[ Page 353 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

The Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Conflict of Interest Act (Bill M201).

Mr. Sihota

Introduction and first reading –– 353

Oral Questions

Layoffs in B.C. steel industry, Mr. Harcourt –– 354

Mr. Rose

Ministerial travel expenses. Mr. Williams –– 355

Provincial Museum whaling sculpture. Mr. Huberts –– 355

Ministerial travel expenses. Mr. Williams –– 356

Regulations at uranium mine site. Hon. Mr. Davis replies to question –– 356

Tabling Documents –– 356

Interim funding for social services contract consultants. Hon. Mr. Richmond replies to question –– 356

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Social Services and Housing estimates. (Hon. Mr.

Richmond)

On vote 56: minister's office –– 356

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Mr. Cashore

Ms. Marzari

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Loenen

Mr. Rabbitt

Mr. Blencoe

Mrs. Boone

Appendix –– 377

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. PARKER: I'd like to introduce to you today, sir, and through you to the House, my constituency secretary, Mrs. Chris Shaffer, from Terrace; friends from Stewart, Bonnie Kennedy and Jack Elsworth; and a friend of ours from Cranbrook, Mrs. Sandra Hodgson. Would the House make them welcome, please.

MR. JONES: Seated in the House today are some 45 grade 11 students from Burnaby North Senior Secondary School and their teacher, Mr. L. Cooper. They've traveled all this way today to learn more about government procedure. Would members please join me in making these young people feel very welcome.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Would you please welcome my wife Beverley, who is visiting with us today in the precincts and maybe even the House, although I don't see her. I'd also like to ask the House to welcome Evelyne Fahselt, a guide outfitter and president of the Guide-Outfitters Association of British Columbia; Midge and Barry Brandow, who are guide outfitters from Grand Forks; Keith Connors, a guide outfitter and past president of the association from Victoria; and Don Caldwell, who is executive director of the Guide Outfitters' Association of British Columbia.

MS. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, every year your office and this House sponsor the program for legislative interns. Today a number of young people are visiting Victoria in order to be interviewed to become legislative interns in 1988; a number of them are in the gallery. But more particularly, I'd like to remark that this is a very successful program in which young university graduates become familiar with the caucuses and with the bureaucracy, and some of us are very fortunate to have graduates of that program working for us. So I'd like to ask the House to welcome those who are here to be interviewed today, and more particularly my constituency assistant and former legislative intern, Nancy Peck.

HON. L. HANSON: In the gallery today we have several mayors. From the riding of Okanagan North: Her Worship Anne Clarke, mayor of Vernon; His Worship Dave Simpson, mayor of Lumby; His Worship Ernie Palfrey, mayor of Coldstream; and from Shuswap, His Worship Terry Fergus, mayor of Enderby. We also have in the gallery Mr. Greg Schroeder, president of the Vernon and District Chamber of Commerce. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. CHALMERS: It's my pleasure to introduce two very special people: my mother, Jean Chalmers, from Enderby, and her dear friend Edna Cope from Vancouver. Would you please make them welcome.

Also in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, we have two members of the delegation down to talk about the importance of the early completion of the Coquihalla Highway. I'd like you to welcome Chief Robert Louie of the Westbank Indian band, accompanied by Bruce Hollett, who is the Westbank Chamber of Commerce president.

MR. SERWA: I would like two special people in the gallery to stand up: Norm Stevenson, president of the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce, and William Dobbin, rookie alderman from the municipality of Peachland. Would the House please make them welcome,

MR. DE JONG: It gives me great pleasure, as a result of the visit of our Premier to California and the efforts on behalf of the Minister of Tourism, to have in the House today Gwen and Bill Chavarria from Visalia, California.

MR. RABBITT: I have with us today two members from the great riding of Yale-Lillooet: from Princeton, the southeast corner, Mayor Gloria Stout; and from the centre of my riding, Mayor Harry Kroeker. I ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. REID: We have in the precincts today, from the dynamic Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale constituency, Mr. Ike Unger, who is here to witness the estimates of the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond). Would the House make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
AND EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT

Mr. Sihota presented a bill intituled The Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Conflict of Interest Act.

MR. SIHOTA: The purpose of this legislation is to provide some leadership in trying to resolve the perplexing problem of conflict of interest and full disclosure. The bill that we're introducing today recognizes that people with business interests should be allowed to participate in politics, but sets out some very clear rules for that participation. It takes into account the comments made by the comptroller general in his report yesterday with respect to full disclosure; it takes away the ability of the Premier to be judge, jury and executioner on conflict of interest and places that matter squarely before the courts; it establishes a clear set of penalties for violation of the conflict-of-interest legislation; it places strict limits on lobbying after leaving office; and it states clearly that one cannot serve on municipal bodies while being a member of this chamber.

[2:15]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that the events not just of the last few days but of the last few months demonstrate that the government has serious problems in dealing with matters of conflict of interest and full disclosure. It is clear to me that the Premier in particular does not understand the need to have clear disclosure and conflict-of-interest guidelines, and that clear guidelines are required that have the force of law.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, we are proud, as New Democrats, to introduce this bill and would hope that the government sees fit to embrace the legislation we're placing before the House today.

Bill M201 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 354 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just for the member's benefit and, I guess, for all our benefits, practice recommendation No. 5, which allows a statement accompanying a bill, says it should be for two minutes and simply to explain the purpose of the bill. I don't notice any comments here about entering into debate. That's something I would commend to all members.

Now I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I might have leave to make a further introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have another birthday. The horoscope says you are dynamic, independent, creative, sensitive, determined and stubborn. How appropriate. Would you please wish many happy returns of the day to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet).

Oral Questions

LAYOFFS IN B.C. STEEL INDUSTRY

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I understand that Western Canada Steel in Richmond is laying off 65 workers because of the dumping of Mexican steel. I'd like to ask the Premier if he has taken any steps to get the federal government to protect this very important local industry from Mexican steel — Mexican steel which is being dumped into British Columbia at $100 per tonne less than in Mexico.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the provincial government previously has assisted this particular industry, through the critical industries commissioner. We're very pleased that through that particular initiative we were able to keep people employed and to keep the plant in production. Unfortunately — and the member is correct — we've seen the dumping of steel from other areas, which certainly has affected the marketability of the product from this particular plant. Upon hearing that, perhaps a month ago now, I immediately made contact with the Hon. Pat Carney in Ottawa, and I've had further correspondence with her since the initial letter, and they appear to be addressing it, although I haven't had anything conclusive as yet. But we will certainly pursue it again.

MR. HARCOURT: A supplementary. Mr. Premier, I'm aware that you have had those contacts and that the hon. member from Little Mountain has sent a telegram about this particular matter. But Algoma Steel had to wait two years for a tribunal to deal with it. That's not going to help Western Canada Steel. I'm wondering if you have pressed for immediate action by the federal government to save those jobs of your constituents.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I've not only pressed for that, but I've also outlined to Ottawa that in fact normally the process takes 215 days from the time of a complaint being filed until it goes through the process and is acted upon by the federal authorities. Unfortunately, during that period the offender or the alleged offender can continue to ship, and there is no retroactive penalty should they be found to be in error or to in fact be dumping, as was suggested. This is being considered by the ministry in Ottawa; they've acknowledged this, and they are attempting to expedite. So really the information I'm waiting for now is how quickly they can act on this. Perhaps there's something in the office now; if not, there should be soon.

MR. HARCOURT: Specifically, Mr. Premier, are you pushing for a change to the process in Canada, where the delays are cut out — the method that's used in other countries where the dumping is stopped immediately? Have we moved to that kind of process to protect our industries? Are you pushing for those specific reforms for all industries that are threatened by dumping?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, we are, in that we're aware the federal process is definitely taking too long in addressing these, and it's one of these issues that will not only be taken up or has been taken up by me but will similarly be addressed by the council of federal and provincial ministers, which we expect will be meeting very soon.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the Premier is aware — because he has been promoting a buy–British Columbia, buy-Canathan policy — that a large number of the drilling rigs that are, operating in the interior of British Columbia are using vast amounts of Korean steel as opposed to Canadian steel in their operation.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, certainly I don't suppose we want to be parochial entirely, and I think perhaps we ought to take into consideration that many of these industries that are wanting to operate in British Columbia must be competitive in order to provide the jobs and keep the people employed. If in fact they are able to secure a better arrangement from Japan or Korea because of its closeness or because it's cheaper to ship the material.... I think we need to keep in mind as well that when we look at what we sell to the Pacific Rim countries and the number of jobs that are provided in various industries because we're able to sell to these Pacific Rim countries, we can't be cutting them off or shutting them out in favour of perhaps a central Canadian firm where in fact we don't have that big a market for some of the products. If, on the other hand, the product can be supplied by a B C. firm, then we would like, if at all possible, to provide the opportunity there. Again, that is something that will be actively pursued through the Ministry of Economic Development in a variety of ways.

MR. ROSE: I'd just like to ask one final question. I understand that we have to trade and we have to diversify — there's no argument there. But many countries — Mexico, Australia and a number of others — have arrangements in their manufacturing.... Certainly they buy from foreign countries; but they also have a policy called sourcing. We have it in our Auto Pact. An equivalent amount to the amount sold in a particular country — it could be Canada — is actually manufactured in Canada. Has the minister considered that as an industrial strategy?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The Auto Pact is covered by an agreement between Canada and the U. S. We don't have such an agreement ourselves with any country, on the Pacific Rim or otherwise, and couldn't have, unless we could have

[ Page 355 ]

this initiated federally. So no, there is nothing like this in place now, and we've not pursued it.

MINISTERIAL TRAVEL EXPENSES

MR. WILLIAMS: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. On page 4 of his report yesterday, the comptroller general indicated, regarding travel advances for the former Minister of Forests and Lands, that they "could find no record" of requests or recalls "by the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary which issued these advances, nor any record that they had been repaid." Can the Provincial Secretary advise the House why there was no monitoring of these substantial advances?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The comptroller in the Provincial Secretary ministry does the comptrolling, as you know, for the Legislative Assembly and the Speaker's office, and as such is comptroller for parliamentary secretaries' expenses — as was also the custom, I'm sure, back when you were a minister, hon. member. Some travel advances are given out in advance of a minister or parliamentary secretary travelling. In practically all cases the particular minister or parliamentary secretary has more outstanding debt owing to him at that time than the amount of the advance. In the case of the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), I asked a few weeks ago, just as a matter of routine, to have all of these advances brought before me so that I could examine them, and in fact two days ago I noticed that there was an amount outstanding; I believe it was some $5,600.

Every person that has an advance.... Sometimes a parliamentary secretary will transfer from one ministry to the other or a minister indeed will transfer from one ministry to the other. They normally just transfer that indebtedness and they sign that they owe that, the same as a promissory note.

As far as the member for Omineca goes, I have asked my staff to get back to me and to tell me whether or not that promissory note was indeed signed. I'll report back further as soon as I find that out.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I don't think I had an answer in terms of why there is not a monitoring of these advances. Can the minister advise us if he has monitored all advances now under his jurisdiction?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes, I am sorry. There is a monitoring of all advances. Each year the comptroller in my office, as far as those things that report to that comptrollership, sends out a request to confirm that the amount is outstanding. If you had any amount outstanding as a result of a trip or anything, we'd do the same confirmation for each member of the Legislative Assembly.

Additional letters are sent out asking if the confirmation isn't received in time, and that, I am assured, is done on a regular basis; but if it is not, I have also asked them to ensure that they look very closely on any of these things in the future. I have looked over all of these outstanding advances and I see nothing untoward. Every individual has signed for them. I am not completely sure on all of the ones for the member for Omineca, but I will advise the House very shortly on that one. They are completely monitored.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the comptroller-general says clearly, "We could find no record of them being recalled," which is the duty of your ministry.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member sometimes doesn't understand things too well. These are travel advances and the expenses continue to go on, so normally, let's say out of a $500 travel advance, sometimes you might have $500 or $600 that you've spent on a particular amount of travel. There would always be a cheque outstanding owing to a member or owing to a minister.

So these are simply travel advances and you transfer those things. All you do is certify that you indeed owe that amount of money to the Crown. It is no different than a promissory note or a travel advance that you would have when you were in office, hon. member. So you don’t recall them unless the member moves from that position, unless they are no longer in the position of parliamentary secretary, or unless they're no longer in a position of minister, or unless indeed they pay them back, or you think there is something untoward about them. They're not recalled; they're simple travel expenses the same as they are in any industry or any government anywhere. They are monitored, they are checked, and they're not recalled, because it's an ongoing amount of money that keeps rolling over.

MR. WILLIAMS: Clearly these things, then, can balloon. A balloon credit system — is that what you're operating in your ministry, where these things can expand? Clearly the numbers were very substantial. They weren't dealt with; they weren't recalled. Clearly there was inadequate performance in your department. Have you dealt with those inadequacies?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I would suggest if the hon. member wanted to understand, maybe he would, but he clearly doesn't. It's an outstanding travel advance. He knows what it is. He's merely trying to confuse the House, and that's all there is to it.

PROVINCIAL MUSEUM WHALING SCULPTURE

MR. HUBERTS: To the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture. There have been and continue to be a number of concerns expressed to me about the removal of the whaling sculpture from the foyer of the Provincial Museum. Is the minister aware of these concerns, and is there anything that can be done that will see this popular and rather dramatic sculpture put back on public display?

[2:30]

HON. MR. REID: Dealing with the question of the sculpture being removed from the lobby of the museum, one of the problems we have with our museum in Victoria is that it's the most successfully attended museum in North America. With 1.6 million people going through that lobby last year — and we anticipate a further increase this year — the structure in the lobby was creating a hazard, so it was incumbent upon us to relocate it. In the meantime, we've provided ongoing facilities and museum artifacts which are drawing further people into that facility. We are going to provide to the artist another location, probably in proximity to the other native Indian artifacts which are to the east of the museum at the moment.

[ Page 356 ]

As a result of that sculpture and others and the attendance at the Victoria museum, we have a legacy of that museum at the Southwest Museum in Los Angeles, which is attracting record crowds on behalf of a legacy from this museum of similar attractions, bringing tourists back to the province of British Columbia.

So the answer to your question, hon. member, is that the artifact will be on display somewhere in the vicinity of the museum in Victoria sometime in the future.

