we're talking dollars that pass

[ Page 7607 ]

through into the community and into the economy immediately — paying rent, buying clothing, paying bus fares, paying their dues.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Listen, now we're getting interjections from the members on the other side of the House. I'm saying to you: what kind of welfare do you believe in, what kind of socialism do you believe in? From the top? Don't tell me that you do not subsidize.... You have a program for the stock investors right now, telling people to invest in the stock market. The government is prepared to share $100 million with those people. Why not share with the guy on the street? Why not let them spend some of this money? It's all right to have incentives, but make it fair for everybody.

Besides, what about rights? You're destroying people's hearts and souls. We're talking about people who do not have even 50 percent of the minimum standards, we're not talking about people who are anywhere near close. And the minister has the gall to come in and say that he's going to allow them to earn a little more money. A little more money from where? And how much? Twenty-five percent. Big deal! The people in this province deserve better; they deserve a conscientious government that has some sense of understanding for their needs. Why don't we commit ourselves to making jobs available to those people? It's okay to talk about rehab programs, but rehab programs leading to where? Not everybody on social assistance even needs training. We're talking about people who were themselves independent, some of them even independently wealthy.

I've got problems with the minister's view of where the government should begin to take an aggressive role in trying to raise people's sense of belonging, of respectability. You know, dignity is something that we quite often take for granted, those of us who are well-heeled and who have access to the resources that we need from day to day. Those of us who can afford to get a good education, to travel around the world, to enjoy cultural experiences, and to generally have some mobility, vertically and horizontally — whatever direction you want to go — have that, and that's great. That's what I would like to have for myself and for every British Columbian. But it's about time that we began to say that if every British Columbian cannot have this absolute wealth that we would like, there should be a minimum which we say we are committed to, as one fellow British Columbian, one fellow Canadian, to the next, and that we draw the line on — and it's called the poverty line.

I would like to know how the government of British Columbia, through its Ministry of Human Resources, arrives at those figures. What do they relate to? Mr. Chairman, if Stats Canada and other organizations are saying that the poverty line is at a certain figure, and the government says half that figure, the government should be able to rationalize why.

The minister says: "Well, this is temporary. All these figures are temporary. They're not meant to meet a person's need. They're not meant to carry them all the way. They have to make do in other ways, so we'll allow them to earn a little more money." But, Mr. Chairman, if they can't earn that money, what happens? I wish the minister would address that simple question. What happens in order to bring them up to the poverty line? This is a very big fundamental question. Does the minister recognize that there is a minimum? Does he not recognize the reality of the marketplace, the reality of the cost of living, the reality of a person who is trapped on social assistance trying to get mobile again, trying to maintain some self-esteem and the ability to look for a job? Something as simple as a telephone, for instance, is a very big thing when you are unemployed, and you have to reach out and be actively looking and seeking employment and trying to maintain your self-respect and your confidence.

[4:15]

How does that happen? I think these are the things that people of the province of British Columbia need to know. That's what the social assistance program is supposed to be all about. It's not supposed to be as we've had it in this province for the last decade or so, where the deputy minister is in effect a political appointee who is working for the minister, rather than taking on his commitment as a defender of families, of children and of the integrity of community life and being at arms' length from those political decisions. It's about time we began to say that people do matter in this province. The Ministry of Human Resources, Mr. Chairman, of all ministries, should be taking the lead.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: To the member who has posed some questions which are of great interest, philosophically as well as practically: how are the amounts drawn over the years for income assistance? To what do they relate? Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess we would have to try to go back to the very beginning to see what the terms were at those times and what has intervened since that period of time. The member mentioned the poverty line. I don't believe, according to the poverty line that is made available through federal sources, that any province provides a level of assistance for the lowest category — and I don't mean by individual — that would reflect what they refer to as the poverty line. It would be of some interest, and I'm afraid this could go on for a wee bit.

The most frequently quoted income assistance figure is for the single employable person under the age of 25. For the first month it is $325. That is frequently used as the example. Let me run through this very quickly. At the present time the benefit levels for a single employable person aged 25 or under for the first month, $325; the same person in the second to eighth month, $350; after eight months, $375.

For an unemployable single person under age 25 after eight months, $430; 26 or over, first month is $350; second to eighth month, $375, after eight months, an employable person gets $375; age 26 or over after eight months, an unemployable person gets $430.

A single unemployable person aged 60 to 64 is $430; 65 and over is $548; handicapped $548. A couple, both aged 25 or under, first month $570; second to eighth month, $595. And these payments are tax-free by the way, Mr. Member. The employable couple, aged 25 and under, after eight months, $620; unemployable $675; a couple, at least one aged 26 or over, first month, $595; second to eighth month, $620; employable after eight months, $620. An unemployable couple with at least one aged 26 or over after eight months, $675; a parent and child, employable, $640; a parent and child, unemployable, first eight months, $640; parent and child unemployable after eight months, $675; two people, one aged 60 to 64, $675; both 60 to 64, $675; two people, one 65 or over, $865-1 both over 65, $1,001; one 65 or over and one 60 to 64, $865 one 65 and one handicapped, $1,001; one handicapped, aged 65 or over, $865; one handicapped and one aged 60 to 64, $865; both handicapped,

[ Page 7608 ]

$1,001; two people, one on old-age security, $865; one on OAS and one over 65, $1,001; one OAS and one handicapped, $1,001.

Mr. Chairman, the rates progress depending on the number of people within the family unit — three, four, five, six. The top rate for three people is $1,120 a month; the top rate for a unit of four is $1,230 a month; the top rate for a unit of five is $1,330; the top rate for a unit of six is $1,410; seven, $1,490; eight, $1,560.

Granted, few would fall in that category. The vast majority are in the single employable. The rates do offer a broad range. This is tax free. This does not include dental, medical and some other benefits which are available to people, or earning exemption or child tax credit or family allowance or medical benefits, Pharmacare and training allowances. It's an extensive program. The individual who is employable under 25 is normally off income assistance in two to four months. It's meant as a supplement — as sustenance for that individual for a brief period of time. Those who are chronically on income assistance normally benefit for the higher rates at some point in time. At all times attempts are made to retrain, to encourage, to get these people less dependent on government.

Mr. Chairman, it isn't simply a matter of saying: "Is $325 a month enough to live on?" That $325 applies to one category of people for one month, and then it is modified slightly, and it increases. We don't want to discourage people from seeking alternatives.

