[ Page 379 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Abortion recommendations funding. Ms. Smallwood –– 379

Native Indian education. Mr. Jones –– 379

Proposed B.C. Place liquor licence. Mr. Lovick –– 380

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Sihota

Ministerial use of government vehicles. Mr. Long –– 380

Proposed B.C. Place liquor licence. Ms. Marzari –– 380

Legal aid funding. Mr. Sihota –– 381

Ministerial Statement

Teachers' early retirement program. Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 381

Mr. Jones

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

On vote 56: minister's office –– 382

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Cashore

Mrs. Boone

Mr. R. Fraser

Ms. Marzari

Mr. De Jong

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Jones

Mr. Loenen

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Lovick

Appendix –– 403

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, last night I had the good fortune to entertain Mayor John Backhouse, mayor of the city of Prince George, and his wife Vicky, and also the city engineer, Ernie Obst, and his wife Beverley. They were at Government House along with others last night to receive an environmental award for the city of Prince George. Would the House please welcome our mayor, our city engineer and their respective wives.

Further, yesterday I introduced my wife, and she wasn't here; she was out shopping. But today she is here, and I'm delighted to have her here. Would the House please welcome her again.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to add my welcome to the mayor of Prince George and his wife Vicky. They are good friends of mine, longtime friends, and I'd like the House to welcome them. In addition, I'd like to welcome Dr. Bob Dykes, also from Prince George.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) and the second member for Delta (Mr. Davidson), I take pleasure in introducing to the House Dr. Stan Wilbee, a former alderman of Delta, and his wife Anne, who are in the precincts.

MR. CLARK: In the gallery today we have a community activist and strong NDP supporter from the great riding of Vancouver East. I'd ask the House to welcome George Lawson.

MS. EDWARDS: With us today we have a member from my constituency and a long-time community worker, Evelyn Mathias. I would ask the House to make her welcome.

MS. A. HAGEN: A friend and community worker in New Westminster is visiting us today. Would you join me in welcoming Doug Hardy to the House.

Oral Questions

ABORTION RECOMMENDATIONS FUNDING

MS. SMALLWOOD: My question is to the Minister of Health. Further to the ministry's policy review on abortion commissioned by the Premier, has the minister allocated the $2 million provided in the budget to implement the report's recommendations, in particular by developing better educational and contraceptive programs to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

HON. MR. DUECK: The money has been allocated in the budget towards that particular issue; however, it will be looked at by committee, and we will then come forward with exactly where it will be allocated as to the individual items.

MS. SMALLWOOD: A two-part question: first, I'd like the minister to specify what committee; second, can the minister assure the House that any educational program developed by the ministry will be in consultation with pro-choice groups, who were excluded from having input into the ministry's abortion study?

HON. MR. DUECK: A committee has not yet been struck, so I can't give you an answer to the second.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister has again referred to the committee. What committee is this?

HON. MR. DUECK: I've just said that the committee has not yet been formed, so I cannot speak to that question.

MS. SMALLWOOD: If the minister is unable to give us specific information about this committee and who will make it up, can the minister assure this House that there will be open consultation?

HON. MR. DUECK: As you know, because the report is public, there are recommendations in that report. Mr. Speaker, it's public to all. It's up to the committee whether they will follow those recommendations and report to me.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Is the minister then saying that he is not prepared to consult with pro-choice groups?

HON. MR. DUECK: No, I did not say that at all. I said the committee has not yet been formed, and that will be looked at at that time.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Is the minister not prepared to direct this committee to consult? That is the question. We're looking for direction from the minister to this committee that is yet to be defined.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to be evasive, but the committee has not yet been formed, and I cannot answer that question.

[2:15]

NATIVE INDIAN EDUCATION

MR. JONES: The other day, Mr. Speaker, the Premier mentioned the Minister of Education in his report on the first ministers' conference, and so I have a question for the minister on native Indian education. I'm sure the minister is aware that the federal Minister of Indian Affairs terminated the master tuition agreement, effective June 30, 1987, and requested that a new method of tuition payments be made which would include Indian involvement in its development. Can the minister tell me if the government still opposes this change to give our native Indian communities more say in the education of their children?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We have wanted to deal with Indian involvement, but we don't have agreement as to what happens in September, so we've asked for the federal people to please consider that. We have a lot of bands and a lot of school districts involved in this province. We want the involvement, but surely the last thing we want is chaos in the province.

MR. JONES: So much for a fresh start.

[ Page 380 ]

Is the minister aware that there is a native Indian body that's a coordinating body, the B.C. first nations education negotiating team, that would alleviate the problem the minister alludes to?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm aware that there's a lot of coordinating going on, but I don't know exactly what agreements they could come up with before the end of June.

MR. JONES: Given the June 30 deadline, a very short period of time, three months, in which time the educational funds will be diverted from the Department of Indian Affairs to the native Indian groups, has the minister decided to consult with coordinating groups so that local agreements can be established and there won't be chaos, and so that the native Indian people can have a say in the education of their children?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: There is consultation going on, Mr. Speaker, particularly with staff members, but again I point out that the decision was handed down federally, sort of unilaterally. I don't think that the ramifications were properly considered, and we're going to be facing that. We're going to be facing some problems. At the moment we're proceeding as though students will be coming to the public school system, and it will be funded. Hopefully some of the people who just made these announcements will come up with some way for this to proceed so that none of the students suffer, because they are the ones we have to consider.

PROPOSED B.C. PLACE LIQUOR LICENCE

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. It's a very simple and direct question: namely, can the minister confirm for the members of this House that no decision will be taken on the B.C. Place beer hall application we have all read about until the liquor review process is complete and public hearings have been held?

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the proposal that was written about in the media hasn't even appeared yet formally. There has been no application made yet formally that I know of. Certainly under the current regulations we could not do that; and yes, I will agree to that.

MR. LOVICK: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Just to test the acuity of my hearing, is the answer yes?

HON. L. HANSON: Yes.

MR. LOVICK: Thank you. I'm delighted to see that the Premier gave you that instruction, and that you did indeed answer yes.

MS. EDWARDS: My question is also for the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services: has the minister decided that he shall in fact assess the impact of the proposed B.C. Place beer halls, with their 2,000-seat capacity, on the rest of the licensed facilities in downtown Vancouver, none of which could have a capacity of more than 225 seats?

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure of the question, nor am I sure of where the hon. member got her facts. The figure 2,000 is quite exaggerated. In fact I'm not sure that I understood your total question or what you were saying. First of all, the regulations as they are now would not permit that. Secondly, prior to the review of liquor licensing that is going on, there will be no decision made on that.

MS. EDWARDS: To the minister: as I understood, the application was to be there. If that doesn't occur, then is the minister saying there would be no approval of the two proposals as we both understand them so far?

HON. L. HANSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, a very short answer to that is no. I'm still not sure that I understand the question that the member is trying to place before me. Certainly there has been no formal application. There was a proposal presented, or at least made public, by B.C. Enterprise Corporation, and it hasn't come to me or my ministry as an application for a licence at this point. But secondly, our regulations do not at this time permit a licence of that sort, and thirdly, we're not considering any approval of that licence until the liquor review has been completed.

MR. SIHOTA: On this application that the minister hasn't received and the press has, my question simply is this. Does the minister then agree in principle with the concerns of the Vancouver police with respect to rowdiness and drunken driving? Or does the minister have other information pertaining to that situation to suggest that the police are wrong in their assessment?

HON. L. HANSON: The question seems to be a hypothetical one, and I'm not sure that w, deal with those situations in this House.

MINISTERIAL USE OF GOVERNMENT VEHICLES

MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier with respect to the government vehicles. Has the Premier taken any steps toward a uniform policy with regard to ministerial use of government vehicles throughout British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that matter has been attended to by me and there will be a policy developed very shortly.

PROPOSED B.C. PLACE LIQUOR LICENCE

MS. MARZARI: This is a question for the Minister of Economic Development. I find it difficult, Madam Minister, to believe that this barbarian beer-hall scheme fits with your conception of the theme and dream for the interim use of the B.C. Place site. Do you really think that a facility like this should be in a family- and children-oriented atmosphere, which I believe you would like?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Because the questioners on this particular news story have picked up the news story figures, I think I should put the record straight, and I'm pleased to have the question from the hon. member for Vancouver–Point Grey so I'll be able to do just that. The B.C. Enterprise Corporation has received one application, and it is for the B.C. Pavilion area where there already are three

[ Page 381 ]

restaurants and two nightclubs. The application is from probably the most popular — in fact, it was the most popular — restaurant at Expo 86, a Bavarian restaurant that did two and one-half times the business of any other restaurant on the Expo site. It is very definitely interesting and a great public pull. If you were designing putting in a restaurant, that would be the kind of public draw that one would probably contemplate. They did contemplate it, and they would be using all of the Bavarian restaurant and fixtures and all of the things in their Bavarian restaurant.

The application is dependent upon a liquor licence being made available and it is dependent upon a business licence being made available from the community. So both the city of Vancouver and the liquor board would have to be consulted, and it would not be going in if either of those bodies would not give their approval.

In terms of the numbers, I saw a number of some 1,200, I think it was, quoted in the morning paper. I understand that somewhere around 500 is the amount that they are wanting but will not necessarily receive.

MS. MARZARI: Is the minister aware that many, many facilities have been constructed and built in our downtown Vancouver? In fact the Commodore, for example, has just put $1 million capital improvement into its facility. A whole industry depends on its economic projections; its bank loans rely upon a solid tourist industry this summer. Why would the government even consider going into competition with free enterprise?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm really pleased that the member is concerned. She will also be very happy to know that my colleague, the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid), has just received figures which show that tourism has increased immeasurably over last year, in the same time-frame, and because of that, there will be many more investments made such as the one she mentioned, which has just put a million-dollar enhancement in the Commodore. We're all very pleased about that, and I know the member for Point Grey must be as well.

LEGAL AID FUNDING

MR. SIHOTA: My question is to the Attorney-General. The question is simply as follows: given that last year the actual expenditure on legal aid was $18 million, and given that this year the allocation in the budget is $19 million, would the Attorney-General agree with me that the actual amount of new moneys issued in the legal aid budget will be somewhere between $500,000 and $1 million, not the $5 million stated in the budget?

HON. B.R. SMITH: I think these matters can be better canvassed in estimates, but let me just say to that member that if you want to roll into your figures for comparison with what was spent this year moneys that were put in to pick up a deficit or used for special purposes in a given year, as opposed to base funding, you could certainly make the argument that the increases in the amount allotted to legal aid were not as dramatic as they might have appeared. There is a substantial increase to legal aid this year. Unfortunately, with legal aid we never can pay enough to really reimburse the many lawyers around this province who defend people under the legal aid system.

I have always entertained the hope — maybe it's a vain one — that most of them do this work for two reasons. First of all, they do it because of a desire to provide a service for people who are in need; and secondly, they do it because it is a very good form of experience. It never was the objective of legal aid that lawyers would live off legal aid. We try to get that tariff improved, and I would like to see it improved more. I hope that it can be improved somewhat by this year's budget. It may not be as much as the member and 1, when we were practising lawyers, would like. But legal aid is designed to help the public, not to support lawyers.

Ministerial Statement

TEACHERS' EARLY RETIREMENT PROGRAM

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that the government, through the Ministry of Education, has approved an early retirement program for teachers. There was general recognition of the need for balancing younger people and older people in the teaching force. We were looking ahead: because of the distortion that has been created with seniority provisions and declining enrolments over the past few years, we had more people at the older end of the teaching scale than at the younger end; and with the pupil enrolment decline levelling off and hopefully increasing in the future with economic stimulation in the province, in the next five to fifteen years we could be facing a teacher shortage. So we wanted to deal with that.

[2:30]

The other thing we wanted to deal with is to provide new jobs for the young, enthusiastic, eager and qualified teachers who were unable to get into the teaching force. We had promised to look at that; some work was being done on it last year. There were statements during the election campaign last fall that we would take a serious look at it.

Since I became minister last August, we've met with the BCTF and the BCSTA to discuss the possibilities and benefits of this program. A few districts had moved on their own to do this, but that did not prove entirely satisfactory. Last December we set up a committee from my ministry, the B.C. Teachers' Federation, the BCSTA, the district superintendents and secretary-treasurers, and these people have looked at the numbers and the benefits, the possible costs, the way it could be done. Despite some of the areas that we don't seem to agree on entirely with the BCTF and the BCSTA, I must commend everyone for the excellent cooperation on this one. I think it indicates sometimes that when the common goal is there, when the common cause is good, people will cooperate and work together.

Meetings have been held to analyze the numbers, the implications, and this has come together. There is some urgency because if we are going to implement it this year, people need to know before May so that people can be considering their decisions.

It is possible in the teaching force because of the wide range between the minimum salaries and the maximum salaries, so it is unique to teaching, and we have a unique situation right now with this distortion of the age groups in the teaching force. So what we are going to do is open a three-year window — that's this spring and through to the end of the next two school years, to June 1989 — during which time those people between the ages of 55 and 59 may voluntarily

[ Page 382 ]

choose to retire without facing the penalty that they face under the existing program.

Many of you know that the teachers' pension plan allows for 2 percent per year for every year of experience. If they retire before the age of 60, 5 percent per year for early retirement is deducted, which is a disincentive for people who perhaps wanted to retire to get out. So for the next three years, that 5 percent will be removed.

We expect that it could create up to 600 positions for new teachers that are out there. We expect that if those teachers who are now qualified, the young teachers, can be employed, it would also provide encouragement for those who might be considering going into teacher training, which takes four or five years, so that we will have teachers coming up when more teachers are retiring so that we won't be facing a possible shortage.

There are a few more details, and meetings will be held, of course, with the districts and the B.C. Teachers' Federation to explain how all this works. I might point out what also makes it possible for school boards: if they hire a beginning teacher, say at $25,000 or $28,000, and let a teacher go at the $40,000 or $45,000 level, that saving.... We'll account for that in the fiscal framework so they don't lose the money and neither do they gain the money. That money will go into the pension fund to cover the extra pension requirements that this program will generate. Because of that, the program is self-funding. We're not going to make any money at it; it's not going to cost any money of the taxpayers; but what it will do is renew the teaching force in this province.

