[ Page 7631 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Riverview Hospital. Mrs. Dailly –– 7631

Premier's principal secretary. Mr. Stupich –– 7631

Parole Board appointment. Mr. Macdonald –– 7631

Gasoline and oil prices. Mr. D'Arcy –– 7632

Ms. Sanford

Weyerhaeuser Canada Ltd. Mr. Williams –– 7632

Inspection of motor vehicles. Mr. Lockstead –– 7632

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

On vote 42: minister's office –– 7633

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Blencoe

Mrs. Dailly

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Rose

Ms. Sanford

Ms. Brown

Mr. Mitchell

On vote 43: ministry programs –– 7655

Ms. Brown

TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 1986

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention and that of members to the attendance in the House today of a group of students from St. Andrew's Secondary School in the constituency of Saanich and the Islands, visiting the Legislature and its precincts. Would the House welcome them, please.

MRS. JOHNSTON: In the gallery today we have some representatives of the logging industry who met with members of our caucus over lunch: Keith Evans from E.R. Probyn; Jack Menzies, E.R. Probyn; Charlie Andersen, Canadian Overseas Log and Lumber; Bob Salvail, Indian Head Trading; and Peter Maddison from B&I Forest Products. I would ask the House to please give them a warm welcome.

Oral Questions

RIVERVIEW HOSPITAL

MRS. DAILLY: With a little bit of urging I'm on my feet.

My question is to the Minister of Health. It has been reported that the MLA for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) appeared before the Coquitlam city council on Monday, February 17, 1986 and stated that Riverview Hospital will be phased out within five years. Will the minister advise whether he discussed this matter with that member during one of the many long talks which we understand took place between the minister and his parliamentary secretary?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, discussions between members are not subject to question period. However, part of the question was in order, and if the minister wishes to respond to the part that was in order....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I won't try to figure out which part was in order, but to the topic.

Officials within the Ministry of Health have for quite a period of time been holding discussions with different organizations with respect to replacing the Riverview complex, as it's known now, with new facilities. I don't have all the details. The proposal as it has been put forward — and subject to input from quite a large number of organizations — involves the possibility of replacing the west lawn, east lawn, centre lawn buildings with new facilities on site, as well as some acute-care facilities on site, with the possibility of one or perhaps two other mental institutions elsewhere in e province. That is what has been under consideration for quite a period of time. In fact, it was part of that conversation an the consultation with members of the BCGEU, I believe, that led in part to their advertising campaign. But the concept had been put forward some months back and is still under consideration as a possible replacement for those facilities as they exist now.

PREMIER'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

MR. STUPICH: Yesterday I started a line of questioning with the Minister of Finance when.... Well, the bell rang. I was going to say he was saved, but he didn't need to be saved. My question was about the hiring of a professional campaign manager at a salary of some $77,000. I was wondering whether the Minister of Finance had considered that himself. He was going to come back.

I have another question that I wanted to ask yesterday. In view of the fact that Mr. Lampert's experience — as I say, he's a professional — with the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, the Social Credit Party of B.C. and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is in the field of election campaign management.... With this background, is the minister concerned that the taxpayers may seem to be subsidizing the Social Credit Party campaign by hiring a professional campaign manager in the office of the Premier at this more than generous salary?

HON. MR. CURTIS: That was such a long question, I thought the bell was going to go again and I wouldn't have an opportunity to answer.

This is the second day in a row that NDP research has churned out questions with respect to one individual who is coming to the office of the Premier. I would point out to the member that we are now embarked in Committee of Supply on debating estimates. We have one set of estimates before us, and I would think that the member would more appropriately address those questions to the Premier when he is standing in front of Committee of Supply to answer questions relative to his estimates.

I could take the rest of question period listing a number of individuals who served in rather special capacities between 1972 and 1975 — if that is what the member seeks. The very straightforward answer is that before this session concludes, the Premier will stand and answer questions in Committee of Supply relative to any position in his office, whether it is a position which has existed for quite some time or one which is to be filled by a forthcoming incumbent. In that respect I would refer the member to Committee of Supply.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I can get at the Minister of Finance; I can't get at the Premier when he's off in Quebec. So I'm asking the minister. The Minister of Finance said that I'm asking questions for the second day in a row about people who are being hired in the Premier's office. I now ask the Minister of Finance: are more people going to be hired in the Premier's office at $77,000 a year, or is this the last of that high-class help that will be hired in the cabinet?

MR. SPEAKER: That's a future-action question, hon. member.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I again refer the member not only to Committee of Supply but to a spending vote which appears in the estimates. I think it's vote 4 — I'm subject to correction.

PAROLE BOARD APPOINTMENT

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney-General. An order-in-council of March 25 has appointed Sheila Veitch to the B.C. Parole Board. Can the Attorney-General assure the House that Sheila Veitch, or at least some member of her family, is a good dues-paying member of the Social Credit Party?

Interjections.

[ Page 7632 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. hon. members

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm going to answer the question, Mr. Speaker, because I take it that it's a veiled attempt to criticize the appointment of a lady who was placed on the parole board a year or so before her husband was elevated to the executive council, served faithfully and was recommended for reappointment by the chairman of the parole board, who is a public servant. She would ordinarily have been reappointed — nobody serves more than four years; they do a probationary year. She has been elected as an alderman in her community. But this member across here seeks to impugn her because she happens to be married to somebody in government. That's an insult to women in this province who get out and do things for their community.

[2:15]

MR. MACDONALD: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'm not here to knock the institution of matrimony, but I want to ask the Attorney-General: when this vote came up in cabinet for this order-in-council, did the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Veitch) abstain, or did he vote? Did he support the motion?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order, hon. member.

GASOLINE AND OIL PRICES

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I assure him this is a coincidence, but anyway....

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: To my friend Huggy Bear: approximately a month ago the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) was questioning you regarding the very tardy way that the oil companies were passing on savings to the consumer in lowering gasoline prices and home heating fuel prices. I am advised that the major reductions in crude oil prices have passed through the system and, while there have been some reductions at the pump and some minor tax reductions, the fact is that it would appear that petroleum prices for motor fuel should be at least five cents a litre lower than what they are in British Columbia. Has the minister taken action, which I believe he said to this House he would, to persuade the oil companies to immediately pass on their savings to the consumers in British Columbia?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member wasn't in the House, but I did file answers to that question in the House. If you would check with the Clerk's office, I think you would ascertain your answer at this point in time.

MR. D'ARCY: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the same minister. Several years ago the government announced with great fanfare that they were going to a royalty system of natural gas pricing by tying the price of natural gas to residential and industrial consumers to the price of petroleum in British Columbia. I am not aware, as of this point, that the price of natural gas, as sold by the major utilities selling it — particularly Hydro and Inland — has fallen, even though the price of petroleum has. Has the minister taken any action to see that the price of natural gas to the consumers of British Columbia will be lowered?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, that question ought to be addressed to the minister responsible for energy. I'd be happy to take it as notice for him, and he'll bring back the answer.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs as well. He filed an answer to a question that was posed to him some weeks ago on this particular subject of reducing the cost of gas at the pump for the people of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, he filed an answer and did not give it in the House for a good reason: because it didn't answer the question that was posed to him. The question that was presented by my colleague for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) is still a valid question in that the minister has not responded to it.

What action has the minister taken to reduce the costs of gas and oil in British Columbia to the consumers?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, it is really not my fault that neither the member nor the research people that work in the NDP caucus can properly interpret data that is given to them.

But having said that, if you will check the price of gas at the pumps, you will find that it has been reduced by — I know in Burnaby — about eight cents a litre in the last while. You can work that out in imperial gallons; I'm not sure what it is.

WEYERHAEUSER CANADA LTD.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Industry, could he advise the House if he has held any meetings with Weyerhaeuser with respect to value-added production in British Columbia?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, not recently.

MR. WILLIAMS: I wonder if that is the reason that Weyerhaeuser is investing $495 million in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, and involving itself in fine paper products in the prairie province? Could the minister advise the House if he sees this as a serious matter and whether he will be more diligent in the future and work toward fine paper operations in British Columbia?

A supplementary. There are 215 new jobs involved in a fine-paper operation in Saskatchewan that might very well have been in British Columbia had the minister been diligent. Will he pursue these issues?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I can guarantee the member that I will be diligent.

INSPECTION OF MOTOR VEHICLES

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Following the government's decision to eliminate mandatory inspection of commercial vehicles, the police have been left with the responsibility of protecting the public from unsafe vehicles. The minister knows that. Random inspections by Vancouver police have indicated that 70 percent of cabs tested are mechanically unsafe. When is the government going to admit its mistake

[ Page 7633 ]

and reinstate mandatory testing at least for commercial vehicles?

MR. SPEAKER: A future-action question, bon. member, could best be phrased in the usual terms of: "Has the government decided...?" The member is familiar with the process.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, it is the law now that you must have your vehicle in good mechanical condition, and I'm pleased that the Vancouver police are enforcing the law. Regarding commercial-vehicle inspection, the government will be announcing something shortly.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on March 26 I asked the Minister of Education about his failure to apply some $5.5 million to the textbook fund, condemning kids to an outdated math program for at least another year. Now that he's had an Easter break, I wonder if he has prepared an answer to the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, bon. members, That is not a point of order. It is clearly an abuse of the privileges that a member has when he stands to be recognized in the House. The Chair in many cases is more than lenient to members who rise on points of order that are in some way at least related to a point of order. The member has been a member long enough to know himself that that is not a point of order.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a question of the Chair?

MR. SPEAKER: No, hon. member, the Chair is not to be asked questions.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 42: minister's office, $216, 236.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I was very interested.... Oh, come on, sit down, Mr. House Leader; 43 isn't ready for a while. I was very interested this morning when I was listening to the Minister of Human Resources indicate to us, in defence of the policy of this government, that he was not happy when he said — and I can quote him: " I don't like what's happening to the economy of Canada, either." What has the economy of Canada got to do with the economy of British Columbia? Just a little, Mr. Chairman. I've been watching the minister slide around for the last two or three days, not answering questions....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a moment, please, Come to order.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: A little what?

AN HON. MEMBER: A logistics problem.

MR. COCKE: Fair enough. The House Leader needs to get his paper off his desk. Thank you. Now he has got his paper off his desk.

Getting back to the economy of Canada, Mr. Chairman, I contend that the economy of Canada has very little to do with what we're seeing before us. We are seeing an economy in British Columbia that is not in any way relevant to the rest of the country. We have deteriorated since that government, this incompetent gang, began running this province ten years ago. They've run it into the ground. As they run it into the ground, we hear the reports of what has been happening to those people who are most affected — the people trying to live on $350 a month from the great, beneficial people in the Social Credit government. We don't like what's happening to the economy, either, but we contend that it's the economy of British Columbia and the people of British Columbia that are at risk as a result of very bad policy.

I must admit that this minister himself can't take the whole blame. We've got ministers of international trade, of small business, of those areas that.... They haven't been at work.

AN HON. MEMBER: They have been.

MR. COCKE: Then they're totally incompetent.

Mr. Chairman, in my town of New Westminster we have a food bank. It's the busiest business in town — handing out food. It's an utter shame, an absolute disaster. In the city of Vancouver you have seven of them. Seven food banks! Can you imagine that? Now these people going to the food banks are not the derelicts of the past. These people are people who held jobs. They are people who don't deserve what's happening to them. And yet in our fair province that's exactly what's happening. That government should hang its head in shame.

Interjection,

MR. COCKE: The minister of transport and communications and highways and all the rest of the paraphernalia — ferries — is trying to intimidate me.

[2:30]

I say that we have to worry ourselves sick. Not only do we have these food banks, which have become a necessity in this province — can you imagine it? — but people working for the government are indicating to people that they should go to the food bank if they're in trouble. What have we got a Ministry of Human Resources for? That ministry should have absolute responsibility.... They are part of a government that has ditched our economy, so their responsibility is even greater.

How much do we have to increase the budget to take people off those food bank lineups? Has that ever been worked out? We've established that there has been no increase since 1982. I contend that it is 1981, but let's give the minister that much leeway. Let's say it is 1982, and no increase whatsoever. That's not to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there hasn't been an increase in the cost of living since 1982. It is to suggest that there has been an increase, and not only that, but in 1982 it was inadequate in any event.

[ Page 7634 ]

I am concerned that this government is not taking the responsibility for the areas that they have played a great part in creating, and that is poverty. When my colleague for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) said yesterday that they were partners in poverty, that was exactly true, not only because of the fact that the Ministry of Human Resources is not meeting its responsibility but because they created it in the first place by their stupid economic development ideas.

This government has been an utter disaster to this province. I say to the people of British Columbia, those who would care to listen, that you had better not forget what this Social Credit gang has done to our province. Can you imagine sitting and contemplating 10 or 15 years ago the percentage of people that are now out of work here in British Columbia? It would be inconceivable. In those days there was an utter disaster if it went above 6 percent or 7 percent.

Now we're in the double digits everywhere and in major double digits in some parts of the interior. Think about the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty). How is he going to go back and face the folks in the Kootenays and say: "I'm sorry for the 23 percent." That's 23 percent statistical; it's 23 percent not only statistical but it's more than that because statistics never ever take into account those people not now searching.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The minister can make his speech whenever he likes to. The fact of the matter is that that's the way it is up there.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I don't need research for these figures. All you have to do is just go to Statistics Canada. They'll give it to you all. Sometime I'd recommend that to you, as Minister of Labour: do a little homework, go to Statistics Canada. Find out what is happening.

Mr. Chairman, the reason we're in these dire straits is because of a government that has been totally incompetent. They've tried; they've done their make-work projects. They have Expo zooming along. I'm not sure how many friends they're making among their employees at $4 an hour. The member from Chilliwack is going to have a hard time convincing any of his constituents that they should go down there and work for $4 an hour and pay room and board, or find a place to live, on that kind of money.

They can't commute back and forth from there to Chilliwack every day on $4 an hour. Mr. Chairman, we are partners in poverty, whether we like it or not. Because of that, it is time that the Ministry of Human Resources stood up, accepted its responsibility for the poverty that has been created by this incompetent government and went to work to see to it that the people are no more distressed than they are.

