[ Page 405 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 406

Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987 (Bill 19). Hon. L. Hanson

Introduction and first reading –– 406

Teaching Profession Act (Bill 20). Hon. Mr. Brummet

Introduction and first reading –– 407

Oral Questions

Casino gambling. Mr. Sihota –– 407

Proposed Island Highway. Mr. Lovick –– 408

Gulf Island ferry rates. Mr. Lovick –– 408

Vancouver Island hydro rates. Mr. G. Hanson –– 409

Drug awareness week. Mrs. Boone –– 409

Tabling Documents –– 409

Ministerial Statement

Delgam Uukw decision. Hon. B. R. Smith –– 409

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

Richmond)

On vote 56: minister's office –– 409

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Williams

Mr. Rabbitt

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Guno

Mr. Clark

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Blencoe

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I have the privilege today of introducing our first guest in the House. On the floor, to my right, we have Mr. Eugene Ritzo, a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives. I wish you would all make him welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are members of the British Columbia Medical Association and the MLA liaison committee. I would specifically like to introduce the past president of the BCMA, Dr. Gerry Karr, and three doctors from Abbotsford — the hottest spot in Canada — from my constituency, the Central Fraser Valley: Dr. John Pawlovich, Dr. Cheryl Holmes and Dr. Chris Wallace. These doctors are very, very happy because they all have billing numbers. Would you welcome them to this House, please.

MRS. BOONE: On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I'd also like the House to welcome the representatives from the British Columbia Medical Association, one of whom is Dr. Landrey from Prince George; I'm proud to have him here. I understand that Dr. Ducharme is also here from Prince George. Would the House give them welcome, please.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: In the gallery this afternoon are some visitors whom I would like the House to welcome: Dave and Pat Hopkins, who are visiting us from Vernon; and my mother-in-law from Vancouver, Mrs. Beatrice Johnston. I would also like to extend an early welcome to one of my constituents, who I know will be joining us later today, the president of the BCMA, Dr. John O'Brien-Bell.

MR. GABELMANN: In the gallery are literally dozens of labour leaders from across British Columbia, and I would like the House to make them welcome. I'll only mention two names: the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, Ken Georgetti; the secretary-treasurer of the federation, Mr. Cliff Andstein; and, as I say, the full executive council of the federation and many other trade union leaders from British Columbia. I'd ask the House to make all of them welcome.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In the gallery today are the members of British Columbia's Public Service Commission: chairman Graeme Roberts, Sharon White and Fred Randall. I'd like the House to make them welcome, if you would.

As well, on behalf of you, Your Honour, I ask the House to welcome Mr. Carman Briscoe and Mr. Brian Fisher of Vancouver.

MS. MARZARI: I have two groups to welcome today, Mr. Speaker. The first is Mr. John Ippen, with his grade 11 and 12 classes, from Kitsilano high school. They're here in the gallery. You'll remember that I announced them two weeks ago; the difference today is that they are actually here. So I would ask you to welcome them.

There is also a very important and aspiring new group from downtown Vancouver here: Noella's Mature Women's Group, which is meeting regularly in downtown Vancouver to help people on welfare. Noella Walker, Loretta Walters, Mildred Solomon, Marian Sinclair and Margot Fleming are all here in the gallery today. Can I ask you to welcome them.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to ask the House to welcome two of my constituents, Dr. Stan Wilbee and his wife Anne. Dr. Wilbee is the head of Delta Hospital. Please welcome them.

MR. KEMPF: In the gallery this afternoon are two longtime friends of mine, Mr. Howard Lloyd and Mr. Cyril Shelford. both members of the independent loggers' association of British Columbia. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, in the galleries today are representatives of the B.C. School Trustees' Association, president Dr. Eric Buckley and Henry Armstrong, and from the B.C. Teachers' Federation, president Elsie McMurphy and Jim Bowman. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join me in welcoming to the gallery today several representatives of the labour movement who hail from the southern Vancouver Island area, in particular machinist Art Glass, and carpenters Wayne Cox, Chris Jones, Hal Carlson, Dan Miller, Ken Sturmey and Robert Oakman.

MS. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the House for welcoming the students from Kitsilano Secondary School. If they can fit in the gallery, they're very lucky indeed today.