MINISTERIAL TRAVEL EXPENSES

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Provincial Secretary. If this monitoring is going on that the minister says has been going on, can the minister advise us why these problems weren't caught a year ago or at an earlier stage?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member perceives a problem, I guess. But as far as we're concerned, hon. member, if the amount is ratified by a member as owing, unless there's some compelling reason to ask the member to return it, such as leaving the ministry or leaving his job as a parliamentary secretary, normally — and I'll explain it one more time to you — the amount of money would simply roll over as an expense account, and it would be an advance. It's generally very little. I wasn't aware of the amount, as far as the member for Omineca was concerned, until two days ago when just as a normal course of events I had asked the comptroller to bring any of these to my attention. These are normally only moneys that were transferred into ministers' accounts when they were parliamentary secretaries, and they simply roll it over and put it into the ministry account, and we still keep them on our books.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled answers to two questions. [See appendix.]

REGULATIONS AT URANIUM MINESITE

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) took on notice a question which gives me an opportunity to describe how the new uranium guidelines work. I want to thank the hon. member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) for asking the question. Whenever a company looking for uranium, or indeed for any other mineral, discovers either uranium or thorium in amounts exceeding the Canadian health standards, they are obliged to report that fact, and then automatically the area in question is designated for control, and baseline studies are required before any further exploration or development occurs. The area which the member mentioned does not contain significant amounts of uranium or thorium, but we will be monitoring the situation there.

Hon. B.R. Smith tabled the audited consolidated financial statement of the B.C. Steamship Company Ltd.

INTERIM FUNDING FOR SOCIAL
SERVICES CONTRACT CONSULTANTS

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would like to respond to a question taken as notice by myself last Friday. The question was from the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood), and it pertained to the provincial emergency preparedness program. This program received confirmation from the government of Canada last week that ongoing funding would be available for the joint emergency planning program, project 11. Under this project the ministry contracts with individual consultants to help local municipalities develop emergency social service programs. This will ensure the program will continue until the end of March 1988. So I thank you for your question, but it had already been looked after by the time you asked it.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

On vote 56: minister's office, $216,355.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, as we get into the estimates of my ministry and in particular my office, I am pleased to give a short preamble as to the workings both in the immediate past and the future of my ministry. Since my ministry does spend a substantial amount of the provincial budget, I think it only fair that we outline for the next few minutes just where that money goes and what we have been doing with it. So I would just like to inform the House that my opening remarks will probably be about 15 minutes.

This is the plan, of course, for the expenditure for the Ministry of Social Services and Housing for the fiscal year 1987-88, but before outlining our major priorities, I would like to just take a few minutes to acknowledge the many contributions of people who work every day to make our social services program in British Columbia one of the best in the country.

First of all, the dedicated staff of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. Secondly, the thousands of foster parents and staff of agencies and small businesses working in partnership with the ministry. Thirdly, the many volunteers who give freely and tirelessly of their time to help our handicapped, disadvantaged and senior citizens. Fourthly, the churches, community groups, friends and neighbours who daily extend individual acts of kindness and generosity to others during their times of need. On behalf of my government and the people of British Columbia I say thank you very much.

Next I would like to outline our expenditure plan for the coming year. We refer to it as an investment in people, our most valuable resource. The government has dedicated $1.38 billion toward helping British Columbia citizens most in need in 1987-88. This $1.38 billion will be spent on programs and services to help people during times of need and to assist them in regaining or achieving self-sufficiency. Our expenditure plan addresses four major priorities: (1) assisting our handicapped and disadvantaged citizens to become full participants in our society; (2) maintaining or restoring the integrity of families; (3) assisting people to retain or regain financial independence; (4) a coordinated approach to delivering quality services. I wish to discuss each of these priorities in greater detail.

First, assisting our handicapped and disadvantaged citizens to become full participants in our society. My government remains committed to the goal of assisting handicapped

[ Page 357 ]

individuals to achieve maximum independence and participate as full members of their communities. My government recognizes that achievement of this goal requires a continuum of services from infancy to adulthood, with a strong emphasis on support to families with a handicapped child. The Ministry of Social Services and Housing, in partnership with other ministries, agencies and families throughout British Columbia, has been working hard to ensure that such a continuum of service is in place in 1986-87.

Some 2,165 parents of handicapped children received support and training in methods to encourage their infants' development through the infant development program, while 300 families each month were provided with in-home assistance in caring for their handicapped youngsters through the special services to children and family support homemaker programs. Some 2,823 handicapped children were integrated into regular day-care and school settings through the special needs day-care and Chance programs, and 3,662 mentally handicapped adolescents and young adults were provided with training to improve their personal, social and work skills. Community living arrangements for 1,868 mentally handicapped adults were in place in communities throughout British Columbia. In 1987-88 we will spend an additional $19.7 million, a 15 percent increase, to expand services for handicapped infants, children and their families, to assist mentally handicapped adults moving away from home or out of Woodlands or Glendale to establish themselves in community living arrangements, to expand and restructure training and day programs for mentally handicapped adults living in the community, and to provide coordination and monitoring of services to ensure the safety and well-being of mentally handicapped individuals in community living arrangements.

In addition to these services, my government will continue to work with the federal government to develop housing units for handicapped and disadvantaged people. In 1986 the provincial and federal governments signed an agreement to build approximately 6,000 units over a three-year period, cost-shared 33 percent provincially and 67 percent federally. The year one program is in progress, with 1,895 units committed in 1986; the proposed year two program includes an additional 1,886 units to be delivered in '87-88 through nonprofit and leased private market units to those in need: priority groups, seniors, disabled, special purpose and lowincome families.

Next, Mr. Chairman, I would like to address maintaining or restoring the integrity of the family. People are our most valuable resource, and families continue to play the most important role in protecting and nurturing that resource. There are approximately 450,000 families and 800,000 children in British Columbia. In the majority of cases, families successfully face the challenges of today's society on their own or with the help of friends and community. But sometimes families need additional help. In providing that help, my government is committed to the goal of maintaining or restoring the integrity of the family whenever possible.

In recognition of the importance we place on the family in our society, funding for programs to assist families and children will be increased by 9.6 percent to $88.8 million. This additional $7.8 million will be used as follows. (1) To build on the existing network of family support services, In 1986-87, some $9.7 million was spent to assist 2,200 families with a range of family support services. (2) To support the many dedicated foster homes and resources providing temporary care for children while parents are assisted to resume care. Approximately 25 percent of children in care are returned home within six months, and the majority of children are in care less than two years. (3) To find adoptive homes for children with special needs.

The next program, Mr. Chairman, is assisting people to retain or regain financial independence. My government remains committed to providing financial assistance to those families most in need and to assisting people to retain or regain financial independence. We intend to provide help through higher income-assistance rates, a major increase in day-care funding, and training and job programs for income assistance recipients. Effective June 1, 1987, support allowance for families will be increased by 5 percent, with a further increase of 5 percent on December 1, 1987. The maximum shelter allowance under GAIN was raised by 4.7 percent last October, and will be raised further on December 1, 1987. by an average of 6 percent. These increased benefit levels are expected to cost $51.7 million. We are increasing funding for regular day-care assistance by $6.1 million, from $20.6 million to $26.7 million, to make it easier for single parents and low-income earners to retain or regain employment or participate in training. Funding for special-needs day care has also been increased by approximately $800,000, representing a 14 percent increase from $5.9 million to $6.7 million.

[2:45]

The majority of employable income assistance recipients are both able and anxious to work. Seventy percent of the employable income assistance recipients regain financial independence within seven months, through their own efforts. For those people requiring extra help to enter or return to the workforce, my government has been working closely with the federal government to implement a comprehensive employment and training strategy. In May 1986 the government announced an employment and training initiative called JobTrac. In 1986 it provided $25 million in new funds, as well as another $18 million under existing programs.

JobTrac is a coordinated, interministry initiative which helps get people into worthwhile jobs in the following ways: provides a roadmap through provincial and federal programs and helps people find their way to the right program; helps people on income assistance rejoin the labour force through job preparation, training and work experience programs; helps youth, unemployed persons, workers needing skills upgrading and the disabled through work experience programs and rehabilitation services. From $43 million in '86-87, this program will almost double in '87-88 to $81 million. Approximately $56 million of this amount will go directly to assist income assistance recipients to regain employment.

Just a brief note on a coordinated approach to delivering services. In helping people most in need in '87-88, the government is committed to maintaining a coordinated and top-quality service delivery system. The key ingredients are: a corps of dedicated and experienced staff around the province, supported by effective recruitment strategies and a strong on-the-job training program; a network of agencies and small businesses working in partnership with the ministry to deliver services in communities throughout British Columbia in '87-88; an additional $5.3 million to assist agencies to meet increased costs of delivering services; a coordinated approach to planning across ministries at the local and provincial level; a strong voice in federal-provincial discussions and a fair share of federal revenues.

[ Page 358 ]

A couple of concluding remarks, Mr. Chairman, just to repeat our priorities. One, assisting our handicapped and disadvantaged citizens to become full participants; two, maintaining or restoring the integrity of families; three, assisting people to retain or regain financial independence; and four, a coordinated approach to delivering quality services. We will be working closely with local community groups in providing the broad range of programs and services aimed at meeting these priorities. Through our joint efforts we will carry out our commitment to assist those most in need in our province.

Mr. Chairman, that winds up my opening remarks. I realize we can't cover everything in a few remarks. I'm certain there will be questions from the opposition, and I'll be most happy to answer.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to echo the congratulations of my hon. colleague the Minister of Social Services and Housing in acknowledging the many people who work within the delivery of social services and housing throughout British Columbia, the many people who work as volunteers and the many people who participate in the various programs. We owe them a debt of gratitude. Clearly, there is a participatory reality within our province, and it draws in all aspects of the community. I'm very pleased about that.

At the outset I would like to say that I'm new at this. This is an exciting and refreshing new adventure for me. I feel something like a rookie hockey player who has never tied on skates, going up against one of the old veterans here in the House. I'm going to need a lot of support from my colleagues, and I know I will have that support; and I'm going to need a lot of patience on the part of you, Mr. Chairman, and all my colleagues in the House.

Also, I would like to acknowledge, as we get into this process of estimates, which is a new process for the majority of us in the House at this time, the presence of the deputy minister Mr. Noble, who is here to assist us with finding the information that we will be seeking as we go through this process.

Especially because I am a rookie, I would hope that one day when I am here — that is, during the next two or three years — I would be able to have with me one of my researchers to assist me in this process. Of course, after three years the situation will be much different, and I probably won't be making that request at that time.

I want to start off, since this is a new exercise, to say what I think the purpose of this exercise is, Do we do this because we are involved in some kind of posturing that hopefully will get us profile within the mind of the body politic? Or are we doing this because we share a mutual concern that is a concern for delivering the very best possible services to the people of British Columbia? I believe it is the latter.

I believe that part of the purpose of this exercise is to ask where we have been, especially within this ministry — and with its predecessors, the Ministry of Human Resources and the Ministry of Land, Parks and Housing, or a portion of that ministry — and where we are going. What kind of a vision do we see implicit within these estimates and implicit within the tracking that might be done through the activities of the last five or six years that would give some indication with regard to where we are going as a society, as a compassionate society, and what kind of a product are we producing?

I would like to refer at the outset to a statement I made in the House on Friday where I stated in a portion of my remarks: "I don't believe there is one member in this House who would intentionally cause stress to seniors." The response of the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond), while agreeing with that, was: "But we always tend to get the feeling that only over there on that side do they care."

I find that a curious response to a conciliatory statement, and I would hope that we might be able to conduct our affairs in a manner that respects the perspective from which questions are coming, while realizing that what we are putting forward at this time are two different philosophies. It is up to us as we go through this process to go through a learning experience and to go through a process of discovering what philosophy is the philosophy that is going to work for the people of British Columbia.

Obviously, I believe that the philosophy that I espouse is the one that will work. Obviously, you believe that the philosophy that you espouse is the one that will work. But this is not a war between personalities to score points. Mr. Chairman, this is a public measure of government priorities and opposition alternatives, and I would hope that we could treat each other in the light of that perspective. Let it not be said when this debate is over that we failed in our mutual desire to do what is best for the people we are here to serve.

Mr. Chairman, among the people that we are here to serve are families and children, and I note with regret the abrupt departure of Mr. Andrew Armitage. I would like at this time to call on you, Mr. Minister, to rise and to give an explanation to this House with regard to the sudden departure of Mr. Armitage.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, the matter of the superintendent of child welfare is a personnel matter within the ministry, and I have absolutely no intention of commenting any further.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, when Mr. Armitage came to work within the Ministry of Human Resources, a number of people who are involved in the delivery of child and family services in British Columbia rejoiced, because knowing something of the background of Mr. Armitage — his experiential background, his academic background — and knowing the quality of person that Mr. Armitage is.... There was a rejoicing because of the belief and the hope that the delivery of social services in British Columbia was going to move from a more reserved crisis-intervention system into a more open system, a system with more fresh air, a system that would truly be preventive in the delivery of these services. There are many people in British Columbia who saw in Mr. Armitage a signal that the Ministry of Human Resources was beginning at that time to get a glimmer of the kind of vision that would help us move into the more responsible approach; not a crisis-intervention approach, but a preventive approach that would be fair and open and full of opportunity for the people of this province.

I would like to read from Hansard, dated April 7, 1986, almost a year ago. These are the words of Mr. Nielsen, who was the acting Minister of Human Resources at the time. He said:

"A superintendent of family and child service has been appointed. Mr. Andrew Armitage was formerly with the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing and

[ Page 359 ]

has had an extensive career in social work, including a period of time when he was instructing in this matter at a university. Mr. Armitage is undertaking his new role with great vigour, and we expect to have the opportunity of seeing the results of his labours very soon."

Those people in British Columbia who were very pleased to welcome the announcement of the hiring of Mr. Armitage might well have been expecting an announcement at this time, but they were not expecting the announcement that they received. The statement on the part of the minister that he is unwilling to give an explanation to this House because it is a personal matter is very difficult to deal with. It leaves us with a problem. It leaves us with the problem of the questions that exist within the minds of those people who cared deeply about the delivery of social services to the people of this province, and the people who were hoping for a more open, more consultative, more developmental approach that would be more fitting for a preventive approach in this province.