I think all parties involved support it. I am certainly pleased and proud to be able to announce this initiative, and I also again commend all of the parties that were involved in bringing this together, including of course my colleagues in government, who were very supportive.

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the Minister of Education, good stuff, and compliment him not only for the product but also for the process by which that took place, which I understand was a consultative one — one that we haven't seen very much of in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. JONES: Certainly it's excellent that this is happening. Just relax. These are kudos. I agree with the minister that it is an opportunity to provide for an infusion of young people into our school system, that it is economically sound, and that it is going to be good for the education system in British Columbia. I again compliment him for adopting one of our planks from the last election platform.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING
(continued)

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

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I was looking forward to hearing the remarks of the debate leader, who's about to commence his very detailed analysis of this vote.

MR. CASHORE: I now look forward to hearing the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) continue with her very fine line of questioning with regard to services in the Prince George and environs part of our province.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Chairman, as we finished yesterday, the minister was giving me a response regarding my request that he consider the needs of the people in Prince George who came to him requesting some additional funding for clothing that met the needs of the north; housing needs, taking into consideration heating expenses; and transportation. He indicated he was studying these. I would like to ask the minister if there is any additional money in this budget to deal with these items.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I believe I responded to that question yesterday, and the response is still the same: that one of the reasons we're travelling the province with the committee on social policy is to find out exactly the things the member is talking about. We had some good presentations along these lines at Prince George. We've had two out-of-town visits, if you like, to Prince George and Courtenay, and have yet to take any action regarding the information presented to us at these meetings. So until the committee starts to assimilate all of the information and to plan a policy direction, the answer to the question has to be no.

MRS. BOONE: It appears, then, that there will be no money in this fiscal year to meet these needs.

Has the minister looked at moneys to supply another Carefree vehicle? If you'll remember correctly, there was the need for a vehicle which transported handicapped people. They made a special request to the ministry for assistance because of the need for transportation. Is there money for such a thing?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It's impossible for me to answer that specific item at this time, but I'll find out for you. I know we took it under advisement. We looked at it. I don't have a specific answer for you right now, but hopefully I will have one in another hour or two, before we're finished this process.

MRS. BOONE: I talked about support services to the ministry. There are support services that are not directly associated with the ministry, and at the moment many of them are scrambling for money. The Paraplegic Association is one. A great many of these people are going to bingo halls to find funding to supply their services. I was interested that the minister....

You quoted that you would be saying this only one time: that there is only one level of taxpayer. Our people are having to go to our city, which is supplying $80,000 to support services that are taken over by organizations within the community. So I think we're getting dinged on two different levels there, regardless of what you're saying. It's all coming out of the same pocket, I know, but it certainly is affecting our community. There's a total of $250,000 in applications, but

[ Page 383 ]

we only respond to approximately $80,000. Does the minister have any plans to assist any of these organizations? When we went to your community, Mr. Minister, we heard from the people we talked to that they were subsidized by the Secretary of State, which is the federal organization; no money was coming from the provincial organization to assist these organizations.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, we're just coming into the '87-88 fiscal year, today of course being the first day, and we have not allocated all of our funds for the year; that will be done over the next few weeks and months. So it's virtually impossible to say right now where every dollar in our global budget is going.

I wish to reinforce the statement I made yesterday, and the member has just confirmed it. There may be several levels of government that dish out money to various organizations — federal, provincial, municipal, regional districts, library boards, hospital boards, and on down the line — but I maintain that there's still only one level of taxpayer. It doesn't matter whether the money comes from the municipal, provincial or federal government, or the regional district; it comes out of the one pocket. One of the things we try to refrain from doing is overlaying funds on top of government funds, on top of government funds. We watch that very carefully. When an organization is being funded at a different level, and we feel it's adequate, we try not to overlap funds.

I should add here that we encourage the volunteer organizations. Government can't do it all for everybody. There are a tremendous number of volunteers out there who support the very organizations you're talking about. But to pick out specific organizations right now and say, "Are you going to fund this? Are you going to fund that?" it's impossible for me at this time to answer yes or no.

MRS. BOONE: The minister has indicated that you're not going to fund things that are funded at different levels. The need for this has come because the provincial government has withdrawn its funding, and therefore they're going to the local taxpayer, to the property taxes, in order to sustain these various services. They're also having to go.... I think it's a shame that our organizations find it necessary to go to bingo halls, to casinos. The Paraplegic Association, which no one can say is a frivolous organization, has its funding in jeopardy right now because they have some problems with regard to their bingo licences. When an organization is so dependent upon its funding at the bingo-hall level, and when that funding is taken away and their very existence is threatened, there is a problem, Mr. Minister. The government must be looking at that to ensure that these worthwhile organizations are funded and able to maintain a level of service. That's not what we're hearing, We are hearing that their existence is threatened.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I didn't hear a question in that; I heard a political statement. Let me reiterate that there will always be a need for local organizations, for volunteer organizations and for charitable fund-raising efforts such as bingos and casinos. Surely the member is not suggesting that the government take over all of this funding and do away with bingos, casinos, fun nights and other types of fund-raising done at the local level. Further, the decisions on funding from this ministry, as I said yesterday, are made as far as possible at the local level by regional managers. They have a global budget, and within certain parameters they make the decisions as to where the money should go. We certainly cannot fund every worthwhile organization 100 percent, It's impossible.

Don't think for a moment that I think that the paraplegic organization or any other organization is frivolous. Don't ever read that into what I'm saying. These charities are all very worthwhile organizations. But many of them have to look to communities and community events and charitable events to raise their funds.

[2:45]

MRS. BOONE: As the minister missed my question, I guess what I was asking him is if he will be looking to fund many of these organizations that currently are not funded —  and there are many out there that receive absolutely no funding from the provincial government. Is the ministry looking at that?

My second one is with regard to the taxation. To assume that bingo halls are fund-raising events is ridiculous. Bingo halls are a form of taxation on various people, but it comes from the lower levels and the mid levels of society, and not from the people who actually have the money.

I'll leave you...if you could answer that question: will you be looking to fund any of these organizations in the future?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman. we look at requests that we get from organizations on a continuing basis. The answer to that is yes, of course. We look at them all. That doesn't mean we can fund them all. We just do not have the wherewithal to fund everyone who comes to our door, no matter how worthwhile they are. We even agree — a lot of times they're very worthwhile organizations, but we just do not have the wherewithal to fund everybody.

In answer to the second one again, I personally don't look on bingos or casinos as a form of taxation. It's a form of relaxation and recreation for a lot of people, but I certainly don't think it's taxation. It's not compulsory, the same as buying a lottery ticket is not compulsory. People do it of their own volition, and I think they have a little bit of fun with a chance of winning a little bit of money while at the same time contributing to a worthwhile cause.

MRS. BOONE: The next questions are related to the health issues — I've had a series of correspondence with you regarding this — and it has to do with the funding of nonprescription drugs through the ministry. What we are finding is that frequently non-prescription drugs are advocated by a physician: they are less costly, they do not have the dispensing fee, and there are occasions when they actually act better than a prescription drug. Yet the ministry does not fund these for their clients. You have informed me through correspondence that it is required that it be a prescription drug from a physician. My question to you is: if a physician does recommend it — if they are willing to write out in longhand that their client requires this drug which can be purchased over the counter without going through the dispensing fees — why will not the ministry fund these, rather than having their clients have to purchase a drug that sometimes is not as effective and costs more?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The very simple answer to the question is that it's a matter of health. It falls under the

[ Page 384 ]

Ministry of Health and health care. It presumes that we would get into the domain of the doctors, and I don't want to venture into that. So perhaps your questions could be better canvassed under the Ministry of Health estimates. But as far as a direct answer to what you're saying, the answer is no, for the reasons I've stated.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, we talk about charities, bingos, day care and people on welfare and other things like that. I want to be assured, Mr. Minister, that what you said yesterday is in harmony with the ideas of many of us, simply that people do have an obligation to support themselves and to become self-reliant.

As for charities, like the Canadian Paraplegic Association and others, who raise money, I commend them for that, because I don't think anybody in this world wants every organization in the province or in Canada to become totally dependent on the actions of the government alone. If anybody doubts that, then I would like to hear about it, because that is not how this great country was built. It was not built on the backs of government. It was built with the hearts and souls and the hard work of all the citizens out there, whether it was day care, charities or other suitable worthwhile obligations. We had people the other day suggesting that we should be paying volunteers. What an insult to those great people who do things on behalf of others, who have the time, energy, commitment, will and the thoughtfulness to help those who need a little help.

When it comes to people on welfare and support for daycare centres and things like that, I don't want it to ever be said that somebody is better off on welfare when the net home pay is the same as going to a job and paying a day-care centre, or whatever else they have to do to keep their job — whether it's bus fare, more clothing, transportation or whatever. I think that everybody's better off working if the net pay is the same. I think many people are better off even if they have a little less, because there's always the opportunity for a better job, a better life, and a better opportunity to keep your mind busy thinking and working and developing.

There's no end to opportunity if people are out there. Certainly I can think of nothing more dismal than to just imagine that what you have now with the support of the government is the best and the top of the line for a human being. We can all improve. Working is good, even if it takes a little more effort.

So I want to hear that we're going to let organizations help themselves. If they need more help and we can help, let us do that, but there's nothing quite as marvelous as a self-reliant society with a little help from us, but not total help from us.

MR. CASHORE: I think that the line of questions and answers that we have heard in the last few minutes — questions asked by the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) and the answers given by the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) — helped very much to underline the theme that is emerging within this debate, which is that the government operates on a philosophy of crisis intervention. The alternative that we are clearly presenting is a philosophy of prevention.

I would like to say something to the hon. member who just commented on the fact that we will always have charities and the fact that we have bingos, and that this is a very important part, in his view, of how we go about being British Columbians — good British Columbians, perhaps.

I would just like to tell him a little anecdote. When I was doing advocacy work in the Downtown East Side, I had the experience of a male person, about 35 years old, coming to me and telling me that he thought that really his only chance of getting out of his circumstances would be to win a lottery. I say: "Well, how can you, on income assistance, afford to buy lottery tickets?" He said: "I can't, but you know what happened? Somebody bought me one. Somebody bought me a lottery ticket. They gave it to me as a gift. You know what? I won $250." This was an honest man; a man who liked to share his good news. When this chap shared his good news with his financial assistance worker, that worker was obligated by law to deduct that winning. He could not keep it. Mr. Chairman, in our free enterprise system, where we count on bingos and the vagaries of chance to support some of the very necessities of quality of life for our citizens, where some of our citizens have to depend on the vagaries of chance and on lotteries, those very lotteries and gambling procedures that some of my honourable friends in the government spoke against when they were interviewed in the Vancouver Sun recently.

When we find that that is happening.... When the government advertises its lotteries, we don't find the government putting a warning down on the corner, a warning to those on income assistance: "It may be dangerous for you to purchase a lottery ticket and to listen to our advertising, our get-rich-quick facade that we are presenting to you, because if you win we'll take it away from you." I don't see that warning being put in the bottom left-hand corner of the advertising that this government uses when it is depending on the vagaries of chance to fund some of the very important services that people need for quality of life.

There will always be charity; there's no argument with that. There will always be a need for churches and community organizations, legions and service clubs to do the work that they have done traditionally on the cutting edge of social change — demonstration projects, projects that indicate a vision and a way in which we can enhance the quality of life for people in this society. They've done that in the past; they'll do it in the future. Often government has recognized the value of what they have done and then has become involved.

When I was a minister in northern British Columbia, in Port Simpson.... The first missionary there had been the Rev. Thomas Crosby, who went there in 1873. A few years after that there was a doctor by the name of Bolton who was in medical school in the east, and he heard Thomas Crosby speak. He decided that he wanted to come up to the northern part of British Columbia and be able to contribute his gifts and medicine. When he came, he had quite a struggle for several years with the Methodist board of world mission to convince that board that it would be worthwhile for that organization to get into the delivery of health services. So he went there first as a volunteer, and then that organization recognized the importance of delivering those health services, and eventually the state recognized the importance of delivering health services to people throughout the province.

Now if you're saying that because of the free enterprise philosophy being a philosophy that somehow is completely an alternative to what we're saying.... If you're saying that you're going to set up toll booths at the gates of hospitals in order to fulfil your philosophy, then I think you should say that very clearly to the people of British Columbia.

[ Page 385 ]

The issue here is that we will always have people who are called upon to do good charitable work, but when work clearly becomes established as part of the structure of our society and part of the delivery of quality care, then it behooves us to maintain that level of care for the benefit of our people. I don't think anybody here would argue with that. I don't expect you to argue with it. I don't expect anybody to argue with it, because that is the tradition that you have been carrying on during the time you've been government.

I would like to recognize that this has been a significant day in the life of our province because several civil servants who have served this province at a very high executive level and have served this province well have the opportunity to move on to new areas of responsibility. I would like to ask the minister at this time to say a few words of introduction for Mr. Jim Carter, who will become the new deputy minister....

[3:00]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, would you take your seat for just a moment. In this debate up to this point in time, because there are so many of us here who are new, we've been given a great deal of latitude in what people have been talking about when they are speaking to the estimates. May I suggest to the hon. member that we are really supposed to be speaking to the estimates of the expenses involved with the office of the Minister of Social Services and Housing. Now we have allowed latitude, and we've been talking about things that fall under the two other votes which we will be dealing with in the course of the debate on the minister's estimates, but when we're getting into the area that you are now approaching, may I suggest that it is not really within the realm of relevancy that we look forward to in this type of debate.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, just continuing on the point that you've made, perhaps I could ask for clarification. It was my understanding as we went into estimates that, for instance, in the estimates of this ministry there are three votes.... The advice I had was that we could discuss all aspects that we intended to discuss under the three votes under the estimates for the costs of the minister's office. So I had assumed that that was appropriate, and if it was appropriate then I would also like to ask if I could pursue that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, and I thought that's what I said a moment ago. That's the way we've been proceeding and it's entirely appropriate, but we were getting into a discussion with respect to a change that's been made in senior members of the civil service, which to my mind, unless you can explain to me the relevancy of bringing that subject up.... It was this particular thrust that you were approaching that I found not to fall within the confines of the debate that takes place on the estimates of the minister.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could just go a bit further and try to explain my rationale for this. I understand that the individual that I was referring to is about to become the new assistant deputy minister, and since it is in the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, I would assume that his activities would come under the purview of that part of government and that therefore it would be appropriate to request some information with regard to who this gentleman is and what background, academic and experiential, he brings to this portfolio. This is done with respect.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It appears that the minister is prepared to speak on this.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to answer several of the points that the member brought up, and I'm going to try to take them in the order that he mentioned them.