In particular I'd like to ask the House to welcome, among the visitors representing the British Columbia Medical Association, my very good friend Dr. John Richards and his wife Virginia Richards, who are in the Speaker's gallery.

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, from the great riding of Yale-Lillooet we have with us today a dedicated member of the medical profession from the little community of Princeton, Dr. David Reid.

MR. CHALMERS: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon we have another distinguished member of the medical profession, a very good friend of mine and my next-door neighbour, Dr. Derek Royle. Would you make him welcome, please.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the house to join me in welcoming a constituent of mine from Nanaimo, the former chairman of the Nanaimo Harbour Commission and the former chairman of the Malaspina College council — and that will of course tell you that this is a personal friend but a political foe — Mr. Doug McBride. Please join me in welcoming him.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) introduced all of the doctors I thought we were going to let it go at that, but now I don't dare leave out my good friend Dr. Gur Singh from Kamloops. I might have to go and see him some day. Welcome, Doctor.

[ Page 406 ]

MR. JANSEN: Echoing those comments, I would like to ask the House to make welcome Dr. George Enns from the beautiful community of Chilliwack.

MR. SERWA: In the gallery today we have a member of the British Columbia Medical Association from the beautiful constituency of Okanagan South. Would the House please welcome Dr. Allan Broom.

[2:15]

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is a member of the medical profession who is often seen on "Doctor, Doctor"; a family practitioner. Would you please make welcome Hedy Fry.

MS. EDWARDS: The doctor from my riding, and I welcome him a great deal, is Dr. Bob Sheffield. Welcome.

MR. PELTON: I think most all the doctors have been welcomed now, but I know that the doctor from the beautiful town of Maple Ridge in the riding of Dewdney hasn't, and that's Dr. Marco Terwiel. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. MESSMER: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to welcome a friend of mine who doesn't happen to be a doctor, but is a lawyer from the city of Penticton who is down here today. I would ask you to welcome Richard Thompson, please.

MR. CASHORE: I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming, on behalf of my colleague from North Island, Dr. Phil MacNeill from Campbell River. I would like to welcome my doctor, Dr. Joe McInnis from Coquitlam. But I would also like to say that I'm really curious as to who is looking after the medical needs of the rest of the province of British Columbia at this time!

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, we want to make sure that everybody in the House is welcome today, so to those who have not been introduced, you are most welcome.

MR. JONES: Like the Minister of Education, I would like to welcome representatives of two groups that are seeing very much eye-to-eye in the education community, the representatives from the BCSTA and the BCTF: Dr. Eric Buckley — not a medical doctor — Henry Armstrong and Elsie McMurphy. I hope the House will join me in bidding them welcome.

MRS. GRAN: In the gallery we have Dr. Fred Ceresney, who is also a former school trustee from Langley. Would the House make him welcome, please.

MR. LONG: I think this is the first time I've stood up to welcome anybody here. I have to welcome two doctors who are from Mackenzie — specifically, Powell River, They are Dr. Hobson and Dr. Crossland. I'd like to make them welcome.

HON. MR. REID: There is a special guest that I just noticed in the House today. I want to make him especially welcome back to British Columbia, back to the land of the daffodils and the flowers. He's come in from the Toronto area, Mr. Allen Garr.

Hon. Mr. Veitch tabled the first annual report of the Public Service Commission for the province of British Columbia covering the period to March 31, 1987.

HON. L. HANSON: I would also acknowledge the many labour and business representatives that are with us in the gallery.

Introduction of Bills

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987

Hon. L. Hanson presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987.

HON. L. HANSON: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now. The bill I am introducing today is tangible proof of this administration's commitment to open government. It is based on the views my committee heard at our public meetings around the province. The people of British Columbia take labour relations very seriously but often have very divergent views. We have listened carefully to those views and have endeavoured to strike a balance, with the objectives of increasing fairness, equity and ensuring democratic rights for people.

From section 1, which permits teachers full bargaining rights, to the last section, which relates the Compensation Stabilization Act and the Public Sector Restraint Act, this bill brings increased democracy to all aspects of industrial relations. These amendments have as a fundamental underpinning the rights and freedoms of individuals and the creative framework which recognizes the public interest in labour disputes, while creating an atmosphere in which trade unions and employers can bargain effectively in a free enterprise competitive marketplace.