I have taken some time in Westminster to go down to the lineups, visit at the food banks and talk to people. I see a mixture; a very big part of that mixture however is people that are relatively young, in their young twenties. You talk to those people, and you can see without a doubt that if this goes on very much longer, they are lost totally as an economic unit within our society. How many times do we have to live through this depression attitude of this government? How many years do we have to live this way and watch people destroyed before us? When they talk about a lost generation, they're talking about a group of people that should be our most important resource: the youth of this country. They are the people who are being totally neglected and let down. They have been led to believe that the government is going to solve the problem someday.

You watch all the promises at the next election that are going to be made by that group over there. If the people forget the promises they made before and then what happened after the 1983 election, those long-suffering kids are going to be let down even further. I honestly feel ill when I walk out after having spent an hour or two with these people. They have given up, for crying out loud. They say: "Where can I go? I've tried everything, and now I'm so damn poor I can't even go and apply for a job because my clothes are ill-fitting. I've picked up this; I've got holes in my shoes; I can't find a job; nobody wants me; I'm dirty; I'm this, that and the other." That's the way these decent young human beings perceive themselves. They are part of our society, and we have let them down in this province beyond words.

For crying out loud, I wonder when it's going to be time that this government goes to work. I listened to a question in question period. The member for Vancouver East asked the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. McClelland) a question. He didn't even know what the member for Vancouver East was talking about. He hadn't a clue about jobs disappearing from our province. He hadn't a clue about the fact that this this Partners in Enterprise government — Partners in Enterprise, indeed; partners in poverty is the correct description of this group....

Mr. Chairman, since it's that way, I suggest to the Minister of Human Resources that he turn things around for those people who are caught. He can do it in two ways: one, increase their assistance so that they can at least eat and be housed; two, give them counselling. Help them out there. Create confidence-building programs. Otherwise we have that lost generation among us, and when and if the economy is turned around — and it ultimately will be with an NDP government — those people will be ready to take their responsibility.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) made some remark about "last time." The most successful government this province has ever seen is the government from 1972 to 1975. Regardless of all your yapping and laughing, it's true. We were absolutely the most successful government this province has ever seen.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Why aren't you still government?

MR. COCKE: We aren't still government because of the fact that there were four parties....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Listen, that really disturbs that little gang back there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hold it. One at a time, please. Order! The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) will come to order. So will the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Waterland). Thank you.

[ Page 7635 ]

MR. COCKE: There were four parties and then there were two — and then there was one — or two. In any event, that's neither here nor there. You're going to see that you're turfed out, and I'll tell you I'll give you this as a prediction: when that gang is turfed out, they will never be back as Socreds. The Socred party will fall apart and that will be the end of it. That will be the end of it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time has expired, hon. member. Shall vote 42 pass? The second member for Victoria.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, the first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) made a statement before she left, which unfortunately many of the members didn't hear. When the member for New Westminster was talking about food banks in Vancouver, I think the first member for Surrey really stated something that is so symbolic of this government. She made the incredible statement over here that the food banks were a job creation program.

MS. BROWN: Really?

MR. BLENCOE: Yes. And then when I asked her about that she said: "Do you know what they pay people at those food banks?" Do you believe that? That's their answer to job creation — extending the food banks in the province of British Columbia. I think the people of British Columbia and the people of Surrey should know the position of the member for Surrey: that her job creation is food banks in the province of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we could return to the administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Human Resources, whose vote is before us.

MR. BLENCOE: Before we broke at noon today, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) was asking the minister about the situation of Expo-related evictions in Vancouver. Unfortunately, the minister refused to answer, and we expected answers when we came back as to his position on those evictions. We would hope that the minister would have some position, because he knows very well....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I know. What I am going to ask now is if the minister would give us some answers on his position on what's happening in Vancouver east. What's happened in Vancouver has been a great shame to this province. Many people have asked for some action. Many people have been dislocated; hundreds of Vancouver people are on social assistance; the majority of people living in that area are on social assistance; and this minister for whatever reason has sat it out, has said nothing. Clearly it would indicate he has made no overtures to his cabinet colleagues or anybody else to protect those people in need in Vancouver.

Those evictions are an insult to the people of British Columbia. They're an insult to that minister, and that minister is continuing a partnership in evictions and a partnership in dislocation of lives in the province of British Columbia. The people of this province have asked for action. He has a responsibility to protect those people and not administer a partnership in evictions, and assist the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) in his search and destroy mission in terms of those people in Vancouver.

Those people have a right to be protected; they have a right to their homes. This minister must realize that over 80 percent of those people living in those lodging houses in Vancouver are directly under his ministry.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: What percent?

MR. BLENCOE: Over 80 percent are on government income maintenance.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Of the people evicted?

MR. BLENCOE: Of the people living in that area, Mr. Minister. We had hoped that somebody with some responsibility — and this minister has said he is prepared to listen — would have taken some action on this issue. But this minister has been extremely quiet and has said nothing on the behalf of those people being evicted in Vancouver.

[2:45]

Those are the older people of British Columbia, people who have served this province — the handicapped, the aged.... The member for Burnaby-Edmonds talked about the partnership in poverty. This minister and this government continue a partnership of eviction and a partnership of dislocation for those tenants in Vancouver. We have asked the minister: has he tried? Has he called to his cabinet colleagues for some action? Has he asked for a suspension of those evictions for those people that come under his jurisdiction, or is he prepared to be silent in this area? Is he prepared to see these people suffer and their lives be actually threatened by this government's lack of action for those people in Vancouver?

It is an absolute scandal what this government is doing, not only to the people in the province of British Columbia in terms of human resources: but it is doubly scandalous in terms of those older people, those handicapped people, in the downtown of Vancouver. The member for Vancouver Centre today asked some questions on behalf of those people, and this minister came back and clearly has not been prepared to answer. I hope this afternoon he will answer and give us some response from his ministry on behalf of those people in trouble.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: If I answered the questions when the member for Vancouver Centre was not here, the criticism would have been: "Our member is not here."

AN HON. MEMBER: Again.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Again. However, I am more than happy to. One of these days the NDP is going to say what they would do — not what they suggest others do, but what they would do, what legislation they would bring in, what they would do with the city of Vancouver, what they would ask the city of Vancouver to do. They would explain why they, when they brought in legislation when they were government, did not include those who were in hotels, as though the situation has changed.

They would also explain what they would do with respect to orders given by building inspectors and fire inspectors in the city of Vancouver about renovations. They would explain

[ Page 7636 ]

that. The member for Vancouver Centre today spoke about the deplorable conditions in many of these hotels. Is the member for Victoria suggesting that they not be upgraded, modified or improved?

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: "Eviction" is a very nasty word, but it happens to be within the law of Canada, within the law of the province of British Columbia and apparently not offensive to the bylaws of the city of Vancouver. The Ministry of Human Resources is responsible to some degree for approximately 100 of those persons in Vancouver who received notice. My understanding is that all of them have been relocated.

The member for Vancouver Centre spoke about the neighbourhood that these people who are being evicted are familiar with — their neighbourhood. Contrary to what the member for Vancouver Centre said about deplorable conditions, according to the member himself at least some of these people prefer to live in those areas and in their present quarters, even though he described them as deplorable.

I remember dislocation of people under different circumstances, for different reasons, in metropolitan areas; not only metropolitan areas but suburban areas as well. It has happened previously. I'm sure it will happen in the future. Even though the member for Victoria may not embrace the concept of private property ownership, it's a fact of life in Canada. People have certain rights with their property. They have obligations as well under the law and the regulatory bodies, but they do have rights, provided they follow the law. I'm not aware that a charge has been made that these evictions are illegal.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The member may know — or may not know — that a number of tenants in certain areas of metropolitan cities prefer to have the arrangement of a hotel rather than an apartment. They like the flexibility. When I was Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, responsible for the rentalsman's office, we spoke to many of these people who said they preferred that flexibility. They did not wish to be tied in to a month's notice or a yearly increase, or some of the other restrictions. They preferred the method as it was; others did not. But no government in B.C. has decided to bring in hotels under the landlord-tenant provisions.

It's cute for those who suddenly are.... I don't know what the correct term would be, but almost like a new-born of some kind. Expo was becoming so positive that the left-wing of our community had to find something negative about Expo, to the point where private individuals, owners of property, were legally evicting tenants but it became known as the Expo evictions, as though Expo were evicting people. With respect to that question, I've mentioned that to the best of my knowledge the approximately one hundred people who are on income assistance have all been relocated; I've been so advised by my officials. Just because a person is over 65 does not mean they're a client of Human Resources. In fact, they are seldom a client of Human Resources unless they're handicapped in some way, or other conditions. Many are people who choose to live in those areas, and have for many years; they're either independent to some degree or they're pensioners of some kind. Many have accepted it and they're moving out. Our people have been relocated.

Jim McDowell, who was a director of the Carnegie Community Centre at Main and Hastings, used to be involved in the DERA organization and was a strong advocate of the cares and concerns of the people who live in the downtown east side area of Vancouver. I'm not sure what Jim McDowell does now full time, but part of the time he writes a column for the Sechelt paper. It might be worth listening to a few comments from him.

"With lots of help from the Vancouver media and his left-wing cohorts last week, Downtown Eastside Residents' Association organizer Jim Green staged a clever stunt to dramatize doctrinaire views of class conflict, manipulate an ambitious politician, intimidate a hard-nosed power broker and embarrass Victoria. Unfortunately, Green's sideshow had little to do with halting the urban renewal and human removal that's engulfing the skid-row residents DERA claims to represent."

He said:

"Five years ago I would have seen it differently. As director of Carnegie Centre, the city's most heavily used community centre, at the comer of Main and Hastings, I clung to three illusions: DERA worked for the residents; one could work with this entrenched community group on a basis of equality and respect; Green could be his own man.

"Along with three DERA members — former president Libby Davies, Jean Swanson and Rob 'Cowboy' Ellis — I helped screen candidates for the community organizer position, something held by Bruce Ericksen before he finally won a seat on Vancouver council. Green was the man we selected. I asked him two questions: How could he avoid becoming Ericksen's stooge? Could he dream up nifty stunts to keep DERA's profile high? In the next two years I found that Green fronted for bigger barracudas than Ericksen and had a huckster's knack for devising simple, dramatic events that usually got lots of publicity from little effort, most of it exploiting the people — the poor and the elderly — to provide propaganda for COPE, Vancouver's left-wing civic party."

The misfortune of people is easily exploitable for political purposes. The people who reside in that downtown section of Vancouver have never had what many other people might refer to as a very pleasant lifestyle. It may come as a surprise to some people that, as the member for Vancouver Centre said, some consider that to be their neighbourhood and their home, and they want to stay. Others, I'm sure, do not, and would rather be elsewhere. But to suggest that the Ministry of Human Resources is responsible for the evictions, or has the capacity to prevent legal evictions, is reaching somewhat, I would suggest. The minister responsible for housing and the minister responsible for municipal affairs have been involved in looking into the matter, as has the city of Vancouver — to such a degree that it spun off into a further inquiry about social housing. But the Ministry of Human Resources has looked after its clients to the best of its ability. My understanding is that they have been relocated. Mr. Member, I have not received a letter from any of those people, to my knowledge, complaining about the service they received or in distress at being relocated.

[ Page 7637 ]

I empathize with folks who are being asked to leave what has been their home for whatever period of time. I remember the condominium craze in Vancouver and, I suppose, in Victoria — although I can't recall; certainly in greater Vancouver. People were being moved out of their apartments because they were being converted — legally, but upsetting a tremendous number of people. They were very upset that suddenly they were being given notice and moved out, or being asked to purchase their apartment as a condominium. This was another disruption that took place which was perfectly within the law, although condemned by some people as being just efforts by greedy developers to maximize profit. There are some hotels — and I give them full credit — in the Vancouver area who have said: "No, we're keeping our tenants." Good for them. Others have said: "We're going to renovate. We're going to upgrade, and we're going into the hotel business. " Perhaps they are motivated by Expo or by the possibility of a quick profit. I don't know how we can condemn them for doing what is perfectly lawful with their own property. I think it's unfortunate that some people are being dislocated at a difficult time in their lives.

I believe our ministry has assisted, along with officials from the city of Vancouver, to find accommodation for those who are on income assistance. I understand that it has been successful. But I really think it has been a marvellous opportunity for critics of Expo — and, I suppose, of the provincial government — to use that particular situation as the great example of the maximum failure of government.

Government has a role to play in everyone's life, but I would suggest that there are limits to what role government plays in everybody's life — not simply to make Jim Green feel happy, important or recognized. I certainly have better things to do.

MR. BLENCOE: A brief response to the minister. He talks about the written law, but I would suggest to that minister that there is also very much a spirit of the law.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought we only had written laws in this chamber.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, you know, we talk about compassion and understanding and concern. That's one of the things we should be talking about. That is the real measure of government in the end, Mr. Minister. I don't think there is a very large percentage of the population of British Columbia who were not offended by the lack of action by this government on what was happening — and I have to suggest this was Expo-related — for those people in need.

[3:00]

The spirit of the law is very important. I would also give the minister some statistics that, I think, will be very useful for him in recognizing why this particular area is of particular concern to many people. According to the city of Vancouver and a downtown tenants and lodging-houses survey, there are 16,600 people who live in the downtown east side, 45 percent of them in lodging-houses. It's a stable population — 57 percent of the lodging-house tenants have lived in the downtown east side for more than five years. Over 50 percent of the people in the area are over 55 years old and 19 percent are over 69. Eighty percent of lodging-house tenants are on government income maintenance, and another 10 percent are on workers' compensation or UIC payments. Fifty percent of lodging-house tenants pay more than 40 percent of their income on rent.

I would suggest that this government has for years been subsidizing those slum landlords to the tune of millions of dollars, and only when it becomes in their interest to make a few more dollars do they put those people on the street. Never did they renovate until they could make a few more dollars. That's the spirit that we should be talking about in this Legislature.

You may talk about the fine print of the law....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Bold print.

MR. BLENCOE: Bold print — whatever you want to call it, Mr. Minister. But those landlords have done very well out of this province of British Columbia. Most of those people are on some sort of government assistance or shelter allowance, paying their way, paying those rents for those slums, and now when the landlords see to make a few more dollars, they put the people on the street. With all the money and the millions of dollars that you've spent in keeping those slum landlords in business, you could have built enough housing to house those people over the last ten years instead of putting your money into other dubious projects in the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Have you looked at the numbers?