[3:00]

As a result of this, I am today calling on this government to set up a commission of inquiry which would inquire thoroughly into the delivery of family and child services in B.C. Such an inquiry should be accountable to an all-party committee; such an inquiry should look into all aspects of the delivery of family and child services; such an inquiry should be conducted with dispatch; and it should involve commissioners who have no political bias. This is required because there is an obvious need for an independent child advocate in this province. The children of this province require a person who can stand up for them. They require a person who is not too closely tied to the deputy minister. They require a person who would have a role that is somewhat similar to the role of ombudsman. They require a person who is an advocate for children and a facilitator of the hopes and the potential of families.

Mr. Chairman, it would be a bright, new day for the children of this province when we have a child advocate firmly in place. I believe that if a commission of inquiry were to look into the delivery of children's services within this province, such a commission would come forward with some kind of a recommendation, given the kinds of problems that exist for children within our society at this time, that would be there, independent, to look after the needs of children. I therefore have some questions that I would like to state at this time and would hope that the minister would respond to these questions later on.

The first one is: will the minister support my call for a commission of inquiry into the delivery of services for families and children, a commission of inquiry that would be accountable to an all-party committee? Another question: will the minister guarantee that Ms. Leslie Arnold, who has been appointed to this position, will be given a free hand in the conduct of her responsibilities? Will the minister guarantee that she will be given the freedom that is necessary in order to advocate adequately on behalf of the children of British Columbia? Will this person be free to criticize the ministry itself if, as often happens within human organizations, we become worthy of criticism or need reproach? Would this person be guaranteed the freedom to present such criticism on behalf of children, even to the very ministry and government of this province?

Mr. Chairman, I believe that when we look at the accounts of our House — I know that the Minister of Finance is aware of this — when we look at the expenditure of finances, we look upon that as so important a resource, the financial resources of our province, that we have appointed an auditor general, a person who has the scope to be able to criticize even the Minister of Finance if that person so feels that the Minister of Finance has erred in terms of the monitoring, or the expenditure, or some process within that department.

AN HON. MEMBER: Perish the thought!

MR. CASHORE: Perish the thought. Mr. Chairman, I believe that our most valuable resource, our children, requires and deserves and should have the same kind of consideration, someone who would have the same scope of responsibility and of freedom as an auditor-general, in terms of looking to their interests.

Mr. Chairman, we will be coming back to issues pertaining to family and children's services later in the debates on the estimates. My colleague the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) will be commenting on some of these issues.

I'm fortunate that my colleague is not beside me at this time, because I see myself spreading papers all the way along this seat here as we go along.

I would like now to turn to the issue of GAIN — guaranteed annual income for those in need. During the time, Mr. Chairman, that I was commenting on the budget during the budget debate, I spoke to the issue of fairness with regard to the plans that the ministry has to increase GAIN rates on July 1 and again on December 1, 5 percent on each occasion. At that time I attempted to make the point that there were two ways in which that was inadequate. First of all, it was inadequate in the sense that it discriminates against GAIN recipients; and secondly, it was inadequate because it was not enough. I had hoped that the minister would recognize that that was apparent, especially in view of the report of the Social Planning and Research Council, and that he would take measures to make that program fair, and I see that no such announcement has been forthcoming.

I pointed out at that time and I point out again that while we have from time to time referred to the poverty line as a scientifically-arrived-at measure whereby we would look upon the financial wherewithal of a large segment of people within our society and see the 220,000 people on income assistance, the 220,000-plus people on GAIN, the additional people who are the working poor— the people of minimum wage, the people who are finding it very, very difficult — the 50,000 people who are referred to in the Cosh report as coming from those 250,000 households in British Columbia which are in need and which it identified as 50,000 households not receiving any kind of assistance at all.... I refer, Mr. Chairman, to a very large number of people within this province, and we have referred to these people in the past in terms of the poverty line, but the Social Planning and Research Council has come in with what might be called another line, and it's a line that's much lower than the three poverty lines that we have talked about from time to time. This line we might call the subsistence line. I think it's quite shocking that in this day and age in this province we would be getting into a Third World syndrome.

Three minutes? Mr. Chairman, I understand when I have three minutes that if the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey were to rise and ask me a question, then I could carry on. Is that correct?

[ Page 360 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's right, just go right ahead, hon. member.

MR. CASHORE: Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So we're talking about subsistence here in British Columbia, and we're talking about a Third World concept. We're talking about a shopping list of items that people absolutely need to live on. There's no mention in the budget of singles receiving an increase in GAIN. And yet, given your language — I'm not going to accuse you of using buzzwords; I'm just going to say given the language that you use — in your throne speech and in your budget, you talk about an increase for those who are most in need.

I know, through you, Mr. Chairman, that you, Mr. Minister, commented on this SPARC report in the Sun and you said that the SPARC report isn't really fair because it doesn't go into all the kinds of crisis grants, etc., that are available, and you painted a counterbalancing picture to their report that was obviously an attempt to downgrade the scientific quality of what they were saying, But I would remind you that this report is dealing with subsistence, and were it not that people are able to go for a crisis grant and sometimes get it — it depends....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time is up, hon. member. Just take your seat, please.

MR. CASHORE: Thank you. I'm learning.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Chairman, I would like the hon. member who is critiquing the Social Services budget to continue on with his speech regarding the subsistence levels at which people live in this province.

MR. CASHORE: So having recognized that there are some crisis grants and having recognized — and I'm sure you will recognize — that this scientific study, this SPARC report, points out that one of the groups that you left out, the single employable male under age 25, faces a shortfall of 71.6 percent.... We could find variations in this if we were to apply it to other singles in other parts of the province. The SPARC report happens to mention somebody who lives in the lower mainland — in Kerrisdale; but if were to go to Prince George, Prince Rupert, Dawson Creek or the Kootenays, we would find this type of situation repeated again and again and again. There might be a variation in terms of the shortfall — in some cases it might be 65 percent; in other cases, I dare say, it might be 85 percent — but it is a shortfall, and if you don't include these people it's unfair.

My question, which I hope you will make note of and answer later, is: what are you going to do about it? It's unfair. I am sure you will recognize it's unfair, because it's based on a scientific study. I would also point out that there are very, very prominent members of the citizenry of British Columbia on the board of directors of the Social Planning and Research Council, responsible people, people who represent a spectrum of our political life. This is not a left-wing document. This is a document that must be taken seriously. I want you to tell me, with regard to the single unemployables, what's fair about it. I want to know, and they want to know. I've had a lot of phone calls about this and a lot of letters.

[3:15]

The same thing applies to couples. According to the SPARC report, more than 30 percent are under subsistence with the Guaranteed Available Income for Need rates. What are we going to do about those people? That's unfair. I could go on, but I think I've made the point. Okay, that's the first point: the announced increases are unfair because they discriminate.

The second point is that the announced increases are unfair because there is a very minimal increase for some people after five years. If we look at the increase in the cost of living, which has been at least 23 percent during that five plus years, what are you providing them with here?

Please remember that you announced that there were going to be increases in income assistance rates. Too often the public thinks: "Oh, isn't this wonderful. Now the poor people in the province are suddenly being looked after and they won't have to go to food banks any more." But you know, Mr. Minister, that these people are still very desperately in need. They are not being provided for in a way that enables them to put adequately nutritional meals on the tables of their children, on the tables of their households. I think that if you stop to think about it, you will recognize that this is a process that increases what is sometimes referred to as a welfare syndrome, whereby more and more members of our society are added onto those rolls, and therefore more and more of those people find it difficult to emerge from that situation. As that happens, it becomes a way of life for more and more people.

Now I realize that, in some ways, to get into the area of job creation is to go outside the estimates of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing; but I would say that in the responses we heard to the debate on the budget, again and again JobTrac was referred to as the salvation of the unemployed. I would like the minister to rise a little later on and admit to the House that JobTrac, while it may have some merit, is really a program recycled from other programs that have been tried before and is at very best a questionable system for shifting poverty around among those who don't have jobs. I would like him to recognize that, so that we know that this program is indeed severely limited in terms of its potential — recognizing that it is not completely limited and that it does have some merit, although my colleague, the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen), will be asking some questions a little later on that will be getting into some of the deeper aspects of that program.

With the projected increase.... We know that you're also going to remind us that there was to be a 6 percent increase in the budget for shelter allowances. That amounts to, for one particular family we were looking at, $25.74, and yet, because of the news releases that have gone out, a lot of our citizens think that we've done a wonderful thing for these people. I'd like you to comment on how many days you see people being able to live at subsistence on the amount of $25.74, which is the first increase that they have had in that area for shelter, other than the minimal increase of somewhat less than that that came through in the fall. How do you see that really enabling them to get on with their lives?

Mr. Chairman, I will sit down now and invite the minister to respond to some of my comments.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I will try to go through the list of questions in order as presented by the member. I think I got them all, but if not, I am sure he will ask me again.

First of all, in the member's opening remarks, I would just like to correct one thing that he said. He said I referred to

[ Page 361 ]

the matter of the superintendent of child welfare as a "personal" matter. That's not true; I referred to it as a "personnel" matter, and there is quite a difference. So I just wanted to point that out to him and for the record, so it goes down as a personnel matter.

The next thing the member raised was a commission of inquiry regarding children in the province. If, Mr. Member, I thought there was a need for a commission of inquiry for such, I would be the first to admit it and the first to appoint same, but I don't perceive such a need. First of all, when the member says that the children need an advocate in the province, they have many in this province. They have the superintendent of child welfare, whose job it is to be an advocate for children. On top of that, they have 69 other advocates who sit in this assembly room; they're called MLAs, and they are all advocates for children in this province. I don't know of any one of my colleagues on either side of the House who would not be an advocate for any child in this province.

Secondly, the member asked if Leslie Arnold would have a freedom in her job — I think he put it; I can't remember his exact words — to operate as she saw fit. Absolutely she does. In fact, she is accountable directly to myself, the minister — whoever the minister may be; it happens to be me at the moment. Of course, she is free to offer suggestions and criticisms at any time. In fact, in my ministry I encourage such behaviour. The member spent quite a bit of time discussing the SPARC report, and I did prepare a written response to their report, and you are correct that it was published in the Vancouver Sun. I find it a little bit puzzling to hear that the member feels that the SPARC report is a scientific report. Going through it, we felt that it was anything but scientific. It was from information gathered from across the country, but it certainly couldn't be classed as scientific.

In some of their recommendations, they are quite a way off base. For example, their shelter costs in the lower mainland are based on averages calculated without allowing for the possible inclusion of utilities; therefore the shelter and utilities components of the assessment will be inflated.

Secondly, accommodation for lower-income families usually comes from the low end of the rental spectrum. But SPARC has used an average based on all rents in the lower mainland, all rents including very expensive apartments, penthouses, etc. So by doing that, you get a tremendously inflated shelter cost for the lower mainland.

The other thing that is bandied about a lot in this House, and it was during the budget estimates, is the poverty line. Let me say at the outset, Mr. Member, and for the edification of all members, that Canada does not have an official poverty line. So people tend to use various figures as it suits their purpose.

Statistics Canada low-income cutoffs are the most frequently cited and used lines and are commonly misrepresented as the official poverty line, but they are not. Stats Canada clearly states that their design and construction were never intended as denoting poverty.

The GAIN benefit system can be seen as analogous to a poverty line which has been constructed through the political process with benefit levels which are acceptable to and affordable by society, The GAIN figures are often underestimated because of the additional benefits to which a family of four might be entitled. For example, medical benefits are not shown in GAIN figures; diet, school startup, child tax credit allowances, family allowances, etc. When you add all those to the GAIN figures, it changes the picture substantially.

The member dwelt for quite a while on single employables on welfare. He's quite right; we did not increase the allowance for single employables on welfare. But let me add, first of all, that they will be eligible for the increased shelter allowance when it comes later this year. The member talks about a welfare syndrome. You state that if we don't give enough income to single employables we will find more single employables on welfare. I counter to you, sit, that if we pay too much for single employables on welfare, whatever that figure is, we will be perpetuating a welfare system. So it's a two-edged sword.

It's always difficult to know where the figure should be. I think we differ only in the philosophy of it: how high the safety net should be from the ground. Welfare is not designed to be a way of life for those who are employable, I think we're doing something better for those single employables — that is, we're doing our utmost to try to put them back into the workforce. Agreed, it is difficult in difficult economic times. In fact, I would tell you that the number of single employable people on welfare is not governed by welfare rates; it's governed by the unemployment rate. It has really nothing to do with what you pay, as you suggest; it has to do with the unemployment rate. We can track it on a graph, just as plain as the nose on your face. As unemployment goes up, so do single employables on welfare; as unemployment goes down, so do our caseloads. They are very closely tied together. We can show you graphs and track it as almost identical.

The member did mention that there was an increase in shelter allowance last fall — 4.7 percent. This December it will be roughly 6 percent. So there will have been two increases in shelter allowances by the end of this year.

Unless I'm mistaken, I think I've answered all of your questions. I've tried to keep track of them all and answer them as best I can. If I've left anything out, I'm sure you'll let me know.

MS. A. HAGEN: I would like, first of all, to associate myself with the comments of my colleague the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) around the issue of adequate financial support for people in our society who, for whatever reason, are unable to have financial resources from jobs and require assistance from us as a province and as a people; also with his comments on a particular concern for children and families. I'll be returning to those scenes later in my comments, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to perhaps shift our focus a little bit in our discussion. I don't imagine it will surprise the minister that one of the areas I would like to speak about is a portion of his ministry devoted to services to seniors.

[3:30]

The minister noted in his comments that the shelter portion of the amount that goes to GAIN recipients was raised recently by 4.7 percent, and that a further increase of approximately 6 percent is planned before year-end. A significant number of older people are renters, and they are assisted through a services for seniors program that comes to them under the Ministry of Social Services and Housing called Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters.

Before I begin to look at this with some analysis, I'd like to take this opportunity to concur with the minister about his comments on the service provided by people in his ministry. I want particularly to make note of and acknowledge in this

[ Page 362 ]

House the people in Victoria who work in the services for seniors office. I've had first-hand dealings with those people for many years, and they are an outstanding group of public servants. It's a good opportunity for me publicly to say thank you on behalf of older people — and people who work with older people — for the kind of service they provide. I hope the minister would make certain that that is conveyed to them directly from many of us in the field.