It brings our labour legislation in line with competing jurisdictions across Canada. The bill faces up to problems. It does not offer panaceas. It does not permit double-breasting, it does not legislate right-to-work, and it does not enforce the Paccar decision. It does deal with preventive mediation and Labour Relations Board reform.

Increased productivity is essential to British Columbia's ability to compete in the world marketplace. In this regard the government is making available up to $500,000 to assist in the study and advancement of more productive enterprise in all sectors of our province.

Finally, the Industrial Relations Reform Act creates a new regime for dispute resolution. It will prevent the province from being held hostage by a work stoppage that hurts our international reputation, punishes innocent third parties and retards our ability to grow and thereby create jobs for our citizens.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill for the people, from the people and for our future.

Bill 19 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 407 ]

TEACHING PROFESSION ACT

Hon. Mr. Brummet presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Teaching Profession Act.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The Teaching Profession Act that I'm introducing today is the result of wide consultation with the education community, and it really provides the freedoms that some individual teachers and their associations have sought. Following much consultation, it is my belief that we are providing the best of all possible worlds for the teaching profession to enjoy the same status as other professional associations in British Columbia while providing them with the mandate to control the quality of entrant into the teaching ranks.

The teachers in this province will now have access to full bargaining rights under new legislation and amendments introduced today. The new Industrial Relations Act includes teachers under its provisions and allows teachers within school districts to organize as a union, seek certification and bargain for terms and conditions of employment. A teachers' union will have the same options as other trade unions, including the right to strike.

While the collective bargaining provisions of the School Act will be repealed, the new legislation does not require teachers to seek union status. It gives them the option at the local level to decide whether they want to be members of a particular union.

Teachers may not opt to organize as a union. The School Act will be amended to provide these teachers' associations with full bargaining rights and to specify mutually agreed interest arbitration as the final method of resolving outstanding disputes on salaries and bonuses only. Those associations will not be certified as unions under the Industrial Relations Act, and therefore they will not have the ability to strike nor the employer to lock out.

The Teaching Profession Act I am introducing brings a new degree of professionalism to the education community and encompasses all teachers and administrators in the public school system.

The membership in the College of Teachers will be mandatory. The statutory requirements that previously made membership in the B.C. Teachers' Federation compulsory have been removed. Also, principals, vice-principals and directors are recognized as management and will not be included in the local union or association.

I believe that this province can now go forward with what should be its primary concern and thrust: that is, the education of the children. School boards and teachers can direct their attention to that goal in the full knowledge that precise guidelines will be in place to provide remedies to that which has caused so much concern in the past.

Bill 20 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

CASINO GAMBLING

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General announced yesterday that there will be a total review and reconsideration of casinos, during which no additional licences will be issued. Does this mean that the plan to install casinos on the Marguerite and her sister ship is now on hold?

HON. B.R. SMITH: No, the Marguerite has nothing to do with casino regulations. The Marguerite is a gaming enterprise operated by the government of British Columbia. It is not a charitable casino and is not subject to those regulations.

MR. SIHOTA: In the press release yesterday, the Attorney-General said that the commission that is being set up will be asked to review the impact of casinos on steamship operations. Does the minister not feel that the independence of the commission is now prejudiced by the government's decision to maintain gambling on these ships?

HON. B. R. SMITH: Quite the contrary, Mr. Speaker. We always stated at the outset that the gambling on the two ships was an experiment for one season. That season will have concluded in October, and that will give ample time for the commission to be able to monitor the acceptability or non-acceptability of that gaming and how the public has received it, and to be able to make honest recommendations to the government, not influenced by us. We welcome that, and that will give them time to bring in a full and fair report by the end of November.

MR. SIHOTA: It appears as if — particularly in the press release — the Attorney-General has indicated that he wants the commission to look at options for gaming in this province. Given that that seems to be the direction of the government, has the Attorney-General decided that no expansion of gaming should be allowed until there has been an extensive debate in this House, and after a free vote in this House on that issue?

HON. B.R. SMITH: I appreciate the concern that members on the other side have about all forms of gaining, and I know that they don't wish lottery grants to go to their constituencies for athletic and cultural endeavours. Mr. Speaker, if they want to be consistent and damn all forms of gaming and the revenues that flow from them, and don't wish them to go to the charities and cultural organizations in this province, that's one thing. But we, for our part, are going to review gaming. We are not going to increase the number of casino outlets; only licensed charities at locations that are now operating will be able to have casinos, and there will be no expansion of that industry.