The member mentioned the SPARC report, and he was most kind in his interpretation of it as being scientific research. I don't consider it to be that at all. I consider the report to be an advocacy report, not a research report. It's not a matter of condemning the report; it's a matter of viewing that report from your own point of view and responding to it. In the ministry we object to it because we have suggested to them before that they take various things into consideration that they choose not to. I'm not trying to oversimplify it, because obviously a lot of work went into the report, but basically they took the average rent in the city and said that's what they should receive for shelter. That's not necessarily the best way to establish a shelter level for people on income assistance, because it doesn't relate necessarily to that group of people. The report does not incorporate client earnings or client actual shelter costs, or other allowances, goods and services, Pharmacare, medicare, dental care and so on. They have their own baseline in determining certain things and they will not change from that baseline, even though the ministry has spoken to them many, many times. They have their own baseline, and it is from that that they develop their thing.

But more specifically, Mr. Chairman, it's kind of SPARC to make recommendations. They have no responsibility to either acquire the funds or provide them to the individuals. It is an opinion based on whatever attitude they may have. SPARC doesn't run the Ministry of Human Resources. I believe it's still funded by the federal government and some community organizations, but that doesn't make them the standard. They don't have to come up with the money or develop the programs. Anybody can be magnanimous when it comes to spending someone else's money.

The member makes mention of cost-shared programs with the federal government. Let's not forget that it's the same taxpayers paying the money. The federal government doesn't come up with money that they haven't collected from us to start with.

I know there are problems with individuals, and problems with people who.... And I agree with the member, even though I'm not sure it's directly related, as he suggested. But I certainly agree with him that decency and self-respect and self-esteem are vitally important. Many people who are on income assistance at various levels throughout the country have long ago lost their self-respect, self-esteem and decency. It's a tough job to rehabilitate many of these people; a very difficult job, not necessarily simply accomplished by providing them with more money, but a lot of work that has to go on too, if indeed they can be rehabilitated to that point of once again regaining those attributes which are commendable. We're dealing with people in different circumstances who for many reasons may long ago have ventured away from that type of feeling for themselves.

But while we can disagree, Mr. Member, on what the level should be, I would like to provide you, if I could — not right now, but perhaps later if you don't have it — with the list I just read from. It is the complete schedule. You must have it before you, because you'd never remember it; it's like trying to memorize a telephone book. I'd be pleased to provide you with a copy. Perhaps you, at your leisure, might suggest what the rates should be. I'd be pleased to see that. But we can't really go into it in detail right now, because it's almost as long as your arm, and you have very long arms. So if I could provide this to you at some other time, maybe you could respond and say what you think the levels should be.

Mr. Chairman, the numbers are across the board, scattered. They do follow a pattern, but I think it's important that people realize there are far more rates paid to people on income assistance than the most frequently quoted $325 for single and employable. I don't know many people who would work for $325 a month; that's not the intent. But in many instances it's enough to keep them going while they do find employment and get back on their feet.

MR. BARNES: I appreciate the minister's candid response. However, I wasn't sure if I got the minister's offer to provide me with the current 1986 schedule of rates for GAIN. Is that what that is? The current rates. Just for the record, for the benefit of the committee, I would hope that the minister would include those for each year so that we could compare them in terms of the costs, like since 1981 right through up to the present time, to get an idea of their loss of purchasing power, because I think that this is one of the things that we have.... By the way, I don't think the minister addressed that one aspect, proclamation of the section of the GAIN act which would obligate the department to increase the rates on the basis of the cost of living by formula. But that is one of the things that I thought — and the SPARC report thought as well — would be the very minimum, and one which the government would recognize immediately as the very least it could do in trying to address this problem, notwithstanding any differences that we have in terms of the magnitude or the urgency of the problem. It's quite clear that if those rates in place in 1981 were relevant in terms of the costs borne by the recipients of that day.... I would like the minister to address what distinguishes that amount of money from what was available in 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985 and now, 1986. Is there no expression of concern for the inability of people who are still receiving that amount of money to live in a very difficult time in this province?

[ Page 7609 ]

[4:30]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to ask the minister if he would expand a little bit on employability. The reason I raise this — and I realize that there are criteria that the ministry does use in terms of employability.... For instance, if a single mother has two children under 12 years of age — if my memory serves me correctly — that particular person would not be employable because of duties in raising a family, etc. So there would be some rationale for that. If we take a look at employability, we have to realize that it depends on the standards and criteria being used. Many of those same women, who would normally be viewed as unemployed.... Some of the ones I spoke to felt that, although they had an obligation to raise their family, there were times when they would like to have an opportunity to expand themselves — maybe to return to school, to maintain some level of social intercourse, to remain stimulated, to get some freedom from the child. This brings in those programs, such as day care, that have been cut back or underfunded by the ministry — opportunities to extend themselves beyond the immediate milieu of raising a family; and depending on the person's overall resources, that can be a pretty onerous duty and responsibility.

I'm not sure that the definition used to describe employability or unemployability is sufficient in all circumstances, and there certainly is need for some flexibility. I think that just about everyone, given the right set of circumstances.... Even some people whom we might describe as medically and permanently handicapped may in fact be able to make a constructive contribution to the workforce and give of themselves in a positive way — they would actually be generating wealth. This is not out of the realm of possibility. So there are dangers in restricting ourselves in our view of what employability or unemployability is by some definitions that are not flexible. This may be hurting an individual's opportunity to develop. There are some risks in that simplistic approach.

One other point. In fact, there are several specifics I want the minister to address. One has to do with nutrition. I raise that just to share with you.... You will appreciate my consideration for the committee, Mr. Chairman, in not belabouring the committee with too many of the experiences that I went through during that simulated period on the single person's rate of $350 per month. I will point out one aspect that I think is relevant to this debate, and that is the availability of advice from people who are nutrition experts, in terms of good health habits for people on social assistance.

One of the most common expressions you hear on the streets, so to speak, is that people on social assistance know very well how to scrounge and get by. They live on carbohydrates a lot. Carbohydrates can be great if you're an athlete getting ready for a ball game and you need some quick infusion of energy. It converts to sugar and you're on your way — as opposed to eating a lot of protein. In a daily diet there has to be a balance — so much dairy produce, protein, carbohydrate, whatever the case may be. I'm not pretending to understand to the extent that I could advise on how it should be. But I did take time to investigate for myself in order to ensure that I was conducting my experiment along lines that were important to people who were on that fixed income for an extended period of time. I'm advised by the nutritionists I spoke to that all factors are taken into account — a person's age, a person's weight, a person's height, just to mention three things. I suppose that there are other constitutional factors, but not everyone can be viewed as requiring the same amount of sustenance.

In my case, for instance, the very highest level they had available in terms of the schedule they were using, which is a Statistics Canada schedule that comes out; a statistical document that can be used as a guide in terms of what appears to be the most comfortable, or the minimum acceptable levels that a person should require.... I had something like 50 percent of the caloric intake that I needed during that period of time. That's what I survived on, and that's why I lost so much weight. I was actually not eating properly. That had a lot to do with it. I had to stop jogging, for instance, because of the amount of energy that required. I could not do that on the amount of money I had available after I had paid rent and purchased a fare card so I could get around.