The SAFER program has been in place for a number of years, but in the last five years has shown some serious erosion. At that time the level of rent that was available for subsidy was capped: 75 percent of the rent which exceeds 30 percent of an older person's income is covered by SAFER up to a maximum rental, which has not changed since 1982. That rent now stands at around $330 a month for a single person, and for a couple or sharing partnership at $365 a month.

I was interested in the Cosh report, which took a look at this particular method of meeting the housing needs of a particular population. As we note, many people who are elderly do rent. They have analyzed the program under service to those in need, proportion of population served, adequacy of benefits and cost effectiveness. In two categories, service to those in need and cost effectiveness, the program is rated as good. But there are a couple of very major issues around the delivery of this program that I think very much need some explanation and some attention by the minister.

First of all, in terms of the adequacy of benefits, because of the fact that there has been no increase in the ceiling of rents that are covered, there has been a very significant deterioration in the benefits that are available to older people. In fact, an example is given in the Cosh report, in the final report on page 100, that takes the older person with the most basic income, one that comes from the old age pension, guaranteed income supplement and GAIN, looks at the SAFER that is available to that person if their rent is in fact at the ceiling of $330 a month, not an unusual ceiling and in fact a very low one in many parts of this province, and finds that with SAFER added to that person's income, instead of paying 30 percent of their income for shelter they are paying closer to 35 percent — 34.8 percent, to be exact.

What we find, however, is that we have situations that are far more serious than that in the discrepancy between the portion that goes for rent and the portion that is covered by SAFER. Many people in fact have rents that are higher than that $330. I've just taken one that's very common in my own community with a number of seniors to whom I've been speaking, where they pay a $350 rent for a very modest apartment in a three-storey walkup. If we look at the fact that there is a $20 amount there — a small amount again but a $20 amount where there is no protection — we find that the percentage that that person pays for shelter rises to 44 percent.

I would like the minister, when I conclude my comments, to respond to a question about the adequacy of benefits available through the SAFER program, and to give some indication that this particular matter is one that his ministry will be addressing.

I note the ministry, in its projections for the coming year, is actually looking at a decrease in the number of dollars that SAFER will make available to people in the province, a decrease of about $100,000 from last year. That is because in fact the ceilings have not been increased and other pensions that seniors have are indexed, and people are finding that they are moving more and more to a high level of cost for shelter. It is a program that needs to keep pace with the cost of living if we are to achieve other cost-effective goals of independent living and affordability for older people. One of the things that causes them to choose to go into a more sheltered and more expensive housing is that they cannot afford shelter.

The other aspect of the SAFER program that is criticized by the Cosh report is the matter of access to that benefit. Presently, in the last year for which there's a report, there are about 10,000 people who are in receipt of SAFER. That's 20 percent fewer than were receiving it in 1980 and 1981, and by the minister's own projections probably fewer than 50 percent of people who are eligible for the SAFER program in fact do access it.

Information is, in fact, a means by which people gain benefits, and I think one of the areas, in spite of the excellent service in the services for seniors department within the ministry in Victoria.... One of the main reasons that seniors are not accessing this program is that they don't know about it. One of the reasons that they don't know about it is that if seniors walk into many ministry offices in the regions of this province, they will be told that there is no information in that office about services for seniors; that they don't handle that particular concern; that there is information somewhere else. Possibly they will get that information; possibly they'll simply say, "We don't have a seniors' department in this particular local office," whether it's in New Westminster or in Castlegar or in Prince Rupert.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

I have found in my work with older people that there are literally dozens of people that one will encounter in any given month who have never heard of this service and who are trying to manage their financial affairs with something in the order of 60 percent of their income going into housing. I would like some assurance from the minister that his field workers in the regional offices throughout this province will recognize that they are in fact information givers and information providers and service providers to those who are among the most in need in our population and who especially need to have access to this program so that we can see something much closer to the ministry's estimates of approximately 24,000 people who should be in receipt of SAFER receiving benefits to which they are statutorily entitled.

I would like to ask the minister as well if he has any good ideas about ways in which he could get such information out to the 360,000 seniors who may be eligible for that program without them necessarily having to go into a human resources office. Because for many of them that is an office with which they associate people who are without income from other sources, and they are sometimes reluctant to look to that particular area for assistance.

I have some other areas about which I would like to ask some questions, but I think perhaps it might be productive if I paused and had the minister respond to those questions on SAFER at this time.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On the SAFER program, the member is quite right that the caseloads in SAFER are going down; of course this is because the incomes of seniors have been going up. As the income of seniors goes up, they are not eligible for Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters. She is also quite right that we haven't raised the ceiling on the rent for some

[ Page 363 ]

time, and in this year's budget we do not plan to look at that. But I should point out for the record that the senior citizen level of income in British Columbia is reasonably high, if one takes in OAS — we're talking about a couple now: $588.86 a month; GIS is $455.78 a month; maximum GAIN supplement, $99.66; average Pharmacare, $50; average SAFER, $20.86; subsidized bus passes, $171.34. So we're looking at a total average per senior couple in British Columbia of $1,386.50 per month. So I think it's important that we put that into the record. That does explain why the SAFER registry, if you like, is going down. The incomes are going up because the federal government supplements have been indexed for some years.

As far as getting information out to the seniors is concerned, I have found personally that the best vehicle for that is the senior citizen counsellors which we have throughout the province. I know that in my constituency office in Kamloops we make really good use of the senior citizen counsellors. They do a fine job. They inform seniors of all of the programs that are available and what they are entitled to, and we do have pamphlets out on SAFER. They're in all our ministry offices, and I know I have them in my MLA office. So I would commend to every member of this House to have all the pamphlets of my ministry and of every other ministry available in your office, so that when seniors do drop in to see you, you have this information.

I am very pleased to be able to just take a moment and commend the senior citizen counsellors throughout this province for the fine job they do. They do an excellent job for us, and it would be difficult to function without them. I think the fact that they are a peer group of the seniors goes a long way to helping seniors understand the programs. I should add that our seniors' counsellors deal with an awful lot of federal programs as well as provincial, and help people sort them out and keep them separate and keep our seniors informed as to every benefit they're entitled to.

MR. LOENEN: There are just so many positive things in the estimates that I'm delighted to be part of this. We have long awaited the additional moneys, and I know that the constituents of Richmond will welcome all these good things.

There's one item that I wanted to comment on and ask a question about. Over the years that I was an alderman in Richmond, particularly the last two years, we worked very hard at integrating some of the disabled people into our society. I was very happy to hear the minister say that that was one of the primary goals of his ministry. In particular, we worked with the Canadian Mental Health Association in Richmond, trying to integrate the mentally handicapped and the emotionally disturbed. That was not an easy process, but we hit on a very innovative idea, and when the new seniors' centre was opened last September, the association contracted with the seniors' association to provide the janitorial services and the kitchen or catering services. Now we have a situation where that particular association can use that contract to train their clients so that once they acquire some basic skills in the janitorial field or in catering services, they can then be placed into more permanent positions within industry.

I think it's just a wonderful mechanism whereby we do take the handicapped — in this case the mentally handicapped — introduce them to a normal work situation and allow them to develop their skills and be a meaningful part of society, then move them on into more permanent positions.

[3:45]

I wanted to draw that to your attention, Mr. Minister, because I know that your ministry has funded this particular project to some limited extent. My question is: will further funding be available for similar projects? I think that type of application would be of use in many communities throughout B.C. It's a very effective way to integrate people. I just hope that we will support these programs and find money to fund some of the initial priming that is required. I hope that will be the case, and I certainly want to recommend the pilot project in Richmond as an example that can be emulated throughout our communities in B.C.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just a brief response to the member for Richmond. I appreciate his comments. It does give me, too, just a chance to talk for a moment about the success that we've had in this ministry with moving mentally handicapped people into the community. In the throne speech of 1981 this government made a commitment to deinstitutionalize these people within ten years, and we've moved a long way towards that goal.

I was very close to the closing of the institution in Kamloops called Tranquille, two or three years ago — and not without some hardships, I might add. We were doing something new, breaking new ground, and it didn't go flawlessly, as my deputy will probably attest to, and myself. We took a lot of heat for it. But with a great sense of pride I can stand here and say that the people who were taken out of Tranquille and put into a community setting, into group homes, have never been better off. The success stories are phenomenal. We get letters about people who were for years depersonalized in an institution and are now playing a meaningful role in society. I would urge any one of you, if you haven't been to one of these small group homes in a community, to please go and visit one. I have visited many, and I am very impressed, not only in my own constituency of Kamloops but in the Kootenays and in the north of this province and elsewhere. I can tell you it is something you won't forget when you go and see some of these people who were virtually helpless while institutionalized and are now doing things for themselves. So the spending this year for programs for training for the mentally handicapped are up from somewhere near $12 million to in the area of $17 million. Those are round numbers, $12 million to $17 million, give or take a little.

So the answer to your question, Mr. Member, is a very definite yes, and as far as being on track for that program, to deinstitutionalize over a ten-year period, we are right on track, right on schedule, and it is going very well.

MS. A. HAGEN: Could I please ask leave to introduce someone in the gallery before I continue?

Leave granted.

MS. HAGEN: I would like to introduce to the group, and I think it is appropriate following the comments of the minister, Connie Clark, who is the past president of British Columbians for Mentally Handicapped People. I know that Ms. Clark is in the gallery today because of her particular interest in services for mentally handicapped people through this ministry. Would you join me in welcoming her.

I too will later on make some comments around the programs for mentally handicapped people, but I would like

[ Page 364 ]

to pursue for another short moment the issue of SAFER with the minister. It is indeed true that benefits have risen to seniors through an indexing process for federal programs. However, the issue that we are facing with SAFER is that that same indexing is not applied to rents, and rent of course is part of the cost of living and there are increases there.

If we take a look at the number of dollars that are available through shelter aid for elderly renters, in the last estimates a total of $8,100,000 was allocated, of which only $7,500,000 was taken up. We are seeing a further drop, as I noted earlier, to $7,400,000 in the estimates this year, and we may very well in fact see a further decline in those people who are participating in this program.

I would like again to refer the matter of rates of usage to the minister and ask him what particular methods he plans to use to ensure that those people who are eligible for this program, a statutory program, will indeed have it available to them.

I will leave that question on notice for the minister and move on to some other comments that I want to make around community programs for seniors. I too with the minister would acknowledge the work of seniors' counsellors. They are a peer group who are a very important group within our community. However, in my community, which has 7,000 older people, there are two seniors' counsellors and those people are volunteers. In most communities there is one or two.

Realistically, given the fact that these people have families and other activities and given the fact too that many of them continue with their responsibilities when they are not always in perfect health, there is no way that those people can respond to the many needs that older people have for information and support.

Within the ministry there is a program called community project funding, and I want to develop the theme of community project funding around seniors and also around services for mentally handicapped people. There are other programs too that we need to look at in this particular regard.

These project fundings are available usually on a year-to-year basis to groups that are working with special needs and disadvantaged people. I would note the minister's first priority in his list of the four things that he wanted to see his budget and estimates address was that handicapped and disadvantaged people would in fact receive adequate service.

Let me just illustrate through the issue of seniors the kind of short-sightedness that I think has been a part of this ministry's partnership with community groups over the last number of years. In 1983 the Ministry of Social Services cancelled outright community projects as they were available to older people. In fact, in the budget estimates for the ministry at this time, for all services relating to information that are not a part of ministry offices, we have a constant sum of $250,000, which is identified for the seniors counselling service. Those dollars, I understand, provide for a small honorarium and for some workshops to train those people.

In 1983 in the budget there was an amount of $1.3 million that funded 23 centres right across the province, centres that used hundreds of volunteers to provide information services and, as with many of our community projects, made available resources in a broad range of ways to help seniors get information and maintain independent living. I'd like to have it noted that in those dollars are significant Canada Assistance Plan funds. At the time, for instance, of that cancellation — in the name, at that time, of restraint — the provincial government took $800,000 out of funding for community groups and sacrificed about $500,000 in federal cost-sharing that would have, in fact, made those services possible on an ongoing basis.

Now we have a section of projects which are funded under community grants. To the best of my knowledge, they are identified under the direct community services portion of the budget, and they deal with services for low income groups and for youth, for family services and for crisis centres, and some of them are umbrella organizations. In the estimates that the minister has provided for us, we don't get any really concrete knowledge of how much is available for these groups or what policies the minister has in supporting them. I want to pursue this particular issue, because very often it is from these groups that the slack in the services that are available through statutory programs has been taken up. In many instances, groups of people who are concerned to be helping their fellow citizens in their communities have come forward with projects that help to maintain social services across the province. I have a number of questions that I would like to ask the minister around these particular programs.

First of all, I would like to know how many dollars there are in the budget for community projects in this fiscal year. The last figure I have is from the 1985-86 report, at which time there was just in excess of $5 million.

I would like to know what percentage of last year's funding is available to community groups and community projects. Most of these projects are cost-shared with the federal government, and in fact this is one of the ways in which a well-managed ministry can through the use of the Canada Assistance Plan expand the kinds of services that it has available in the community. Of the total budget that is available for community grants, I would like information about what amount does come from the Canada Assistance Plan. How much are we getting from this very excellent costsharing program — which I would note is open-ended, which is available as long as the programs are targeted to handicapped and disadvantaged and low income people?

Most of the people I speak to who are involved with these community groups — very essential programs in every community of the province — tell me that they have little or no knowledge of what funding increases will be coming to them. In fact they often don't know until July or August or September, and sometimes not until later, about what their budgets will be for the coming year. So I would like to ask the minister when he plans to advise these groups — since his particular estimates are up so early in our discussion — of the dollars that are available to them.

I would like to know what community groups have been added this year to expand the services, because I know that within every community there are groups of people with good ideas and good programs who have come forward to the ministry with suggestions about ways in which they could assist people within their community. I would like also to know if any groups have been dropped and, if so, what the criteria for such funding continuance may be.

In the context of those questions, more broadly, I would like the minister to comment on his philosophy around community development, and from that answer I hope to be able to develop some discussion about services for mentally handicapped people, where with deinstitutionalization community development becomes one of the most critical aspects of the effective management of the ministry and its programs,

[ Page 365 ]

in cooperation with community groups, and also in the context of other ministries with whom this minister and his staff must work.

In all of this I'm sure too that the minister has a concern about accountability, as we all have. Are these programs working, and how are they working? I would be interested to know the ways in which the minister and his officials monitor, advise and consult with community groups, both for the accountability of tax dollars and also toward better planning and long-term planning in the maximization of those services.