What there will be, though, is an expansion of the revenues that flow to charities. The existing charities will be helped in the meantime, and that will give us a chance to have lots of public input, including input from the members opposite, as to the direction to go in the future. We're going to go carefully and we're going to go listening to the public.

MR. SIHOTA: Going back then to the Marguerite, Mr. Speaker, and the steamship operations, we know that the government has decided to expend $400,000 in improvements for casino rooms on those steamships. The minister has said that that is an experiment until October. In other words, are you then saying that, despite that expenditure of $400,000, the government is seriously considering not extending casino operations on those ships beyond October?

[ Page 408 ]

HON. B.R. SMITH: The answer is no. But the member is well aware that you cannot have slot-machine gambling in this country except through a provincial government, and it has to be done in a particular way according to regulations that make it absolutely honest and impeccable. We can't just put a lot of ticky-tacky slot machines on a ship. We have to have them properly organized so that minors....

Interjection.

HON. B.R. SMITH: You are a hypocrite on that point, hon. member.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the Attorney-General to withdraw that comment.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I withdraw. We get carried away in the excitement of debate.

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no commitment that that operation will continue on that steamship in the future. It may; it may not. We may have additional experiments; we may not. But we're going to see how it works and how the public receives it.

[2:30]

PROPOSED ISLAND HIGHWAY

MR. LOVICK: Happily, this side never gets carried away.

My question is to the Minister of Finance and concerns the ubiquitous, much-talked-about Island Highway. Before the election, Social Credit promised us that the long-overdue Island Highway would indeed proceed. After the election, there was no mention in the budget — no mention whatsoever. Has the minister in fact decided to provide funding for that worthwhile project for this year, and if not, why not?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm advised that the question is questionable on a variety of counts, but I have no difficulty in answering it in any event. There is a budgetary allotment in the appropriate ministry to continue the work on the Island Highway. The work to be performed in the next 12 months is primarily planning — site location, engineering work, that kind of activity. If the member cares to look in the accounts, he'll see that there is an apportioned amount for that purpose.

MR. SPEAKER: Members might want to read standing order 47A(b) again: that questions and answers are to be brief, precise, without argument or opinion. The Chair tries to give a little leeway but at times I think we tend to get carried away.

MR. LOVICK: I hope the minister takes the Speaker's point. I'm sure it was directed towards the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: It was directed to both sides, hon. member.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, I want to pursue a supplementary on that. Is the minister then telling us that there is in fact additional money for something specifically called an Island Highway, as opposed to the normal maintenance and repair activities?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: We're having a little debate, Mr. Speaker. It's agreed that it's not my ministry. But by golly, it's sure my issue. I've been working on it for three years, so I feel capable of dealing with it.

First of all, I suppose, for the benefit of those who aren't aware, the announcements that were made on the subject of the Island Highway by the Premier of the province during the election campaign pointed out that this was to be a 10-year construction program. By my calculations we haven't even consumed one of them yet and will have spent a considerable number of public dollars on that project before even one year is up. It is my understanding, from discussing the matter with my colleague the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Michael), that we intend to honour the 10-year commitment, and that an important part of that honouring will be to ensure that the necessary staff work and community discussions and liaison with the various communities of Vancouver Island who would be impacted by the highway are considered. I'm aware that there are many communities on the Island who have some trouble with the thought that we would merely be twinning existing lines. On the other hand, there are those advocates who would claim that we should be building an entirely new highway, running up the spine of the Island, in a way that allows the use of the foreshore for recreational and tourism purposes. In the examination of that debate, and through the travels I've had throughout the Island, I'm well aware that there are divergent views.

Interjections.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm speaking to the question, Mr. Speaker. The question was: what is being done and what will be done? I'm explaining that a very important part of what will be done is community dialogue. My colleague, the Minister of Highways, has already embarked on discussion with a number of communities on the Island to ascertain their wishes regarding location and design. That's a very important part of our open government, our desire to have community input, and I defend it.

MR. LOVICK: I hope everybody reads Hansard and determines for himself or herself whether the question was indeed answered, Mr. Speaker.