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, I looked at the numbers. The numbers are quite astronomical in terms of how much money is spent on this particular area.

Now the minister says they have by law the right to do what they are doing, but only when they have a chance to take advantage of a situation. Where were they in renovating those properties a few years ago? Where were they? They weren't anywhere to be seen. They were making money on the backs of the poor, and now when they want a few more dollars and they see Expo, they're going to put those people on the street. It's the spirit as well as the actual letter of the law, bold or fine or otherwise, Mr. Minister. That's the issue, and that's what people in British Columbia have been offended by.

You and your cabinet colleagues have set about trying to set up another task force to take a look at housing in the province of British Columbia as a cover-up, when we need action for those people. The measure of government is how it protects and looks after those in greatest need. There is legislation on the floor of this House right now, Mr. Chairman, that would protect those people and take care of them and that would ensure they could at least live where they have lived for many years.

I would suggest that this side of the House has recommended for many years that rooming-houses and lodging-houses be included in the Residential Tenancy Act. As a matter of fact, virtually three years — I think maybe even two years to the day — I stood in this chamber and recommended during the residential tenancy debate that this very thing be included in the act on the grounds that if we didn't do something, we would have the Knoxville situation here in the province of British Columbia. Knoxville, I would remind this government, is a smaller town, a smaller fair, and yet those evictions in Knoxville attracted international attention and acclaim. Here in British Columbia we have the same situation. This minister says they have the law, these landlords. Where is the spirit and the intent of a fair and caring

[ Page 7638 ]

government that has the power to say we want to protect those who need the most protection in the downtown east side?

We haven't had the answers, and all we've had is the continuing policy of a government that clearly doesn't care about those people in need in the province of British Columbia.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I've been listening to this debate since it started, and anyone else who has been sitting through most of it I think would agree with me that this debate on the Human Resources estimates inevitably becomes one of great confrontation in this Legislature. And quite rightly so, because I believe that if anything shows the difference between the NDP philosophy and the Social Credit philosophy, it is how each party would approach the whole matter of human services and their delivery in this province. There is a very major difference. I think that when the invective rises in this chamber, when people sometimes end up shouting at each other, it is all part of the old parliamentary tradition, frankly, of good debate. I often think that some people who sit in the gallery may wonder about this display down here. But I hope they appreciate the fact that to all of us this whole matter of parliamentary debate is a great tradition which we are proud to take part in. Sometimes tempers do get hot because of the philosophical convictions of each side.

I am concerned that the Social Credit government, who have been in charge of the direction of this province and of the people in this province who, most of them through no fault of their own, have to depend on the social services provided to them by the government.... I am concerned that this government simply is not doing an adequate job. Of course, it doesn't only relate to the fact, in my opinion, that they are ineffective in providing the right economic security and background for people in this province, but to their whole philosophy on how people should have money distributed and be looked after in times of need and stress. To my mind the whole philosophy is wrong.

In preparing for my few remarks today, I ran through briefly.... I won't take up too much time of the Chair in this, but I would like to quote for the minister's edification from "The Other MacDonald Report," which was compiled by groups that did not feel that their point of view had been incorporated in the final MacDonald report.

In here was an excellent philosophic statement that I certainly would adhere to. It's because the Minister of Human Resources' own philosophy does not seem to embrace this, nor his government, that we are having this major controversy in this chamber. If I may quote from "The Other MacDonald Report" — "The Role of Social Policy" — I do hope that some of the chamber will take an opportunity to listen to this:

"The idea of a welfare state is often associated with high levels of government spending and the transfer of income and services to the poor. But an advanced welfare state is not necessarily based on high government spending or more redistribution to the poor. The proper conception of an advanced welfare state is in its commitment to the idea of 'social citizenship' for all members of society. This means that individual welfare should not depend on how one performs in the marketplace, within the family or with private resources." The final statement I want to get into the record is this: 'A state is a welfare state when it guarantees a decent standard of living to all, as a citizen's right."

This is where we disagree, because in the opinion of the NDP, and of course in the opinion of those who are out there receiving social assistance, a decent standard of living is not being guaranteed by the Social Credit government of British Columbia. That is why we are at this place in the debate today. We are trying to express to the minister and to his government that the manner in which they are handling the needs of the people today is simply not sufficient to provide a decent standard of living. Why should some people in this province have the standard of living of survival, a decent standard, and others not? This is the basic question that faces us, and the basic question is: how do we handle it? I know that the Social Credit members may say, "Yes, we're working on it," but here again is where we have a very major difference.

I believe that the Social Credit government.... I know the Minister of Human Resources has reiterated this a number of times. We have to have the megaprojects, he keeps saying, before we can do anything more to help the people out there who need help. The NDP says yes, you've got to have projects; you've got to do something out there to create jobs, to create money. We won't get into the debate on the megaprojects, but the point is, we believe that you must continue to develop the people resources and the human resources at the same time. You cannot let the people and their resources and their well-being lag behind while the government proceeds bent on their particular pet project of the time.

The tragedy is that because the Social Credit government has held back on services to people — and I'm thinking of all areas now, not only human resources but in health, in education — they are creating potential adult tragedies who are going to be a great social burden and are going to create much distress for many people in their own families and outside of their families. Because of the lack of services given to them today, they are going to be future serious problems. Unfortunately the Social Credit government does not seem to understand or show the concern for keeping up those necessary services now.

This is our great concern. You know, it basically gets down to somewhat of a conservative philosophy. The Minister of Human Resources is certainly a very clear-cut conservative. He has always shown that in his ideology; he shows it in his speeches. Now I do not happen to agree with that ideology, but let us say to the minister.... I quote today from Sydney Harris. I don't know if any of you read him in the Times-Colonist. I always read him because I think that this man poses some very interesting thoughts in his articles. In today's column he talks about intelligent conservatives — "a group that North America is not too crowded with." I must say that unfortunately that is probably the same in British Columbia. He says: "Intelligent conservatives have always recognized that making concessions to the less fortunate is the best way of retaining one's privileges, and that cold exploitation is the surest way to lose such privileges sooner or later." He refers to some conservatives in the past, such as Bismarck in Germany, who actually brought in the first social security system. His point is that their motives may not have been basic concern, although I'm not saying that conservatives don't have a concern, but many times it is to the advantage of the conservative to see that the rest of the people out there are not held down and that their privileges are not denied and that they are properly taking their place in society.

[ Page 7639 ]

As a matter of fact, he goes on to point out how the opposite is being done now in the United States. May I quote: "Sometimes I think we have the dumbest conservative class in the world." If I may digress — but not really; I'm trying to make an analogy here — it certainly fits into the present situation in the United States, where we see, on a much larger scale of course, the conservative philosophy at work, endorsed by President Reagan. And I know that you may say, Mr. Chairman: what does this have to do with the human resources debate in British Columbia? There is an underlying philosophy there which I am trying to bring to the attention of the House, which the NDP believes, embarked upon by the Social Credit government, is not taking any of us in the right direction, particularly those who are suffering at the moment from unemployment and other deprivation.

[3:15]

Here is an example of what President Reagan has suggested, Mr. Chairman. They have to cut their budget, so you know what he suggested? Cut over $1 billion for college students; cut back in 40 social programs, including rural housing loans, and then cut back on medicare. It goes on and on — all the programs which are going to cause serious problems with many of the citizens in the United States, which again will only be seen there in later years. But you know, the interesting and the tragic thing, may I put in, Mr. Chairman, because I feel very strongly about this, is that at the same time he's proposing those cuts, what is he asking to increase? The military budget.

All right. We're not dealing with a military budget here in this province, but at the same time as the Social Credit government embarks on some basic cutbacks or no increase. even with inflation, in services to people, we see them spending other moneys in areas that are completely repugnant, frankly, to me and to others. I'm referring to something which we've heard many times before in this House: the amount of millions of dollars that are being spent by this government on political advertising. You take just a fraction of that money and apply it to some of these people in need. Mr. Chairman.... I think the people out there in the province are getting a little tired of a government saying: "But we don't have the money to increase the needs of the people of this province who need to have their lives brought up to a decent standard. We don't have the money." Yet there is always money to propose to the people of British Columbia that this government is great. We all just received the government advertising sheet — again just a straight party propaganda sheet. Lots of money for that; money is always there, but not money for those people who need help today.

You know, Mr. Chairman, when you hear about a floating yacht with all the VIPs and food and drinks going through under the Lions Gate Bridge, it sounds great. It's marvellous for those who are partaking and enjoying it, but at the same time that that yacht is floating through with people enjoying food and refreshments paid for by all the taxpayers, we have food banks in our city. It's that terrible, terrible scene of opposites, the rich and the poor in this province, which makes one question the Social Credit government's philosophy. How can they continue to say that they are really concerned about people when at the same time they don't blink an eye at spending money on extravaganzas while people are lining up for food banks?

MS. BROWN: They don't have a philosophy.

MRS. DAILLY: This is the problem: I think they do have a philosophy. One of our members behind me just said they don't have one. They have a very arch-conservative philosophy when it comes to saying that the people out there don't all need to be brought up to a certain standard of living. They don't seem to take that as their social contract within this chamber, to see that no one is out there suffering below a standard of living that they can live a life of dignity with.

Is my time up, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Another minute or two.

MRS. DAILLY: Oh, dear, because I did want to come to the minister very specifically — I know he'll be glad to hear that — and just ask him.... When it comes to senior citizens, the whole area I consider of major cutbacks which really concern me in human resources is in the area of the seniors, supplement, which, as already has been mentioned, has been reduced by $1.5 million. I know the minister said this morning that it doesn't matter, because they do get other assistance in other areas.

Let's take SAFER. I think the problem with SAFER is that the regulations have to be looked at again. There has to be a more formal review of the rent levels and participation levels. What I am saying to the minister is: your government has accepted cutbacks for seniors. The 60- to 64-year-olds are not eligible for the federal pensions, and of course we know that the GAIN supplement does not go to them either. Today with the cost of living and inflation, I think it is a disgrace that they are not given the opportunity to be included.

I have many more things on seniors. Would the Minister of Human Resources at least give consideration to looking seriously at the plight of the 60- to 64-year-old?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The very quick answer to the seniors supplement is that the ministry anticipates fewer recipients next year. The numbers in that category actually have been declining for a period of time, for a number of reasons.

Just a couple of moments in response to some of the comments from the member for Burnaby North. I certainly take no offence at all at the philosophical dissertation. I know no offence was intended or expected.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I am concerned about political clichés with respect to the well-being of individuals. Philosophically at least I believe that there is no one answer, and no one has all the answers. I think most people in our society and most people who are elected have a genuine concern about the needs of people who have little capacity to care for themselves. There are going to be differences of opinion with respect to the involvement of government in anyone's life. There is a conservative attitude, there is a non-conservative attitude. There is a liberal attitude, a socialist attitude and other philosophies of politics which have an attitude. But I think the government's record over the years in British Columbia has indicated that the citizens of the province, through their government, have developed and produced a large number of programs which are beneficial to the citizens.

A person who is in need of income assistance is unlikely to frequently say that they have reached a point where they have adequate funds. It is inconsistent with being in need,

[ Page 7640 ]

and I don't think government is going to find itself anytime able to replace income, what a person may be able to achieve on his own, if the opportunity is there. So income assistance by its very nature is not complete replacement for what income could be, might have been or was.

I want to comment on the question asked earlier: what has the economy of Canada got to do with British Columbia? Very succinctly, a great deal. I mentioned earlier that the interest paid on the national debt alone costs B.C. $2 billion a year. That's a lot of money. In fact, that's more money than the Human Resources budget, so of course it has a major impact on British Columbia. Let's not forget we're Canadians as well, and we also pay federal taxes, and it all comes out of the same taxpayers' pockets. I believe that there is an absolute amount taxpayers can be expected to pay to governments for whatever programs. So it does have a huge impact on British Columbia and the citizens of our province.

MRS. DAILLY: I see I did not convince the minister to change his philosophy. Maybe we'll have to do one more speech, and I'm not sure it will make a great difference.

At this time, however, I would like to go back to a very specific question to the minister. It is to do again with SAFER. You did yourself refer to the fact that SAFER is a kind of buttress and assists the senior citizens and that's why one shouldn't be so concerned that there is no basic increase there in this budget. I would like to ask the minister specifically: would you consider adding to the SAFER regulations provision for formal annual review of rent levels, participation levels and household coverage rates? I think this has been recommended to your ministry by a number of groups, because adjustments should be made in the SAFER program.

You did yourself mention that they had dropped. I think what you have to look at is the reasons for the recipients dropping. I think it is time that a close look was taken at the SAFER and its present regulations. Would you do so?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would be pleased to look at that question, yes. I certainly would be pleased, and I would respond to that member in some detail if that's what you are asking.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise two or three issues with the minister. Perhaps the best thing is just to raise them all at once, and let him respond. I'm sure that we may have a different philosophy relative to institutions for the mentally retarded, but I'm not sure whether that minister is quite as adamant as the former minister in relation to the idea that, no matter how badly retarded, that person should not be in an institution. I think "an institution" is open to broad interpretation. We can talk about a very institutional type of institution, or we can talk about the more homelike setting type of institution, but it's still an institution.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Group home.

MRS. WALLACE: A group home, yes, if you want to call it that.

What I'm talking about specifically in this instance is an institution that is in my own constituency. It's operated by an organization known as the Cedar Lodge Society. That institution has two parts to its operation, or it did have two parts to its operation. It had a school for younger children who were mentally retarded or disabled, and it had an operation for older students, in the form of Skeleem Village, where the group home philosophy came in.

I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, you will be aware, and I'm sure the minister is aware, that the boarding part of the school came under some difficulty, and as a result of some rather indepth research and study the boarding part of the operation was phased out. The school room per se had been taken over by the school district and operated as part of the educational system. It was upgraded at that time, as far as the safety requirements went — fire, health standards and all those kinds of things. That particular building now sits vacant. The accommodation part is not so good, but the school is there.