First of all, he said it appears that my ministry works on a principle of crisis intervention. Now he's absolutely right to a certain extent, and we take that as a compliment. We are a crisis intervention ministry, without any question. The whole thrust of the ministry is not in that direction. We plan as carefully as possible to do the things he said: to prevent, to anticipate, to provide for people less fortunate then ourselves, and even to try to provide employment for those who are employable. But we certainly are a crisis intervention ministry; if there is one in government, we are it. We respond daily to crisis requirements and will continue to do so.

He talked about lottery tickets and winnings. There is no question that if someone on income assistance wins a lottery it's going to come off their welfare payments. I don't care, Mr. Member, whether they win $200 or $2 million or $10 million; it's going to come off their welfare payments. But so does the money that someone goes out and earns. How could we possibly, in all conscience, put a warning on or let someone who wins a lottery ticket keep the money and continue to pay them income assistance, and when a person goes out and earns $200 we take it off of their welfare cheque? And we will continue to do so.

I think the philosophy here is something that has gotten lost on the member: that welfare, or income assistance if you like, is not designed to be a way of life, especially for those who are employable. Our intent is to get them turned around and off the welfare rolls as quickly as possible. We do encourage them to go out and earn a little extra income. We even increased the earnings exemption allowance last fall to allow them to earn just a few more dollars. But that doesn't mean that we want it to become a way of life. We want that person turned around and off the welfare syndrome and back into the workforce as quickly as possible. We make it very clear when clients come to us for assistance that any time they win money or earn money beyond about $125 or $150 a month, depending on their status, or if they inherit money, it will be deducted from their income assistance. And it will continue to be. I say this in all earnestness and in all sincerity to you, and I mean it.

I think we have pursued a very informative and amicable line of questioning thus far in these estimates. I would hope that all of the estimates proceed along those lines. We have had a good interchange of information, maybe not always getting the answer that we want or the question that we would like, but it has been very good between all of us. This is the purpose of this, of course. This is the arena, the showplace of democracy, and this is where we debate the spending estimates of each ministry.

But I just caution you that when you start into some of the rhetoric that we have heard over there, since I've been here for six years, and before that.... When you start on "this government is now suggesting that we put toll booths at the doors of hospitals," you go too far. You go too far all the time, and I just caution you that if we head down that road of your making those types of accusations, and taking things out of context and spinning them into the surrealistic, if you like, into some political ideology to make political points, we're

[ Page 386 ]

going to head down the wrong road in these estimates, and we're going to end up hurling political insults back and forth at each other.

I remind you that most of the medical institutions, educational institutions and programs we are talking about were put in place by this government. So for you to suggest again that the only people who have a social conscience — which seems to happen all the time — are those of the socialist bent.... The two are not synonymous. I say that for some of the young people who may be sitting in the gallery. Do not equate a social conscience with socialism; the two are not synonymous.

Take a look back at the history of this country, as my colleague from Vancouver South said. This country was not built on the back of government. This country was built by a pioneering spirit and by individuals doing their thing. But yes, we do help those less fortunate than ourselves. We always have. At the moment, Mr. Member, and for the edification of the rest, the social service ministries in this government spend upwards of 70 percent of a $9 billion budget, and it is rising every year. In fact, the biggest increases, I am proud to say, this year came in my ministry.

So I just make that point so that maybe we can keep these estimate debates on a level without getting into political rhetoric. I am happy to accommodate you. If you wish to make your questions a political statement, you will get a political answer.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Chairman, I want to get back to the bingo halls a little bit. There is a situation that is happening in this province that is disturbing many of us, and that is that we are encouraging and promoting gambling, the playing of bingo and casinos in order to support our organizations.

Now the minister may say that that is well and good, and that these things should be promoted. However, there are offshoots from this whole thing that have a social price. The native population in our area mention bingo in the same breath as they mention alcohol. They see it as being the same problem. Actually, in the same breath they say: "We must deal with this. We must deal with the problem of alcoholism among our population, and we must deal with the problems of bingo."

That may seem strange to many people, but we do have that problem. We have people traveling as far as from Burns Lake to Prince George in order to participate in bingo halls, which operate on an ongoing basis. Those people are spending money that they can't afford to spend. They are addicted to bingo; there is no doubt about that. It is gambling; it is an addiction. They are spending their money, they are leaving their children at home, they are leaving their children in cars, and the population out there is disturbed and worried about it. What we are doing is that your ministry then goes out and has to pick up these children. Then we have to deal with that situation.

My question to you is: why are we not providing some funding for these organizations so that they are not out there promoting bingo, which is causing problems that you then have to turn around and deal with? Surely your ministry should be trying to deal with things on a stop basis — trying to stop them from happening, not encouraging problems out there. We don't want to create more problems in out population; we want to prevent them.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I know that the member's heart is in the right place when she talks about this, because, yes, there are people who do have a problem; they get their priorities mixed up. But they would get their priorities mixed up, Madam Member, whether we funded their organization or not; it would have nothing to do with it. If we opened up the bottomless purse, which some seem to think exists — and a lot of people out there do feel that — and funded.... Your original question was: why don't we fund all of these organizations instead of making them rely on bingos? Even if we funded them, Madam Member, they would still go to the bingo hall. You may be right — I think you are — that some of them are addicted to it, as some are addicted to other things.

We don't try to pretend that we can solve all of those problems. Many people in our society have their priorities all mixed up; we have many of them on our welfare rolls who have their priorities totally mixed up. We do try to give them counselling whenever possible.

I think I can give you an answer now to your other question regarding the Carefree bus. B.C. Transit funds the Carefree bus; they have no contract with our ministry. They do transport handicapped people, and they do charge for each trip. I don't know the amount; I think it's a modest amount.

I can't read the next one, because my deputy's writing is not the greatest in the world, but.... My ex-deputy's writing is not the greatest.... But the community project funding for the Canadian Paraplegic Association was $231,451 last year. I assume that came from our ministry. Yes, the funding that went to the Paraplegic Association from our ministry was $231,451; they also get funding from the Ministry of Health, but I can't give you that figure.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, the minister has problems reading his deputy's handwriting; I have problems reading my own handwriting.

I would like to ask the minister.... I thought when he stood up to respond to my last series of questions that he was going to respond to the question that I was discussing with the Chairman.

[3:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, I've been referring to Sir Erskine May here, and it would seem to me that there's certainly no requirement under the discussion of your estimates that these kinds of questions be taken into account. If it were a question relating to the moneys paid to someone, that would be a different matter. Certainly I don't suppose there's any harm in your responding to the question; however, it would seem to me that this is probably not the forum to discuss matters of personnel management within a ministry.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to answer somewhat along those lines — not to shut down discussion on it, because the moves that were made today are very important to the running of government. I think we should just discuss it for a moment, because from a philosophical angle I think it's one of the best moves that have been made in government in a long, long time. I think it will shed a whole new light on a series of things, because good administrators are good administrators, and can move from one area to another. The expertise will always be in the ministries, but the administrators are the working arm of government. They are the people who carry out the policy

[ Page 387 ]

laid down by any government, whether the government were to change — heaven forbid! — and you should become government....

MR. MOWAT: Never!

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You might find difficulty, Mr. Member, if you became Minister of Social Services and Housing, in carrying out your policies if you had an administration that never, ever changed, and I think other governments have found that. So we're looking forward to this, as are all of the deputies whom I've talked to. Maybe it's a good time for me to pay a special compliment to some of our senior deputies who've been here a long, long time and dedicated themselves to their jobs. They've put in long hours; they work very, very hard. We, the people of British Columbia, owe them a vote of thanks, and we'll forever be in their debt.

Perhaps I could take just a little latitude and compliment my deputy minister, Mr. Noble, who ceased to be my deputy minister this morning, who's been in this ministry since 1976, has done a tremendous job, and will be sorely missed in this ministry; without any question, he will be missed. But I know he will be welcomed by his new ministry and do an excellent job there, as will Mr. Carter be welcomed into this ministry. I know they'll both bring a fresh approach to their new duties. I wish them all well. I would say one more thing. At some future date, once the new deputy has had a chance to take over his responsibilities, I will make sure that he meets with your caucus so that you can get to know him; and you can talk to him and, I'm sure, establish a good working relationship.

MR. CASHORE: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I too would like to offer my best wishes to Mr. Noble in this transition, and also to Mr. Carter, as he takes on these responsibilities on behalf of all the people of British Columbia.

I don't want to get too far back into the discussion we had a few moments ago, but in all seriousness I would like the minister to comment on the fact that unfortunate people of low income in our society are susceptible to some of the very, very astute and clever advertising of provincial lotteries. In all seriousness I'm asking you whether or not you would consider some kind of warning or recognition in that advertising that there are people susceptible to that advertising within our society, who nevertheless, because of the requirements that you outlined a few moments ago, are not eligible to receive the benefits of it if they end up putting some of their limited income into that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I call on the minister, hon. members, I must say the question is a very difficult one. First of all, the Minister of Social Services and Housing is not responsible for the administration of lotteries within the province, so it is not within his purview to respond to that particular question. Perhaps the last part of the question the minister might wish to respond to. Or perhaps the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam would like to continue.

MR. CASHORE: I would, insofar as the purview of the ministry relates to the care of the persons for whom it cares who are on a limited income. I would hope that at some point we would hear some concern or consideration from that minister, because I think that here we have two parts of government relating to the circumstances that....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I will answer that to the best of my ability. It's a very difficult and wide-ranging question to answer. As I said earlier, in the limited time I've been in the ministry — which is since last August, with a little time out for an event in October — it's come to my attention, of course, that many people who are our clients have trouble managing their money. Some of them do not. Some of them, Mr. Member, along the lines you're talking about, have such trouble managing their money, and their priorities are so mixed up, that we literally move in and handle it for them. We don't have the staff or the facilities to manage the money of everyone on income assistance. Nor do we want to. We don't want to dehumanize people to the point where we not only give them income assistance — or welfare; let's call it what it is — but also tell them how they can spend it. I think that would be going too far. It would be a very dehumanizing thing if we were to give people, let's say, tokens whereby they could spend this on food, this on entertainment, this on cigarettes, this on alcohol and this on bingo. We don't ever want to get into that.

Yet I know what you're saying. A lot of them have difficulty adjusting their priorities. Some of them have an expensive smoking habit when they shouldn't have, or maybe a drinking habit. Others, as you suggest, may have a bingo or casino fixation, or maybe they go to the racetrack — I don't know. But some of them do have problems with their priorities. I know their financial assistance workers try, whenever possible, to counsel them along the proper lines. With the exceptions that I said.... I believe there are about 900 of our clients who are real down-and-outers. We do manage their money for them simply because, Mr. Member, if we didn't we would give them their cheque today and tomorrow it would be gone, and they'd be back to us for a crisis grant, or whatever. So we do manage it for some of them, although we try not to get into that. We don't have the staff, for one thing, nor do we have the desire. But I understand what you're saying. And there are some who do have their priorities mixed up. I think that's a problem, though. If it wasn't a problem with buying lottery tickets, as you say, it would be a problem with something else. So that's the best answer I can give you. We try to counsel them but, by the same token, we don't want to dehumanize people by telling them where they can spend their money.

MS. MARZARI: I think the critic, the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone), was trying to say that casinos are not only not fun but they can undermine community fabric. I think what I should probably say is that it is not a question of administration of welfare cheques; it's really a question, if I can put it to you, of the philosophy of the government and what kind of philosophy encourages the voluntary sector, which is worried about the fabric of their communities, to go into casino nights. I've twirled a few of those discs myself, and each agency I've done it for has agonized over how they should be doing a casino night, when, in effect, the problems they're trying to solve with the people are partly caused by the mentality and the spirituality and the philosophy that goes towards lotteries, casino nights and bingos.

For me, political statements don't have to be thrown back and forth across the House. For me, the politics is in the numbers themselves. The numbers on the estimates themselves are, for me, political statements, and I'm sure they are for you. Yesterday I talked a little bit about child care as a

[ Page 388 ]

preventive measure in the community. When I'm discussing a little bit about women and social services today, I wanted to turn my attention to a few things just as symbolic of the total purview of agencies and services that exist. Transition houses are symbolic; they are an emergency, crisis-oriented service. Secondly, I want to look at family places, which are in effect just the opposite. They are a preventive, soft, community approach that tries to prevent family breakdown and bolster family life in communities. In turning my attention to both of these kinds of services, I feel badly that I'm neglecting the huge range of services that bolster family life in the community, but this is what I think I can do in the few minutes I have.

Yesterday when we talked about planning of community services, Mr. Minister, you suggested that there was in fact a good and a decent planning capacity within your department. In fact, I know some of the people in that capacity, and I admire and respect them. I would suggest, then, that there would be some planning around special issues regarding women and children. I would assume that there had been special measures and special plans in this year's budget for transition houses, as an emergency measure for women and their children when they can no longer remain in the home because of physical abuse. We all know what the numbers are.