If we tell a person on social assistance that we're giving them less than they require — in other words, 50 percent of what they require — we have to at least have some rational explanation within the department or some other options. The taxpayers can't pick it all up. This is a temporary situation. We can all understand that. The minister gets no argument from me. It is and should be temporary. In most cases what people really want is a job. Nonetheless, there are some people who are simply not going to be able to get jobs and are going to be stuck with those rates.

We have to look at it from a humanitarian point of view. In good conscience we should be concerned about the ability of those people to live on the amount of disposable income that we're giving them. If we can't do that, let's not play games with them and tell them we're going to allow them to earn extra income when there is no option. That's fine if the options are there and they can do that, but if they can't do it, what are we saying that they must do? That's the question I think we have to address, and that's what I believe should be happening in the ministry. That's what I believe the bureaucrats are being paid for, and I think it's their duty to tell the minister: "Look, these rates are inadequate based on these facts," not based on political consideration.

I think the minister should be concerned that he gets those facts from his bureaucrats, because they are intelligent people who have the instruments of measurement. They have the experience, and they have their hands on the pulse of the community, and they know what the facts are. They know these rates are inadequate. If the minister was so sure that they were adequate or anywhere near adequate that he's going to sit back and let it go, then why did they drop that investigation for so-called fraud? What happened is that they realized that a lot of people are not committing fraud by will. If they're committing it, it's out of desperation. We have a serious problem of need. People's needs are being neglected. They have no other option. We're having people do things that we would normally consider to be morally reprehensible or unethical. We're having to turn a blind eye. I believe the ministry has been complicit in this. The ministry has been turning a blind eye because the ministry is not prepared to provide those rates, and I think that's wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I want to ask one other thing that's closer to the thinking that I have on this question of the amount of money. The minister uses the example of the single employable person receiving $350 for the first month if they are 26 years of age or over. If they're under 26 they get $325. I would like the

[ Page 7610 ]

minister to explain to me, other than for bureaucratic administrative reasons, why you make a distinction between a person 25 years of age and 26. Just explain this one point.

The other thing, Mr. Chairman, is the allowance available for shelter. Shelter for the same category is $200. Now a person gets an additional $125 for living allowance. But why make a distinction in terms of the lump sum that's available? Why not make that $350 or $325 or $375, whatever that may be, the amount of money available to the person as an allowance? Why say $200 for shelter and $125 for living? My reason for raising this is that it encourages landlords.... Mind you, after this whole Expo thing and the evictions and the whole new wave of reform that's taking place around the core Vancouver area of Expo.... we don't know what the future holds. I know we've had some major shifts that we're going to be getting reverberations from for many, many months to come.

This is just a beginning of something, a phenomenon, and I'm not sure even the government realizes what it has done by upsetting the number of communities in that area. Residential areas will never ever be the same. Had they remained the same.... It's like describing a problem that was existing but is fast fading as a result of the displacement of so many people from the downtown eastside area and other communities. Even in the West End people are being removed arbitrarily by landlords who had, a month or so before, relied on these people for their revenue.

The problem with the fixed $200 is that the landlords know this and it doesn't really matter about the quality of the facility if that facility is the one that's available and the one that a particular person needs. If it's the one that's handy, then the landlord is going to demand the full amount. He's not going to say: "Well, this particular suite that you're looking at is...." It's not really a suite; it's a room for $200. It's a very poorly equipped room in most cases, but that room is going to go for the maximum, and there is no reason for the tenant — the client — to make an issue of it, because he has no choice. If a potential tenant could tell the landlord, "Hey look, the plumbing isn't up to scratch. The place needs painting. I would like a decent bed to sleep on. The light fixtures are not functioning properly.... Instead of taking that and being glad to get it, and being at the mercy of the landlord, he says: "Look, I'll go somewhere else, because across the street I can get a place for $150 that's better than this." Right away the landlord knows that the person has some flexibility, that if he saves $50 by going across the street, the Ministry of Human Resources will let that benefit accrue; there will be an incentive.

I hope the minister is listening, because what I'm saying is that the government claims it is not a partner in poverty. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) has accused the government of being partners in poverty. ELP, the End Legislated Poverty coalition of British Columbia, 16 organizations that were involved in making a challenge to the legislators, which resulted in my going through that experiment, are saying there is such a thing as legislated poverty in the province of British Columbia, and they are asking that that legislation that promotes poverty be removed.

I'm going to wrap up just by saying the specific regulation that has to do with legislated poverty is the one dealing with the inability of a person who receives a shelter allowance of $200 to bargain with that amount of money. That shouldn't be, especially for a free enterprise government.

[4:45]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Again, we're dealing with such a wide range of variables and circumstances. If you were simply to say that a person over 19 and under the age of 26 is to receive X dollars per month and spend it as he will, then I presume that if the person was able to live at home with his family he would still receive the same amount as a person who has to pay room and board outside the house, or else we'd be into another category. You say to a person: "You can have $350 a month. Spend it as you will. If you can get accommodation for $100 a month, keep the balance." If the person then somehow lives at home with his parents and pays no rent, then he'd have $350 to use elsewhere, while the person down the street who had to pay even $150 for it wouldn't have the same opportunities. We'd have to develop another category, probably, because of those circumstances.

The attempt by the ministry over the years has been to provide the money for the person. The only variable is in shelter. I understand that's agreed to under federal-provincial arrangements. There may be better ways. There may be a better mousetrap, sure.

The member asked about employable persons. The definition today is this: an employable person is a person who is not — it's a way of saying you're unemployable, I guess — 65 years of age or older; suffering from a physical or mental infirmity which renders him temporarily or permanently incapable of accepting employment; a single parent having at least one dependent child under the age of six months, or two dependent children under the age of 12 years living with him; or a single parent having one dependent child that has a physical or mental condition resulting in the parent being unable to leave the home for the purpose of employment. That's your definition. The member suggested that perhaps the definition is too rigid in that there may be people with capability and ability, despite having one or more of these. I agree with him. I think that as a society we have underestimated the capability and capacity of some of our citizens. Simply because they qualify for one reason, they are deemed to be unemployable. I know that it would offend a great number of people over 65 years to be identified as unemployable, because many of them are working and are very productive, and would hardly be wished to be considered unemployable. I agree with the member's comment. The definition may be unnecessarily rigid. Whether it is by agreement with other levels of government I don't know, but there is always a serious problem in becoming too closely associated with another level of government, because frequently the definitions take place well away from home, and you are required to live with those definitions. I could look into that further to see if it's of our own doing or not. I just mention that the definition doesn't stop clients from working, but it does entitle them to higher benefits. But they can work and therefore I presume are employable, not by definition but by actual fact.

The member mentioned that I spoke on the SPARC program. I said that it would cost an addition $450 million a year — approximately a 50 percent increase — if we were to follow their recommendations.