I'll take, as many of us will, just one example of a program in my community, called the detached youth program, which was originally in our YM-YWCA and, when that building closed, moved into other facilities. Its particular client load of young people, aged 7 to 15 or 16, has simply gone off the wall, in the numbers of young people that they are serving. It's an acknowledged, cost-effective prevention program in my community. It is held to a very small number of dollars each year, and I understand from its director that he has no knowledge of whether funding is going to be continued past the interim funding to the end of June. This is a dedicated worker, a long-time servant of the community as coordinator of the project, a person who is very skilful at accessing soft dollars and short-term project funding.

What is the means by which the minister looks at the effectiveness of such programs, looks at ways in which they could in fact be maintained, with some commitment longer than one year, and at levels that would be more consistent with the kind of work that they are providing in service in the community and to the people of the community?

Madam Chairman, I will pause now. I have framed a number of questions for the minister, some of them very specific and some of them more broadly couched in terms of his philosophy and approach to his work with community groups, which provide such a lot of essential service to the community, and to the minister's mandate as the Social Services and Housing minister. I look forward to his reply.

[4:00]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't know if I got all the questions; I think I did. I'll try to go to them in the order that they came.

First of all, the budget for community projects in the coming year is in the area of $5 million; how much of that is from CAP, I don't have an immediate answer, but I imagine it's 50 percent — somewhat less than 50 percent, I'm told. So that answers the first question.

You mention that there are a number of good community programs that come forward from people out there. That's absolutely correct, Madam Member. But I'm sure you can appreciate that whoever is government cannot do all programs that are presented. Programs are presented to us almost daily from somewhere in the province. Many of them may be good and well-intentioned — and we appreciate that — but we only have so many dollars to go around, so naturally we cannot approve them all. So when you mention groups coming forward with good programs, I appreciate that, and we see them all the time and would probably like to be able to fund them all, but that's just impossible.

How many have been dropped this year? I can't answer that off the top of my head, but we'll try to have an answer for you on how many community projects have been dropped, from last year to this year. I don't know, just offhand. We'll see if we can have an answer for you in the next little while.

You ask about the monitoring of programs under my ministry. I can tell you that all programs are monitored very closely. In fact, I think probably our ministry is the epitome of decentralization. The regional managers, in every area, have the authority, and the responsibility, to negotiate contracts locally. In fact, we contract out a great number of services in this ministry, with private contractors, probably more successfully than most ministries. This coming year we will purchase some $180 million worth of services from professionals — some non-profit societies, some commercial — in the various communities. They're monitored by the workers in the community, by the regional managers and supervisors; plus, we have an internal audit team in the ministry to make sure that we are always getting the value that we and the taxpayers deserve for the dollars expended. So we monitor very closely, and from time to time you will see headlines in the press about the fact that we, because of the monitoring we do, may not renew contracts from time to time and may wish to re-tender contracts. And we do that quite frequently. Naturally, those who are not renewed always put up a bit of a fuss if they've had the contract for a long time, but they're always invited to re-tender. But this way we can ensure that we get the best value for the taxpayer's dollar in whatever that service is, whether it's for children or for the mentally handicapped or for seniors or whatever.

I should add, too, when you talk about these contracts only being available on a year-to-year basis, that that is correct. But our budget is only available on a year-to-year basis. We budget once a year, as we are doing now, and we extend contracts — which we are doing right now — until my estimates are passed by this House. So at the moment we have extended a number of contracts until this Legislature passes the estimates for this ministry. Then, on a local and regional basis, we will renegotiate those contracts, having monitored them and made sure that we are getting the best value for the dollar.

You mentioned — I didn't catch your exact words about not getting some federal cost-sharing under the CAP program. Well, it's the type of program where we must expend a dollar before we get a dollar back from Ottawa, and, for most of the programs, if we don't spend the dollar, we don't get the dollar back from Ottawa.

The closing comment I would make is that most services that the government provides to seniors — just to come back and finish on seniors — come under the Ministry of Health; a very few come under my ministry, but a few do.

I think I got most of your questions; if I missed any you can let me know.

MS. A. HAGEN: I would like to come back to a couple of points and acknowledge that I did provide you with quite a long shopping list of questions. Our House Leader suggests we might want to take a more up-and-down kind of approach.

There are two things I would like to pursue on this particular matter before I go on. I understand then, Mr. Minister, through the Chair, that the level of funding to community projects this year remains static, at around $5 million a year, and I think that that will be very disappointing news to community groups throughout this province.

Community groups had their project funding quite significantly diminished during the period 1983 and onward. The majority of them, at the same time, saw the demands on

[ Page 366 ]

their programs very significantly increase, partially because of the kinds of cutbacks that occurred not only in this particular ministry but in other ministries across the province, and partially, too, because we all know that there are economic circumstances in this province that are putting families and children in much, much greater danger and at much, much greater risk. And I think that to look at this time at not seeing some increase in the dollars available to programs that are, in many instances, holding together families and desperately working in both crisis and preventive ways to assist people who are in need of social support services doesn't bode well for this ministry and for its commitment.

I would note that most of us would be happy, in fact, if in order to do the kinds of things we need to do, we could do them with 50-cent dollars — that's got to be one of the best bargains around, and if I could find 50-cent dollars to do some of the kinds of things that were important to do. I think I would be using a lot of energy and a lot of my senior ministry's time and a lot of planning time to find ways in which those dollars might be put to good use. It might in fact save the minister and his ministry estimates considerable dollars in prevention in years to come, because when we look at the needs of families and children, or when we look at the needs of older people at risk, there is little question that it costs a lot less to provide some services to a kid who is ten years old and perhaps on the street in a detached youth program that's providing support and peer counselling and activities and some constructive role modelling, than it costs to deal with that youngster when he gets to be an acting-out 16-year-old because no one has paid any attention to him. I think all too often we look, in fact, at the crisis that we have to deal with and not at those much less high-profile and much less urgent in appearance kinds of programs that are the glue that holds our society together and makes sure we do care for and plan for people.

With that too, Mr. Minister, I would like you to comment about my last question in this series — that is, your philosophy and your planning around community development — because the next issue I want to address to you has to do with a major group in our society whom we are bringing out of institutions and into a more normal and productive kind of living arrangement. I think it's critical for us to have some understanding of your particular approach to working with families, with the community, with advocates in the way of funding, planning, co-managing and co-developing the kinds of programs that are under your ministry's mandate. I would welcome some comments from you around how you see your ministry's role in that very essential work which is a long-term investment that you need to be making and we need to be supporting you in, in budget dollars, to achieve objectives that we all support.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Madam Chairman, that was more of a political speech than questions, so I'm going to respond in kind.

First of all, the amount you're talking about in community programs is a very small part of my ministry's budget — for this coming year, about $5.6 million; up from $5.2 million to $5.6 million, but a very small part of my ministry's budget. Let me put that in perspective: in family and child services alone this year we will spend $115 million, which is up 10.9 percent. In rehabilitation services we will spend $155 million this year. I'm just trying to put it into perspective when you dwell on the community programs, which are only about $5 million.

I get a little perturbed when I hear all the time about spending 50-cent dollars or 33-cent dollars or 75-cent dollars. I use a phrase that you may hear from time to time, because I intend to drive it home so that other people understand. You can spend 50-cent dollars, you can get dollars from three, four, five or six levels of government. But people out there appreciate that there is only one level of taxpayer; it all comes out of one pocket.

MR. BLENCOE: Rubbish!

[4:15]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It's not rubbish, Mr. Member, and you know it.

The people I talk to out there realize that there's one taxpayers' pocket. There may be, as I said, many levels of government. Sometimes 50-cent dollars are the most expensive you can ever spend, because they look so nice. They look great when you grab that 50-cent buck, but they're dollars that sometimes you just cannot afford. We do very well in cost-sharing from Ottawa when we feel it's necessary; this year alone we'll extract 50-cent dollars to the tune of $629 million federal government dollars. But they're spent judiciously, and we think long and hard before we go after those 50-cent dollars because they're very expensive.

As far as a philosophy goes, it's very difficult for me to stand here and in a few minutes give you the entire philosophy of myself and this government and the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, and what we intend to do over the next little while, but I think we're making some great strides in the philosophy. In fact, we're being imitated by the members opposite.

My committee and I decided three or four months ago that we would take the social services and housing committee around the province to hear what people had to tell us so that we could plan a social program for government over the next few years. It has been very successful. We went to Prince George first and had great turnouts. We heard something like 19 or 20 delegations. I can't remember the exact number. We went secondly to Courtenay on the north end of this Island and heard 29 delegations in one day — very good presentations, I might add, both written and oral — so that we might get a regional view of social problems and potential solutions that we as a committee of cabinet can act upon over the next few years and chart a social course if indeed social directions and social policy should be changing, and I think it is.

You've pointed out some of the places where we do live in a fluctuating, malleable world when it comes to social services. Things are changing, and we're very much aware of that. I appreciate your comments on the ounce of prevention being better than the pound of cure. We're very much aware of that. Sometimes we can spend a few dollars on prevention and save many, many dollars down the road trying to find a cure. So I don't think we disagree on that, and where dollars should sometimes be spent.

I will not try to philosophize any further as far as services to the mentally handicapped and deinstitutionalizing are concerned — which you've touched on and which I touched on earlier. I think you know our philosophy on that, and I think we're being proven to be correct. We are world leaders, and we are being emulated by other societies in western civilization. People are coming from around the world to see what

[ Page 367 ]

we're doing in mental health, so I think our philosophy is right.

I think our philosophy on moving the cabinet committee on social policy around the province is right, because we were copied by the social policy committee of your party, and you ran into Kamloops quickly to get there ahead of us. I hope you found out a few things about the city of Kamloops. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so I think we're on the same wavelength philosophically, and I'll let it go at that.

MR. RABBITT: We presently have three mentally handicapped facilities in my riding, in Hope, Princeton and Merritt. These facilities have some very adequate — as a matter of fact, some very fantastic — programs, and we've been getting some tremendous results. My question to you, Mr. Minister, is: can you give me the assurance that the budget estimates include funding for these institutions in Hope, Princeton and Merritt, and will these facilities operate for the forthcoming year?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I can't specifically tell you any expiry dates of contracts with these people. We purchase services in most of these communities. I can give you, given time, the specifics of the contracts, when they expire and when they will be renegotiated, but I have no reason to believe that any such program in your riding or anyone else's will be terminated. That's the best I can do for you, but I can get you a more specific answer to that question, given some time.

MR. RABBITT: While you are getting those results, could you also check and see if there is going to be increased funding for any or all of these three facilities?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In answer to the second part of your question, we don't just give increased funding to these facilities. They are contracted services that we purchase. The regional manager in each area — and it doesn't matter whose riding it's in — will negotiate with the people who run these facilities, and they will negotiate a contract for the coming year. So to ask across the board: "Is there increased funding for specific facilities...?" The answer is no.

MR. RABBITT: I guess my question would be: is the ministry going to consider enlarging the programs in any of the three?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer is yes. We are enlarging the programs specifically in areas where there are substantial waiting-lists. We do have areas where there are substantial lists of people waiting to get in, and that's where we're targeting increases in funding.

MS. A. HAGEN: First of all, if I may comment on the minister and his colleagues' travel throughout the province, I think it's part of all of our jobs to be out and about, and thank you, Mr. Minister, for informing us of the success of your endeavours. We too have been successful. Our method is a little different; I don't know whether we'll describe it for you. We're going to do some experimenting on some different ways of contacting people, and I am sure that all of us will be gathering some very useful information.

I want to move, if I may, to a subject that has been raised by other members on the other side of the House, to the issue of mentally handicapped people and rehabilitation and support services for them. I would certainly acknowledge that some of the areas in which I have been raising questions are a very modest part of the budget, but I have been really looking to make the point here that in many instances the ministry is in partnership with communities in the delivery of services; and in many instances the kinds of issues that he needs to be dealing with are in the area of prevention and maintenance and development, not in the area of crisis management. I'm pleased to hear him note that he too shares that particular philosophy and recognizes the financial as well as the human value of working in prevention and development. I want to acknowledge that the work that the ministry has been engaged in in respect to the total closing of Tranquille and the phased closing of Woodlands is indeed a most commendable initiative, one that we should all acknowledge and give credit for. That particular acknowledgement having been made, I think we also have to acknowledge that it is a complex issue. As in many of the occasions when we are dealing with special needs people, we can in fact be informed by how we plan for those with special needs about how we should plan for people who are perhaps more normal. As a school trustee, I often found that the work we did for the mentally handicapped in our community and the work we did for the gifted in our community helped us plan better education programs for all children in the community. So I think what we are talking about here is the way by which we are known in the delivery of services to those who are indeed most needy.

In the process of deinstitutionalization we have had one model. The Tranquille model, which I'm sure the minister can speak of more accurately and personally than I, was a really traumatic kind of experience, because it was carried out in a way that was outside the planned way — very quickly and without the kind of long-term planning that might have been best applied. Again, I acknowledge that some of the decisions taken at that time are being rectified now. Those are good initiatives on the part of this ministry. With Woodlands, which is in my constituency, the phase-out began in about 1981 or 1982. It's my understanding, from talking to the staff there, that the ministry's plan is that there be a further five years in that transition.

I think there are a number of really critical issues that it's.... We and people who have children or young adults in that institution — most of them are in fact young or older adults at this time — and people who are working with mentally handicapped people think it's crucial that we have a very good handle on the philosophy we'll be following and the practice we'll be observing. There is no question that this is a complex issue, because it involves not only your ministry, sit, but also the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Labour, the Attorney-General ministry, and federal funds and ministries as well. So I acknowledge and recognize that coordination and interministerial work are a very major part of this. I want to state that at the beginning, because I want the questions that I am about to pose to be looked at as ones that are in fact related to your ministry, but perhaps in the context of other ministries as well; and we will be raising these issues again.