In Vancouver right now there are 12 beds at the Kate Booth House; those are the real emergency beds, where women can go 24 hours a day. There are 115 general beds where people can go — men and women and families that are in crisis. I would suggest that those 115 beds represent a bed to-population ratio in the greater Vancouver area of one bed for every 11,304 people. If I can compare that to Toronto, which has 680 equivalent beds, the beds-to-population ratio is one to 4,402 people. In other words, we lag far behind. In fact, other statistics suggest we have the lowest beds-to population ratio in the country in terms of transition shelter and accommodation. The Victoria women's shelter society has, I gather, 12 beds. I also gather that this government has, in effect, instituted a number of primary emergency beds and safe-housing beds — that's a second-stage transitional facility — throughout the province, and the government is to be commended for that.

But I would ask if this government has plans in process to expand the number of beds in metro Vancouver specifically. As you know, many women come to Vancouver when they are in trouble. Finding accommodation in a small town when there is an abusive husband around is not the way that many women wish to find their accommodation. They come to Vancouver, and sadly, Vancouver lacks beds. Vancouver city council has requested the Ministry of Social Services for an additional facility and an advocacy function that provides social services for women when they leave home in an emergency situation. Has the minister planned for the expansion of such facilities in metro Vancouver?

[3:30]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I have some statistics on transition houses, but only for Vancouver and area — well, for British Columbia, but mainly for the lower mainland and Vancouver, so I cannot comment on statistics from Toronto, etc. I don't have them, so I take your statistics at face value. But I just want to point out a few of the things we're doing in transition houses. For example, back in 1979 this ministry funded seven transition houses in B.C. at a cost of $500,000.

In 1986-87 this ministry will spend in excess of $3 million to fund 33 facilities and eight safe-home programs. Obviously the need has increased, but obviously we've come a long way since 1979.

Let me go on just for a moment and talk about Vancouver specifically. My ministry funds five resources for battered women and their children in Vancouver. They are: Kate Booth House, which has 12 suites; the Act II house, with nine suites; Munroe House, with six; Owl House, with 12 suites; and Powell Place, with 28 suites — for a total of 67 suites in Vancouver. I won't read you all of the statistics on transition houses, but suffice it to say that most of them operate at approximately 80 percent capacity on average. Sometimes the resources are full, but on an average they operate at 80 percent. The majority-again, 80 percent-of referrals to the Vancouver transition houses come from my ministry district offices or from my ministry's emergency service offices.

Another important point is that a very large percentage of persons using the transition houses are single women who have been beaten by boy-friends or other persons, or they're off the street. I throw that in just so that people don't get the impression that they all come from family situations or from homes. A great percentage of them are single women. Although I guess that, as in many things, the facilities we have throughout the province for battered women are not perfect, we have come a long, long way. We have 67 suites in Vancouver that operate at about 80 percent occupancy.

From travelling around the province I have learned that in some of the outlying communities we have a pressing need for safe homes and transition houses. Now in most communities we do have what we call sat homes, and I'm sure you're very much aware of them. They're not a transition house per se, but they are a safe haven that we can, in a emergency situation at 2 o'clock in the morning, put a woman and her children into. I realize that in some of the outlying areas there is somewhat of a need to improve these situations, and we're looking at them on a continuing basis. It's another aspect of traveling around the province which has been driven home to us and noted, and we are taking a close look at it. Without going into a long statement on transition houses — I have pages and pages on it — I'll leave it at that, so that what we're doing is on the record.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

MS. MARZARI: I'll take that as a positive response, Mr. Minister: that in fact you are in active stages of planning for the expansion of these facilities. Planning is going on. You're looking at the demographic needs of the community and responding to them by finding agencies that will in effect be able to meet these needs. Am I correct?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just let me respond. I thought I made it clear, but if I didn't, I apologize.

Yes, we're looking at this on a continual basis. We monitor it very closely on a continual basis. This is how we know what the occupancy is, where they come from, the needs of the community. At the moment, as I said, in Vancouver there doesn't appear to be a pressing need for increased transition services when the facilities there are operating at about 80 percent, but we do monitor it on a monthly basis in every region of the province. So the answer to that is yes.

[ Page 389 ]

MS. MARZARI: Perhaps the minister shouldn't assume that an 80 percent occupancy rate suggests that the other 20 percent means there is not a need. I would like to suggest that in fact the need is there, and it's a crying need, and that the more beds that are open, the more facilities you'll find that have an 80 percent occupancy rate. Just because one or two beds.... When we have 12 real emergency beds — all the other beds are second stages, as you yourself have suggested — in the whole of the lower regional mainland in Vancouver.... I think you must know that the need is outstanding when all the statistics tell us that abuse in families is on the increase. The police and the social agencies are requesting more and more assistance by the day.

The other area I wanted to turn our attention to for a few moments is not the crisis intervention level; it is the community support preventive level. In that way I wanted to look towards the family places in Vancouver — both the East Side Family Place and the West Side Family Place. My estimates are taken from the '83-84 and '84-85 budgets. In the last number of years both family places have declined in terms of the number of provincial dollars put towards them. Once again I'm rather hamstrung, Mr. Minister, because the 1986 numbers are not out yet, and I would hope that when we do estimates next year, we'll have those '86-87 numbers in front of us. It would make a big difference, and we wouldn't have to be phoning over trying to get numbers. In fact, I couldn't get the numbers for these because your report isn't out yet. You don't have the '86-87 numbers of the actual dollars given towards West Side Family Place. As I said, I see a percentage decline in the amount of provincial dollars put towards preventive social services.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I've just received the 1985-86 numbers on some of the community projects that we fund. B.C. Council for the Family: $116,540; Burnaby Family Life Institute, $15,642; Mount Pleasant Family Centre, $65,215; West Side Family Place Society, $17,328; Victoria Single Parent Resource Centre, $29,568.

Let me add one thing I overlooked when I was talking about the amount of money that would be spent this year on transition houses. An additional $278,000 — over a quarter of a million dollars — has been planned for resource development in 1987-88. One final word on transition houses, and I'm going to quote somebody much more knowledgeable than myself. This is from Mrs. Gutteridge who runs Powell Place in Vancouver, which has 28 suites. She says, in talking about transition houses: "We have to keep things in perspective. We know we're not God, but the social services available in British Columbia are as good as anywhere. Criticism? It's mostly political."

MR. DE JONG: Mr. Minister, we have quite a sizeable budget, at least as far as I read the numbers. We have a big job in the province as far as services to people go, in particular to those who are in real need.

We also know that besides the dollars which are directly provided by the provincial government through your ministry, there are many other organizations. I had the opportunity last week to meet in your office with yourself and one of those organizations which provide a lot of money toward those in need in the province, of one kind or another. We know there are a lot of benevolent societies in the province and in every community, service clubs that provide various types of services to the handicapped and to all kinds of people. I think we ought to take our hats off to a lot of individuals and service clubs throughout British Columbia as well as to the various benevolent societies. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Minister, that all of these societies provide service and dollars.

It would be very hard to put a price on various services provided, but I'm sure that there must be some statistics available that would tell us approximately how many dollars are provided in terms of service by such organizations and by churches and so on. So in addition to what is already in our budget, Mr. Minister, is there any figure that we could get where the combination of money provided through your ministry and by those of the individuals in British Columbia, being all British Columbia tax dollars really.... Are there such statistics available so that that information could be supplied?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Madam Chairman, I don't have a number to give the member on the value of volunteer services in British Columbia. I don't think one has ever been done across government, but I know of one figure that was put together a few years ago — I think two years ago — by the Ministry of Health, and that's the only one I can quote you, and that is that if they had to pay for all of the volunteer services just for that one ministry, it would be somewhere between $2.5 billion and $3 billion a year. So that gives you some idea of what volunteer services in the province are worth. If we had to pay in this ministry for all of the services that are now provided by the organizations you mentioned —  societies, organizations, service clubs — and all of the hours of work put in by volunteers, there is no way that we as a people — and government, which is the people — could afford that. So that's the best answer I could give you. I'm sure the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) will listen to this: the deficit in this province would be something that would be unmanageable if we had to pay for the volunteer services in this ministry, the Ministry of Health and other ministries.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Minister, I can see from our exchange over the last few minutes that the emphasis on transition houses that you did establish in '86-87, which you quoted at $3 million, has been de-emphasized this year in the books to $278,000, and I would imagine that that would be to cover the per diems of the houses that you've already established. I also glean from what we've discussed in the last few minutes that your support for these community services that in fact bolster family life and create a preventive approach has not increased substantially. The decline over the past few years, it suggests to me, might be repeated in '87-88. I know that you suggested that preventive services for families are going to increase by 9 percent this year. I do not see the breakdown in the estimates as to how that's going to occur, and into what kinds of services you'll be putting these dollars.

I would ask you to prepare the books next year so that we can actually crack out these numbers more easily, so that those community services that are there to bolster families be separated in the grants portion of your estimates and of your reports, and that transition houses be singled out and that their per diems and their capital construction grants be singled out, so that we know exactly — without having to phone over — how to read these numbers, without having to cause the public costs in order to retrieve public numbers.

[ Page 390 ]

One last question, Mr. Minister, on the soft side, the community prevention side. In my constituency there is a great deal of distress because child care workers have been removed from our schools. These child care workers were there because Social Services put them there. They were relied on by the school board and by the teachers. In effect, they helped mitigate some of the disastrous effects of the cutbacks in the education budget. Will these child care workers in the schools be returned to Vancouver?

[3:45]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Again, I get a little exasperated, Madam Member, when you can sit there and hear me say that we have increased a budget of $3 million by $278,000 — increase; I clearly said that — then get up and say that we have reduced a $3 million budget to $278,000. That is totally incorrect. So I have to set the record straight. I don't know why you did that.

MS. MARZARI: That was unintentional.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: If you did it unintentionally, I'll accept that. But I made the point that we had added $278,000 this year to a budget that was already $3 million. I think it is important that I put that on the record.

The answer to your last question, in one word, is no.

MR. CASHORE: Madam Chairman, I would like to ask a few questions at this time with regard to the JobTrac program.

My first question is this. The budget announced $81 million for JobTrac. This was targeted to employables. Is this funding coming through the Canadian job strategy program of the federal government? How much of the $81 million is federal money and how much of it is provincial money?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I've got a page of statistics here on employment initiatives for income assistance recipients. It may be a little difficult to follow, but for 1987-88 the provincial employment and training programs total $43.6 million, while the federal employment and training programs total $34.2 million. The total is $77.8 million. On top of that there is a provincial job preparation and support of $12.62 million, for a total expenditure of $90.42 million. So that is how it breaks down federally and provincially.

MR. CASHORE: Given the federal and provincial dimensions of this, who initiates the projects? As a JobTrac project is entered into, from which...? Could you track us so that we would know who initiates it between those two jurisdictions?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Boy, to stand here and to take you through a road-map of all that.... First of all, I don't know if I could do it without making a mistake; and secondly, I don't know if it would solve anything. It's an intergovernmental thing between the federal and provincial governments, and it's intraministry. For example, it involves the Forests ministry, the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services, the Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training, the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, and the like ministries in the federal government.

So to answer your question right now, no, I can't stand up here and give you an exact road-map of how everything fits together. I could, though, given a little time. I can get a paper together for you and would be happy to provide you with that information.

MR. CASHORE: We do intend to ask a few fairly specific questions in this area, and I understand that it may be necessary to take some of those questions under advisement, although we would hope that if that was necessary we could come back to it tomorrow. We would still like to put our questions on the record.

I would ask the member for New Westminster now if she would ask some questions.

MS. A. HAGEN: My questions to the minister, as my colleague has noted, are on the JobTrac program. I can appreciate the comments that he has just made about trying to explain the program, because it is complex. It is complex, too, for us to try to sort things out in terms of the budget. We are seriously trying to understand the initiatives here, because clearly, in respect to your ministry, it is a major initiative around the issue of providing both training and employment for people who are in receipt of social assistance.

So I hope you will bear with me with some of these questions. Again, it may be useful to try to deal with them one by one, and I'll try to stay clearly on track with the information I am looking for. On page 75 of the booklet that accompanied the hon. Finance minister's budget presentation, there is a section called "Federal-Provincial Cooperation." It notes, as the minister has stated, that the two levels of government, federal and provincial, have "been working closely in the delivery of employment and training programs."

It's my understanding that the main focus of that delivery now is something called the Canadian Jobs Strategy, which is in the second of three years of joint federal-provincial funding and management. That, of course, is noted here, and it's noted that each of the two levels of government has committed $15 million to that program — and I would presume that that's in each of the three years — for a total of $90 million. The statement goes on to say: "The doubling in provincial funding for these programs in 1987-88 is made in the expectation that the federal government will also want to increase funding for its matching programs proportionately."

Now I'm trying to deal with two things here: first of all, the minister, in answer to my colleague's question about dollars from federal and provincial jurisdictions, quoted $43.6 million provincially and $34.2 million federally. The budget document refers to $15 million each year presently being committed and suggests that perhaps there are negotiations still going on. What I would like to ask the minister to elaborate on is, in fact, the figures that he has given in the context of the information in the budget booklet — $15 million annually there; and $43.6 million and $34.2 respectively, provincially and federally.

I'd also like him to explain whether in fact the JobTrac dollars — which he now says total something in the order of $90 million, and which the Finance minister has said total something in excess of $80 million — are conditional; whether there are still negotiations taking place between the federal and provincial governments around dollars that are going to be flowing into this program. What is the meaning of the condition that the Minister of Finance noted in his speech, and that's noted in this section on JobTrac? Can the minister give us some clearer understanding of the dollars that are

[ Page 391 ]

there, those that may be there, and where those dollars come from?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Madam Chairman, in my capacity as House Leader, I just want to make a point. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) took the opportunity, when he had finished his remarks, of directing the Chair as to whom the Chair should recognize and in what order. That is not a precedent that I think we should have established in the House. The rules of the House clearly state that it is the Chairman's prerogative to recognize the first person standing. I think the member perhaps did it in error, but in my capacity as House Leader, I think I should point out that it is up to the Chairman to recognize that person he sees standing next in debate. It is not meant as a criticism but merely a procedure. But I noticed that we have been crawling into this. It happened two or three times today, and it happened yesterday. So perhaps for that point of view, I bring that to your attention, Madam Chairman.