The age 25 to 26 years. It's a good question as to why there's a difference. It's before the courts — that's how good a question it is. That 25 years is being challenged. I might just digress for a moment, Mr. Member. It's not the only area of our society where there has been discrimination because of age. Frequently that age seems to be just a number that's been

[ Page 7611 ]

identified, be it 19, 25, 30 or whatever. It is before the courts now.

The member mentioned the need for people on limited income to know about nutrition and so on. I would agree. The difficulty to try to establish payments based on height, size, age and the rest would be an administrative nightmare. If you had to review each person each month to determine what their nutritional needs may be, that really would be administratively very difficult. To have the information readily accessible to people is a very different question, be it through some form of a health clinic or other program where people would have access to the information. There should be general information available to all. It would be difficult to tailor an amount based on that individual's needs in each instance. Then we'd have a schedule of payments as broad as the hundreds of thousands of different people on income assistance. That would be very difficult to administer, even though the need is there.

The philosophy, if you like, with respect to income received has been that the individuals receive the income and then make their decisions as to how it is spent. We cannot.... The simplest statement is that we can't force recipients to spend money on food should they choose not to. We don't force them to do that. It's a decision they must make themselves. But I agree that nutrition is very important to them, and perhaps there needs to be more counselling with respect to that, perhaps more property through some of the local health care facilities that are available. Should some of them wish to pay attention it would be of use, yes.

The member asked a couple of times about the indexing. The section in the GAIN act that he mentioned has not been proclaimed. I really can't say why it never was proclaimed. My understanding is that the indexing or lack of indexing does play a role with respect to the contribution that the federal government makes to various programs. I would have to check whether indexing would affect that. Indexing, however, relegates an amount to a formula which may not always work to the advantage of recipients.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Not necessarily. It's not always going to go up. It could decline if the economy, the cost of living, were to decline. Certainly we saw the difference in inflation. When this was brought in I think inflation was running at a very high rate; now it's down between 3 percent and 4 percent a year. If it were strictly indexing, not allowing any discretion by a government, then perhaps it might be detrimental to people. If you were to simply walk away from the flexibility of a government in power at any time to a formula etched in stone, that could be detrimental, but it may not be in all circumstances. I think that probably is some of the thinking that was there before.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, for the last few years the government, in the face of the appeal for increased welfare rates, has argued that the rates are not designed to be adequate. In their words, it would probably be put that the rates don't necessarily have to reflect established poverty lines, because it is a temporary status for the most part. The minister has today made the same argument. On several occasions this afternoon he has said — and I'm using my words; this is more than a paraphrase.... In effect, he has said that we don't need to be concerned with raising welfare rates because a) they're temporary; or b) in cases where they're not temporary, they're sufficient. That's essentially the argument as I hear it.

I want to ask some questions about that because I don't believe being on welfare in this province is in fact a temporary state, but before I do that, Mr. Chairman, if the welfare rates are sufficient today, why was it that five years ago the government decided to make them 25 percent higher than was needed? Why was it that five years ago the rates were set at 25 percent higher than they are today? That's the effect of the cost of living changes in the last five years. What was it that made the government set those rates at 25 percent above the level they believe is sufficient? I don't understand that.

I want to check with the minister to see that I am quoting him correctly from earlier today, when I believe he said: "70 percent of the clients move out of the system within eight months." The minister says yes, and I assume he's responding to me when he says that. So whether it's exactly the right wording, it's the right idea: that 70 percent of the clients move out of the system within eight months.

Last year in the estimates debates the minister — a different minister — said: "Fifty percent of the people who come on income assistance today will be off income assistance anywhere between three months and eight months from now, on their very own. They do not stay on the caseload. Fifty percent of the rest of them are off in the following four months." So the Minister of Human Resources last year said that in the first three to eight months, 50 percent of the clients are no longer clients, and that in the next four months an additional 50 percent — in other words, half of what was remaining — are off the caseload.

Her argument, in effect, was that in between seven and 12 months, 75 percent of the caseload was no longer on the caseload, and the minister today says something that's not too much different from that when he says 70 percent of the clients move out of the system within eight months.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Of the ones who come on. Now the minister last year, if my memory is correct, said that 10,000 come on a month — maybe last year. I don't know what the numbers are this year.

I wonder if the minister could tell us how many different British Columbians have been on income assistance for any reasonable period somewhere in the last five to ten years; say, the last three years or the last five years, or some period of time over a number of years. How many different British Columbians have been on social assistance? Because it seems to me if 50 percent or 70 percent of the ones who come on or off every six or eight months.... Over a period of ten years every British Columbian must have been on twice, and clearly that's not the case.

That leads me to another question related to this. How many of these 50 percent every three to eight months, or 70 percent every eight months, come back on a few months later? Do we know the extent of the problem? What we're probably looking at here is the fact that a certain percentage of our population — 25 to 30 percent — is continuously on and off income assistance. Because if that's not the case, then every one of us in this province must have been on it at one time or another in order to justify these numbers.

Now if these generalizations, these suppositions, I'm making are correct — that there is a certain percentage of our

[ Page 7612 ]

population who are on and off frequently — then clearly we're dealing with a problem that goes beyond the argument of the government which is made today again which says that income assistance is only for temporary assistance to get people through a three or four-month period.

The government last year in the estimates and the minister again today in the estimates are saying that welfare or income assistance is designed just to get people through a hard time. But if that's the case, and it's a short time — it's a hard time, it's a short time, it's three or four months and it might be eight months — then how is it possible that tens of thousands of people come on and off of welfare every year? I thought it was important to ask these questions last year. We didn't get any answers because either the ministry is incapable of producing them or the minister then didn't want to give them to us.

If we're going to design policies in this province to deal with poverty, and if we're going to design policies to deal with the fact that there is a certain segment of our society which seems to require government assistance on a continuing, if not continuous, basis, then we had better know what we are talking about. We had better know what we are talking about so we can design programs to deal with it.

Now I'll sit down. I'd love not to be able to make any more comments, because I'd like the minister to be able to answer some of these questions.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I do not have the capacity to produce the answer to one question specifically: how many different people over the years? I don't know. I presume we could find out how many different clients there have been over three years, five years, whatever.

[5:00]

The numbers, the statistics that the member was mentioning are generally accepted to be correct; if 10,000 people were to come onto income assistance in a given month, 50 percent would be off within four months, and 70 percent would be off within eight months. Obviously there will be a permanent group that is there quite permanently; but of those who come and go, rollovers, they are at about that level. There are many recipients who are on and off income assistance on a yearly basis on a fairly regular basis. In fact, there are some clients who go through earning, unemployment insurance and income assistance as a reasonably normal, season-by-season, part of the year; earnings for a period of time, and then, perhaps because it's seasonal, they're unemployed; when their benefits are finished they're back on income assistance; to then, once again, return to some form of employment the next year. Some of these people work in industries that are only temporary by nature.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

If we can get those numbers — I will try to get them for you — but that would be, let's say, five years. It might be a little easier than that. I don't know whether we have the computer capacity to do it, but we will certainly give it a shot. Those numbers seem to stand up to the tests which have been conducted. And maybe it is surprising how many different people go through the system in a year's time.