What the Cedar Lodge Society is facing are some rather grave difficulties with being able to continue with the adult part, which uses the workshops and so on that were jointly operated before. We now have a situation where I am concerned that the whole thing may well fail if the government doesn't take some action. I understand that the lodge is very actively pursuing several alternatives, but some of those alternatives are related to disposing of that school property. There are 150 acres there. It's an ideal setting for treatment of severely disturbed, mentally handicapped people who have various problems — schizophrenia, or whatever. An ideal setting.

If because of financial pressure that society has to make a move and dispose of that school property, to some developer or whomever, it's not going to leave that whole entity intact. I'm concerned that that may happen. I'm wondering whether or not the minister, in conjunction with himself as Minister of Health, is prepared to take some interim steps to assure — whatever options may be out there, and I understand there are some very viable options out there — that that whole unit be maintained as a viable and operating unit for the treatment of mentally disabled people.

When I look at the statistics as to what is happening in this particular area, this south island area, I notice that last year we had 38 residences in this area for mentally retarded; this year, in 1985, we went up by one, to 39. That's a 2.6 percent increase. During the same period, the number of persons accommodated went from 111 to 132, an increase of 21, or nearly 19 percent. What that indicates to me is overcrowding.

[3:30]

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: They are small facilities; they're group homes.

What we're looking at is a need, a very definite need. What I'm asking the minister to do is to assure us that he is prepared to take some interim steps to ensure that that society can remain in total, viable, and operating until such time as a final plan can be put in place that will accommodate it all.

I want to talk a bit also about the mentally retarded association, which operates out of Cowichan and operates two very fine services there. One is the Opportunity Centre for adult retardees. It's doing an excellent job. They have a beautiful new building there that they've built. It is an asset to the community in many, many ways. It's used for community functions. There is an intermingling of those people who work and operate within that facility. It's an excellent arrangement.

In conjunction with that we have Children's Place. We're much indebted to a former, former, former Minister of

[ Page 7641 ]

Human Resources, who made a goodly grant to that particular institution. It has been under some difficulties. There were problems with the management of the association there, and the good old democratic process took hold and there were some changes. We now have a good viable association that's operating both of those institutions very equitably.

They have a full enrolment and a waiting-list at Children's Place. It's an integrated day-care facility where they take kids who are absolutely "normal" and kids who are mentally or physically retarded — blind, lame, the halt — and they intermingle. It's one of the most beautiful things in the world to go to visit that place, where you see those blind or crippled children accepted quite normally by the other children there. If the little blind boy loses his ball, it's just a matter of course that the other child goes and picks the ball up and gives it back to him. It indicates to me the possibility, you know, of a dream come true, where people, no matter what their physical or mental disability, are accepted fully and completely into society. It's happening there with those young children who haven't been taught that those kids are different. They accept them. It's a great thing to see. And Norah Keir, who instigated that whole idea and brought it into place, is certainly to be congratulated for what she has done.

They, I understand, have asked for some block funding. I would like to suggest to the minister that that is one of the most valuable places that he could put his money — into block funding for those two operations. They're carrying a lot of capital costs because of that great new centre they have built for the adult retardees. I'm not knocking it. It's a beautiful centre, and it's good to have, but they are carrying the costs on that and they need block funding for operating. I understand they've asked for something like $2,500 a month, which would carry them through for the year. I'm certainly hoping that the minister can assure me that that is in place.

In talking about the day care, they have just had to raise their fees. They've upped them $10, so it's $260 a month for those over three years and $360 a month for those under three years, and then various rates for the special children that they have in there depending on the degree of disability. That simply aggravates the situation with the subsidy, because we in Cowichan are not a particularly affluent population — yet.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: I hope that day will come, but we're still suffering from the fact that our processing plants have been limited in production, and we're still suffering from the downturn in the forest industry, because we certainly were a one-industry area.

We are in need of an increase of those subsidies. They haven't been increased since 1981. There is difficulty. I'm just hoping that that full registration at Children's Place and that waiting-list will not disappear because of that $10 increase, because that may just be the breaking point to a lot of the parents who are in there.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. One moment, please. The member for New Westminster and the second member for Surrey will come to order. The member for Cowichan-Malahat continues.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I've learned to ignore that member for Surrey very easily.

The third issue that I wanted to raise with the minister relates to child abuse. The situation relative to the trained and qualified personnel that are needed has been raised by my colleague for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) and others. In Cowichan-Malahat, between 1984 and 1985, the recorded cases of child abuse have increased by 108 percent.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Do you have the numbers on you?

MRS. WALLACE: I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I could get them.

What we have there is absolutely no paid, trained child abuse workers. We have one volunteer working in family life who is just run to the point of breakdown. I don't know how strongly I can urge the minister to do something about giving us some help there. I have written to him, and he has answered me and said that they provide this kind of service for these children, and that as far as mental health is concerned, I'd have to talk to the Minister of Health. Now he can talk to himself about that. We had an interministerial committee established. I've got two of the ministers on that committee sitting there right now in the persons of the Minister of Human Resources — and surely he can outvote the other one — and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith). We need to do something about this, instead of just having that interministerial committee sit there and not come up with some answers. They keep passing the buck. I've written to the Attorney-General, I've written to the Minister of Health, I've written to the Minister of Human Resources, and one just passes me off to the other. It's like a perfect merry-go-round.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Hardly.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, it is, Mr. Minister, and you've been part of that as Minister of Health.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I wish we weren't restricted by statute and could let some of that information out to the province.

MRS. WALLACE: I have no idea what the minister is referring to, but he can fill me in when he stands up.

I have a report here — and as far as I know, it's a public report — on the interministerial issues. I'm looking for the cover of it: "Child Sex Abuse Policy for the Ministry of the Attorney-General, April 1985." It talks about treatment and support services, and it talks about a long-term goal. It says: "The long-term goal of the approach outlined in this report is not only the protection of the children concerned but the reduction of the occurrence of such crimes. The availability of treatment programs for offenders is therefore, in view of the ministry, critical to the success of new justice system initiatives with respect to child sexual abuse."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time has expired, hon. member.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, in response to the member for Cowichan, in a very general way, on the mentally retarded question, with respect to attitude or policy, I agree that an institution can be defined quite differently depending on who is using the word. I believe that normally, when we're

[ Page 7642 ]

speaking of institutions.... Certainly when I'm speaking of institutions, I'm referring to classic provincial institutions such as Tranquille and Woodlands — of that nature. I suppose a group home, or whatever, is an institution as well. Perhaps an institution is simply "other than your own home."

I think it's important that we try to provide the level of care closest to a home setting as possible, depending on the condition of the individual. There is always going to be a need for institutional care for some people. There are cases of retardation and other difficulties — sometimes multiple handicaps — where it would be impractical if not impossible to care for such a person other than in a properly managed institution with professional staff. We are trying to provide the closest possible level of care to home care. If a youngster can remain at home, or if a youngster can be returned home and cared for by the parents, that's what we would like to accomplish. If not, we would like the youngster, if possible, to be in his community; if not, perhaps in a smaller setting than a provincial institution. Certainly there is going to be a need for institutions of some kind for some of those individuals.

I don't know the details on Cedar Lodge. I'll be pleased to look into that. It sounds very nice — 156 acres or whatever. I understand that there have been some difficulties in funding. I also understand that one of the major hospitals is speaking out loud about possibly using the area for treatment of adolescents suffering from mild forms of mental illness. So they're looking at that, although I think there's a fair amount of expenditure for renovations.

I am not intimately familiar with Children's Place in Cowichan. We rarely block-fund. We purchase services as provided by societies for special needs children — or some other particular activities. We contract with societies to provide services. This is normally how it is funded. I'd be pleased to look into that, however, to see if I could get more details on that.

The child abuse question. I mentioned to the member that I wish we could say more about certain cases, which we are prohibited from doing now by statute, because there is some information I believe the public should be very aware of with respect to child abuse. We are not hiding behind the skirts of the law, to use a kind of mixed-up metaphor, but the law does specifically prohibit breaching the confidentiality, and that's really very important.

Information obtained by the Ministry of Human Resources is confidential, for a very good reason obviously. But because of that confidentiality, sometimes situations with respect to abuse.... The information we have on specific cases is not to be released unless it is being released to a court. I think there are certain situations where we would like to be heard and have some of this information generally brought before the public of British Columbia, in some instances, where it never goes to court.

The committee is hardly passing the buck, nor is the superintendent of child and family services passing the buck. They are looking into a very, very serious problem in the province, one which perhaps has become better known because of a number of programs which have been initiated by the ministry over the past number of years with respect to awareness, with respect to reporting.

[3:45]

To the member, Mr. Chairman, I am not surprised that there has been an increase in reported incidents. We've seen this across the province. There has been an attempt made by the ministry to encourage people to make such reports. We do know of instances where reports simply were not made, even though the information we have is that people were well aware and well aware of their responsibility. But in some instances the reports were not made for a number of reasons, and that is being clearly looked at.

We recognize that no matter what system you may put in place, it is not going to work perfectly. We recognize that no matter what requirements you make of citizens, not all will participate. We certainly don't want to have a situation where child abuse is either ignored or not reported or encouraged in any way. We don't want the system to be failing in that, nor do we wish the citizens to be failing in their responsibilities.

We will have more on that later as that report comes in. I expect it to be in in a reasonable period of time. But we share your concern about child abuse, and there are many, many forms of child abuse. We recognize that as well. We were discussing this earlier today, the very real difficulties members within the ministry have in dealing with certain cases, particularly when there are allegations, and the allegations must be followed by an investigation, which could be followed by a hearing, which could be followed by a court case in a different court. You're dealing with a very difficult area, and it has to be handled with a fair amount of skill by all concerned.

But yes, the numbers are far too high, and I believe the ministry and others are working very hard to try to resolve that problem, although we couldn't expect to have complete success. But we are certainly trying to achieve maximum success within the capabilities of individual people.

MRS. WALLACE: I appreciate what the minister has said, but he hasn't answered my question. He has given me a lot of platitudes. He wrote me on March 11, since he's been the Minister of Human Resources, in response to my question of whether he will provide some assistance, some counselling, some trained workers in Cowichan for child abuse.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: No, I am talking about the sort of workers that we used to have there that we no longer have, and what you've told me.... "As you know, the Ministry of Human Resources is responsible for investigating allegations of child abuse in order to protect children who have been subject to abuse and neglect." Then you go on: "The ministry also provides support services to families, including child care workers to assist a child and his family." We do not have those in Cowichan. That's what I am asking the minister for, and that's what I have been asking for for the last six months, and I am getting nowhere. I am getting this runaround.

MR. COCKE: I just want to supplement something that the member for Cowichan-Malahat was talking about earlier. I think it's fortuitous that at this moment we have the Minister of Health and the Minister of Human Resources before us, because the question of the facility at Cobble Hill — called the Cedar Lodge Society — impinges on both those ministries. I understand that the board of directors are absolutely desperate; they are bankrupt. They will sell to the first bidder, and I think that would be an absolute sacrifice which the people of British Columbia should not look forward to. The

[ Page 7643 ]

major hospital which that minister talks about can put together a program there and in no way will it stand in the way of the ministers.

Incidentally, I agree with that position they've taken with respect to de-institutionalization wherever possible. A program for young adults is desperately needed in this province, and that place lends itself to that situation. Because a major program has to be developed, for the time being there just has to be management of the facilities, and that could be provided for not a major amount of money — I would think something under $100,000 for a whole year. I believe that that use of that property, which is there for the government not to run in and of itself but there to provide a very much needed program for a situation in B.C....

The time is so short on this that because of the attractiveness of the property I'm afraid we might lose the opportunity. Outside groups are presently interested, naturally; who wouldn't be? Seventy beautiful acres in the district of Cowichan, in the Cobble Hill area close to Shawnigan Lake, and it would be so sad for us to lose this opportunity. I would ask the minister quietly if he would get in touch with his officials at both levels, but particularly his officials in the Ministry of Health, to took very seriously at providing at least interim care. If it's found later that the program is going to be inadequate, in the government's eyes, then the property isn't going to be the least bit devalued. It will still be there and can be disposed of at that time if necessary. But for heaven's sake, let's grasp an opportunity where that opportunity exists. There's far too little being done for young adults who are desperately in need of mental health care.

I leave that with the minister, but I sure hope something can develop as quickly as possible. Time is short, in my opinion, on that particular situation.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. MacWILLIAM: I was waiting for the minister in case he did want to reply, but if he's not standing up I'll continue.

At the opening of this session I think the government gave this House, as well as the people of the province, a pretty clear signal that it was going to continue to ignore some of the very real problems facing our unemployed people throughout this province. One of the things discussed in earlier announcements — the budget announcement, the throne speech — was the fact that the Ministry of Human Resources was going to reduce the GAIN program by somewhere in the neighbourhood of $11 million. The reason given at that time — quoting right from the budget speech — was that such a decision reflects the success of our economic renewal program in creating jobs. Unemployment in the Okanagan-Boundary area does not reflect that statement. It's true that there has been a slight increase in job creation, but all of those jobs were created in the Vancouver area. There are just as many people unemployed now and on income assistance — in fact more — than there were a year ago. All the employment creation has been in the metro Vancouver area. The interior of this province has been sacrificed. In 1981 unemployment in the Okanagan-Boundary area was at 7.7 percent, That was prior to the government's restraint program. Subsequent to the initiation of the restraint program that unemployment doubled to 14.2 percent. By 1986 it is now at 17.7 percent. That doesn't reflect the reality of that statement.

Getting back to my initial statement of the reduction in the GAIN program of $11 million, the rationale for that reduction sounds hollow indeed against the reality out there in British Columbia, where ordinary British Columbians remain unemployed, where over 223,000 men, women and children in this province are relying on Human Resources, on the GAIN supplement, for their daily bread and butter.

Mr. Chairman, in the Kamloops region in 1982 there were 9,292 individual recipients — that's men, women and children — who were receiving the income supplement through the Ministry of Human Resources. In 1984 that figure increased to 1,828. Mr. Chairman, the recent figures that I've just obtained from 1985 show that that increase has continued. There are over 16,500 men, women and children in the Kamloops region who are drawing from the services of the GAIN program. That's an increase in three years of 78 percent. An increase of 78 percent in two years.