MR. G. HANSON: On a point of order, I think that the debate leader, out of courtesy to the Chair, because of the layout of the House floor, is attempting to just indicate to the Chair where the questions might be coming from in the minister's estimates. I don't think the concern raised by the member is that valid.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In answer to the member for New Westminster's question, I just want to point out that the numbers I quoted are only a part of the provincial funding. Let me go back to last year and show you the difference in the province's funding. In 1986-87 we spent $15.23 million on provincial employment and training programs. This year that number is up to $43.6 million. The federal government, on the other hand, spent $35.33 million on their employment and training programs last year, and $34.2 million this year — a very slight decrease. We are negotiating at the present time with Ottawa to get them to boost their amount in a like manner to ours. So to point out the discrepancy between the Minister of Finance's figures and mine.... The $43.6 million and $12.62 million total $56 million, which is for income-assistance recipients. When you add in the $25 million to non-income-assistance recipients, you get $81 million of provincial money being spent in this coming year. That does not include the federal contribution.

To answer your other question, the federal funds that I quoted are all committed. We are, though, to repeat, negotiating with them to get them to increase the amount of their contribution as we have done from last year to this year.

MS. A. HAGEN: I am not sure whether anyone else understands what we're about right at this precise moment. I am going to try to ask a very simple question that will get at an issue that I want to confirm in my examination of the estimates. I may in fact repeat what you've said, but I want to try to confirm this. I think that what you have just said is that the $81 million presently in the JobTrac program in the budget is fully committed at both the federal and the provincial levels, that there are no dollars in the proposed $81 million of spending that are subject at this time to negotiation with the federal government. There is a push to increase federal government funding for JobTrac activities; but I want to confirm that there are no dollars in the amount presently encompassed in this budget conditional on federal-provincial negotiations.

[4:00]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I thought I ended up by making that fairly clear. I'll do it again. The $81 million is provincial money only, and it is committed in the budget. The federal contribution on top of that is $34.2 million, and that amount we are trying to negotiate up. But every figure I have given you is fully committed money.

MS. A. HAGEN: I was not taking into consideration there the $25 million that's not targeted to social assistance recipients, so that has clarified that issue for me at this point.

I would simply like to note at this time, and it may require a little latitude, that because the JobTrac program is so heavily committed to social services and housing recipients, I think it's appropriate to deal with this issue under the ministry's estimates, and again to echo the kind of difficulty that we are having at times in following all of these various items through the ministries. In some of the estimates JobTrac is clearly identified, as it is in your ministry at this time with an increase of about $6 million. JobTrac items are also noted in the Advanced Education and Job Training estimates and in the Environment estimates to a total of just over $43 million. We have no reference in the documents that have come to us for $20 million in Forestry that is targeted to income assistance people, or $17 million in the Forests JobTrac program that is targeted to Social Service income assistance recipients either. I think one of our concerns here is to try to understand how these figures match up, and some of that may simply mean that we need to do some further questioning. I am concerned that we are sure that those dollars in fact are entirely committed at that time, and I take the minister at his word that there is within this budget $81 million of provincial money that is contributing toward the JobTrac program.

I'd like to just inquire about one further matter regarding the JobTrac program, because it is such a significant initiative in the documentation that's come both from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), and in the minister's own estimates. I think the Minister of Finance commented that something in the order of 5,000 jobs would be created through the JobTrac program in terms of the targeting to the people who are assisted by your ministry. I wonder if the minister would care to comment about whether any of that particular amount is reflected in the amount in his direct community services estimate of $108,177,304, which is up only about $5 million from last year.

In planning to implement the JobTrac program, is the minister anticipating that the dollars that will be required for social assistance this year will decline? Is the minister able to give some indication from his estimates about what amount he thinks may in fact not be required for social assistance coverage as a result of this program.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Madam Chairman, I'll do my best to give you an overview of what we think might happen to the income assistance rolls. First of all, as I said yesterday.... We can track it very closely. The people on income assistance — or welfare, if you like — track very, very closely to the employment or unemployment statistics, which ever way you want to call it. So if the economy improves, the caseloads and the welfare rolls go down. So I can't predict to you what the economy is going to do to the income assistance

[ Page 392 ]

recipients in my ministry. But I can give you some numbers that we have projected on the employment initiatives for income assistance recipients under the JobTrac program, and I'll itemize them as quickly as possible.

Firstly, provincial. Under the forestry JobTrac, it should create 2,100 jobs; on the JobTrac employment subprogram, 1,800 jobs; on the forestry tree-planting project 1,100 jobs; on the community JobTrac, 2,400; the JobTrac in Environment and Parks, 200; for a total of 7,600 jobs.

At the federal level in job development: 2,962 jobs; job re-entry, 766; job entry, 706; and innovations is unknown. The subtotal there is 4,434. When you total the two together, it's 12,034 jobs, which, of course, should reduce the rolls of the people on income assistance in my ministry. I don't have a dollar figure that I can put on what that will do to my budget, but just to repeat, that side of the budget is very much demand-driven, and hopefully this will decrease the demand somewhat, and hopefully the economy will decrease the demand somewhat.

Just to elaborate a little further on JobTrac details — this might sound like a paradox but I hope it doesn't — the government has simplified access to programs by training staff of ministries so that they are aware of programs offered by other ministries and by the federal government through Employment Canada offices. Brochures and advertisements have been prepared to assist both clients and employers. There have been two major innovations: one-stop service centres and the Working Network. A pilot one-stop centre has been opened in Prince George, and at least two more will be opened in 1987-88. The Working Network will use the facilities of the Knowledge Network to link together employers, employment professionals and clients. I can go through a breakdown of the dollar amounts for each aspect of the program if you like. I don't know if it would serve any purpose to you, but the total, as I've said before, for income assistance recipients is $56 million, broken down into one, two, three, four, five, six programs. The total in programs not restricted to income assistance recipients is $24.7 million, and that's where the $81 million comes from.

All this, of course, sounds a little bit confusing, and it is, there's no question, until you get it written down and see it in front of you, and we are doing that for our staff and for the clients by preparing brochures and, as you say, a road-map of how to find us, and by simplifying it so that they can come to a one-stop office and find out all this information.

Now since I'm on my feet, I want to take just a few moments to talk about the pilot project that we instituted in Kamloops and in Surrey-White Rock. The purpose of this project was to computerize the very thing that we're talking about — to get into the computer age so we could match up employable people on income assistance with possible employment and/or training programs. I can give a brief report at this time on the progress of those pilot projects. I have just yesterday received the first report from the Hewett Group, and the figures are, to say the very least, most encouraging. I want to say before I get into some of the figures that the program was entirely voluntary. People on income assistance were encouraged to come forward and register for the program so that they could have their job skills and aspirations evaluated so that we could match them up with any available employment and/or training programs and so that they could go away with some sort of a personal resume that many of them have never, ever had before in their lives. I'll try to go through this and make sense of it, having only just seen it yesterday. I just got a copy of it from the Hewett Group.

Let me emphasize again that the program was voluntary; these people came forward to register. There is nothing compulsory about it, contrary to reports that I'm sure many of you saw in the morning newspaper in Vancouver, the Province, where they alluded to the fact that if you didn't come forward and register in this program and take a job given to you, the mean Minister of Social Services and Housing would take your children away. How they convoluted that into that headline is totally beyond me, and I will say to this House and in front of everybody: it is most irresponsible journalism. So I'm going to try to clear up that point right now.

There were 2,943 income assistance recipients invited to participate in the project — 1,143 in Kamloops and 1,800 in Surrey-White Rock. Forty-five percent of the clients accepted the invitation to participate in the program — 54 percent in Kamloops and 40 percent in Surrey-White Rock. Sixty-two percent were classified as job-ready — 88 percent in Kamloops and 38 percent in Surrey. So an interesting statistic starts to emerge right off the bat — 62 percent classified as job-ready.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Thirty-one percent were assessed as requiring training in order to achieve employment goals — 10 percent in Kamloops and 50 percent in Surrey-White Rock. Over 90 percent of the clients were assessed as having realistic job and income goals. Over 75 percent did not like being on income assistance and wanted off, and saw the program as a way to help them get back into the workforce and into meaningful employment.

The response by income-assistance recipients who participated in the assessment and referral pilot project has been overwhelmingly positive. The people feel good about the program, about coming in voluntarily and registering; it's been overwhelming. We have a number of quotes by the people. I won't take the House's time by reading them all into the record; I'm just going to hit the highlights of this first report. One hundred percent of the income-assistance recipients who participated in this pilot stated that they would recommend it to others who were on income assistance. One hundred percent went out feeling good about the program and about themselves.

Although it's early in the life of the program, some of the statistics are as follows. The referral of clients to jobs.... Active marketing of job-ready clients to private sector businesses has just started. Bear in mind, Mr. Chairman, that the program has just barely got underway. The number of job orders and clients placed increases daily, and we're going to be getting updates every week. In Kamloops, 39 jobs have been identified to date and 22 clients have been placed in jobs; in Surrey, 38 jobs identified to date and 18 clients have been placed. And we just started the program. We'll be updating this weekly.

[4:15]

Owing to the positive initial results, the pilot project will be extended to further test-marketing of the clients to private sector businesses in Kamloops and Surrey. Implementation of the assessment phase will begin in Vancouver in April. Based on the success of the project in Kamloops and Surrey, we are going to expand it into Vancouver in April.

[ Page 393 ]

The Hewett group believes in the potential of income assistance recipients and has demonstrated that they have the necessary skills to obtain employment. The Hewitt group have hired six income-assistance recipients as key staff at their Surrey and Kamloops offices. So people on income assistance, Mr. Chairman, are participating in the actual project itself, in both Kamloops and Surrey. I'm very pleased with the initial results of this project that we have started. We are going to expand it into Vancouver next, and if that is successful, then as phase 3 we will go on to expand it to the rest of the province.

I think it fits in very nicely with the JobTrac program that the province has embarked upon. We're into the computer age with it and will be able to match up clients with jobs in a matter of minutes, which used to take some time.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to thank the hon. Minister of Social Services and Housing for having that information available within the House at this time. Because we do have some further questions with regard to the JobTrac program, I think it could facilitate our process if, given the modem technological age of computers and duplicators, etc., we could ask the hon. minister to table that report so that we could study it overnight. It may assist us in questions we don't have to ask. I would like to ask the hon. minister if we could have a copy of that report. I'm not sure if it means asking you to table it or just what the proper process would be, but I'll just ask the simple question: may we have a copy of that report at the earliest possible time, hopefully within the next hour?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of hiding any of the detail in the report from the opposition, but I've barely had a chance to have a look at it myself What I will do is take out the pertinent information as quickly as possible and get it to your caucus research people.

MR. CASHORE: I appreciate your willingness to do that. I would hope that the information that you consider to be pertinent is what we would both agree is pertinent, I think I'd feel best if we could have the entire report, but I'll leave that at this point.

MR. JONES: I was in the House a few minutes ago when the minister I think criticized this side of the House for trying to score political points. I want to assure him that that's certainly not my intention; that as a member in this House I think you have a very important ministry. It's commendable that you take on the onerous task. I think it affects all of our constituencies.

I have some questions that I would like to raise with the minister. I hope the Chair and the minister will grant me some latitude, because there are areas where there may be overlapping; they may not be specifically within your jurisdiction, but I hope you'll do your best to try to respond, at least in telling me that.

The first question relates to the area where I have some knowledge — that's education, but I think it does pertain to your ministry as well — and that's in the area of dropouts. I'm sure the minister is aware that there are something like half a million students in our public school system. Half of those students are between 13 and 18; something like 14,000 of those drop out every year, and 8,600 fail to complete grade 12.

1 had a very interesting experience recently in the minister's riding of Kamloops. I had an opportunity to visit the Henry Gruber alternative school, which I'm sure the minister is familiar with. I think it's an excellent program; outstanding teachers are working very hard with students trying to fit back into the system. Despite how good a program it is, in discussions with people in the area I got the feeling that they were dealing with a small percentage of the problem; that a large percentage of students were becoming street kids, were in the malls, were wandering the streets. There seemed to be a real sense of despair on the part of the community. The comment I heard was that your ministry cannot do anything unless these kids get into trouble.

I think it's a real shame that we have this tremendous number of young people out there, the future of our province. They're probably people who, unless we do something with them, are going to cost your ministry and this province many, many more dollars down the road than what we could invest in them now. I think you're aware that it costs something like ten times as much to incarcerate a person as it does to keep them in school. I know it's a difficult problem, a hard one to get a handle on. Does the minister have any plans to try to address this very serious problem?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Let me back up just one moment. Yes, I did talk about political points, but far be it from me to lecture the opposition about not scoring political points. I think it's great. Both sides should try to score political points in here; we should lob grenades back and forth. I just think that when we're discussing a ministry's spending estimates, we can sometimes learn a lot more if we keep it on a question-and-answer basis. But I'm perfectly willing to get into the political arena, and I would never want to shut that off in here, because this is the place where we do that.

On the teenage problem, I can tell you that it's a problem I recognized a long time ago, as I guess we all have, but I truly had it driven home to me when I got into this ministry, the social side of government. Last fall I went into it in great detail with my people in the ministry, and there's no question that it's a serious problem, as you've alluded to. I guess it is more a problem in the larger urban centres, but even in the smaller urban centres it is a problem, the extent of which I don't know if anyone has a real handle on. But you are quite correct that a lot of these kids — as I refer to them, having raised three of my own — will end up in the streets, and I guess a certain amount of that is bound to happen. But what happens in governments, in this one and in others, is that they seem to fall between the stools. They seem to fall, as you said, unless they get into trouble. Then, of course, they come under the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Smith's) ministry.