I think the member was speaking primarily about those statistics. I don't have the capacity to give him the big number or how many different people have been on it. It would be interesting to know. I would be very interested to know that as well. But the other numbers seem to stand the tests over the number of years; and some are on and off within the same year, to repeat that, somewhat habitually. So I'll try to come up with those other bigger numbers. But I just can't give them to you right now, I'm sorry.

MR. GABELMANN: I didn't expect the minister would be able to come up with the figures, because I don't think, frankly, that they've been kept. The system has not been organized in MHR to maintain those kinds of figures. Yet I would argue that these are really very essential things to know in order to design a social assistance program. If you don't know the answers to those questions, you don't know the basic issue involved in terms of the government's defence; you don't know whether in fact these are just temporary allocations to people to get them through hard times. I would argue that in fact these so-called temporary allocations form for many more than the 250,000 people, in fact, the major source of their income, given a longer number of years. I didn't put that very well. We probably have.... The number, I don't know; that's the number I think we should get. We probably have somewhere around 350,000 or 400,000 people for whom income assistance is a primary source of their income over their lifetimes. If that's the case, then that may speak volumes about the way we design income assistance. So I think we have to find out those kinds of things.

I'm still, Mr. Chairman, a little bit boggled by these numbers. If there are 10,000 new people.... Perhaps we should go back. Sometimes we talk about the total number of caseloads; sometimes we talk about family heads, not including the dependents. I assume the 10,000 is the big number, not the little number. It's the number that is equivalent to the 250,000.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Caseloads. Okay. So we're talking about 10,000 new caseloads a year. We have about 125,000 caseloads at this time, I believe. It's in that range: 120,000 to 130,000 caseloads.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's 125,301.

MR. GABELMANN: Let's leave it in the ballpark: 125,000 caseloads in British Columbia. There are 10,000 new caseloads a month, we're told. That's 120,000 new caseloads a year. In that year, presumably 70 percent have dropped off — or more, perhaps. But then we come to the next year, and there are another 120,000 people entering the caseloads. If you do that for ten years, Mr. Chairman, you have 1.2 million people in the last ten years, if the 10,000 figure had been consistent for the last ten years — and I agree it hasn't; it's only been the last three or four years where we've had those levels.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm playing with numbers because we don't have anything to get our teeth into, Mr. Chairman. We had to go through this exercise last year. I would have thought that people in the ministry led by the minister would have made sure that this year we could have answered these kinds of questions. What kind of a ministry is it that doesn't

[ Page 7613 ]

respond, given a year virtually, to come up with the answers? Mr. Chairman, I think the minister might want to ask a few questions himself inside that ministry about its competence, when that kind of inability is demonstrated so clearly.

On this point, I'll make my final argument. I don't believe there are a million British Columbians, or a million and a half British Columbians, who have been on welfare in this province. I believe the same people are always on welfare, more or less. They may come on; they may go off; and they come back on again. If that's the case, then we're not dealing — in establishing welfare rates — with temporary assistance to get you through hard times. I think that point has got to be made clearly.

As I said in the beginning, and others have said earlier this afternoon, the rates are inadequate. It's been demonstrated by any criteria one wants to look at. If it's something to get you through three or four months between 20-year jobs, then that's one thing. But you know, it isn't that category of person who depends on social assistance in this province. We have established here in British Columbia a virtually permanent group of people numbering in the hundreds of thousands who rely upon income assistance as their major source of income from year to year. When that's the case, then government, I suggest, has got a major responsibility to ensure that people can live...not in luxury, but that people can live a basic life and ensure that they have enough to eat every day, which in British Columbia hundreds of thousands of people do not.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd simply like to reinforce the point that the member for North Island is making. He made the same point last year, and made it abundantly clear. You know, you've got a significant bureaucracy. We previously had a minister who clearly was interested in other subjects: SkyTrain, any kind of glitzy number in Vancouver, turning on the lights on the Lions Gate Bridge; you name it. Anything that would be intriguing to her beyond this burdensome duty in Human Resources was the one she chased. You could count on that.

If this minister is serious about getting to root problems within this system, then he's going to respond to the member from North Island. As he suggests, what we've really got operating here is a revolving door involving the working poor and the non-working poor. They're going in and out of a desperate cycle all the time and you've got no programs underway that are really going to deal with it or get to the roots of it. We have critical structural problems in terms of employment in this province. You are nowhere attempting, in any of these other ministries, to deal with these structural problems that we have in the industrial side of things. At the same time, you people are running your operation like a 1930s relief shop. You're still treating it like relief from the thirties. It's a soup kitchen attitude to a problem that will not go away if you deal with it in that manner.

It does seem quite clear that somehow, with your computers in this section compared to what you've got in Health, you've got a problem. You're not getting the database you need, the hard-core information you need to design programs. You've had a deputy minister who for most of the past year and previous year was doubling in terms of his capacity, in terms of so-called looking after the children that you indicated you were so concerned about today. For years we had a ministry that didn't even have anybody in the job. Is it any wonder that the same staff aren't able to produce the data when they're running around dealing with the pot boiling over all over the place. And the numbers don't fit, as the member for North Island said — 10,000 new people a month coming through the revolving door. But it's a problem of the working-poor, non-working-poor cycle that's not being grappled with.

I just dealt with a person in my office right here in this building — within the hour — who broke down in front of me in tears of frustration at dealing with this agency of yours. This is a young person, on $375 a month, who has a lot of training. He had his own small business, was victimized by exploitive landlords and ended up in trouble. He went to the former minister, who is his MLA — the member for Little Mountain — and pointed out that he was being exploited by a foreign landlord problem right in that riding. Because of the exploitation. not because of his business capability, he and 11 others in that business failed — couldn't deal with it. He paid all his bills and went out of business — zero. He and his brother were the key owners of the business. Now he and his brother are both on welfare at $375 a month. This is a person with significant training in music and all the rest of it. He ran a music shop that employed 11 people near Granville and Broadway in the former minister's riding. The former minister never had time to meet with him in the constituency office, and never dealt with any constituency problems. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs' executive assistant gave a long speech on the freedom of capital to move and exploit people anywhere at any time and any place. That was the response he got — I kid you not. He had a roof that crashed in on him, flooded his operation and turned him broke. Now he's on welfare.