In the Okanagan-Boundary area, which includes the constituencies of Shuswap-Revelstoke, my area in the north Okanagan, Okanagan South and Boundary-Similkameen, in 1982 there were 10,686 GAIN recipients. In 1984 there were 17,191. In 1985 the figures that I have available indicate almost 20,000 people — 19, 871 recipients. That is an increase of 88 percent in two years.

The government says the reason for the $11 million reduction in the GAIN program reflects the success of our economic renewal program at creating jobs. Mr. Chairman, the reality puts the lie to that statement. Unemployment is not working. The GAIN program is not working because of the fact that there are so many people drawing from that program and being forced to live below the poverty line in this province. Families are living at half the poverty line throughout British Columbia. This government is a government of partners in poverty. I know that statement has been made before, but I think it succinctly summarizes the reality out there that ordinary British Columbians are having to face every day.

[4:00]

My community office in the city of Vernon runs an advocacy style office. A number of volunteers work in that office supplying information to people who come in from the community. I must admit that in the 6,000 inquiries that we've had over the year and a half since I've been in this House, I would have to venture to say that almost two-thirds of those inquiries have been inquiries about Human Resources problems — mainly inquiries about the income supplement program. It's just amazing to see the problems that people are facing out there. When we deal with the Human Resources workers in the area — I know they're all dedicated individuals, people who really do care about individuals out there — they are pressed to the absolute limit. No wonder they can't do their jobs properly. No wonder there are mistakes being made in the situations where they have to make a decision in child abuse. They're over-worked, they're understaffed, and they're forced into making policing decisions on the spur of the moment. It's absolutely atrocious. The child abuse team has been disbanded. A worthwhile part of this ministry was just lopped off at the head when restraint was introduced. It's forcing the social workers into a policing role where they have neither the time nor the resources, and they no longer have the energy or the spirit to deal with the many problems.

I want to turn to a couple of very specific areas of concern, address them individually to the minister, and give him

[ Page 7644 ]

an opportunity to respond to each one. I would like to have individual responses. The first one deals with Human Resources garnisheeing settlement moneys through the court system. I cite a couple of cases with regard to ICBC settlements. What is basically happening is that the ministry has been siphoning off moneys that have been obtained by individuals who are income recipients through the GAIN program. They have been siphoning off that money through the settlement process.

People on welfare have been required to sign waivers which have basically forced them to relinquish the settlement they've obtained. Let me give you a specific example. This regards a situation in Burnaby that was cited some time ago — December, 1985 — in the Province, but you can check on that. I'll read a section of it, because I think it lays it out fairly clearly. This individual was a battered child and came to MHR as a foster child a few years back. She's now a 19-year-old hairdressing student, and unknown to her, the ministry had been siphoning off money from a traffic accident award that she had received four years ago. The award was for $8,000 from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and was awarded to this individual after she was hit by a car while crossing a road in Burnaby. Because she was a juvenile, the money was being held in trust through B.C.'s public trustee. That individual learned when she went to look at her account that the $8,000 was suddenly reduced to about $4,900. What had happened was that the Ministry of Human Resources had been billing her trust account to the tune of $375 a month without her knowledge. The reason for that was to pay for her foster care. I guess, in strict terms, it's legal, but I think it's rotten policy. It's policy that should be stopped.

I have another case, and I might add that I was just talking to the solicitor on that case only about a half hour ago. Mr. Chairman, this refers to a single mother in the Vernon area, presently on welfare, who was attending Okanagan College and trying to obtain an upgrading for an occupation that she was trying to get into through the college. While travelling to the college one day, she was in a vehicle accident, received some severe whiplash and had extensive medical treatment. Eventually she obtained a settlement through ICBC.

What happened was that Human Resources walked in, and according to the legal counsel, under duress she was forced to sign an assignment or a waiver. In essence, what has happened is that MHR has taken those moneys accorded to her through the settlement. I want to repeat that it's my understanding that this individual was requested to sign this assignment under duress.

Legal counsel advises that this can be fought at the Supreme Court, and he's at the point of going in that direction because of that very nature. I think the minister should take the time to look at that. Here's an individual who has received an award through the courts for pain and suffering. Human Resources, like Big Brother, walks in and says: "We want some of that money. You have no right to that money." She has no recourse, because if she didn't sign it she was threatened to be cut off of the GAIN program. That is not what I call fair. I think it's rotten policy, and I think that the minister should have a close look at this policy.

I have a couple of other points to make, but I'm going to sit down at this point and let the minister respond to that if he wishes.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The concept of income assistance is to assist those people who basically have no income, or who are in certain circumstances where they require assistance. The amount, I suppose, is important, but if a person were injured in a traffic accident and their source of income was gone and they required some assistance from the ministry, it would be normal to have them sign an agreement whereby they would restore certain amounts, because they would otherwise be ineligible. You're speaking of $8,000, I believe, in that one. What if it were $100,000 or $200,000? Would you recommend that the public trustee, who is...? I believe the terminology is "guardian of the purse of the person," or something.

I don't know the circumstances of the one individual. I don't know whether that individual is a ward of the superintendent. But when it comes to the moneys, the public trustee is the guardian of that money. The public trustee makes these decisions — whether payments are made on her behalf. If it were a private trust, the private trustee would make those decisions.

Income assistance is for those without income, without assets. We do not provide income assistance for individuals with assets, no matter if it's awarded through the courts. That's how these settlements are reached: through the courts. That's not offensive to the system. I don't know the circumstances surrounding the college student. But a person cannot be forced to sign anything. You don't have to go to the Supreme Court; a law student would know that. Under duress.

Someone comes and says that they would like assistance, or whatever, while we conclude this case — we're seeking a settlement from ICBC, or whatever — and Human Resources assists. The understanding is always that if a settlement is reached, they will be recompensed. That's reasonable. In effect, you are loaning. A person comes into a certain amount of money, for pain, suffering or for whatever; they are suddenly with assets, money — whatever amount that may be. They are no longer eligible for income assistance. I don't know how you would convince the people of the province otherwise. Because a person is handicapped or because a person finds himself in a certain way does not mean that he automatically receives income assistance. This is not a pension plan; it's income assistance, and there are certain requirements which must be met.

Don't get on our back about a youngster not knowing what her trust is; that's the public trustee's responsibility. We don't administer that fund on her behalf; the public trustee does. But it's not unreasonable. Again, if a youngster were in a foster home, and a relative passed on and left her an estate, we would expect that estate to pay for her care in the foster home, or a portion of it at least. That's not unusual; there are many instances where individuals who have their children in a foster home are paying for that care or a portion of it. We want to assist those who require that assistance. It may sound harsh. And I suppose added to that is the background of the youngster, and some of the difficulties she's had in life. But it really doesn't change the rules and regulations and the procedures. The taxpayers have said that through various programs they're prepared to assist people in need. There are certain qualifications as to what "in need" means, when it comes to the financial end. A person with assets, with income, is deemed not to be in need. Certain numbers are achieved, and I presume that is the circumstance of these.

[ Page 7645 ]

There is a miscomprehension, frequently, among many people that certain money provided to individuals is a pension. That is not the case. We don't administer pensions. We are involved in income assistance, income assistance only in that way. And certainly not siphoning off. We would be subject to great criticism by the courts if we were not following the rules. The public trustee is responsible in one case: that decision would be made by him to pay for foster care. And in the other case, a person is not required to sign anything under duress. That's an improper procedure; it may be an improper word used by the lawyer.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Is threatening to cut them off of GAIN not duress?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Perhaps I missed it. Did you say the person was on GAIN when injured? The person had previously been on GAIN. Then I'd have to look at it. But I can't accept that that was said. I can't accept it, because I have not heard that. But I would certainly be pleased to took at that, if you can give me some of the details. Did you say you have written? Fine. I'd be pleased to look at that.

I am slightly jaundiced when it comes to statements by lawyers on behalf of their clients — no offence, Mr. Chairman, to any member of the bar, but frequently there is a different story. I'd be pleased to took at it.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Just to clarify those points to the minister, the individual was on income assistance at the time of injury. As I said, she is a single mother and was trying to obtain specialized education at the college at the time, and was threatened with the cancellation of her GAIN policy if in fact she did not sign the assignment. To me, that's duress and a direct threat, and if that can be done, then it's rotten policy and should be changed.

I can understand the minister's rationalization that if a person receives a $100,000 or $200,000 settlement it certainly changes his financial capability, but the two cases that I have cited are not major settlements. In fact, much of that money may have to be paid out in legal fees. What happens with MHR coming in and garnisheeing those settlements is that the person is maintained in that downward spiral of welfare and is unable to climb out of the bottom of the pit.

I think that we have to look at these situations with a degree of humaneness and a reality that these individuals have not received these moneys in any other way but through a legal assignment for pain and suffering involved. I think that changes the situation considerably. However, I will supply that information to the minister, and I do hope that he has a look at it.

The other concern that I wanted to address is the lack of a register for adoptees and natural parents in the province of British Columbia. It was brought to my attention that there is an obvious need to establish a provincial register for adoptees and for birth parents. Apparently British Columbia is alone with Prince Edward Island as the provinces without this service. B.C. apparently has had the reputation of withholding information from citizens regarding natural parents of adoptees.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Rubbish!

MR. MacWILLIAM: I want, for the clarification of that member who continues to interrupt the House, to refer her to the Jack Webster show where a number of cases were cited....

[4:15]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. minister and the member for Surrey, the member for North Okanagan has the floor.

MR. MacWILLIAM: It's interesting that the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) is continually referring to my going back into the classroom or getting a real job. It's really interesting because, you know, this member has not said one positive comment in this House since I have sat here, in a year and a half. I just want to say to that member that I'm proud of the profession that I came from, and I can say to that member that at least I had an honest job.

MR. REID: So have I.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Go turn another odometer back.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member is not imputing anything improper with respect to the second member for Surrey in his statement? In saying, "At least I had an honest job," you are not imputing anything improper with respect to the second member?

MR. MacWILLIAM: Absolutely not.

As I mentioned, there have been a number of cases cited; in particular one where a middle-aged adoptee could not unite with a consenting birth parent simply because of the lack of access to information available. I would simply ask the minister if he would consider any changes to the present regulations which would make such information a little more accessible to consenting parties. I'll sit down and let the minister respond at this point.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Very quickly, there are two provinces in Canada which do not have registers: British Columbia and P.E.I. The other provinces have variations of registers. There are generally two types, generically known as passive or active. B.C. has neither. What we do provide for adopted people is information known as non-identifiable: that is, medical information, genetic information if it's available, ancestry, and so on. It's considered to be non-identifiable.

I happen to agree that consenting adults should have the opportunity of reunion. I don't agree with being active and seeking out people who have not let it be known that they want to have a reunion. The passive registers basically provide that an adopted person may register and the natural parents of an adopted person may register. If the two parties, or three, of the two principal sides each have registered, then they would be advised that the registry has received a request from the other party, and are they still interested in meeting? Should they both be positive, then information would be supplied to allow them to meet.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Interjection.

[ Page 7646 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, not available. That's what they refer to as a passive registry. Active registry is where one person applies and government, on their behalf, tries to seek out the other party. In my own opinion, that's going a little too far, but a passive registry, yes, as a possibility.

It would require change in legislation. It also would require, I think — with respect — a pretty strong opinion from the people in the province. We do have two sides and there are two opposing points of view. There are a number of organizations representing those who have been adopted. There are also groups that represent those who put a child up for adoption, and there is another group which uses the slogan.... I'm not trying to demean them, but the slogan "as if born to," and those are the adopting parents. Some of the adopting parents in some organizations feel that they would, in effect, be betrayed should that information be made available to the children they have adopted. That's their opinion. I find it a bit difficult to deny adults the opportunity of learning about themselves. There is a very strong difference of opinion. Heavy emotional attitudes are expressed over this issue.

Again, I would like to hear from those sides. I've certainly heard from the parent-finders, for want of a better term — that's one of the organizations — and others who have been in communication asking if we would consider this. I'd very much like to hear from the other side. I've heard in the past from the others that they feel it might be considered a betrayal. The argument is put forward as well that it might cause reluctance on the part of people to adopt a child, knowing that at some point that child would perhaps be able to reunite with its natural parents or birth parents. I listen to that, but I don't subscribe to it. I think a 19-year-old, a 20-year-old, someone 21, 25, 30, 35 years old who decides they would like to find out who their natural parents were and perhaps meet them is unlikely to deny the love of their adopting parents. I don't see that as a problem, but some people do.

I would certainly ask the people of the province to let me know how they feel about it. I have very strong attitudes myself, and I don't think it's proper that I attempt to impose them on all the other people associated with adoptions. I just happen to have a very strong point of view, but I'm not saying it's the only point of view or the correct point of view. Basically I'm in favour of a passive registry.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Just to further that line of discussion, perhaps the minister can confirm at the end if he has any intentions of implementing a passive registry in the near future. I'll leave that one at that.

The last one, Mr. Chairman, is regarding natural parents of handicapped children. I have had numerous letters — perhaps a dozen or two dozen — which I will supply directly to the minister; in fact, I can do that now. These letters outline some of the concerns, the costs and problems that the natural parents of handicapped children incur in caring for those children. After checking out the regulations under the present legislation, there does not appear to be any direct means of support for natural parents who have handicapped children; however, there is a means of direct financial support for foster parents who are in charge of handicapped children. It seems most inequitable that the natural parents of a mentally or physically handicapped child who want to hold on to that child are unable to obtain any means of support, and because of income level or other extenuating circumstances may in fact be forced to give up the care of that child simply for financial reasons, when on the other hand foster parents are in fact receiving a fairly significant supplement for the care of those children.

I realize that subsequent to the budget address there have been a couple of minor changes, which I welcome. Eligibility for additional homeowner grants, which previously were available only to handicapped homeowners, has been extended to parents with handicapped children. That's good, and I welcome that change.