But a lot of them do seem to fall between jurisdictions in government. To that end, I have recognized the problem, and yes, we plan to do something about it. It would be premature of me to talk now about what we're going to do, because I'm not ready yet, but we have been working on a plan to address the very serious problem that you are speaking of. Your member for Vancouver Centre — I think he's the first member for Vancouver Centre — spoke eloquently on it in this House. I was very much aware of the problem, but I appreciated his comments. I have spoken to him in private in the halls since, and he understands that I'm very much aware of the problem. We've discussed it. In fact, when we get to the point where we're ready to bring a proposal or a program to this

[ Page 394 ]

House, I fully intend to involve the first member for Vancouver Centre, because it's very high on his agenda, he's very concerned, he happens to....

AN HON. MEMBER: Second.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm sorry, the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes). It's high on his agenda, and he's very, very close to it, being in the riding he's in. I can't say much more on it than that: yes, we are aware of the problem; and yes, we are addressing it and you will be hearing from us very soon.

MR. JONES: Just a very quick supplementary question to that one. I very much appreciate the minister's recognition and his commitment to try and address this problem. I don't expect details of your plans, except to ask if the Ministry of Education will be involved and if it will be a joint ministry approach.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Thank you for that. I should have added that we're addressing it at the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy, which involves all of the social service ministries, because it does cut across ministry lines. It involves my ministry and the ministries of Health, Education, Attorney-General and Job Training. It involves all of us, so yes, to your question: it is being addressed at the social policy committee of cabinet, which cuts across all of the social service ministries.

MR. JONES: My second area of questions for the minister is along similar lines, and it's even more serious and more shocking than the street kids, the kids who are getting into trouble. It's another one that I'm sure the minister is aware of and is concerned about, and that has to do with teenage suicide. I'm sure you read the report recently in the Province suggesting that the number of B.C. teenagers killing themselves in the past two years has jumped about 30 percent. The chief coroner suggests that this number is totally unacceptable, that these suicides have tripled in the last 15 years. In 1971 we had 15 youths taking their lives, and in 1985 we had 39. There are constituents of mine that have been involved in these tragic circumstances, and a reaction of the family is that there is a very high possibility that the individual would be alive today if the system had been more willing to help them.

I think you can read into that the kind of implications it has for your ministry. I know that in recent years there were over 200 family support workers who are not in the system now. To me this is a crisis kind of problem, and I'm wondering if the minister has sort of a crisis approach to deal with this very serious problem.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, indeed, and of course the two situations are inextricably linked. The problem that you and I first talked about a minute ago — teens and the parent teen conflict and the teens that will end up in the streets — is linked directly to the numbers you just quoted. Yes, I read the same articles and have read papers on the subject, and there's no question that it is a problem that, if not of crisis proportions already, will soon become that way unless we can address it. It probably is already.

There is no question that there are pressures on teenagers today that just did not exist a few years ago. They are under tremendous pressures that we, when we were teenagers — I am assuming that you are a little younger than I — did not face. We didn't face those kind of pressures, and we realize that.

I am going to take the lead as the lead ministry simply, I suppose, because I am chairman of the social policy committee of cabinet, to involve all the social ministries and come up with a strategy as best we can to address this problem. I think the problems are tied closely together, and we are addressing them.

[4:30]

MR. JONES: Again a short supplementary. Could the minister give us any sort of anticipation of the time when he will bring forward responses to these very serious problems?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Would you mind doing that again for me?

MR. JONES: Again, I am very pleased at the minister's response, and the only question I have in relation to those two is that he has promised that the situation will be reviewed, that he will be bringing back solutions to deal with these very serious problems. Can he give us any indication of the time in which we can look forward to these responses?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I hate to put a time limit on these kinds of things, because every time you do, it seems you never meet the target. So let me just say, as soon as possible. We have realized the need and the urgency of it, so as quickly as we can make the wheels of government turn, we will be back with a proposal.

MR. JONES: Again, on a very similar theme — and I think the theme is that we need to anticipate problems. We need to have a look at the problems of our young people and prevent problems down the road. Another area similar to the last two that I mentioned is in the area of our ethnic and cultural minority people in this province. It seems to me that these people, the immigrants that have come to this country with language problems, with problems fitting into our society, face a unique set of circumstances. The young people of those families face a further unique set of problems. These people have problems of adapting to our society, adapting to the expectations and traditions of their parents — of the heritage that they come from another country and fitting into the heritage of this country.

I am afraid that many social workers cannot adequately deal with the tremendous sensitivity of cultural diversity that exists in this province. For example, I don't think I as a social worker could go among a Vietnamese family that was having difficulty in values that were in conflict between a teen-age Vietnamese and his parents, probably because I couldn't speak the language, probably because I wasn't sensitive to their values — that I could deal effectively with that problem.

I would like to ask the minister: have you any plans for increasing the number of multicultural workers that are going to provide family support in this province?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The member asked a very complex question, because we are talking on two different levels here. If we are talking about the estimates of my ministry, many of the things you speak of do not pertain to my ministry, as you said when you made your opening remarks. It cuts across a lot of ministries. To start in one place, many of

[ Page 395 ]

the workers in my ministry are of ethnic backgrounds, and we do have quite a multicultural mosaic of workers. I'm not sure-, I can't answer you whether we have any Vietnamese workers on our staff. I can find that out. But the point is that we do have quite an ethnic mix in the ministry.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

Secondly, when you're talking about programs for counselling of parents and teens, etc., it doesn't really fall under the purview of my ministry. To come back to what we talked about before, a lot of these things that you are speaking of fall between all the ministries. Nobody really has jurisdiction. My ministry is mainly a response to children in need. We really cannot react, under the jurisdiction we have, unless we perceive that children are at risk. So it is a sort of crisis intervention, if you like.

What you are talking of is something totally different, which comes back to what I said about cutting across all the ministries and why we are developing a policy at the cabinet committee on social policy — because no one at the moment really has jurisdiction until something happens. So that's a very complex answer to a very complex question. It might have sounded simple, but it's very complex. But to come back to it, yes, we are addressing it under this program that we're talking about for teenagers in trouble.

MR. JONES: I very much appreciate the minister's answer, and the complexity of it. I accept the answer. It would seem to me, though, that there are family counsellors within his ministry. It seems to me that because we do have this cultural mosaic in our province, it's necessary that that cultural mosaic be reflected in his ministry employees. I'm wondering if the minister would consider any affirmative action program to look at where these ethnic minorities are located in this province and to try to address the problems of hiring from ethnic minorities in relation to their numbers in various communities throughout the province.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We are very much aware of the ethnic communities and where they are, region by region, in the province; and we do have a tremendous amount of contact with them. We spent last year, I am told, $5. 1 million to assist children with severe behavioural or emotional problems -some of which would fall under these categories — enter or re-enter the school system. Last year we assisted 1,270. This year we expect the number will increase to 1,534. But I do point out to you that it is a reaction to those with severe behavioural or emotional problems — that's when we get involved. Just to repeat: we are very much aware of the ethnic mix, region by region, in the province, and address it as best we can.

The other thing I would point out is that if we're talking about immigrants — in your remarks you mentioned immigrants — they are the responsibility, first of all, of the federal government. So we shouldn't get the two demarcation lines mixed up. If we're just talking about immigrants, they are a federal responsibility.

MR. JONES: My next question may be stretching the latitude even more than the previous one. I want to express a concern that I have to the minister. Again, it's to do with young people. It has to do with the increased availability of alcohol in our society. In my community a few weeks ago there was a drug store where now there is a beer and wine store. This is in a mall that is frequented by young kids hanging around the 7-Eleven store — very much a community centre kind of atmosphere in this neighbourhood. I'm very concerned that these kinds of directions on the part of the province to make alcohol more readily available in our society, particularly to our young people, are going to cause all kinds of crises. I know that's the point where the minister wishes to get involved and intervene. I'm suggesting to the minister that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I want to ask the minister at this point: is he going to, as an individual member of this House, support the increased availability of alcohol in our society?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In answer to that question, just let me say a couple of things. First of all, I don't think, to correct something that I think the member said, alcohol will be more available to young people. It's not available to young people now, and it won't be more available to them by adding more outlets. We all know they can get it, but that doesn't mean it's legal or available.

AN HON. MEMBER: There'll be more places to get it.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Well, it may add more places, but I don't think it will add to the consumption. Statistics show us that if you increase the number of outlets, you will not increase the amount of alcohol consumed. The amount sold will remain virtually the same. So if we increase the number of outlets, I don't think we're going to sell any more alcohol than we did before.

I would like to add another thing on the previous subject. It's just been handed to me, and I think it should be read into the record. In supporting families which require assistance in carrying out parental responsibilities, in '86-87 we spent $9.7 million and assisted 2,200 families. This year, as it's projected, we will assist 2,847 families. So that's another amount that we spend in assisting families where they're having problems, where they cannot for one reason or another carry out their parental responsibilities.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if the minister could assist me — perhaps not at this point in time, but at some point — with the studies that he quotes that suggest that the increased availability of alcohol does not increase consumption.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't quote from any studies that I can relate to you, but I repeat what I am told by others when these discussions occur. Perhaps 1 could dig and find some studies that say that, because this is obviously the jurisdiction of the people who have told me that, and they have more knowledge of it than I do. I guess I can speak from my own experience and from the people whom I know. It wouldn't make a difference to me if there was an alcohol outlet every hundred yards down the road. It isn't going to make me drink any more or any less. I do agree with the comment that was made from the front bench that it does provide more places for young people to get alcohol illegally, but if they're going to get it, I suggest that they're going to get it whether there are ten outlets in your constituency or 30.

MR. JONES: I think it is a serious question, and I'm in this position in order to learn. I want to be able to substantiate

[ Page 396 ]

the kinds of remarks that I make in this House, and I would very much appreciate the names of those people who suggested that to you or the studies that they quoted. I think it is an important issue, and I would very much appreciate that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I don't purport to be an expert on the subject of alcohol, and I don't speak from any particular expertise, but if you like I'll try to get you some statistics that have been shown on the subject, and I'll do the best I can to do that for you. I speak mostly of personal opinion about it, and how it affects me and the people I know. I would like to add, though, to the member for Maillardville Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore), that all of the information, save for a few analysis sheets on the back, have been sent to your caucus already on the Hewett Group report, so you have it already.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to really struggle with my next question, and perhaps the minister can help me. I think a good part of it falls within his ministry, although again it falls within other ministries. It's related to rent increases for seniors. I've had a lot of complaints from senior citizens' housing centres about the tremendous number of rent increases that they appear to get in a year, and I think it's a real problem of communication. It's a real problem of administration. I might throw in an aside: as the percentage of their disposable income that is available not for board and room.... That has decreased in recent years — and perhaps the minister could comment on that — but that's not my main question. I understand that the amount of old age security and guaranteed income supplement is adjusted quarterly, and in addition to those increases there are also increases from the actual housing centres themselves. I'm not sure whether the B.C. housing authority themselves also add further to complicate the problem.

[4:45]

There is a serious problem of notification of tenants in this situation. I think often the administrators of these houses are given notification of these increases and are not allowed to give a proper three-month or even one-month notification to their tenants. It seems to me that when we deal with seniors.... I think as politicians we recognize certain things. If it goes to seniors we've got to make the print big, and we've got to do things that can simplify the process for those people, and it would help in a great way to the seniors of this province if those living in senior citizens' housing could have that whole process of administration, of rent increases, simplified for them. I'm wondering if the minister could comment on that. Does he have any suggestions or any plans to look into this or to improve the situation?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, the problem of notification of rent increases and rent increases themselves really don't fall under this ministry. They're probably better addressed in someone else's estimates. But I will tell you that responsibility for responding to need for seniors' housing falls under this ministry, and we do address it under a joint program with the federal government.

This year we are projecting building 1,886 units of housing, not all for seniors, but the great bulk of it; and the biggest share of it is going to the lower mainland, where the need is the greatest. The two criteria that we use to determine where and when we will build these units, of course, are whether there is a need in a given area and, secondly, the quality delivered for the cost per unit. There are some areas in the province, for example, where we have had requests for nonprofit societies to build seniors' housing, and we turn them down simply on the basis that there is no need, because there may be a vacancy rate as high as 25, 30 or even 40 percent in that area, and adequate housing can be provided quite readily without building any more units. On the other hand, especially in Vancouver and the lower mainland, there is a need for seniors' housing, and that is where the bulk of it is going.

That part of your question on the availability falls within my purview; the rest does not.

MR. JONES: I apologize for my lack of understanding of that. I thought, because the housing authority was often involved in these rent increases, that it did come under your ministry. I applaud the minister's efforts in increasing the amount of senior citizens' housing. But again, it seems to me that even that approach is not a long-range planning approach but a sort of crisis intervention: if we have seniors without housing, then we'll provide it. We know from the demographics what the senior population is going to be down the road, and maybe we should be thinking about planning for the future on those things.

If I could ask one more question of the minister. I appreciate his patience with me. I'd like to refer to a situation where a citizen has a federal disability pension and experiences an increase in that pension. When that situation happens, the person loses in terms of his income supplement from the province; in fact, he can even lose his medical and dental premiums being paid. If I'm understanding it correctly, then in these situations there's an actual saving to the province and a detriment to the individual. I would appreciate a response from the minister on that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Back to the housing, for a moment. When you talk about a long-term plan, the plan that we are presently on with the federal government.... To give them full credit, it's 67 percent federal money and 33 percent provincial. Lest they complain about not getting credit for it, we want to give credit where credit is due. We announce the program one year at a time. It's a three-year program, but we can only announce the successful bidders, if you like, one year at a time.

On the question of disability pensions, we do get a lot of queries on this from constituents. I'm sure every MLA in the House has got phone calls and letters about the disability pension. I'll make as clear as I can, as I explain it to the people who call me and my colleagues, and I'll give the best explanation I can now.

Any income received by anyone on income assistance, such as a disability pension, an inheritance, a lottery-ticket windfall or whatever you call it, is income and must be reported as such. There are very few exceptions, one being a child tax credit, which we do not count, or family allowance — we don't count that. But anything else is income. Unfortunately, many people on income assistance — especially seniors — look upon it as some form of pension that they're entitled to, and they're not. What we do with income assistance is prop up their income if it falls below a certain level. If, with their OAS and GIS and any personal pensions that they have, they are below a certain level, then we prop that up with income assistance. Once their income rises above that level, then we don't prop them up any more.