The sensible thing for this young person on welfare would be retraining, and since he's a specialist in music, the best thing.... Incidentally, he has moved to Victoria because rents are cheaper in Victoria — because he couldn't live on the terrible $375 a month that he had to survive on, as the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) has pointed out in terms of his experience. He has moved to Victoria where the rents are a little cheaper, and where it's possible to walk everywhere, so you can save those expenses. But the training that he might best have would be to take up further musical training in this city, because it happens to give some of the best musical training in western Canada. If you want to get that guy off welfare, if you want to get him out of that revolving door, if you want to prevent him breaking down in my office and your counsellor's office, then you're going to provide him some real opportunity to get off the treadmill. Otherwise he'll be one of these 10,000 who comes back through this rotten system every damn month. He should be given the opportunity to go to university and get proper training. Then he'll be off your back and he'll be a happy, productive citizen.

[5:15]

You've got a system there that is not working, and I suggest to you that you have a staff who have never been given the encouragement to analyze the problem — and maybe not the time. But whatever it is, it begs the question about the capabilities of your department to deal with this problem. I am one who has dealt with bureaucrats, as you have, at various levels. There is not much evidence that you have the capacity in your bureaucracy here in MHR to do the job. And now we're strung out with you in another ministry, with this haphazard collective mess that we have as a government here in British Columbia. You're patching things up,

[ Page 7614 ]

and you have ended up with.... What is it — 50 or 60 percent of the provincial budget? Is that very reassuring to the people on welfare that they're going to get the attention they desperately need?

We had a minister who was Madam Glitz, who was doing her number in terms of turning on the lights and all the rest of it. Maybe you, with just 20 percent of your time.... You could do more — easily. That's not much of a challenge. But I really think that....

The member for North Island went over these numbers last year. You said that — what was it? — 70 percent of them get off within eight months. Well, that's a nice, facile number to roll out and kind of say: "So it's not really a serious problem. They're all off within the eight months." But the reality is something different. I don't really think it did you any credit to use those numbers, because I don't think it tells the true story. The true story is out there in these people who are breaking down in my office and in counsellors' offices in MHR operations around this province. It's an incredibly tough problem. It has not been addressed by you people. You've got an industrial structure out there that's a mess. That's other ministries, but you can do the job here, and you can do it a lot better than it has been done to date. I think the clue is in following up on the numbers as the member for North Island is urging you to do.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would be most pleased at the first opportunity to speak with staff with respect to that question on numbers. I'll try, by reading the Blues, to understand precisely what the member for North Island asked. If I fail to do so, I will ask him privately. I will speak with staff, and I would invite the member for North Island to sit down with the number people to see if they can come up with the numbers, just to make sure they answer the questions you've asked, so as not to come up with a different set of number that don't relate precisely to what you ask. I will seek a further definition, and then perhaps at an opportunity we can sit down with those folks who are responsible for the statistics and see if that can be retrieved from the system. I agree, it asks some most interesting questions. The numbers we have been providing seem to be consistent with the information we've received. If there's an interpretation elsewhere from a different view of the same statistics, that would be interesting as well. So we will arrange for that, and we'll get the number crunchers to sit down and rationalize that. I'd like to have the answers as well.

MR. LAUK: On this point, what the New Democrats on this side of the House are arguing is that MHR is not separable from the other branches of government and, indeed, from the system that affects these people and the revolving door of welfare. The fact is, this government has bled the education system. It has destroyed what was a great education system, when, before, the motivation of governments in this province from 1972 onward for a few years was to provide a mass education and a variety of education to people, including skills and job skills to as many people from all walks of life as possible. In the final analysis it would cut into the tremendous figures of chronic welfare recipients in the province. We can play with figures all we like, but the minister knows he's sitting in a department that receives as a reservoir the casualties of a very wrong and very corrupt system of government service and of the provision of jobs also in the private sector.

MR. NICOLSON: I would hope that this minister would take the opportunity to show a real change in direction and show real leadership in this ministry, leadership which I believe has been sadly lacking or, at least, the kind of leadership that has been sending confused signals down through the ministry and which has resulted in, I think, policies and/or the implementation or interpretation of policies which do no service to the people who are in receipt of or who come in contact with Human Resources, people who would be served by Human Resources. It does no credit to the government and to the institution of government when we see these things, and I'd like to outline just maybe three separate areas.

I'd like just to talk about the way we treat some of the older people who you might call burn-outs. A gentleman came into my office not too long ago, and you know he hadn't had.... He's not in his sixties yet, but he has serious medical problems, serious eye problems. The man is not going to get another job, not in this world. With serious medical problems, he had been told that he had to pay for his new glasses prescription out of his allowance, and that he wasn't covered under the medical plan. A person like this doesn't know.... If his little living apartment didn't happen to be less than half a block away from my office, I'm sure he would never have found his way to my office to challenge this and to be told anything different.

I'm saying that the people that make this type of an interpretation in policy are following the leadership that has been set by the ministerial level of that office for the past several years. I'm calling for a new kind of leadership and one that says we're here to serve and help people, not to punish people because they are perhaps less fortunate than we are.

There is another case where I think we could send a different kind of signal in this ministry: the incentive program. I had one woman come into my office. She wants to take upgrading at the college. She's a very good candidate for education. She would learn very well; she is well motivated. But she can't get the kind of upgrading she needs, so she's going to have to stay on MHR for six months before she can qualify. And yet if you were to give her that training, I'll tell you that I'd be willing to bet money and give odds of five to one that she'd never be on welfare again once she got that training.

Mr. Chairman, on the other hand I have another woman who is taking a different route towards self-help and independence. She has been on MHR for many years. She is a single parent with one dependent. But she has slowly been building up a bookkeeping business, and MHR every month is paying less and less money to support her. But she was told that she's got to stop what she's doing, shut down her business, go back to school and get job retraining, because she's a candidate because she's been on MHR for more than six months.

Mr. Chairman, we also have the case of a woman who has been working on the incentive program. She does get a little bit of part-time work. Fortuitously, because somebody else took a maternity leave or something or other, she was able to fill in for two months. She worked a solid two months, was not on MHR, but then by having done that she becomes disqualified for the incentive program for a further six months and can't qualify. This lady, by the way, does not get the full GAIN supplement, because she makes more than the incentive maximum.

[ Page 7615 ]

I think that if we show the right kind of leadership and we show that we can come up with reasonable, intelligent, imaginative programs that are geared to the individuals rather than some categorized type of bureaucracy, we can serve people a lot better.

The other area where I think we have to give better leadership and a more clear signal is in the area of child apprehension. We had in our area the celebrated case of a person who, for reasons of anonymity, was called Sarah. Her two children were apprehended because whenever the father visited, there was quite a row. I won't go into the details I but there are maybe some very good reasons why there might have been a row. The children were taken away from the mother. There was never any allegation that the children were at risk being with the mother, but the powers of the act were used to take those two children away and almost to enforce the father's visitation rights, which are something the father should pursue through the court, not through MHR.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

That case, because of medical reasons — indeed, the judge who first tried the case regrettably passed away not too long ago of cancer — dragged on in excess of six months, when they're supposed to be heard within 90 days. But it should never have happened in the first place. Fortunately, the woman had her day in court; the court agreed and the children are now back with the mother.