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

I'd like to ask the minister if this government is prepared to commit the same number of dollars to the handicapped people of the province living in the community as it was

[ Page 368 ]

prepared to commit to those people when they were living in institutions. Are we in fact going to have the necessary dollars to ensure support, education, life skills training and access to employment for these special needs people? Mr. Minister, I think what I will perhaps do is ask the questions individually and pause to give you an opportunity to respond, and with the support of the Chair, ask a number of those seriatim. I would like to ask, first of all, about the dollars committed, as compared to those available to people living in institutions.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, that particular question is a difficult one to answer; there is no simple answer to it. Deinstitutionalizing people generally does not save dollars. It generally costs more to integrate them into the community than to leave them in institutions. I think that dollars are secondary in this case. It's what is best for these people that we're interested in. Clearly the best thing is to get them back into the community. We have a global budget for it, and hopefully — and I say "hopefully" — we'll be able to live within that global budget and accomplish what we said we would do, and we're on track now to do it.

For example, I have a related figure that I will give to the member. The budget for the Chance program — in other words, handicapped children assisted to attend regular schools — is up 38 percent this year. The budget to put these handicapped children into the mainstream of schools under the Chance program has gone from $6.3 million to $8.7 million, which is a 38 percent increase. So what we're interested in in this budget, Madam Member, is what is best for the people involved. I'm not interested in whether it's going to cost a dollar or two more or less to move them from an institution into the community.

[4:30]

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased with the answer to that question. I think that that in fact does reflect a philosophy that we would all support.

One of the things that is occurring as a result of deinstitutionalization of people, who in many instances have lived all their lives in a facility such as Woodlands, is that families are being reunited with their young adults. We have, in fact, both directly and through the advocacy of associations like British Columbians for Mentally Handicapped People, very strong interests in working with the ministry around the process of deinstitutionalization. I'd like to ask the minister if he is prepared to ensure, and in fact to institutionalize through appropriate organizational structures, the involvement of parents in the planning for care and normal living for mentally handicapped people coming out of institutions, and also to ensure a role for those people in monitoring the care and assisting in dealing with accountability for the quality of care, which the minister just noted was to be the hallmark of deinstitutionalizing.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, the member is almost quoting verbatim from our "Community Living: Alternatives for Handicapped People." I didn't wish to read all of the "Principles Guiding the Development of Services for Mentally Retarded People" into the record, but I will if you wish. It does give you the philosophy that you were probably looking for — specifically with families. We do involve the families very much in the process of deinstitutionalizing their children. "Services to families should help them to remain involved with the mentally retarded person. Family relationships should be supported where appropriate throughout the life of the mentally handicapped person." So that's just one small paragraph that I think outlines the philosophy behind it. We do involve the parents very heavily.

MS. A. HAGEN: Thank you, hon. minister. Therefore perhaps your answer to the following question will be in the affirmative as well. Let me just preamble the question with some comment about what I understand is happening at Woodlands, where wards are being successively closed as "contracts are let." It's my understanding that the process that is being followed here is in fact one that may not allow for the kind of accountability and monitoring that the minister has just spoken of.

Could the minister please comment on whether he is prepared to ensure that when there are contracts for group living let for residents of Woodlands to move out into the community, those contracts will be let to organizations which are non-profit, which have a board, which will be publicly accountable for the services that they offer to the mentally handicapped living in the community? I'll wait for the minister's answer.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Sorry, I thought you were going to amble on a little longer. I missed the specific question, I'm afraid, so give me the actual question without the preamble, if you would.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'll repeat the question, Mr. Minister. Is the minister prepared to commit himself to contracts which are non-profit, managed by a board that is accountable to the community and to representation from mentally handicapped people in the community, contracts which will in fact then be open not only to scrutiny by the ministry but scrutiny by the public in the same way that institutions that have served mentally handicapped people have been open to scrutiny and accountability to the public?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I've got the gist of your question now. The answer probably, in one word, would be no, not exclusively, because some of the best contracts we have for purchasing these kinds of services are with commercial operators. In fact these people, some of the very best ones, are ex-employees from Tranquille. They have gone into business and they contract with us for these services. They are accountable. They are accountable to my ministry through the regional manager and through the audit team, etc., so they are very accountable. Of course, it's public funds, so eventually they're accountable to the community through the electoral process, I would suppose. So if your question is whether we will contract with these types of people exclusively, the answer is no. We're interested in purchasing a service where we get the highest quality for the least amount of dollars. Many of these are commercially operated facilities.

MS. A. HAGEN: I would express some grave concern about the response that I have had from the minister. In fact, in many of the services that we have throughout our province, we do work through mechanisms that allow for public accountability. While I do not question that there may very well be, in the kind of example that the minister has offered, excellent care available to the mentally handicapped living in

[ Page 369 ]

the community, I think that where public dollars are being expended, the idea of those dollars being expended in a non-profit sector and with people who are publicly accountable is a tradition that we should see go by the wayside with very great reluctance. I'm sure that we will be speaking to this issue again as we discuss the Woodlands closure.

I have one more question that I would like to pose to the minister around the services that are available to mentally handicapped people. There are many of them, but there is one additional issue that I would like to flag at this time. There are, within the community, many mentally handicapped people who have never been institutionalized. They are people who have lived with their families all of their lives. Many of them are a part of programs that have been developed by groups like the Simon Fraser Society for Mentally Handicapped People and others that exist throughout the province.

One of the concerns that I am hearing over and over again among many is that those people who are living in the community are being very seriously shortchanged in the services that are available to them. I understand that the waiting lists are moving into the hundreds now for services for people who are in need of training, opportunities to work and opportunities to have some constructive kinds of programs available to them as a part of their regular living. The organizations of which I speak are increasingly concerned, as are the parents and families of these young people, about the lack of commitment to those people who have never been institutionalized and who are equally in need of service,

Can the minister give us some assurance that while we are progressing with a small number of people — something in the order of 500 or 600 who are institutionally still bound — we are not going to be forgetting the needs of those many people who are already a part of a normal life pattern, living in the community and in need of achievement centres, training, opportunities to work and other special services?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, just back to the former subject before I try to answer your question, I must repeat that the emphasis that we place on these contracts is on quality service. They are monitored very closely by us and by others.

Non-profit does not guarantee quality. We have found out that some of the non-profit societies operate very well, some do not. Some have closed. So don't equate a non-profit society with quality service, because the two do not go hand in hand. There is accountability in our program. In fact, what we're doing right here now is the public accountability of which you speak. Non-profit doesn't guarantee any better accountability than a purchased service.

On the waiting-lists for the people you speak of, that's why this year in the budget we have put in $1.4 million to accommodate those on waiting-lists. I am told by my staff that at present in the province there are 194 on waiting-lists for such services. So, yes, we're very aware of the problem. That's why we have put this extra $1.4 million into the budget: to accommodate these 194 people.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Chairman, my task today is to address the issue of women and social services, that being my critic area, and I am here to back up my colleagues the members for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) and for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen), to ask questions about these estimates that relate to women and social services. But I would like to take the opportunity to correct some of the minister's statements.

The SPARC report, the update on regaining dignity, does in fact refer to an average rent. However, that average rent is not the Vancouver average; it is the average for the lower mainland, and as I read through page 9 of the report, I can see that the city of Vancouver's rents — bachelor, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, three-bedroom — comprise about one-third of the total list of municipalities chosen to be the rent sample for this report. I would suggest that the average rent, therefore, brought up as a part of the subsistence level of living, is in fact more than legitimate, In the whole of the metro Vancouver area, the average bachelor flat seems to be renting at $364 a month, a one-bedroom at $443, a two-bedroom at $587 and a three-bedroom at $658.1 should suggest that when the researchers were putting together their estimates for what it takes a person to live at the poverty level, according to this report, they were very frugal. In fact, a family of three, a single parent and two children, were given only two bedrooms.

I think that's an indicator that what we're dealing with is a situation where this $80-a-month cold-water flat no longer exists. We're dealing with real rents in the 1980s in the lower mainland, and subsistence is, in effect, subsistence, and when single males are living at 71 percent below a poverty line as established for us regionally in the Vancouver area, it's a real 71 percent.

If, in effect, the minister would like to say that unemployment rates correspond exactly with the welfare rates as they fluctuate up and down — say that on the one hand but then turn about and say on the other hand that we can't increase welfare too much because it will attract more welfare recipients — I'd like him to think about the inconsistencies of that very thought, of those two statements juxtaposed. If the rates correspond exactly with each other, it would suggest that if we raised those welfare rates to the poverty line, the unemployment rate and the rate of people on welfare would remain much the same. People want to work, and I think that's the point that has to be made here.

[4:45]

Similarly, we should point out that the 2.5 percent increase in GAIN rates to families is not something to be lauded or applauded; it's something, I think, we could remain ashamed of. In my calculations, a two-parent family with two children, earning on the support side of their GAIN cheque $864 a month, are not going to be making that much more with the 2.5 percent increase granted April 1. In fact, it calculates to about $10 a month. If you have two children who are, for example, eating an apple a day, eating 60 apples a month, I'd suggest that your two children are not going to be able, with this 2.5 percent increase, to have an apple a day for a whole month. I think it's worth thinking about that graphically, in pictorial terms. That 2.5 percent does not give two kids in a family an apple a day for a month.

We've said this before, and I'm sure it will be said again: society is measured on how it cares for its dependent people, and people on welfare are dependent. By my numbers, 40 percent of people in our province on welfare are children; 58 percent appear to be female. One of our goals, I would hope, in a civilized society is to reduce dependency, and we do that by developing services for the dependent, so that they can best help themselves, and keep their integrity, and somehow make their way into the economic and social mainstream.

[ Page 370 ]

My task today, in addressing women and their relationship to the estimates in Social Services and Housing, is not an easy task, possibly because I've been so close to this issue for so many years of my life, as a social worker and a coordinator of social services in Vancouver, as a city councillor, as a woman, as a parent, as a friend over the years of many of the people who work in the system and as a friend of many of the people who've been consumers of the system. So I approach this with a certain amount of trepidation, almost a fear that I probably won't have when I approach my own critic area. I know these people too well.

In this province, and in this country, we've got a history of partnership between public and voluntary service systems, and we work together to meet community needs. They have grown as a jigsaw puzzle grows, often meeting needs and often on a piecemeal basis. Sometimes we find that when we've tried to meet needs, according to the old jigsaw puzzle, the jigsaw puzzle itself becomes irrelevant as a decade goes by, and we find that we're building the wrong puzzle altogether. We often watch a voluntary service meeting a small local need which becomes larger than a local need, larger than a personal problem. That's the point at which government should be stepping in to relieve the voluntary sector and guarantee a service to all citizens, whether that be health care or pensions.

In the seventies and eighties we've all witnessed the effects of economic and social stress on the family. We've come of age, actually, as a province in our ability to handle, manage and create new systems to deal with social needs. Hopefully we've developed a sophistication to understand that the so-called cost side of the ledger and the so-called revenue side of the ledger can be blended; that in fact very often we have to be priming the pump, we have to be injecting money back into the community to make it whole again and to make it run again.

What's happened in this province in the last ten years, though, has been the opposite. What we've had is crisis intervention, and that's happened more and more in the last few years. We attempted briefly to direct our efforts at preventing family breakdown through bolstering community services, and we supported these services for a while. Now I see in this budget those community services being starved again and not being given the kind of attention and funding they need.

I would suggest — and this is where I want to support heartily the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam's (Mr. Cashore's) resolution — that we move towards an inquiry on family and children's services. Perhaps this might be the very first item for discussion on the standing committee on health, social services and education. In fact, I would think that would be the most legitimate thing we could do to kick off the new standing committee. It will be a relief, I should say, Mr. Chairman, to many of us to get those standing committees running, because it will mean that we can sit around a table together and deal with some of these problems and management solutions, and bolster good services and evaluate bad ones together, rather than debating estimates.

I would suggest that as the standing committee comes to sit, we set up some measuring sticks for evaluating community services, measuring sticks by which we evaluate ourselves as we try to meet needs. Among these measuring sticks, I would include the following. For the Ministry of Social Services I would include that we try to establish together a clear set of goals which emphasize the integrity of individuals while providing security and opportunity for them to become independent.

Secondly, I would recommend that we sit down and develop a clear set of strategies, a social services plan within the department which defines problem areas and develops programs within the community and in the department and perhaps even most important between departments of this government, so that we are dealing with people as whole people and not as little boxes. Departments come in boxes, people come as people, and we have to meet their needs in an integrated way.

The third thing I would recommend is that we make a commitment to communities, as they try to work towards solving community problems, and we work closely with the voluntary sector in communities and assist them to establish services to meet needs. I would insist, though, as we do this that we maintain our standards, that while community services can meet local needs, provincial standards that we would apply are properly set and properly monitored. I would ask also for an appropriate commitment to proper evaluation and the helpful monitoring of services as they do their tasks.

The minister has just said that non-profit societies do not necessarily guarantee quality service. My suggestion, and the suggestion of this side of the House, is that we develop the evaluative tools, the inspections, the friendly monitorings, the helpful development to ensure that proper evaluation is done. It has been my impression that we have not had the staff time to do evaluation properly in some instances where we should have.

Fifthly, and it is important, although it doesn't seem quite as dramatic, we have to have a clear accounting at the budgetary level and at the reporting end of the year which delineates services clearly. I will come to this later when I talk about day care and when I talk about certain services for women.

It is frustrating for a member of the opposition or for a member of the public to sit down and try to figure out exactly what is being spent in certain service areas, when in fact they are amalgamated and integrated into an overall budget and cannot be parceled out or boiled down.

Last — and perhaps most important in a certain way — we have to trust in the providers of service. We have to trust in our own civil service, and we have to carefully listen not only to the consumers, which is extremely important, but to the trained professionals that we hire to do the job for us in the field.

I would like to just go on a bit about those last two points. But I see I have three minutes left, and if one member will stand up and ask me to go on, I think I'd be able to do that.

I was disturbed yesterday, for example, that the minister was disappointed in our response on day care, most notably my response on day care, and suggested that my figures were off. He knows that day care in the budget is combined with training and support for handicapped people, and the 1986 estimated budget for $39 million plus 30 percent brings us to $51 million, which is the 1987-88 estimate. Now that was a 30 percent increase, and perhaps the minister thought that that was a 30 percent increase. When we phoned the department itself we were given a number which said that the actual expenditure last year was....

Interjections.

[ Page 371 ]

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I'm fascinated by the member for Vancouver-Point Grey and her excellent discussion of the issues. I think this House should continue to hear these views, and I await the continuation of her presentation.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Chairman, the number we were given was $25 million by the department. So when we calculated what the actual percentage increase for child care was, we said it was closer to 5 percent, that it wasn't 30 percent. It brings us to a tricky point. I assume that we as an opposition could feel free to approach staff for answers. We did and we were given an answer. I assume it was no setup, because I appreciate staff and I appreciate civil service work. I have been a civil servant, and I know all the frustrations that can ripple through a whole system when there is a lack of trust.