There is also a minor change regarding the fuel tax rebate for handicapped persons. That is going'in the right direction, but I would like to advise the minister that it is not enough. And I would like to ask him directly to respond to those letters, to take to heart the concerns of those citizens throughout the North Okanagan who have written me in this regard, and consider a program of financial support for those families — natural parents — who are interested in continuing to care for their handicapped children, providing a means of support so that they may do so.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I guess there would be basically three categories of family with respect to these special needs children — I guess we can call them that and get away with it because it probably covers them all. You have a foster parent situation, an adopted parent situation and a natural parent one. A child with special needs is frequently given up by its natural parents. This could be for many reasons, many of which are not income-related. Depending on the difficulties of the children and their problems, some parents simply cannot cope with them. It's beyond their capacity. The ministry permits the child to be placed without adoption. That's one level of custody. The child can be placed in a foster home and cared for, paid for by the ministry. If the parents have the financial capacity, they will be asked to contribute to the care, because statutorily the parents are responsible for the well-being of that child. That's one arrangement which can be made, and sometimes it is only for a period of time. Frequently it may be that the added imposition of a special needs child is too much for a family with the needs of other children. If the other children leave the home, then perhaps this special needs child can be returned.

The adopting parents are in a similar situation. It is possible that some people who foster special needs children now could consider adopting them but for financial restrictions. That's possible; there could be some. One of the great difficulties with special needs children is that at some point they may require institutional care. Some parents are reluctant to develop a long relationship, only to see the children perhaps institutionalized, depending on what condition they may suffer.

The idea of providing financial assistance to parents to care for their own children occurs under our income assistance program on a regular basis. But it is based on income, on their financial capability. They can reach a certain point where they qualify for certain benefits, such as medical coverage. If they are below another level, they receive income assistance, and there is allowance given for a handicapped dependent.

[4:30]

We are dealing, I suppose, again — and I don't know the background and history of the families who have written to the member — with the position of those kind of caught in the middle. They are not wealthy enough to not really have need

[ Page 7647 ]

or concern about costs, and they are not poor enough to qualify for that which is available now. Those are the folks in the middle again.

We spoke earlier today about the feasibility, or the philosophical view, of providing assistance to adopting parents for special needs children — whether it was a good idea or whether it would be viewed as paying people to adopt children, or as people adopting children because they get paid. We never want to have that attitude around, because it would be wrong and detrimental, I think, to the concept of adoption.

I would be pleased to do some research on this question. I am only reluctant to say anything too definite because I would like to know whether other jurisdictions have done this and what they experienced — what the results were, or what attitudes they may have on it now if they have had experience in this area. It sounds like a reasonable thing to do. But again, we are speaking of those who are in a financial situation in which they require assistance — perhaps for regular routine living rather than the added burden of a special needs child. So I don't know.

One other quick point. We are not dealing in pensions — I we are dealing in income assistance. It could be argued — maybe some other time — that a person who is so handicapped could perhaps be in receipt of a pension of some kind, as a child, to be paid to his trustee or guardian, just as adults can receive a handicapped pension or allowance. Actually it is income assistance. I am using the word "pension" now; it's income assistance. There are federal pensions associated with that.

An individual family which has the capacity to care for their special needs children unlikely would ask for some help. There is some minor assistance offered federally through the income tax now. Maybe it's not minor to some, but it's an increased exemption for the handicapped. I understand in 1986, as I mentioned earlier, for the first time they will be including those who suffer from mental retardation, rather than the categories previously of legally blind and confined to a wheelchair or a bed. I think that's a move in the right direction.

I'll be pleased to respond to you and, if you wish, to the individuals, and spell it out a wee bit and see if we can get a bit more information. It's not unlike a suggestion made earlier today. It's certainly worth considering, because we want to provide the handicapped youngster, if we can, with home care by their natural parents, if possible, depending on the needs of the child and the needs of the parents. But the idea is worthy of consideration. Whether we can institute it I don't know, but I'll certainly look at it.

MR. ROSE: I'm pleased to take part in this debate, however briefly. I hope that my tone will be somewhat less raucous and bellicose than the exchanges that occurred here yesterday. I don't think that the minister will be able to stand too much of that on two subsequent days, so I'll try and keep it reasonable and logical and decent if I can.

I'm pleased to see the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton) here today too, because I'm going to cite some figures in a little while that deal with his riding as well, and congratulate him for staying out of trouble recently. He's become the Teflon man of the B.C. Legislature. I hope that doesn't take too long to end, because there are certain people who are a bit outraged with some of the things that have been happening lately.

I think, though, that if we do have a bellicose tone or an angry interchange, it isn't necessarily anger at the person; it's anger at the policies. I think that we have every right to express outrage at the policies that condemn so many people to perpetual poverty. I think it's a bit unfair of the minister, as he did yesterday, to attempt, noted as he is — famous — for being a fair man.... I think it's really unfair when he twists, or attempts to twist, an attack on the minister's policies to an attack on the people who work in social welfare and human resources. That's what he did yesterday.

The criticisms were made against the policies, not the people. I think all of us have a great respect for the people who work in social welfare. They're dealing constantly with people in trouble. They're dealing constantly with people who are under stress, and often with very angry people, and sometimes very violent people. They frequently put their jobs on the line, and I'm glad most of the time that I don't have their job. It's tough. So the attack isn't on the people.

There was also an attack against this party for suggesting that the government wasn't doing enough about employment, and he criticized us for raising legitimate questions about megaprojects. Everybody knows you've got to have some megaprojects. I mean, you wouldn't have any hydroelectricity at all if you didn't have dams, and they are megaprojects. You've got to have a mixture. The CPR was a megaproject. So you've got to have a mixture of megaprojects and microprojects. There's no question about that. The question is, though: should you concentrate all your eggs in the megabasket? That is the question. Because whether you're talking about a nuke plant, a tar sands plant, a large dam or whatever, you're talking about $1 million per job. That's what you're talking about in cases of investment — roughly $1 million per job. Our criticism is the fact that the total reliance has been on the megaprojects, and that you're not getting enough employment bang for a buck out of those jobs. That is a fact.

Sometimes there are real spinoffs from those jobs. Nobody questions that. The Roberts Bank and the coal stuff — there were a great number of spinoffs from that kind of development. Nobody questions that. But for other jobs there are no permanent jobs, or very few, as a result. And to constantly increase your capacity for producing hydroelectricity, as they're doing in Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario, when the demand is declining, is not always the wise thing to do at the moment either.

That really doesn't deal with what the subject is for today. The subject is the minister's estimates. The minister's estimates deal with poverty and the alleviation of poverty, or, if you like, employment, which is one of the best ways to alleviate poverty. I think most people would prefer meaningful jobs to handouts.

When we talk about whether you concentrate almost solely on megaprojects or whether you have a mixture of mega and minor projects, it has a great deal to do with employment and a great deal to do with the redistribution of income and a great deal to do with poverty. That is the link-up that I'm attempting to establish: if you starve education and you starve welfare, you have developed a permanent underclass. There are people who are condemned to spend their whole lives in that position. That is happening all over North America. We are developing this vast gulf of the haves and the have-nots, and it has implications and spillovers for many things, including social welfare.

[ Page 7648 ]

Mr. Chairman, I've got some notes here for the riding that I represent, plus the riding of Maple Ridge-Dewdney, plus the riding of Maillardville-Coquitlam. Mr. Chairman, I know that the member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) is interrupting the member for Dewdney (Hon. Mr. Pelton), and he can't hear what I'm saying. I would suggest that she stop doing that so I can get through to the member for Dewdney, the Teflon man of the environment. Here are some really disturbing figures in terms of social welfare. I'm giving them, so I'd like the member for Dewdney to hear them.

Here we have GAIN caseloads by category for the various months of March '84 and '85, and the percent change from '83 to '85; they really are bad. Single men, the caseload, 2,263; March '84, 2,003. That's an increase of 12.98 percent. We could go right through the single women, one-parent families, two-parent families, couples, children with relatives. The total cases amount to an increase of about 500 total cases, '85 over '84. But if you look at the total cases '85 over '83, it amounts to an increase of some — and I can give you the hard numbers; and I want to be correct about this — 32.5 percent. I thought that the restraint was over and recovery was just around the corner.

If you look at the statistics related to employment, they look to be improving in the lower mainland; certainly in the Vancouver area they have been. I think if you're going to give the bad news, you should give the good news too. Here are some February '86 unemployment figures for the lower mainland: 11.7 percent; in March, 11.4 percent; in the year before, March '85, 14.4 percent. So that looks like a modest improvement. If there is a modest improvement in employment, then why isn't there an equivalent reduction in the social welfare cases? I think we need an explanation of that. As a matter of fact, the total dependent cases of total recipients is about 25 percent higher in '85 than it was in '83, which is just about the number of people put out of work by the restraint program. But now we have recovery, so why aren't these people all back working? Where are they? Why is there an increase in our areas of people who are dependent for their livelihood on social welfare? Why is there a food bank running in Haney? Why is there one running in Port Moody, constantly, if things are so rosy? The happiness boys are all over there, and the gloom-and-doom guys are all over here; that's what we're told forever. So if things are so great, why is that increase so blatant? I don't know.

We've got one of the worst records in Canada, in terms of unemployment; almost as bad as Newfoundland and P.E.I. We've got very little to brag about, and yet we're going on with these flashy projects. It's very difficult to have your picture on television, with your hard hat and a bulldozer, if you're sitting beside a municipal sewer. But you can sure do it if you're building a dam or some other thing that is good photo ops. It's a serious problem in the three ridings that we represent. I'm sorry that the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) has gone, because I think he would have been pleased to hear these statistics too.

It's not just an attack on an individual — in this case, the Minister of Human Resources — it's an attack on the priorities of the government whose deliberate policies freeze social welfare at the time of an increasing caseload. And they haven't been changed, while inflation has gone up roughly 15 to 18 percent in the years cited, '82 to '85. How does one explain that to people? I don't know, but I hope that somebody tries.

Mr. Chairman, I may try your patience a little bit in terms of order here. I want to alert you about this, in case you'd gone to sleep and might not catch me, you see. Red alert. Be alert. Wake up.

[4:45]

I want to talk about the policies of Human Resources as it regards the support for people who are going to school. I'm not certain that I know what they are. I did hear the minister say that he didn't like inflexibility, either statutory or bureaucratic. I think he said that yesterday. That was one of the things I caught during his fulminations. It was good stuff. It said: "Argument weak here. Shout louder." He had that in his notes. In any event, I want to talk a little bit about a brief that we received up in Cranbrook from a very interesting person who is not a New Democrat; nevertheless that person is interesting. This has to do with the need for learning assessment.

What has that got to do with social welfare? Well, I want to tell you what this has to do with social welfare, and I hope to be able to get some answers from the minister, or at least the deputy minister, on this policy. Eighty-eight percent of juvenile delinquents are learning disabled. Eighty percent of teenage suicides are learning disabled. If identification and remediation are in place by grades K to three, there is a success rate of 86 percent; if no identification or remediation until grades four to seven, the success rate is 45 percent; if no identification or remediation until grades eight to 12, it's only a 10 percent success rate.

What's that got to do with Human Resources? It's got to do not just with Education, but it has implications.... The lack of identification, the lack of remediation in the schools and elsewhere has a great deal to do with the Ministry of Health because learning difficulties result in the increase in the use of alcohol, drugs, mental and emotional breakdowns, family breakdowns, suicides and attempted suicides. For Human Resources the learning disabled teenager can't get a job; therefore he is a permanent guest of Human Resources.

The learning disabled adults who can't fill out application forms or don't know their problems don't even know they are learning disabled. The adult illiterate, the person who can't keep a job, the learning disabled adult who can't keep a job during the recession because he can't even cope with retraining, the families which are split because of it, all have implications for the Attorney-General — those are obvious: people in trouble with the law — and the Ministry of Labour in terms of retraining.

So it has implications for all of these people, and so that's why I am interested to know what the policy of Human Resources is as it deals with, say, the learning disabled adult. I had lunch today with a very earnest young man who has a learning disability and has done a great deal to overcome that. Because he was never even identified until he was an adult, he wasted a lot of years. That's, I suppose, the kindest thing I can say about it.

People who are on welfare are discouraged from going to school. Now those very people who are on welfare should be encouraged to go to school for two or three reasons. Those people with less education are the first out of work — the people who can't read, can't fill out a form and can't cope with a job. I would like to know what ideas the minister and his deputy might have to be able to encourage people who are on Human Resources to attend school, especially the local colleges, so they can either get academic or vocational training.

[ Page 7649 ]

It's a little easier to get MHR support if you're going into something vocational, although there were a number of courses cut out — such as business and hairdressing — from the colleges and many of those people who took those courses were learning disabled and were on welfare and were single parents. How can a person do it if they want to upgrade themselves now? They have to go on a student loan, and you know what that can mean. You know, in four years you can put yourself something like $20,000 in hock on student loans.

Wouldn't it be far simpler for those people wanting to further their education, whether they are on UIC or on welfare, to be able to use that money to be productive rather than sitting at home doing nothing? The moment you register for a course in most cases — not in all cases — you're cut off. Not in all cases — again, it depends on the flexibility.

If you reach a worker who is interested in encouraging you to go on, counselling you to do that.... That isn't what we do in Human Resources. Those workers are so dammed busy, all they have time to do is hand the guy the cheque and tell him to go home. There's no time to counsel the person. I would be interested in the minister's response to that.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member would be pleased to know that there is a full-time staff of rehabilitation officers whose duty it is to assist recipients to improve themselves through various programs. There is incentive allowance for employment; there is vocational and rehabilitative services and the job action program. There is a joint program through the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Human Resources, the Training Access program, with work activity projects, work clothing, transportation employment initiatives for the handicapped and youth incentive.

Basically the policy is — and this is oversimplifying it — to assist for up to two years if it will lead to a job qualification.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, okay, but I mean that basically is what it is: if it will lead to a job qualification. There is in excess of $5 million allotted to these programs this year, and that does not include income assistance. That is additional to income assistance.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, the thrust has been to try to assist people to pull themselves out of income assistance dependency through retraining or training or education, and there is a staff whose only responsibility is that. There could be assistance from a social worker, of course, if they're dealing with a client, to encourage them to do that, but it's difficult to cause that to happen because they are dealing with individual cases.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The caseload for GAIN — numbers the member was mentioning. In December 1984 the number was 125,407 — that's basic income assistance. In December 1985, a year later, there was a very minor improvement: 123,856. That's basic income assistance — not speaking of the handicapped or others.