I know it's not a simple situation. I know a lot of the details of that situation and I don't think they bear repeating in this House. I don't think it's necessary. But the fact of the matter is that those children were apprehended for the wrong reasons.

In another case a worker was disciplined for not apprehending children after a father had given a tape-recorded interview which the father had taken with the children, alleging sexual abuse by the mother. On the basis of these leading questions.... The father would ask the same question of the children three times and finally get some kind of a response out of the children; that was taken as evidence that some sexual abuse by the mother was taking place, and the children were ordered to be taken away from the mother. When the social worker didn't act immediately and sought better evidence, sought to get a trained psychologist to do an interview rather than have the father do the interview, the social worker was disciplined. After he was disciplined, the children never were apprehended.

So what I am calling for very seriously.... For the last couple of years I have probably spent more of my constituency time on MHR problems than at any time since I've been a member of this House. You need to have a commission. You need somebody of the status of a Thomas Berger, somebody everybody would look up to and have some faith in, to look into these practices in the ministry. It's high time that this was looked into, particularly this business of child apprehension.

[5:30]

You know, we are reacting to a very real problem. Children are brutalized, murdered, submitted to daily torture and torment, and we are trying to deal with that. I know that's the reason behind apprehending children. But at the same time I really must say regretfully that I see actions taken which I do not see as professional, I do not see as trained, I do not see as competent. But it is only because I think that confused signals are being given down through the line. There has to be a clear purpose and a clear understanding. There has to be a lot of professional development and more professional development than has taken place. The only way to get to the bottom of this is to have a very meticulous, painstaking person undertake an inquiry, because there is so much at stake. We are ruining a great number of families when we are trying to save them. If the opportunity is taken to show proper leadership in this ministry, we could serve the people that we would intend to help and be of assistance to.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I couldn't comment on the specific instances, because there may be information that has not been made available. I don't know whether the first person the member spoke of has been in receipt of prescription lenses previously or whether he appealed any decision that may have been made.

The incentive program and the college upgrading. When it was introduced, it was to have a period of time so the person is — not to keep the person on income assistance, but that the person is an income assistance client beyond question, rather than someone who is attempting simply to get into an education upgrading program and feels the only way to qualify is to go on income assistance. Fm not suggesting it is, but that was part of the rationale originally.

The child apprehension program. You spoke of something quite specific. I believe that is.... I thought it was before the courts, but apparently it isn’t; it's been resolved. Mr. Chairman, to the member for Nelson-Creston, the associate superintendent of family and child service, Leslie Arnold, is responsible for the inspection standards branch established under this. Her main job will be to investigate such circumstances as you have described. The superintendent, Andrew Armitage, as part of his role is also to investigate and make recommendations with respect to procedures. But the two of them can investigate a direct case to determine if in certain circumstances improper action may have been taken. So we do have that capacity within the ministry now. These two people will have, among their other responsibilities, that investigatory capacity to review a specific case and to make a report or recommendation, and also to recommend standards and inspection in that branch. Your comment would, I think, be resolved somewhat through this system. It’s only been a short while since Mr. Armitage has been in the position, and Ms. Leslie Arnold, so we haven't really had much of an opportunity to test it as yet. We certainly intend to, and a number of cases have been referred to the office.

MR. LAUK: To support the comments made by the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) and to discuss this specific case that the previous minister was aware of, I want to draw to this minister's attention.... I also want to reveal, according to parliamentary practice, that I am retained in this specific case — not in the others which I'm going to give as examples, but in the substantive example I want to give to the minister, I am. I think it's fair to disclose that I am counsel on that case.

The question of guidelines is extremely important. When we were dealing collectively in this House with that side of child services, to protect children from physical and sexual abuse, we wanted to be in the position of preventing the slightest harm to children. We wanted to react as quickly as we could, and therefore we all agreed with as much judgment on the part of apprehension teams as we could.

[ Page 7616 ]

What is happening, and what's being revealed in the courts, is a horrendous problem. It's not just this case that my colleague from Nelson-Creston raised, or the case that I am about to bring before the courts or that's now before the courts in front of Madam Justice Southin. There are dozens where it is absolutely clear without a shadow of a doubt that there isn't a scintilla of evidence of sexual abuse, and a move for apprehension has occurred, costing the family incredible suffering, not to mention expenses of several thousand dollars.

I'll give you the example. I've sent a letter to your predecessor before action. This child was taken to a family physician who was not the usual family physician. She's almost two years old. She had been suffering from a vaginal rash for about a year. The previous family physician couldn't figure out whether it was an allergic reaction or something like that. A young doctor had a look at this rash and asked a series of what appeared to be innocuous questions. One of them was: "Has there ever been any sexual abuse in your family with you and your parents or any suggestion of this? Should we be looking at this kind of thing?" This was one of the questions appearing in about ten questions the family physician asked. He says: "I can't discover what the problem is. I'm going to ask a pediatric gynaecologist to have a look, and there's one at Shaughnessy."

The physician did not reveal to this mother that the pediatric gynaecologist was a member of the child abuse clinic at Shaughnessy Hospital. She arrived there and the child was examined and within 20 minutes the pediatric gynaecologist said: "There is absolutely no evidence of sexual abuse." The team, through its MHR social workers, notified the local police and the police said: "What are you doing? Forget it. There's no evidence." The social workers continued to keep the file open and threatened apprehension unless the parents submitted that child to 18 hours of psychological testing. They started one or two hours when the grandparents said, "What on earth is going on here?" and called lawyers on to the case. The parents — no suggestion of sexual abuse or violence or alcoholism in that family whatsoever, and it's one of the rare cases where the young family was employed. They had to spend money on legal fees, which are not insubstantial, I might say, and several thousand dollars for a psychologist to study the child's psychological condition — interviewing the family, the grandparents and the neighbours. She was a highly regarded psychologist who MHR has used in the past and so on.

Her 12- or 15-page report was submitted a month later, and MHR finally closed its file, several thousand dollars later. Now this guy works in a mill. He's not a rich man. He has been humiliated, and they're just a young couple.

In the act it says "reasonable grounds." You'll protect MHR officials on reasonable grounds. This is not reasonable grounds. It's irrational, it is stupid, and it is malicious. It's not the only case. There is one before the courts now, and there are others pending. Now that kind of destructive behaviour on the part of officials or social workers of MHR must stop.

His Honour Judge Cunliffe Barnett and others have been crying in the wilderness for the past year and a half to two years, and nothing is moving. Now I had a member of a child apprehension team ask me: "What would you do? I've got this very difficult case. A neighbour complained that a four year-old girl in her underpants was out in the back in the July hot weather, and her father was spraying her with cold water, and she seemed to be crying. Should I apprehend?"