[ Page 397 ]

To repeat: income assistance is not a way of life and it's not a pension. It is to get people through a rough time, to prevent them from falling below a certain level, so that when their income increases beyond that — for whatever reason, whether it's disability pension or an inheritance or income that they've gone out and earned — we cut off that supplement at the bottom. Because if we didn't, there would be no end to it. It wouldn't matter how much that person's income went up; the welfare payment would still be there, or the supplement would still be there. So that, in the best way I can, explains what happens when the disability pension hits. I know that a lot of seniors look at it as harsh. They say: "There's that mean provincial government taking away my disability pension." But that's not the case; their income has risen beyond the point where it needs propping up at the bottom, so therefore we take the income assistance away at the bottom end. I hope that explains it for everyone in the House, because I know that everyone here gets phone calls on it; I know I do.

MR. JONES: So what the minister is saying then is that there can be no net loss to the individuals, When we take into account such things as medical premiums and dental premiums, they're still propped up to the same point that they were before.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, that's correct, and if I read from this paper on it, maybe it'll be a little more explicit. For example: "Canada Pension Plan benefits are totally deductible from GAIN benefits. The recent increase in CPP disability benefits" — which is what we're talking about; the maximum now is $634.09 a month — "means that some recipients of handicapped benefits ($574 a month) are no longer eligible. In addition, these individuals are no longer eligible for subsidized medical coverage or bus passes." For example, if we were to exempt the CPP increases, the cost to the province would be over $10 million a year, which would not be cost-shared by the federal government. And of course it would move us away from what we've talked about as that funder of last resort, the people who prop up those recipients. GAIN benefits are related to need and are intended as a supplement to other sources of income available to recipients. As other income increases, benefits provided under GAIN programs decrease. Those who are no longer eligible for subsidized medical coverage may still qualify for assistance with essential health costs if they do not have sufficient resources to cover the item needed.

MR. LOENEN: To the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a comment about the social housing or the assisted housing. I know that in my constituency recently your ministry announced funding for three different projects amounting to, I believe, some 170 different units, and I can assure you, Mr. Minister, that this is greatly appreciated by the people in Richmond. There's a great need there and you're meeting that need, and I want to express appreciation for that.

At the same time, we have seen over the last number of years that it's primarily the non-profit organizations that run these projects, or at least take the initiative and then manage the construction in one way or another and operate them. I just wonder if your ministry has given any consideration to allowing the private sector to both deliver such units and operate them. The reason I ask that is because I do believe that there are many well-run non-profit community organizations, but at the same time, there is great strength in the private sector when it comes to managerial skills and the entrepreneurial spirit, and we ought to tap that. I believe that it is possible for the private sector to play a role here and for us to draw the benefits of those superior managerial skills, both in the delivery and the operating of these projects.

I would recommend that to you, Mr. Minister, because I was for many years involved in house construction, and I think I know what I'm speaking about. I know there are a lot of people out there in the housing industry who show an awful lot of initiative, and if there is any one area where the free-enterprise spirit blossoms and grows and does a good job, it's in the housing industry. I think we sometimes are in danger of not allowing that to work for us when we push all the funding into the non-profit community organizations. I wonder if the minister could comment on that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would like to respond to the member's comments, because he does raise some good points.

First of all, let me say that the private sector builds all of the social housing. It all goes out to tender. But when it comes to the operation of it, the federal government does fund 67 percent of the program, so we are bound by the rules laid down by CMHC. Let me make one other point: the amount of housing that we build, although we think it is significant and necessary, is a very small percentage of the overall housing market in the province. I can't put a number on it just off the top of my head, but it's a very small percentage.

I do want to emphasize the point that it all goes out to tender and is built by the private sector.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, I have some questions about a group of workers called child care workers. In trying to put the people of my experience into the budget where it fits, I have discovered a few descriptions about these people which I think are useful in back grounding my question.

As I understand it, these child care workers have come under family and children's services under programs which help young people who are experiencing great difficulty at school for social or emotional reasons, and those who have dropped out of school for these reasons. These child care workers are asked to assist with behaviour management and to provide counselling. Part of what I am concerned about is that these workers certainly began to be increased after 1981 — if the actual contracting didn't begin at the time — when 220 professional family support workers were laid off from the ministry. These child care workers are hired on a contract basis. In fact, the contracts specify the nature of the service. They specify, in some kind of terms, what is to be done — I'm not sure how they do that — the time involved, the time limit on the contract, the place the service is to be provided in, but no credentials as to what these child care workers are supposed to have as far as personal qualifications.

[5:00]

I've asked a number of people in the organizations that contract these child care workers, and the qualifications can be described in very simple terms. They are said to be hired because they have good people skills. In fact, when I pushed, the criteria were, as far as I can make out, personal suitability, the ability to relate to young people. Most of these people have no professional training at all. This is the extent,

[ Page 398 ]

as I say. In my investigations I find from some of the organizations that hire them that they take advantage of local workshops. In fact, in the last several years they have put on a few workshops of approximately two days for these child care workers, one of which was on legal aspects.

What is happening is that these child care workers are beginning to deal with more and more serious problems. We've talked about this the whole time your estimates have been here: that teenagers, young children, are often facing much more serious problems. I'm told by some of the professionals that they're dealing far more with sex abuse problems, child abuse problems, major behavioural problems. An example was given to me of a young person who had cut his own throat, slashed his own wrists, set fire to the apartment building in which he had his home. These kinds of problems are still being dealt with by child support workers with no professional training. They are not trained counsellors. They have no professional counsellors as social workers.

In my attempts to find out how many children in the province are dealt with in this way, I understand that there are approximately 1, 400 children who are dealt with in this way every month. I thought we should use the word "served," because in some cases that is fine.

What I am concerned about is the fact that more and more of these.... Another comment I heard, which was put to me by a professional, is that the child care workers are doing the counselling while the professionals are shuffling the paper. I think that that's a matter of some concern, Mr. Minister, and I would like to know if you could tell me how many of these child care workers operate in the province, if any of them have professional training and whether the ministry actually puts out any criteria. Is there something I've missed in this? Are there some criteria for these child care workers before they are put on contract to work with these children?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'll answer all the questions as best I can. First of all, I can't give you an answer off the top of my head as to how many. I could get that number for you, but I don't have it readily available. Secondly, as far as training goes, a great number of them are graduates of our community colleges and their vocational courses. The societies that we contract with, that we purchase services from, are responsible for the people they hire. We purchase services for several programs — the Chance program, group homes, etc. We set the standards of care for those programs and those homes. There is no question that we set the standards of care, including doing criminal record checks of the people employed.

I want to correct that other statement you made. I forget the number you used, but you said a number of people were "laid off." These people were not laid off; they were offered alternative employment. Some of them chose not to accept it, but they were not laid off. Some of them chose to leave and went into private business, and some of them are operating some of the group homes that we spoke of. But just to correct that for the record, the positions were eliminated. They were offered alternative employment; they were not laid off.

MS. EDWARDS: The point is not whether they were laid off; the point is that these family support workers are no longer available to these families. I'm not talking about the group homes right now, Mr. Minister; I'm talking about the child care workers who work with children who remain in their own homes. You've said that most of them are graduates of the community college system. The ones who work in my area are certainly not graduates of the community college system, and one of the reasons for that is that there is no community college course in my area that could graduate them at any rate; they simply are not. Some of them have some professional training, but most of them do not. I don't know whether that makes our area different from the rest of the province, but I would be very surprised if there was that much of a difference between our particular comer of the province and a broad fan that would come out from there. I think the system would likely be the same, so I would ask you again whether in fact we are talking about the same group. We're talking about people hired for individual work with children who remain in their homes. Do you still believe that they are graduates of the community college system? Because that's not what our experience is in our area.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The program that you are speaking of is the program of special services for families. In answer to a question half an hour or so ago, I informed the House that last year we spent $9.7 million on that program. So, I guess, to answer your question as to where all these child service workers come from is very difficult. I know that many of them are graduates of the colleges, but the societies that we contract with are responsible for hiring them. It's an arm's-length relationship; it's a service that we purchase.

MS. EDWARDS: As I say, I would like to push a little further into the next step, which is that these workers are dealing with more and more complex types of problems, and I am told that these situations affecting young people —  increasing our suicide rate, and so on and so forth.... These problems are affecting these children, and we do not have any criteria along the way for the training of the workers who are working with them. Has the minister considered taking some measures to improve the training of these people?

I also want to know, Mr. Minister, whether in fact there has been any reintroduction into this whole system and this whole problem of the very professional workers who at one time were providing the family support work that would have precluded the need for child care workers.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Again this, like so many of the issues that we talk about, crosses ministry lines. They don't all come under my ministry. For example, those children with psychiatric disorders, if you like, who have problems, are referred to Mental Health Services for professional help, and don't come under my jurisdiction. So I am certain that the child care workers realize this and are quite able to assess whether these children need to be referred for professional psychiatric help, which again jumps into another ministry. So I hope that answers your question.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, it really leads me to another question, because in fact, in trying to read the estimates, I discovered a number of transfers of contract services, and I'm not sure if that applies to this or not. It may or may not. I also had a problem in identifying where these people were and how I could find out what their tasks were to be, partly because I keep being told that the child will be treated by this kind of worker if the child has this kind of behavioural problem, but if the behavioural problem is of a certain degree of magnitude which we cannot quantify, that

[ Page 399 ]

child will then go on to another kind of worker. Then if it's in another ministry, which of course you don't have responsibility for, something else is going to happen. How, Mr. Minister, does your ministry deal with this kind of drawing of the line in the treatment of the whole child?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Each case, of course, is treated on an individual basis. Each child's requirements and each child's problems are totally different. So there's no question that they -— whether it's a social worker, a child care worker or whoever — have to assess each case on its own individual basis. Some of them require much more help than others. When it's determined by the professionals who go and assess these people that they need psychiatric help, that they are to that point, then they are referred to another ministry or another level of help and will receive that professional help, So in each region of the province, each office is very cognizant of the requirements of its own region, and each worker assesses each case on an individual basis — not only with children but with others. Everyone is treated as an individual.

MS. EDWARDS: I guess the question then is: does that increase in the amount of funding in the estimates include any increase in the amount of expertise that will be available to these troubled children?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The only way I can answer that, Madam Member, is that it's an increase for the overall program, and we purchase the services for the program. I really can't answer any more specifically than that. It's an increase to the program, so that we can pay more for the services that we purchase,

MR. LOVICK: Well, as the saying goes, now for something completely different. I notice a gaggle of government members in the comer who seem to have circled their wagons, and I'm almost tempted to begin by quoting a little of Milton's Paradise Lost. You recall what Satan said to the fallen angels lying on the burning lake: "Awake, arise, or be forever fallen!" But I won't indulge myself, of course. Instead, if I could use a line from your side of the House: "Have faith." At some point I shall.

I want to start, Mr. Chairman, by emphasizing the fact that this is indeed my first involvement in dealing with estimates, and I am certainly a tiro in that business. I would ask you then to be gentle and extend the same request, of course, to the minister.

However, before I focus on the specific area I want to deal with as generated by the minister's estimates, let me make reference to the comments about alcohol and the availability of alcohol. First of all, I'm happy that the minister has indeed agreed to provide us with the studies that he alluded to, but I want to suggest that the answer the minister gave us is logically pretty tenuous — pretty shaky. The argument that the availability of alcohol does not have any necessary connection with increased consumption simply doesn't hold up, because if there are regions of the province that don't have alcohol outlets, pretty clearly the consumption is not going to be very significant, if at all. If you put in those outlets, pretty clearly and logically the consumption must go up — necessarily. So logically I think the minister's comment was perhaps a little precipitate.

[5:15]

1 want to start my questioning with a very straightforward one. I've examined the page of estimates and I'm looking at the category "direct community services." I want to ask whether direct community services makes any kind of provision for funding food banks. Can I start with that discrete question?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, maybe we could put this to rest now. I had no intention, nor do I have, of getting into a discussion on alcohol. I don't pretend to be an expert on the subject. I didn't quote from any studies, but I quoted from other people who are very knowledgeable in that they earn their living in it. Secondly, if my logic doesn't hold up, then I would like the member to point out to me a region in the province that doesn't have an alcohol outlet. I really don't know of one. You name me a region. You might be able to name one specific little community, but I don't think you can name me a region in the province that does not have an alcohol outlet. If you can, then I will accept that.

We're talking about a whole different subject, and that is the subject of food banks. I think the question was whether we intended to fund agencies that have food banks in the province. The answer in one word, Mr. Member, is no. In 1987-88 — this coming year — we will budget in this province $865 million of the taxpayers' money for income assistance. Think about that: $865 million for income assistance. As I said earlier, we don't wish to start to tell those people on income assistance where to spend their money. Some of them do have problems with their priorities; some of them do not. For instance, we don't tell them how much to spend for groceries. We also don't intend to tell them to line up for a bag of groceries. So food banks are something that are provided by charitable organizations in the province, and I suggest that we leave it that way, that we leave the charitable organizations to fulfil a need that they perceive for food banks, and we will continue to provide income assistance to those in need in the province.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, let me pursue this matter. I'm very tempted at the moment to engage in debate regarding the alcohol thing, but I don't think that would serve any purpose, so I'm going to refrain. My charitable, courteous, well-mannered demeanor overwhelms.

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: What am I getting? I'm getting confusing signals here, Mr. Chairman. Some are obviously trying to say, "Speak, we would hear wisdom," and others are saying: "Oh, please don't talk." So it's a struggle.

Perhaps....

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Oh, isn't this interesting.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're actually alive.

MR. LOVlCK: They are indeed alive. It's marvelous. How nice to see. It's amazing what happens when electrical impulses cross the floor, and you actually see the shock therapy value here, I guess.

What I want to get at is pursuing the business of, as the minister tells us — and I appreciate your directness, Mr.