I would like to ask the minister, right now on the record: can we expect that when we ask for information from your staff on small requests, for example on numbers on services that aren't already provided to us because they haven't been broken down in ways that we need to digest them, then those numbers can be made available to us, that in fact we don't have to phone the minister's office to have memos trickle all the way down and then memos trickle all the way up to tie up staff time? I ask that because, as I said, it is a very tricky thing to do to deal with a civil service — which we respect immensely, and I know that you respect immensely, but it would seem that we had a bit of a communication problem there.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, it's difficult to know where to start. I will go back to some of the member's opening remarks, which had to do with average shelter costs. I realize full well, Madam Member, that the average that was used by SPARC was for the entire lower mainland. What it was getting at is that it took into account all levels of rental accommodation. What SPARC was really saying, if I read you correctly in what you're saying, is that all those on income assistance should live at the average level of everyone in the lower mainland; that should be the level we should fund shelter allowance at. I'm sure that if you stop and think about that, you don't really mean that. I'll leave that with you.

[5:00]

I don't wish, though, to leave on the record the effect that you seem to get of twisting what I said about it being a two-edged sword. I say we walk a fine line on where income assistance rates should be, whether they're too high or too low. You can do an interview in the street right now, as was done by one of the local TV stations recently, and you get people saying it's all the way from far too high to far too low. What I'm saying is that I think the only thing we differ on in the philosophy — it's probably not philosophical; I think the philosophy is the same — is where the rates should be. How high off the ground should the safety net be? You in turn keep refering to a poverty line as some magical figure. There is no such figure as a poverty line. You are correct — and I said the same thing — when you say people want to work. Employable people on welfare do want to get off welfare rolls and they do want to work.

The other thing I would question is you kept mentioning a figure of 2.5 percent. I don't know where you got that from, so I'll leave that and you can explain that when you come back. I don't see a 2.5 percent increase mentioned anywhere. The increase is 5 percent in June, 5 percent in December and 6 percent on the shelter allowance. I don't know about 2.5 percent.

Most of the suggestions you gave us as you listed off what we should be doing are things that we do continuously. We do those things that you mentioned — the evaluative tools, the monitoring, working with the communities to see what the need is and identifying and filling it. So I guess we're on the same wavelength because we do all of those things that you mentioned.

In the day care, just to clarify it for you, the increase in funding is 30 percent overall, from $20.6 million to $26.7 million. The $6.1 million increase in subsidy funding will be used to satisfy both an increased demand for the program and to provide an increase in the current subsidy rates. Plus, special needs day-care funding — which you may have missed — has been increased by approximately $800,000, representing a 14 percent increase, from $5.9 million to $6.7 million. This increase will provide an additional 140 special needs day-care spaces for handicapped children currently on waiting-lists around the province.

As for information from the ministry, in the spirit of open government I think we provide more information to MLAs then has ever been provided in the past. In fact I'm told by the staff that I'm a veritable fount of information, and we intend to hide nothing except that which is privileged information. I'm sure you're aware that in a ministry such as ours there is a lot of confidential information. Barring that, and barring the requirement of the staff to spend an inordinate amount of time digging out specific information, everything in the ministry is available to all elected people. Most of it is public information. I wrote a letter to all MLAs saying just that.

The only thing I'm trying to get away from in this is that I really don't want 69 MLAs phoning everyone in the ministry whenever they want to know something. These people are extremely busy and have an awful lot of work to do, and I think you can appreciate that if we have 69 elected people phoning any member of the ministry staff whenever they wish, it becomes pretty cumbersome. So on routine information, yes, by all means, phone the information people at the ministry; if you wish something specific, see me — a phone call to my office will do. If it's not confidential information, it will be provided to you forthwith. The other day, though, I did receive a request from one of your members — I forget which one — asking for a type of breakdown and figures that we just do not have, and it would have required hours and hours of work to provide it. So I said no, we don't have it. If it's readily available and we can push a button on the computer and get it, you will have it.

So we are, I think, pretty wide open for information. We are not trying to conceal anything.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Chairman, I would like to spend a few minutes, if I may, discussing the child care situation and asking a few questions about child care that are probably pertinent to the House right now, to the budget as it stands, and to British Columbia in the 1980s.

It is the view of this party that because of the demographics of our society we should be looking towards a comprehensive and accessible form of day care for children. The studies that we have developed thus far suggest to us that there are about 140,000 children in the province between the ages of infancy and 12 who in effect are in need of care. They are in need of care after school; they are in need of care from the ages of three to five; they are in need of care from infancy to three.

[ Page 372 ]

There happen to be at this time, I gather — I'm using '84-85 statistics, since the '86 annual report is not out yet— about 20,000 licensed spaces in the province. That means that there are a great number of children who are not in licensed spaces. Many of them are in family homes, in the homes of relatives, in the homes of the friendly neighbour down the street; they are in unlicensed facilities. Now it would be ideal, I would think, that in a society where over 50 percent of parents — mothers — are in the workforce we should be developing some system of caring for children in licensed facilities.

The licensed facilities which have most often been mentioned, and which studies have shown to be the most effective at delivering a service not just for the parent but for the child, are the non-profit group care centres. This is not to put down the licensed home, because there are many licensed homes in our province that are operating very effectively, lovingly and well. But the data we are receiving suggest that for the development of the child — as a pre-school education for the child — we should be looking towards the non-profit group care centres.

My numbers show me that in 1966 we had 11 of these centres; in 1970, 54; in 1973, 250. I would be interested to know if the minister has a 1986 figure on the number of licensed group-care centres in the province.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, I don't have a number right at hand for what you ask. The annual report for '86 is at the Queen's Printer now, so it should be available within a few days.

Just a couple of things on day care and then we can continue. The federal task force recently reported their findings on day care, and of course we got three different reports out of that. I haven't seen them yet, only what I've seen in the media, but I notice we've got three different reports. I'll be looking at those very carefully.

Along those lines, in June we are meeting at the deputy level first and then at the ministerial level with the Hon. Jake Epp, the federal minister, to come to some conclusions on day care; so it is a joint federal and provincial undertaking. It's being fast-tracked because of the urgency of it, and in June we'll be meeting on day care with our counterparts in the other provinces and the federal minister to come up with a program.

Again, we get into the difference between non-profit daycare centres and commercially operated day-care centres. The members opposite seem to find some comfort or some magic in the words "non-profit." Just because it's a non-profit society it seems to have some connotation that it's better than somebody who does it for profit. We find in many cases — not in all cases, but in many cases — that the best day-care centres we have are those commercially run centres that do it for a living. In fact, when I was at a federal-provincial conference in Ottawa in January, I specifically discussed this with as many other ministers as I could. In Ontario, for example, 60 percent of their day-care centres are commercially run operations, and they find them very acceptable, very efficient, delivering a quality service at as good or better a price than the non-profit society.

I don't say they can't exist side by side, or can't co-exist, but to favour just the non-profit societies, as you tend to suggest, and as Manitoba.... Manitoba was the only province that wanted day care to go non-profit society, so it's got to be some kind of an ideological hang-up that the socialist party seems to have regarding non-profit versus a commercially run operation. So I try to make that point to you and suggest that non-profit is not the only way to go.

MS. MARZARI: Maybe I should talk a little about the ideological hang-up. I don't say this to score political points: a number of people whom I count as colleagues in fact run as a so-called profit centre, and I think it shouldn't be any surprise to you that there is really no profit in the profit centre. What there usually is, however, in the non-profit centre, as you may be aware, is a parent board that runs the centre and that gets very much involved with the running of the centre and the decisions made around the centre. In the centres for profit, or, as we call them affectionately, Kentucky-fried children's centres, the profit, if there is profit to be made, very often comes off the salaries of the workers.

We are blessed in British Columbia with some excellent child care training programs in our community colleges. These people have graduated over the years into the day-care system. They still, after some years of a half-developed non-profit system, are paid basically 30 percent below what an equivalent child care worker would make — and 30 percent less than the average industrial wage and, I'm told, 30 percent less than animal care workers on government farms. Very often then, I'm saying, the turnover of workers in the profit centres.... The pay for workers is such that it doesn't provide the continuity of care and the training that we find in the non-profit centres, which are basically parent-run.

If I could go on to just ask another question here.... This is a procedural question. I believe that one of the reasons we don't have the numbers, Mr. Minister — and it won't appear in the 1986-87 report — is that the ministry no longer keeps actual numbers on non-profit day-cares. In fact, you keep numbers on licensed spaces in the province. I would like to ask you if you would assure us that henceforth in your estimates and in your reports you will separate out child care as a separate budget entity. And would you please report in your supplements the actual numbers of different homes or day-care centres operating in the province?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: To your last question, I'll take under advisement whether we can and whether we should separate that out. It may be a good point. Maybe we will take a look at that and do that.

I have found out, since you last asked, that there are 25,000 licensed day-care spaces in B.C. at the moment.

Again, I don't wish to belabour the point of whether a commercially run day-care centre is better or worse than a non-profit one, but I don't think we should be hung up on either. We have found that in many of these "non-profit" societies, the salaries and benefits for the directors are sometimes way out of line. So there is profit in them, but the profit is going into somebody's pocket. Without mentioning any names, we have found salaries in the $80,000-to-$100,000-a-year category in non-profit societies. So there is profit in them; the profit just doesn't appear on the bottom line.

[5:15]

MS. MARZARI: I hope the minister will check that out with non-profit day-cares. I think you'll find that most of the directors of day-care centres and the senior teachers will have quite a chuckle that they could even be thinking of $80,000-to-$100,000 salaries. As I said, they are severely underpaid

[ Page 373 ]

at this point, and continue to be underpaid, I think, even under the new system of subsidies.

As you know, Mr. Minister, the federal government has just reported with its three-year study on day care, which follows the Katie Cooke study on day care, which followed yet another study on day care. We have studied day care to death in this country, and I would hope that this province will take advantage of those studies and perhaps move ahead. I gather that, among other things, including tax credits for parents using child care services, there will be $69 million of new money offered by the federal government, which will be distributed among the provinces. My information says that this is new money for provision of services, or subsidies. Has the minister thought through how much money he's going to be able to pull out of the federal government for this expansion of service, and in what service areas he will be directing those dollars?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, I'm going to come back to what I just said about day care and where we're going — and that won't be decided until June, when we meet with the federal minister and the other provincial ministers to decide just exactly what course is going to be taken in day care. And of course, as I said earlier, for every dollar that's offered up by Ottawa a dollar has to be spent by us, and we have to determine where we're going to spend those dollars before I can tell you how much we're going to try to extract from the feds.

There's one thing I forgot to mention earlier, when we were talking about day care — and you alluded to it. When we're talking about 25,000 licensed spaces and that being a shortfall, we find that many people prefer to leave their children with either a neighbour or family — mother, grandmother, etc. So I just want to make that point that there isn't a shortfall out there as it appears when you look at the number of 25,000 licensed spaces versus what is demanded.

Again I point out that I think that we've gone a long way to addressing the needs of day care in this province and in this budget with a 30 percent increase in one year. So I think it shows that we are very cognizant of the problem out there and are addressing it.

MS. MARZARI: Well, let me urge you on to even greater heights. Let me urge you to give credence to the whole issue by separating it out in your estimates and in your final budgets, because when you separate it out and take a look at it, it gives those of us in the community and in the opposition a chance to take a close look at those real numbers so they are not amalgamated and integrated with services for handicapped or special needs children, that we are dealing with normal children in normal communities where I have to admit day care sometimes becomes a lottery.

In my constituency, the day cares have waiting-lists, and the waiting-lists are long. Now that doesn't mean to say that the day cares are always running beautifully and well. You know that day-care funding is something like the way we seem to fund universities. Day cares don't know what their actual budget is because if they lose a child in their day-care centre, or the child pulls out suddenly, in effect that throws their cash flow off completely.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

Is there any thought in the minister's mind about offering some small block funding — some operating line of credit, if you will — to day-care centres so that they can in fact cover their cash exigencies on a monthly basis so that they can continue to plan and run their centres without fear that if they lose one child or two children, they will also have to lose a staff member?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Madam Chairman, again we get asked this question all the time: why don't you give the money to the day-care centre instead of to the parent? Our philosophy on that is no, we would much rather subsidize the parent — single parent or whatever — to let them make their decision as to where they go.

We have no intention of getting into the funding of daycare centres per se. We fund the need when it exists on an individual basis, so that individuals then have control over what they do with that day-care money. They can shop for the best day care that they can get for that money.

MS. MARZARI: Shopping for the best day care might not be possible, if in fact the day cares cannot keep 25 children in a licensed facility and keep their cash flow going.

Putting money in the hands of the parent is a good idea, but the centres themselves need that extra security. They need to know, for example, that the real costs of a child in its centre could be $350 per month nowadays. The subsidy is not $350 for a mother coming from welfare into the workforce and putting her child into day care. If the subsidy is not $350, that mother has to pay out of her welfare cheque the additional dollars, the shortfall between the subsidy and the real cost of the day care.

Will the new subsidy rates reflect the actual value of the average cost of day care?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It is difficult to answer that yes or no. In fact, it is impossible to say yes or no, but we realize the exact problem that you're talking about, which, of course, is why we are increasing the amount that the single parent will have for day care. To put an exact figure.... It is impossible to say whether that will cover it exactly or not. Can't answer that for you, but we are again very cognizant of the problem of which you speak, and that is again why we have put 30 percent more funding into the program to address exactly what you are talking about.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

MS. MARZARI: I have one last question on day care, Mr. Minister, and it is probably the most important. It has to do with responsibility. It has to do with accountability, and it has to do with who is going to take the bull by the horns here and actually do the job and finally say: "Yes, we are the agency responsible for planning and developing and coordinating child care services."

I know what your answer might be, because I have heard it before. Right now, day care in this province is between the Community Care Facilities Licensing Board, the health department, which supposedly inspects the day cares, and the education department that trains the workers. There is a tripartite arrangement.