MR. ROSE: Just a couple of things in response, Mr. Chairman, dealing first with the most recent one we were discussing. Most of that is really oriented to job assistance. Yet people on social assistance who are able to, say, get up to their grade 12 basic upgrading skills, or even beyond, have, I think, a better chance of obtaining a job because they have a better education — they learned to read. But they may not be directly associated with them — the basic training for upgrading skills, that sort of thing. If you want to get your high school equivalency, that isn't really vocational; it's academic. If you want to prepare yourself for university, it isn't either. So the whole preoccupation is with the strictly vocational, if you like — limited-skill labour in many cases.

The second point is on the business of learning disability. Has the minister considered, since the implications for his ministry are so profound, as I have outlined, talking over with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) this business about learning assessments? I think that in the brief time I had I made the case that many social problems and many costs incurred in Health, Human Resources, Attorney-General and Labour are associated with the fact that we don't have early identification of learning difficulties. We waste a lot of money in schools, too, because we don't have learning assessment teams, when up to 25 percent of students encounter some form of learning disability. So I would like to know if the minister intends to discuss this matter with his colleague, since he faces additional costs to his ministry because of this oversight. The minister doesn't like these supernumeraries running around schools very much — he told me that one other time. But at the same time counsellors, learning assessment people and learning assistants are very important people. If you don't have them, you don't pay for it there, you pay for it somewhere else. I will conclude with that.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to raise with the minister the issue of child sexual abuse. I know we've had a fair amount of discussion on this over the last couple of days. People within the Human Resources ministry are not able to undertake the job of treatment or counselling of children who have been sexually abused. It is my understanding that any treatment and counselling that is undertaken is done through the Ministry of Health — and the minister could put on his other cap for a moment and discuss that. I also understand, based on my inquiries within the constituency when dealing with some of these cases, that this treatment and counselling through the health units is not a priority with them. The social workers are too pressured to undertake any kind of counselling and treatment in following children who are victims of sexual abuse. And the other staff of the health units are just as pressured, and they really cannot make this a priority.

What we really need are the specialized sexual abuse teams that used to exist in this province, so that children who are victims can undergo treatment and counselling immediately. I know that I have had instances within my constituency that go back to October and the children have still had no counselling as a result of abuse. It is not just in one part of the constituency; it is in both parts of the constituency. I think that is an important issue, and it's one that I wanted to bring to the attention of the minister. I wonder if, under the Ministry of Health, the treatment and counselling program might not be given a bigger priority, or else specialty trained people could be brought into either the Ministry of Human Resources or the Ministry of Health in order to undertake that kind of

[ Page 7650 ]

treatment and counselling. When the delay occurs, the damage is very significant to these children — it is very significant anyway. The sooner the treatment and the counselling begins, the better. As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, there is a major problem there.

The other issue that I wanted to raise very briefly with the minister relates to the earnings program that he announced, where people now after three months can earn additional money without having it deducted from their Human Resources income. I've never understood why they had to wait eight months in the first place, because that doesn't make sense. I don't think that three months makes sense either, Mr. Chairman, and that's mostly because the income levels are so low for those people. My colleague the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) has indicated very clearly what it's like to try to live on the amount of money made available — that people simply cannot make ends meet, and that by putting in this three months' limitation on any additional earnings you are encouraging people to earn without reporting it to the Human Resources office. In other words, you're encouraging them to commit some kind of fraud in order to survive. And it's mere survival that drives people to that position. I think that the three months' exemption should not be there. People should be entitled to those kinds of earnings. What they need, Mr. Chairman — and it's been made very clear — is work, and they need additional income with which to survive, but that's obviously not forthcoming from this government, so the other alternative is to remove that three-month barrier.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, the three months — basically I suppose it depends on how you view it. If a person has been on income assistance for three months, he then becomes eligible for that additional exemption. I'm sorry, I couldn't tell you why it was eight months previously, but nonetheless it's now going to be three months.

On the abuse question, the ministries of Education Human Resources and Health have been involved in some specific cases working together to assist communities and the citizens of communities with some of these problems, most notably Ashcroft. The social workers are not trained to counsel in these areas, so it is the mental health division of the Ministry of Health which actually offers treatment and counselling to the children. The Ministry of Human Resources has a different role to play. When the Ministry of Health's estimates are up I'll be pleased to talk about the programs that are available and some of the initiatives that have been developed for this specific area of concern.

MS. SANFORD: It's not happening.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, it is happening, but I can't talk about it now because the estimates aren't before the House.

[5:00]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a couple of suggestions to the minister and get his response. These are some recommendations, but first of all I wanted to ask him a question about the ministry's policy as it applies to native children.

One of the things that the native community have been asking for is to have complete control of the whole child welfare system as it applies to their own children. I'm wondering whether the ministry has been in consultation with the native communities and whether there is any plan to introduce enabling legislation and the provision necessary in terms of support and resources to permit the native community to assume full responsibility for their children. In addition to that.... I don't know whether this can be dealt with now or whether it comes under the minister's other responsibility of Health. I want to know whether any special efforts have been made to ensure that native children have available to them appropriate health services.

Those are the two major concerns which the native community have at this time. If you'll give me a quick response to that, I'll carry on.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, the deputy advises that last year an agreement was signed with the Nuuchah-nulth Tribal Council that would cover the areas of central and west Vancouver Island. The agreement would delegate to them the child welfare program. In effect I presume it would be not unlike a contract with an agency offering a service. It is now in progress, it is functioning, and it is subject to a review at the conclusion of one year, I believe. So it is somewhat experimental. The tribal council is also negotiating with the federal government, I understand, for the funds to run the program.

So we are entering into that type of bilateral agreement at the moment. That is not an overall provincial policy at this time, but I think if it works the attitude would be that we would enter into further agreements. It's in an experimental stage at the moment.

MS. BROWN: I was aware of the Nuu-chah-nulth tribal agreement, because I received that press release in November of last year, and I just wondered whether in fact, as a result of that, the ministry had made the decision to cover the entire province with this, or whether this was just a pilot project which would not be going any further.

Mr. Chairman, during the debate this morning, sitting in the gallery were one or two social workers, one of whom is no longer working — she has left the field — and another who was for some time involved in the whole area of child protection and apprehension. Both of them commented on the level of criticism directed at the worker in terms of statements made by members on both sides of the House, but specifically by the member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis), I think, who was making his presentation at the time. Also, she had access to the Blues from when members on this side of the House were being critical of the role which social workers play in the whole area of apprehension.

There was some concern that although the previous Minister of Human Resources and you yourself, Mr. Minister, have verbalized support for the workers in the field, the true story about the kind of stress that these workers operate under has never really been clearly stated and explained to members on both sides of the House so that there's a better understanding about why some of the workers make the decisions that they do. I identify with that, because as you yourself said yesterday, my problem is, of course, that because I used to be and still do consider myself a social worker, I have some experience with some of the stress that these workers are discussing.

What we have had over the last three years in this province is an increase in the number of people needing the

[ Page 7651 ]

services of social workers at the same time that we've been having a decrease in the number of workers providing that service. That's the story that has to get out there, Mr. Chairman: that in 1983, when we had a caseload of somewhere in the neighbourhood of 230,910, we had close to 6,000 social workers in this province. The figure was 5,990. Today, when that caseload has been increased by something like 30,000 additional cases, we've had a reduction of something in the neighbourhood of 1,527 full-time-equivalents — not just social workers, but full-time-equivalents. So what we have is an escalation in the caseload at the same time as the government is cutting back on social workers. Every program that disappears, workers disappear with it. But the service which that program used to deliver is being shifted onto the workload of the social workers who are left in the system.

In addition to that, what the social workers are finding is that because so many of the programs eliminated were red alert programs — programs that identified at early stages what the problems were — in fact the problems which now show up on their desks and in their offices are more severe than the problems that they used to come into contact with earlier. When there were counsellors in the school system, family support workers, the problems were spotted early and social workers could intervene early. Crises could be prevented, and they could be dealt with quickly. Once those workers who did that early identification were removed and those programs were terminated, the crisis occurred. Sometimes it became more than a crisis; it was entrenched and became pathology before it actually ended up in the office of the social worker. So we have fewer social workers dealing with more problems and more serious problems. That is the situation that we have to deal with.

In addition, as a direct result of other changes happening in our society, we find the nature of problems showing up in social workers' offices being different too. Many of them are problems that social workers were not originally trained to deal with. As a direct result of the women's liberation movement, for example, we find that problems which previously were swept under the rug and not dealt with, such as violence in the family and incest, were brought into the public purview, opened for public debate, and now these are problems that social workers are dealing with that previously were not part of their training. The whole area of sexual abuse and child abuse and family violence — those were not problems that I had to deal with when I was a practising social worker. They were not problems that we were trained to deal with, because for the most part they were very rare and were discussed in hushed voices, and we all pretended that these things didn't happen anyway. When children would report that they were being sexually abused by their fathers or uncles or grandfathers or whatever, we would say that the children were imagining these things or that they were not telling the truth.

This government has done an excellent job, I think, of educating the community into identifying quickly this particular area and encouraging children of all ages to speak up and to talk about when they are being touched and abused and used in ways which are inappropriate, and of course there is an increase in the reporting and in the number of people seeking help with this particular problem — with violence in the family as well as sexual and other kinds of abuse. But what we do not have, and what the social workers tell us we do not have, is the kind of support they need if they are to carry on their job safely and without the maximum of stress that they are presently experiencing.

Apprehension is one of the most unpleasant, difficult and painful tasks that a social worker has to perform. Believe me, because I used to have to do it. You agonize, Mr. Chairman, before you intervene in a family and remove a child — and you agonize when you decide not to do it. There is one thing that social workers all over this province hate, and maybe in other parts of the world too, and that's Friday afternoon, because on Friday afternoon, when you make a decision not to apprehend the child, you spend the entire weekend wondering whether you've made the right decision or not. You don't sleep, you don't stop worrying. Every time the phone rings, every time there's a broadcast on the radio or in the newspaper, you wonder whether you made the wrong decision and the child has been murdered as a direct result of your failure to remove that child from the family by Friday afternoon.

What happens, as we have fewer social workers and fewer supports and fewer resources to deal with, is that the decision is made that it is better to be safe than to be sorry. That's something that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) and a number of other people don't seem to understand — that a number of times these decisions are made as a precautionary method, not because social workers like to rush into families and snatch their children away from them. That is not the case at all. As a matter of fact, social workers understand that this is a no-win situation — that if the child is left with the family, even if you put a family support worker in there to monitor what goes on in that family, the pressure on that child from the other members of the family, because of this intrusion, damages that child. If the child is removed from the family, that damages the child. The father is damaged if he is the guilty party — or the grandfather or whatever. That family is damaged. What we find happening is that the social worker then becomes the scapegoat. Rather than saying that incest is what fractured that family, and sexual abuse is what destroyed that family, we are told that the social worker's intervention or failure to intervene was the cause of the damage in that family.

You can't win, Mr. Chairman, as a very poignant article in the Province of Friday, May 10, 1985, pointed out. The title of the article is "Damned if We Do and Damned if We Don't." How many of us can forget the coroners of this province, the provincial judges, last year castigating the Ministry of Human Resources and the social workers for the decisions that they made?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: One judge you heard about, because that was made public. But there are other reports, Mr. Chairman, where the coroner said the social worker did not make a correct decision, either because the social worker left the child in the home, or else because the social worker took the child away. All of us have people coming into our constituency offices and complaining about decisions made by the Ministry of Human Resources either to remove the child or not to remove the child.

[5:15]

I want to ask the Minister of Human Resources what kinds of resources are planned by the ministry in terms of supporting his workers. I have workers saying to me that they are afraid of actually being sued as a result of their decisions

[ Page 7652 ]

and having to hire lawyers to protect themselves. I have social workers telling me about the intimidation they have to suffer when the person who is guilty of sexual abuse is a person with high office and respect in our community, such as a school principal, a school counsellor or someone of that nature. What kind of plan, program or resource does the minister have to do something tangible in supporting the workers, rather than just saying, "I support my workers," or "We fired some who were imperfect and put others on probation"?

The elimination of the specialized child abuse team was a mistake. There is absolutely no way around that. The workers felt comfortable knowing that team was there, which they could refer to, could refer cases to, could discuss. The elimination of that specialized team took out from under them the last resource that they had.

So if there is a plan, I think the minister should tell us what it is, in terms of really supporting his workers in a tangible way.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, tangible could mean almost anything. Just for the member's interest, between 1982 and 1986 there has been an increase in the number of social workers employed by the ministry, and the number of children in care has declined steadily — not in huge numbers, but it has declined somewhat each year for the last ten years; a difference of 3,000 children in care over that period of time. But there has been a slight increase in the actual number of social workers.

The social workers working for the ministry have every right to expect to be backed completely by the ministry, by the government, in carrying out their duties. Legislation in place now provides them with protection with respect to incidents which could occur in carrying out their duties. That does not protect them from negligence or gross negligence — whatever the legal terms are — but in carrying out their duties they are now protected by legislation. They have every right, while carrying out their duties properly, to expect to be supported by their supervisors, by their regional managers and by whatever staff may appear beyond that at the head office or wherever else. It is fine for some people in positions of authority to decide, in their great and almost limitless wisdom, that it was the fault of the social worker or the fault of the ministry, and that's the end of it.

As you pointed out in your closing comments, frequently that isn't even the correct conclusion as to how the problem began — social worker investigated or attempted to intervene or carried out their duties. The incident, particularly in the child abuse cases, probably resulted from actions taken long before the social workers were involved in the case, and it is convenient for some of these people of great wisdom to simply say: "Blame it on the social worker." Either the social worker didn't move quickly enough or they moved too quickly or were excessive, or whatever other adjectives come along. You are quite right. I'm not sure what article you're referring to, but yes, we get that frequently. "Where were you? Why didn't you move in quickly?" And then: "Why did you move in so quickly?" I don't know whether it is an equal number of complaints, but we do have criticism when a situation is reported and the ministry did not apprehend the children. We have complaints when a situation is reported and the ministry does apprehend the children. Certain parts of the media continue the stereotyping of social workers as frequently being very bureaucratic, seemingly impersonal, and if they make an unpopular decision, they blame it on the supervisor. That seems to be the stereotype that we see very often.