What on earth is going on over there? It has to be looked at, because the destructive aspects of that kind of faulty judgment are causing the psychological scars that we feared in the first place, that we are trying to prevent. Now we've got to find a way to give, to not shut the door. I don't want to see the pendulum swing back the other way, the way it used to be, where everybody was afraid to report these events. But we've got to prevent these abuses of power.

Now either these staff members are completely untrained, or they're not intellectually competent to be in the positions of making the judgments that they are. Now the minister knows of the case. I'll remind him, because he's been recently reappointed, with another letter. But we have requested that the family be placed right back where they were from. We have so far not asked for general damages, which we are entitled to do, and yet the ministry, the former minister, sent me a letter: "I'm conducting a full investigation." I received a letter the next day postmarked the same day as her letter saying: "We've thoroughly investigated and our people did okay. They weren't at fault." Now that's irresponsible as well.

I'm not pleading that particular case out of interest; I'm counsel in it. I'll go through the proper procedures. But it must be brought to the minister's attention and cannot be swept under the rug. The new superintendent is there; the new superintendent and his staff must turn their minds to this problem. It's a very serious problem.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I certainly agree with the member that we have to be as cautious about the pendulum swinging back to the overzealous as about, as perhaps some might have criticized previously, not enough action being taken. We have a paramount responsibility for the safety of the child, according to the statute. We also have a very strong obligation to the people, other than the specific child, who may be cited in the case. The Ministry of Human Resources — or government or courts or anyone else — does not have a right to destroy individuals who are innocent of wrongdoings by way of excessive accusations or overly zealous investigation.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Any specific case which would bring about information indicating that the person having the responsibility of carrying out an investigation would appear to be incompetent would be dealt with most severely. In 1984, 12 persons were rejected for probation; 16 in 1985. In 1985, 25 persons were dismissed; in 1984, 21 were dismissed. The ministry certainly does not condone inappropriate action by officials who have statutory authorities.

[5:45]

We are as equally criticized for non-action as for excessive action. The ministry has been criticized for ignoring reports and not conducting a most thorough investigation. The ministry has been accused of being overzealous in conducting some investigations. In some instances it has been suggested that because of lack of action by the ministry a child has suffered; in some other instances it is suggested that because of the over-action of the ministry the non-child — the parents or others — have suffered. It's a most serious accusation to accuse a person of abusing a child, be it sexually or otherwise — a very serious accusation. Frequently the person who may be responsible for the investigation is advising a person that a complaint has been received.... It has not

[ Page 7617 ]

reached a point of accusing but rather as a matter of sharing information, as they are obliged to do under the act. If they are notified that there is a suspected case of abuse, they are obliged to investigate.

I appreciate that sometimes it is the manner in which such things are investigated that can cause a very different result, just as a police investigation may be conducted in quite a different manner. But I agree with the member for Vancouver Centre that we should not be creating innocent victims in these investigations, that people must be skilled in their investigation. They must pay particular attention to the other people involved in any case. It will not be condoned that a situation will never be relinquished because someone perhaps feels they didn't get their way. I think it's quite proper that if cases such as this are still involved, they be brought to my attention or the deputy's attention. If there is an accusation that someone is conducting a vendetta or witch-hunt, or is just trying to prove they were correct all along, we would certainly move into that very, very quickly.

The vast majority of the caseworkers and social workers are functioning as well as they can based on their training, their experience and their knowledge. Some will make errors, but it's possible that some perhaps may best be suited for other duties. We can live with that. We'll be prepared to make that admission, should we have information that proves that to be.

So, Mr. Member, I don't disagree with your concern. I would appreciate more specifics privately so we can look into it very specifically.

MS. BROWN: That's not my idea of a minister who is defending his workers. The social workers have lost the one resource which they used to have in dealing with child abuse cases. Most of the workers have nowhere to turn for advice or assistance. They have no resource since that government, which talks about its commitment to children and its concern for them, chose to eliminate the specialized child abuse team which was doing precisely what that member for Vancouver Centre is talking about.

MR. LAUK: And we warned them about that.

MS. BROWN: Precisely. We have social workers agonizing over decisions, having nowhere to turn for guidance or information, no resource, scared out of their skins that they may make the wrong decision and therefore leaping into apprehending children because they think at least that way the child is safe. Of course they're making mistakes, but they're not making mistakes because they are stupid. They're making mistakes because that government has decided to sacrifice services to children in terms of other interests.

That minister started out his statement with a pious comment: "I am going to fight to defend my staff. If anyone criticizes the social workers, I'm going to leap to their defence." A criticism has been raised, and what do we get? A litany of how many social workers have been fired, how many social workers have been placed on probation. That is your idea of how you defend your workers? As soon as they're criticized you hang them out to dry, instead of taking full responsibility for the cruelty, the violence and the stupidity of your government — to wipe out a resource which the children in this province needed. Social workers are making mistakes, as my colleagues pointed out. Families are being destroyed. Terrible things are happening in this province as a direct result of your government's decision to wipe out that very basic and very necessary resource.

Mr. Chairman, I think the very least that that minister could do is to have the guts to admit that is what's going on in this province and not start trying to hang out the social workers. "Oh, well, you know, we've fired 18 of them and put 26 on probation," The social workers are working under inhumane conditions as a direct result of your government's policies, and you stand up here and mealy-mouth about you're going to come to their defence, you're going to fight for them. That's right. First you whip the support out from under them, and then when they're criticized you come mealy-mouthing around here about who has been fired and who has been put on probation.

The children of this province, Mr. Chairman, are at risk, The children of this province are at risk as a direct result of that government's policies. When I say to that Minister of Human Resources that he does not care about the children of this province he becomes hysterical, but I stand behind those comments, because he would rather save money....

Will you sit down. I've got ten more minutes. You put on an hysterical little display for us earlier today because you took it personally that I criticized your commitment to children, and I will do that again, because what you say is one thing, but what your government does, what your ministry does, what your budget shows is a completely different thing.

There is absolutely no way that either you or your government can justify the elimination of the specialized child abuse team. You cannot justify that. You can't justify it financially, because you're going to be hauled into court. You're now being hauled into court over child abuse issues that could have been avoided if social workers had had that specialized team to turn to. But more important than that, families and children are paying the price of your government's so-called restraint programs. That's what's happening, and in addition to that you have chosen to scapegoat the social workers of this province. I think that's despicable behaviour on your part, Mr. Minister of Poverty.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It's most interesting to hear from that member who takes exception to the member for Vancouver Centre's suggesting — and my agreeing — that even a social worker might make an error. I can assure the member that if a member of staff is excessive, overzealous or has something, as I said, like a witch-hunt, yes, we certainly will take action. Just because the member for Burnaby-Edmonds was a social worker does not mean that all are perfect.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.