In fact, I must submit that my party is very much in favour in the long run of looking at day cares other than a welfare model and looking at it as an education model. But I would

[ Page 374 ]

ask in the interim, this year, whether your ministry is ready to take on the coordinating role that child care in this province desperately needs; the planning, the strategy, the financing and the development of the service that, as you know, 100,000 children could benefit from.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer, I guess, in one word — if I'm reading you correctly, Madam Member; if what you're saying is that we should be all things to all people when it comes to day care — is no. I don't think we in this ministry should get involved in the licensing or the inspection of day care. That's a health matter, and it involves fire inspection, safety, etc. Those organizations are far better equipped to look after that than we are.

We are very concerned about day care, especially where it concerns those on income assistance — or welfare if you like — and especially for the single parent who is most in need. As you probably know, we have 35,000 single parents on our welfare roles, the vast majority of whom are women. We recognize that, and it's very difficult for them. We also recognize it in conjunction with the federal government, and I point out that we're on a fast track to coming up with a national scheme of one sort or another — guaranteed not to please everybody, as the task force report the other day didn't please everybody; there were minority reports written. I feel very positive as I stand here that we will do what we think is best in conjunction with the federal government regarding day care, but I can also guarantee you it won't please everyone. We also have to remember that we have to operate within our means and with what we can afford in day care. I think we've come a long way, and this budget this year and my estimates deal with a very significant step forward in that direction.

I guess that's about the best way I can answer your question. We recognize the need and we're moving in what we perceive to be the best way to fulfil that need. Some of the philosophy and thoughts will have to go on hold for the next two or three months, until we finish that federal-provincial conference and see just which direction the rest of the provinces and the federal government wish to go in. We will have a great deal of input into that. We had a very successful meeting in January, where this province was, I think, well represented. We had a lot of input into what went on at that meeting regarding cost-sharing and developing a child care program.

So by the end of June, we should have that in place. As I say, we might not be on the very same philosophical wavelength, but we will go a long way to solving the dilemma, if you like, and the problem of child care in this country.

MRS. BOONE: Just a few comments here. My remarks are going to be a little more specific, in particular to my riding and to some of the problems in the north. Although some people here don't like to think of us as the north — we are central interior, I guess — to those who live in Langley and Vancouver we're certainly the north.

I'm pleased that the committee came to Prince George. I attended that meeting, and I listened to the reports there. But I think there are some things that you should have been aware of, and that's that there are some problems in the community — not just in Prince George, but in the outlying communities — with regard to the length of time that we were given: one month's notice, two weeks in order to get your briefs in, and then to hear six hours of briefs from the community.... As it was the only place they went in the north, they had people coming from as far as Kitimat and Dawson Creek even; some people came down from there. I think it was a disservice for all of the ministers to come for that length of time and only spend six hours there. We would have liked to have seen you there a little longer.

Some of my questions are with regard to support services. Now I've spoken to many people at all levels within the ministry, not just in Prince George but in various areas throughout the northern community. One of their major concerns is the lack of support services. They are pleased, and I am pleased, that the ministry has seen fit to increase its staff. I understand that it has just about doubled its staffing level since 1982, 1983, or somewhere around there.

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE: Eighty-one; I don't know. I'm pleased with that. But I am not pleased with the support services that are there. I keep hearing time and time again from people that they want their fair share of the dollars that are going into support services, and that the people who are working in the communities there are having a difficult time doing their job because they frequently don't have the support there to help them once they have, for example, apprehended a child.

One of the things we do require is group homes, and that is something that is really needed. We are at the moment apprehending children and putting them into hotels and motels and things that are not cost-effective and not very good for the children. That should be the bottom line: when you apprehend a child, you do so to take it into care and to put it into a good situation. We need at least three group homes in the Prince George area in addition to the ones that we have.

In areas such as Fort St. James, they need foster homes. Now I don't know what you say. You've got some increased money for foster homes. I don't know how you intend to use that — whether you're going to be giving some people some incentives, whether you're going to be increasing the amount of subsidy to foster parents. Those foster parents are people that usually.... I know there are some foster parents who do make money on it, but usually the foster parents I know are ones who do a good job, who are there to tend to the children and whose major purpose is to provide a good home life for their children.

[5:30]

I would like to ask the minister two questions at this time. First, is there money for expanded group home services and foster home services in the northern half of the province? Second, is there extra money for the foster parents? Is that what the increase in funding for foster parents is? Will you be increasing the subsidy to foster parents?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer in a nutshell to what you've said is yes, all those things. The money is for all those things. We have this year put an additional $7.85 million into procuring foster homes to do some of the things you've said, and there's a 10.9 percent increase for family and children's services. So most of that is to deal with the waiting-lists that we have throughout the province. I hope that answers your question.

To make a comment on your opening remark, I too wish we could have spent longer in each community. It's virtually impossible, though, when we have about six or seven very busy ministers in the government. To get them there for one

[ Page 375 ]

day is a minor miracle; to get them there for any longer is virtually impossible. When the House is sitting it becomes especially very difficult for us to get around the province. We're still going to do it. We're going to Kamloops on Friday. We might not have a full committee, but we'll be taking one day out of this very busy place to do that. I wish we could spend more time, too.

MRS. BOONE: I'm glad to see that there is money coming into the group homes. Can you tell me how many group homes are planned in the northern half of the province, please?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, I can't. It's impossible for me to give you that figure. They'll be done on an as-needed basis and working with our regional managers in each area.

I want to give you some figures, though, on what you mentioned in Prince George about staffing levels. In the Prince George region in 1983 there were 35 social worker positions assigned to the region. As of today's date we have 60 social worker positions assigned to the Prince George region, And you might be going to address this, but one other thing that we're looking at as a committee — and have done a report on, as a matter of fact — is recruitment for the northern part of the province. We're not complete yet on our strategy. One of the most difficult problems we face in the ministry is recruiting and retaining staff in the remote northern areas of the province. So it's one of the things that we are addressing. We will have a report on that by the end of April, I'm told by my deputy. We asked for it about three months ago, and by the end of April we will have a first cut at a strategy on recruitment and retaining of staff in the remote areas of the province.

MRS. BOONE: I'd like to ask the minister if he would share that report with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) when he gets it, because we have a similar problem in getting people in the health community as well.

I do understand that it's very difficult for you to say just where the group homes are going to be, but I would like to know if I can have some assurances from the minister later on that he will be working with the regional managers and that those regional managers who express their concerns and tell him how desperately needed they are will probably have those concerns addressed. I will be happy at that. One of the things that we do have a problem with, as I said, is the lack of support services, and that's not just in group homes. That has to do with the specialists who are required in psychiatry, psychology — all of those various people, the people who are required to deal with children who are apprehended, whether it be for sexual abuse, physical abuse or mental abuse. In many cases there are no places for them to send these children; there are no staff around available to deal with them.

Will the ministry work with the Health and Education ministries to coordinate efforts to fund such items? I know that they are working together to try to do some of these things — to get speech pathologists, etc. Will they be working together to try to make sure that communities such as Mackenzie, Fort St. James, Cassiar and all of these places have somebody there whom the ministry people can turn to, to get some assistance? It is really important to these people. We can't just apprehend the children and then not have anything happen to them. One of the ministry's mandates must be that we deal with the children and deal with the problems that are created.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, let me tell you that we have probably a better working relationship among the ministries in the social policy area than we have ever had before. We are doing all of the things you talked about on an interministerial basis. In fact, to come back to the report on recruitment that I talked about, that is a joint study being done by the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy. So it involves Health, Education, Social Services, Attorney-General, Advanced Education — all of those things. You ask: will we share the report? It is a joint report. Many of the decisions now being made are being made on an interministerial basis, because so many of these problems cross ministry lines. In fact, the vast majority of them cross ministry lines all the time. The odd one falls between the stools, and we're trying to address that.

I want to come back, though, to whether there will be a group home here or whatever — what is required in each area. Those decisions will be made at a local level. We are very decentralized in this ministry. The regional manager or supervisor will get an increase in his or her budget. They will make the decisions, being the people on the spot in the area, as to where that money goes. It won't be made from the ivory tower down here on the seventh floor of the building that Mr. Noble occupies. It will be done in consultation, but the regional managers will make those decisions.

MRS. BOONE: That's nice to hear.

Will you be assisting in transportation, in funding for those people who are in areas where they can't get out, where there is no service provided? Perhaps you've failed altogether to get somebody to go up to Cassiar. Will there be any funding available to help transport those families out so that they can get the necessary assistance that they require?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: There is no blanket answer to that, because we will not fund — cannot fund — transportation requirements across the board. We just don't have the funds for the budget. So on an as-needed basis, again as determined at the local level, this will be done. Again, it's a decision that the local worker, supervisor and regional manager have to make, within the bounds of their budget. They have a lot of flexibility and latitude within the global budget that they have. But to say to you that, yes, we will address all transportation needs.... No, we cannot, as much as we would like to. We just don't have the funds.

MRS. BOONE: I can understand that you're saying that you can't address that problem. Is there a policy that makes it possible for people to deal with those things? Quite frequently people go to the ministry and they're told: "No, this is not possible. There is no policy that deals with it. It's not written in our policy." Is the minister then saying that it is possible for an individual to go to his Social Services and Housing offices, and if the regional manager okays such transportation, there is a policy that allows him to do so?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: There is a policy on transportation. Again, it's determined on an as-needed basis by the social worker. It's for people on income assistance. If, within their budget, they determine the need, whether it's for medical reasons or whatever, and then if the regional manager is

[ Page 376 ]

convinced that that is necessary, he or she makes the decision on the spot. So there is indeed flexibility, as there is with crisis grants, which are, again, an emergency basis where the person right on the spot has the power and the authority under the policy to make the decision and say yes, this person is in need of a crisis grant right now. Transportation is handled the same way.

MRS. BOONE: My next question deals with something you've already mentioned, and that is the burnout that's there, owing in many cases to the lack of staff but also owing to pressures that have come about within the last few years from financial problems, problems in the family unit, unemployment, alcoholism and child and wife abuse. There are very few services to deal with these things.

What we see quite frequently is that the staff are under such pressures that it translates into behaviour to clients, and we hear such items as clients being turned down, and when we go back to them — although Mr. Noble says this isn't true, it has happened in many cases — they inform us that what they originally told the client was impossible is possible to do, and they do give them assistance. I can't fault the workers, because I know the pressure they're under and the stress and time constraints they have, but frequently it seems to me that their first response is to turn people down, with a view to getting them out of their hair rather than dealing with their needs.

Is there any way the ministry is going to be dealing with the pressures on the staff there? Do they have any method to try to relieve that pressure so that the staffing needs in the areas are less, so that they're not under those pressures and so that they are dealing with their clients as human beings, as reasonable people, which frequently doesn't happen? As I say, I'm not faulting your employees; I know they're hard workers and doing the best they can. But frequently it doesn't come over to the clients they're dealing with.

[Mr. Pelton in the Chair.]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, I'll give you some good news in that the average caseloads are decreasing. I think that's good news for everyone out there — for the workers, for the clients, for everyone. In fact, the average caseload in '86-87 is down 4.62 percent. This is in financial assistance workers. In social work the caseload is down 3.57 percent. I think it's for two reasons: the caseloads are dropping and the number of staff is going up. So that should alleviate some of the problems you're talking about.

But let me add — and this is for all members in the House, not just the member for Prince George North — if you know of specific cases where people are not being handled properly in any office in my ministry, then I want to know about it. It's very difficult to talk in generalities; I can't talk to the deputy, and he can't talk to staff, in generalities. If you know of somebody who has not been treated properly, or has been turned away when he shouldn't have been, or whose case was just not handled properly, then I want to know about it. That's the only way we can deal with it. It's the only way the deputy can deal with that worker, etc. There may be somebody out there who's not doing his job properly, but we have to be able to track that down on a case-by-case basis. It doesn't take long, if you give me specifics, to pick out somebody who's not doing the job properly. So please do; if you know of any specific cases, bring them to me.

[5:45]

MRS. BOONE: I thank the minister for that. We do have a very good working relationship with the regional manager, and he has given us similar instructions. We have on many occasions passed information over to him, and I'm sure he's dealt with it at that level. So I'm confident that that is taken care of.

Some of the other questions have to do with things you heard when you were in Prince George. They were pleas from people on social assistance for some special recognition of difficulties that they have in living in the northern half of the province. That includes some kind of subsidy or special assistance to deal with heating costs. I'm sure that even the members from Victoria would understand that heating costs are not the same in this fair city as in the northern or central interior half of the province. Clothing costs. In particular they were talking in terms of their younger children: how they outgrow boots and heavy winter clothing, and the need to replace those garments and those items so fast. And they mentioned the need for transportation, As you know, we have no buses in the evening and on the weekend, and there's a necessity for people to have some assistance in those areas.

Has the minister considered those requests and made any special replies? Does he have any plans to deal with those items?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: That's one of the reasons we went up there as a committee: to hear the specific concerns of the people in Prince George. And we did hear, exactly as you have said, that there are some specific needs that are peculiar to that part of the province. I think every area of the province has some specific needs, So these are some of the things that we will be studying as a Cabinet Committee on Social Policy as we try to chart directions for the government. That was the reason for going there.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, before moving adjournment, I'd like to advise the members that Thursday morning the House will not sit; the reasons will become apparent, I'm sure. On Friday, because of the Minister of Social Services and Housing's commitment to continue to travel throughout this province, we will be entering debate on second reading on the Boundary Act and also the Sechelt bill. That's for the advice of the House.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:49 p.m.

[ Page 377 ]

Appendix

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

2 Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations the following questions:

1. For 1985/86, what was the breakdown of social service tax revenue between that paid by consumers and that paid by industry?

2. For fiscal year 1986/87, what is the estimated breakdown between that paid by consumers and that paid by industry?

The Hon. M. B. Couvelier replied as follows:

"1. For 1985/86, it is estimated that consumers paid 53.6 per cent and industry 46.4 per cent, of the total revenue of $1,451,761,470.

"2. For 1986/87, it is estimated that consumers will pay approximately 56 percent and industry 44 per cent of the forecast total revenue of $1,580 million."

5 Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations the following question:

What were the total surcharge payments by the Teck Corporation and Quintette Coal to B.C. Rail to help defray the capital cost of constructing the Tumbler Ridge branch line in the calendar years 1985 and 1986?

The Hon. M. B. Couvelier replied as follows:

"The total surcharge payments by Teck Corporation and Quintette Coal to B.C. Rail in the calendar years 1985 and 1986 amounted to $21,824,122 and $20,211,825, respectively."