As I said yesterday, social workers are like everyone else. They are subject to making errors, subject to being in a position of poor judgment at times, just like everyone else.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Less often, but yes.

The statute does require that the child's safety is paramount, and that is not for the critics to come down hard on the social workers for following the law.

So in summary, Mr. Chairman, the members of the Human Resources team — those who are social workers — have every right to expect complete support from the Ministry of Human Resources in carrying out their legitimate duties. You're going to see more of it in the media. You're going to see more criticism. We may be able to modify that somewhat if we can react somewhat differently to the stories. You're going to see more, because I've been advised we're going to see more. In fact I've been advised we're going to see more criticism although the cases which will be the subject of the criticism are not yet known, but the criticism will be there. I've talked to many social workers. I had an excellent meeting with the executive of the B.C. Association of Social Workers. I've met many of the workers in the field — supervisory and other levels. I've had dealings with social workers over the past 20 years. On the other end I've met with social workers under extreme circumstances, usually in emergency situations involving children on the weekends, as the member said. Sometimes they were contacted at strange hours, so I recognize the pressures they're under. They're not unlike other people who have responsibility for the wellbeing of children or others, whether they're hospital workers or policemen or others who have to make decisions armed with whatever authority they have.

Madam Member, I just might mention as an analogy that recently in Vancouver we've had a couple of highly publicized cases associated with the Vancouver city police force. Every policeman is smeared, even though an incident may be a very specific incident not yet proven, but allegations made. If you witness the headlines, it would indicate that policemen are not to be trusted, or they're not carrying out their job. They're also under a tremendous amount of pressure — as are social workers. Obviously the vast majority conduct themselves quite properly, efficiently and effectively or we would see a great deal more complaining.

A concluding comment on the subject: I think some parts of the media have been grossly unfair and have offered criticism of social workers based on lack of information or lack of facts. In one instance I think there's a very small but significant vendetta going on in the province of British Columbia.

MS. BROWN: Just on those figures: the estimates tell me that in 1982-83 there were 5,990 full-time-equivalents in the ministry, and today, in 1986, that figure is down by something like 1,500.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Oh, okay, fine.

In his opening comments the minister — I'm sorry I forgot to mention this — indicated that he would be exploring

[ Page 7653 ]

ways of permitting either individual social workers or the ministry to make statements explaining....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Oh, just the superintendent of child welfare will be making that statement, not individual directors or....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Oh, okay.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The suggestion I offered the other day was that we may be looking at amendments which would permit the superintendent of family and child service to release certain information if it is in the interest of the child. At present we are prohibited from making that information public. In the interests, I think, of all the citizens of the province — because it's important that citizens feel confident in the services offered — in the interests of those who are offering the services and of the principals in the case themselves.... Sometimes I believe it would be in all of those interests to have certain information released, rather than simply listen to the one side, where all these evil things have occurred, according to one source, and be unable to respond, except in a court of law. I think it would be useful, but it would be the superintendent of family and child service, at least initially.

MS. BROWN: I have some positive recommendations to make to the minister, and wonder if he would respond in terms of how he feels about them. As far as the income assistance program goes, would the minister be able to give us some idea, even the slightest bit of a hint, as to when we could anticipate some increase in income assistance payments? As he has himself accepted, the rates have not been increased since 1982. And the program unveiled yesterday, which will help those people who are able to work, will have absolutely no impact whatsoever on the nearly 30 percent of people in receipt of income assistance who are designated unemployable — that's adults as well as their dependents. When can we anticipate something for that group?

Secondly, these categories based on age and sex and marital status do not conform to the Charter of Rights. When are we going to see some kind of changes in the GAIN regulations to bring them in line with the Charter? Because the categories really don't conform to that.

My third positive suggestion is that the CIP program should be restored fully to include recipients who are presently excluded, such as single parents. CIP is not simply a matter of making money, but it's gaining experience and continuing to have some sense of yourself as being able to operate in the labour market and in the employment sector.

What about a return of the cost-of-living increases to recipients of GAIN for the handicapped? Will the minister consider reintroduction of tax credits for low-income people and also an increase in special overages such as school startup, Christmas allowances, special dietary and pre- and post-natal allowances?

Those are my recommendations as far as the income assistance part of the ministry is concerned, and I wonder if the minister would respond to that.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, I've heard what the member has suggested. I'll be very straightforward with you: I simply can't say. I could make recommendations, offer opinions and so on, but I could not necessarily deliver, as it is a matter of budgets and finance. I could say a number of answers, I suppose. I simply cannot give you a time or date. I don't know. Sorry.

[5:30]

MS. BROWN: In the section of his ministry that deals with children, I would like to recommend that the ministry introduce a new comprehensive family and children's legislation to replace the present Family and Child Service Act. I think that we need this now to go along with the appointment of the superintendent of child welfare. The old Family and Child Service Act is not good enough. I would like to suggest that the ministry should consider drafting truly comprehensive family and child legislation to replace that old act.

Also children's rights legislation. I know that this is controversial, and that other ministers of Human Resources have had problems with that, but I want to suggest it to this new minister.

I'd also like to suggest that the ministry develop programs for children's health, which would include nutritional requirements of pregnant women, and develop mental health programs to meet the needs of children and adolescents. We have no resources at this time, particularly for adolescents who are having problems with mental health. The Maples is the only such resource, and it's totally inadequate.

How about a review of programs in general that affect children: a review of practices and staffing levels respecting the whole business of the apprehension of children by the ministry.

Child welfare services, Mr. Chairman, should be comprehensive in scope, and should encompass developmental programs for all children, and preventive and remedial programs for children and young people at risk. In addition, programs should be developed to enhance the family, to support the family, rather than to stand idly by until the family is tearing itself apart and then involve itself in crisis intervention. Crisis intervention, where the family is concerned, is too late; by that time, the damage has been done, and it's not possible to undo it. Emphasis should be given to restore some vital preventive services, such as the family support workers. If the minister wants some good recommendations for the family support workers, I would be happy to supply him with some press releases, back to when they were introduced. The program was introduced by the Minister of Human Resources of the day, Mr. Vander Zalm, and some other press releases in support of it were under the past Minister of Human Resources, the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy).

In addition, the provincial day-care program needs to be reviewed. Again, taking into account a number of the briefs.... They were excellent briefs which were presented, both to the federal task force here in Victoria and to the federal task force in Vancouver. Basically the recommendations are pretty simple and pretty much the same, but I think that the minister should read them and should take some of the recommendations seriously.

[ Page 7654 ]

To the part of the ministry that deals with disabled people, access to vocational rehabilitation and employment needs to be expanded so that every person in the province who has a handicap or who is disabled will have access to that resource. Would the minister consider that and make some comment as to whether it's possible to phase in a totally comprehensive program like that?

I would also like to support very strongly the recommendations of my colleagues as to subsidized programs for the adoption of handicapped children, and for those children who need assistance in extraordinary medical costs and equipment costs. I know the minister says that he's going to look into that, and I hope that his research will have a positive conclusion.

Also, to explore the need for financial assistance to help parents with disabled children, very often the cost of keeping a handicapped. child at home is not just the cost that accrues to meeting the needs of the child but also the cost involved so that the family can have some respite. That is one of the costs that should be taken into account for the parents, if they are natural parents, or for foster parents, as the case may be. But that's very important. In many instances decisions are made by a family to place a handicapped child in a resource rather than keep that child at home simply because they have no access to respite.

Finally, I would like to suggest that in terms of dealing with handicapped children and adults the ministry restore the special PIRT team and the coordinators for programs for children with a handicap.

To the part of the ministry that deals with seniors, some recommendations: a restoration of funding to seniors' day-care centres. Again, if the minister wants some words in support of that I can supply him with some statements from the past Minister of Human Resources, who spoke very highly of those seniors' day-care centres prior to terminating their funding.

Also I would like to recommend a review of the adequacy of the provincial supplement for seniors. British Columbia now ranks fourth and is slipping in payments to seniors. That's a review of the widening gap between the 60- and 64-year-olds, as was outlined by my colleague the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), in terms of income assistance and the 65-year-old eligibility for federal pensions.

Again, my colleague for Burnaby North asked for a review of the SAFER program, and I'm asking that the ministry add to regulations an annual review of rent levels, participation levels and household coverage rates; more closely coordinated adjustment in payments to changes in income. Finally, as far as seniors are concerned, I'm recommending to the minister an extension of benefits to a wider range of older persons and to households headed by persons 60 years of age and older. I would appreciate a response before the minister shuts us down for the day. It's in his own best interests.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I'm not threatening him; I'm offering him a deal.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member has offered quite a catalogue of....

MR. MITCHELL: Just say yes.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, sure. I wasn't able to write it all down. I can't recall every category described. I would be pleased to look at the Blues and respond to you with respect to some of those programs. You covered the major areas in the ministry category by category, and I'd be more than pleased to respond to you on that and offer some information as we know it to be right now.

The member earlier mentioned assisting. It may be of interest, Mr. Chairman, that about half of the children in care are in care by agreement between the ministry and the parents.

MR. WILLIAMS: I wonder if the minister could advise us if at this stage he has any overview of the game in terms of the problems of young people — not the kinds of cases we've been talking about, but more the unemployed young who have slipped onto the welfare rolls. This is clearly the dominant group of those who are unemployed. It seems to me that it needs some sophisticated targeting region by region, town by town, to determine what might really be done to improve the lot of these people. From the ways you collect data in your department, at least the data that's available to the general public, there's no way, from the kinds of regions you have — they're not logical — that you can really come to grips with it. If you start looking at the numbers specifically — say the female participation rate in the labour force — there's a tremendous amount of both measured unemployment, people on welfare, and huge lots that are simply not involved. Look at the female participation rate in the workforce in some of the regions in this province; half of them don't participate, so the others are the ones that are measured in terms of unemployment.

It seems to me there are chronic problems in some regions that require focusing and targeting in this particular age group provincewide. And what kind of capacity do you have for dealing with that? Or what do you see down the road in terms of dealing with that?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I agree that in certain identifiable areas of the province there could be a very different approach taken to the chronic difficulties of young people unemployed, whereas a provincewide or national program may not really have that effect. So I think there is plenty of room for tailoring a program specifically with the statistics of one community. The Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Human Resources and the federal government are involved in the overall programs. But I think there is plenty of room for reviewing the needs of a community to determine if a program could be modified to suit that specific need. I think it is a very reasonable form of research to undertake, rather than presuming everyone is the same height, weight and the same requirements.

MR. MITCHELL: I am going to have to agree right off with the minister when he said if social workers do something wrong and make a mistake, they make headlines. Or if a policeman does something that other people do in the community, he makes headlines. I should also say if certain cabinet ministers do things, they make headlines too.

One thing really bothered me in our whole discussion today and yesterday on welfare. We really are not looking at the major problem out there. The major problem is lack of employment. I remember before the last 1983 election we had a program that came under the MHR in conjunction with

[ Page 7655 ]

the government that was commonly called EBAP. It got young people to work and built up an employment base in the forest industry. We can't continue to allow people who should be working, should be getting some work skills, to continue to live at this poverty level that welfare is providing.

I was hoping that the minister — though I see he has left the chamber — would get together with the Forests ministry, with Labour and with Parks to create something positive towards some type of employment training not only for the benefit of the people who are going to be involved but, as many people have said, the taxpayers who are indirectly subsidizing this and who are going to get some return for their investment.

I often think that when you look at our whole problem of unemployment, we have two groups. We have a vested group and we have a bigoted group who want to make politics out of welfare or unemployment. This is what's wrong with our approach to it: we should be looking at it from a positive point of view and not go into some of the small details that we as MLAs are always faced with.

After saying that, I'm going to go into some of the small details. I know the minister is aware of what I'm going to bring up. I'm not going to belabour the point of what happens when the ministry does take action to apprehend a child without the evidence that the child should be apprehended.

I'm supporting my colleague, for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), who said that if there had been a team onstream that could have done a proper investigation, in my particular case this child would never have been apprehended.

[5:45]

I'm really pleading to the minister that when they set up and restructure the ministry in the area of apprehension of children, some basic investigation be done before you destroy a family. In the particular case that has been before the ministry, the letter from the family involved has been before the ministry since November 1985. Where a child was apprehended, we've gone through three layers of court action: the family court, the appeal court and then another appeal. What bothers me is that at the first level the child who started it said the accusation was untrue. But still there was no way in the system whereby they could back off.

I'm asking the ministry to build in some kind of protection for families who.... I don't know the whims of children who make accusations and then back off from them when they can't prove them. But do a basic investigation. In both cases, when the RCMP did an investigation, as I believe the minister is aware, they didn't support it. But it still cost that family $8,000 in legal fees, and to this day they haven't received an adequate answer to the problem and for the hell they went through.

I find it very ironic that last year or the year before, when I brought up the case of a person who had had four convictions for sexual abuse of children.... He had received a nine-month sentence, and was out of jail on a work permit in three days. In three months he was free. That was after four convictions for sexual abuse. Where there was no evidence of sexual abuse, a family has gone through two years of hell. It has ruined the family It has ruined the young lady who, I guess, was the cause of it from the beginning.

Somewhere in that end of the government, in the cabinet, there is no coordination of action; there is no coordination of feedback down the line. I can't hold the minister responsible, but I'm going to hold the whole ministry responsible, the whole cabinet — because of their cutbacks this was allowed to happen. I say that, with the new superintendent, they build in some type of procedure whereby they can back off and some type of procedure whereby it can be reviewed — the cases put by the parents where there has been a mistake.

I also ask the minister — the reason I'm dealing with it: is there any chance that a family which has been put through these two years of hell, this legal expense of $8,000, can have some assistance from the ministry or from some level of government? There has been an abuse. An apology would be fine, but we also need some legal assistance or some financial assistance. Is there any possibility, without legal action before the courts to drag it on and on and sue individuals, that it can be settled with some assistance?

Vote 42 approved.

On vote 43: ministry programs, $1,486,348,994.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, this is the final vote, and I wouldn't want it to go through without paying tribute to the deputy minister, who has outlasted three Ministers of Human Resources and will no doubt outlast the fourth,

Vote 43 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.