[ Page 400 ]

Minister — having a very significant budget of $865 million spent for social assistance. The assumption is that social assistance, in effect, precludes the need for food banks. I would suggest to you, however, that the very fact we have food banks is prima facie evidence that we aren't providing enough assistance. It's just that simple — unless you want to argue the case that all of those recipients of food banks are a bunch of wastrels and profligates who are wasting their money on other things.

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: Look, I'm sorry that the government side of this House is offended by my words. What I'm demonstrating to you is some pretty elementary reasoning; and if you can't follow that leap, I'm sorry. I'm not assigning blame to you. I'm merely telling you that if you are admitting that you're doing enough, as you seem to be implicitly stating, but we still have food banks, then the only explanation —  surely to God it must follow; it must be clear to all who pause to think — is that those people are not spending their money on what they ought to be spending their money on. So don't howl, don't erupt, don't get upset; rather, look at the quality of the arguments, and I think you'll recognize it's a correct argument.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Somebody is actually capable of articulating a sentence over there, and says: "According to who?" I think he meant "whom." According to whom? Let me give you a little example, gentlemen and ladies.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LOVICK: I am one, Mr. Chairman, who in another career did a lot of study of Hansard, and I'm quite familiar with some of the more memorable utterances that graced the pages of that document in the federal Parliament.

MRS. GRAN: On both sides.

MR. LOVICK: On both sides. Sometimes, indeed, there were things from the other side.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. LOVICK: I'm sure that your statement, "Order, order, " will probably be reprinted as one of those memorable moments.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: I am trying to outline a case to you, and, sadly, you seem to want to continue to interrupt, and therefore I'm responding in kind — better than in kind, I might add.

Let me develop the issue. Mr. Minister, you appear to be sentient, so perhaps you and I can have a dialogue.

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened to Hansard?

MR. LOVICK: Do you want Hansard? I'm going to give it to you. One of the great lines in Hansard was about an old saying in the north that the Inuit people use. The saying is that if you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, it causes a lot of noise.

To the issue. To answer that question about "according to whom," let me talk a little bit just for a moment about my community and the endemic crisis proportions of what I call the food bank problem.

The food bank issue, sadly, is an issue of what I have called crisis proportions simply because it has indeed become institutionalized in my community. We are not talking about some kind of aberrant operation, something that just exists on the weekend. Rather, we are talking about something that has been around since 1983, which began in relatively modest circumstances dealing with a few families, but which has continued to grow and now serves a total of an estimated 10,000 people.

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: There are 4,500 cards on file in that food bank.

The food bank is manned or "personed" or staffed — whatever term you want to use — by volunteer labour, and the volunteers are not those we normally associate with volunteerism. Rather, these volunteers are people who themselves are recipients of social assistance — a marvelous model, a marvelous example to one and all. The point, however, is that we ought not to be in a predicament where we are putting people in a situation where they have to rely on a food bank manned by fellow poor people to supplement their income so they have sufficient nutrition to get by.

If indeed the ministry's budget estimates do not accommodate the reality of food banks, let me start by asking a very direct question first. Please tell me what "direct community services" means. I have read the explanatory note, but I would like, if I could, to have some clarification on that, please, to begin with.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: To answer your last question, direct community services are mainly the services provided by my ministry to individual communities. They are to pay the staff in my ministry, by and large. Many of our programs.... Of course they all go into communities, and they are direct community services. But to answer your question specifically, it's to pay the salaries of the staff and the very competent professionals in my ministry.

Let us address the philosophy, if you like, of food banks and volunteerism, which you seem to want to do. First, food banks exist in numerous locations in the province — your constituency, mine and others — providing groceries, usually to those who have exhausted other forms of aid. Before there were food banks — and that's not very long ago, with one exception — we dealt with people, and still do, on a crisis basis. If someone on income assistance runs out of money the last week of the month, they come to us for a hardship grant or a crisis grant, whatever you like to call it, and we give it to them. They can, if they choose, go to a food bank and get some groceries.

Let's go back to before food banks existed, which was about 1982. On a Tuesday, I think, somewhere back there, all of a sudden we had food banks. Before food banks existed we still had people who ran out of money before the end of the month, before their cheque came along, and many of them

[ Page 401 ]

came back to us. Naturally we provided them with food vouchers or the like to see them through till the end of the month so that their children and their families would not suffer. I suggest to you, Mr. Member, that if food banks had not come along in 1982, we would still be doing that. In fact, we still do it. Food banks happened, for whatever reason, and have stayed with us. As you say, they have become an institution. People now depend on them. Maybe they've become a bit of a crutch to some people.

Before there were food banks in '82, the Salvation Army always had hampers, food baskets, available for people in need. They didn't make a lot of noise about it; they just did it. They still do it, and will continue even after other food banks are long gone. There are people in the community — citizens' groups, churches, benevolent associations, service clubs — who in 1982 perceived a need, for whatever reason, to provide food banks, and it is a commendable expression of concern.

We continue, as government, to provide GAIN benefits to those in need who are eligible, as best as we can afford it as a society and a province — as I said, some $800 million dollars in this coming year. But I don't think for one moment this government should jump in and start taking away expressions of concern that benevolent groups have put into place. For whatever reason these church groups and other benevolent people have put food banks into place, I think it would be irresponsible of government to move in and take them over, as is suggested quite often by members on that side, and by others. If you did it with the food banks, next it would be some other charity, then another and another.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I don't think the government should fund food banks, and I don't think they should fund certain other charities in our society. People do like to do charitable work. As even you have said, many income assistance recipients volunteer to work in the food banks and other charities. I think that's commendable. Maybe it is their way of putting something back into the society from which they are taking at the particular moment.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Oh, I have my doubts about that.

I suggest to you again, at the risk of repeating myself, that before 1982, when we didn't have food banks, we still had people on income assistance. The numbers might be greater — as the economy goes down the income assistance rolls go up — but the reality was there before. The numbers aside, we've always had people on income assistance — or welfare, if you like. We haven't always had food banks.

[5:30]

MR. LDVICK: It is absolutely true, of course, that we have always had poverty, and thus the need to do something for those desperately in need. The question, though — and you acknowledged it, I think, in your final comments — is the magnitude of the problem. We are now, as I said a few moments ago, talking not about a few people on the edges of society, but about an extremely significant number.

I want, however, to pursue the minister's explanation for why we have food banks. I don't want to put words in the minister's mouth, but are you indeed suggesting that we have food banks because of some kind of — dare 1 say —  political agenda or something? Is this the case? Are you indicating that?

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: It's a fair question, is it not? It seems to me an entirely fair question.

Perhaps I can come at it in a little different way so that even the member for Vancouver South can understand it. If, as you said, we've suddenly had this new phenomenon in only the past four or five years, if we've always had the problem of poverty, and the numbers themselves don't account for this thing called food banks becoming institutionalized, then what hypothesis would the minister offer us to explain the phenomenon called food banks?

How's that? Is that neutral enough for you?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to try to explain the philosophy behind food banks. I'll leave that to the member himself: he can draw his own conclusions as to why we have them. You can draw your conclusions, and I'm sure every member in this House will draw his or her own conclusions. All I said was that certain groups in the community perceived a need — one person's perception is not necessarily another's — and they moved in to fill that need at a certain point in our history. It happened to be 1982. This perceived need was probably there before and may be with us for quite some time. But for whatever reason, food banks became a reality in 1982, and as you say, they are now becoming institutionalized.

Having given something, as we all know, it's very difficult to take something away. So it's easy to get into many programs, this being one, and difficult to get out of them. I suppose philosophers could sit around and argue for hours on why we have food banks, will they always be with us, and should government fund them or not. We could probably argue that philosophy for a long time to come, and everyone in this chamber would have his own opinion on it. I just say to you that this government puts money into the pockets of those in need to the tune of over $800 million a year, and we do not intend to get into funding food banks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Nanaimo.

MR. LOVICK: Is there an identity crisis with the member for Vancouver South? He seems to want to stand when I'm called. Many are called but few are chosen, as some of you perhaps know.

Nobody, I believe, on this side of the House has for a moment said that it is a good thing for the government to get in the food bank funding business. What we are saying, rather, is that sufficient social assistance moneys must be made available to take away that need for food banks. What you are apparently arguing is that we really don't have that kind of need. I'm suggesting to you that the reason we have food banks, certainly in my community, is that the old traditional means of addressing the needs of the poor and the hungry were not sufficient. That's why we have food banks. It's not a plot; it's not a conspiracy; it's a need, a demonstrated, clear need. Coexistent with food banks in my community, we also have half a dozen church groups doing good, charitable work to try to solve that problem. We also have the

[ Page 402 ]

actions of your ministry, again to be commended. We also have the Salvation Army and all kinds of service clubs and individuals doing what they can. The point, however, is that the need for food banks still obtains, despite all those efforts. We need both; that's the point.

If I might, I'd like to pursue some other things that the minister made reference to. There seems to be a kind of embracing of volunteerism as a philosophy and as an attitude that makes one feel good, or some such thing, and this is somehow seen as a substitute for what I would call social duty. I noticed, for example, that when I posed the question about food banks to the Premier, he gave me a description talking about, well, charity has always been with us, and after all you don't want to interfere with those people doing those good charitable works, and all those nice words. The point is, though, is that when we talk about charity in those terms, throwing up our hands and saying it has always been with us and we had people lining up at the monastery and the back of the church door and all that good stuff, we are describing, for heaven's sake, a feudal society. We're talking about a society in which some people, quite frankly, are obviously not only second-class citizens but very much lower-class citizens who will be forever dependent on the good offices and the nice, charitable impulses of others. That, frankly, is not a very good way to build a society. It is certainly not healthy for any society to function on that basis, as now happens in a number of communities.

Charity, we know, has done great things. I have been involved in charitable campaigns for a number of years, and I know the limitations of charity and charitable response to problems. But by throwing up our hands and saying, leave it to the churches, leave it to the service clubs, and so forth, we are admitting two things. Firstly, we are admitting the fact that we are not providing sufficient assistance, however much we like to think we are. Secondly, we are admitting our own failure to generate the economic activity that would put an end to a serious food bank problem in this province. We are admitting failure, there is no question of that.

What strikes me as so sad and so tragic in all of this — and I am going to lead to another question pursuing this avenue —  is just that we are encountering and coming up against a world view that says charity and good works and food banks in one form or another are necessary. They have always been there; they probably always will be. Implicitly I think that was suggested. After listening to the minister, I draw this conclusion. How can that be, given what we have accomplished as a species on this planet, given what we have done in terms of discovering ways to produce more and better and more efficiently than we ever dreamed possible? By all means, we had poor people. We had those who were called paupers and beggars and mendicants in the society of 300 years ago. But we are a society that has been through an industrial revolution, a post-industrial revolution. We have harnessed technology. We have this marvelous capacity to produce in a manner that we never dreamed possible, even 100 years ago. However, we are still being told that we haven't solved the basic problem: you still have to have food banks. As I suggested earlier, it seems to me a terrible admission of failure on the minister's part to acknowledge that.

I am searching for another note.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: The minister makes a rather good point when he says: "You're searching for a lot more than another note." Indeed I am; I am searching for rationality, common sense and intelligence on the other side of the House. That's what I am searching for.

I would not for a moment want to suggest that the attitude of this government is necessarily niggardly and parsimonious, though the responses to various comments that are made by this side of the House would seem to suggest that that is indeed the case. I simply hope that the minister will acknowledge the fact that we do indeed have a crisis in terms of food banks within our community, and will indeed listen to some of the suggestions in terms of economic arguments regarding how we might put an end to that crisis.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, it's difficult after that long dissertation to know exactly where to start. First of all, I don't take kindly to members on the other side putting words in my mouth. It happens every once in a while. I did not acknowledge the need for food banks, I did not say that they'd always been here, and I did not say that they'd always be with us. I said they were a phenomenon that came along in 1982. They are with us — it was a perceived need by certain people, not perceived by everyone — and I don't think they will always be with us.

Next, Mr. Member, I suppose we could argue ad infinitum as to whether or not we put sufficient moneys into social services. We have budgeted for significant increases in the coming year in income assistance, in shelter allowances, in day-care programs and family services, and on and on. In fact, I don't think this government, when we look around the free world, has anything to hang its head about regarding social services and the way we look after those less fortunate than ourselves. And for you to stand there sanctimoniously, as you and some of your colleagues do, and say that we look upon those less fortunate as second-class citizens is not correct. I take offence when you say that we on this side of the House look at those who receive charity as second-class citizens. For you to put words in my mouth, saying we admit that we are not providing enough and that we've failed, is totally incorrect, Mr. Member, and I would put our record of social services in this province against that of any other province in this country and, indeed, any other jurisdiction that you care to name.

[5:45]

As I said, I've been quite agreeable to standing here, engaging in a lobbing of political grenades back and forth. It's great fun and I can do it maybe not as good as some, maybe better than some, but I'm getting to enjoy it, and that does frighten me a little bit. In fact, I would hate to come to the point where I thought this was really fun. I might even become like the member for Vancouver East there, who thoroughly enjoys this.

As I said earlier, if we want to engage in making political points, fine. Let's have give and take, as we've had. If we want to debate the estimates of my ministry, then let us stick

[ Page 403 ]

to more factual information, and I'll do the best I can to answer questions for you.

In view of the time, Mr. Government House Leader, and to end on a very positive note, I think I'm going to move at this time that the committee rise and report substantial progress, and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:47 p.m.

Appendix

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

1 Mr. Rose asked the Hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries the following questions:

1. Does the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries plan to close its nematode laboratory in Cloverdale?

2. What is the future assignment of the nematode specialist?

3. What agency will undertake the soil testing for nematode infestation?

4. Will a charge be made to orchardists for testing services in future?

5. If the Cloverdale laboratory is to be closed down, has the soil testing service contract been offered by public tender?

6. Will Canadian private laboratories be given preference over foreign firms?

The Hon. J F. Savage replied as follows:

" 1. Not immediately.

"2. Not applicable.

"3. A private laboratory can provide this service.

"4. Any charge for testing services will be determined by the private laboratory.

"5. There is no soil testing service contract with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

"6. Not applicable."