GULF ISLAND FERRY RATES

MR. LOVICK: My question now is to the Minister of Highways. It concerns Gulf Island ferry rates. Fares on the Hornby Island ferry route have increased over 600 percent in the past seven years. Fares for students living on Denman Island and attending school in Courtenay have increased about 273 percent. Following meetings with the residents of those two islands, and following the submission of more than 30 briefs to the minister, will the minister tell us please whether he has indeed decided to roll back the latest ferry fare rates pending an independent review?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question, and he will be getting a response to that question prior to the middle of April.

[ Page 409 ]

VANCOUVER ISLAND HYDRO RATES

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. The government is presently studying the feasibility of exporting B.C. surplus hydro power to California. Meanwhile Vancouver Island families and industrial enterprises suffer far higher space heating costs than do families and enterprises on the mainland, because we don't have access to natural gas. Has the minister decided to place a higher priority on Vancouver Islanders' needs for fair hydro rates to utilize the Cheekye-Dunsmuir line to bring surplus here to Vancouver Island?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, simply the answer is yes. B.C. Hydro will shortly be announcing rates which allow space heating to occur at lower costs than previously.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, we certainly have been pressing for that and we applaud that and we look forward to that.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: And it is a victory for the opposition. Thank you. No question.

DRUG AWARENESS WEEK

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. Last November during Drug Awareness Week, activities were coordinated throughout most of the provinces in Canada that were designed to increase the public's awareness on drug and alcohol problems. B.C. was one of only two provinces which did not participate in this program. I have here a brochure. You can see for yourself that B.C. is not in it, and it's embarrassing in its absence. Can the minister explain why this province did not feel it necessary to participate in this preventive program?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, if this is from last November, I would have to look back and see what that program consisted of to be able to give a proper answer.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, this is an urgent question, because as your own report indicates, some 40 percent of hospital admissions are due to alcohol and drug related diseases.

This highlights the need for preventive services, and my question to the minister is: does he intend to seek such a preventive awareness program in the future?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, as far as the hospital is concerned, there was a news release just recently where we are establishing a pilot program for a ward team that will in fact deal with chemical dependency in a hospital setting. It is now underway in Victoria. This approach at the two acute care hospitals of the Greater Victoria Hospital Society is a first in Canada.

Also, clinicians estimate that as many as 40 percent of hospital admissions are in fact alcohol- and drug-related. We are working on that particular program at the present time.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled the labour legislation review report.

Ministerial Statement

DELGAM UUKW DECISION

HON. B.R. SMITH: I wish to inform the House that today the British Columbia Court of Appeal handed down an important decision in the case of Delgam Uukw v. the Crown and the registrar of Prince Rupert, in which the court held a unanimous decision that a lis pendens operating as a charge against a vast acreage of Crown land consisting of some 2,069 district lots in the area of Smithers could not be registered against the Crown land, and that a claim for native title was not subject to registration under the Torrens system of British Columbia.

That was the position that the government strenuously argued and strenuously supported, believing that the litigation should go ahead but that no charge should hold up the development of projects and land in British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, I would ask leave of the House for the Special Committee of Selection to meet while the House sits later on this afternoon.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, I just wonder if I could have leave of the House to make a brief introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. ROGERS: If the members of the House would look at this gallery behind us here, we have some students that have joined us that are not able to hear what I have to say, because their teacher is instructing them by sign language. We have very seldom had the opportunity of having deaf students. They were not here at the beginning, and perhaps we would all pound our desks in recognition of them and their teachers coming here today to see democracy in action.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING
(continued)

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

MR. CASHORE: Today I am getting ahead of you because I almost blew it yesterday. I just wanted to pick up on a couple of items relating to the Ministry of Social Services and Housing that are quite topical. I'd like to start off by referring to an article that was in the Vancouver Sun last night, entitled: "Burial Assistance from Young Offenders Halted." The article refers to a program that operates under the Attorney-General's department, and it refers to what apparently is a policy whereby family court, when it will not apprehend adolescents and put them into some kind of treatment . . . .

[ Page 410 ]

Sorry, would you like me to start on that again? Because I'm getting signals that you're having a difficult time hearing what I'm saying. Okay, I'm referring to an article that was in the Vancouver Sun last night, and the headline in the article was: "Burial Assistance from Young Offenders Halted." It refers to a program that is operated under the Attorney-General's department, but I am raising this issue under the Social Services and Housing estimates because it is a matter that affects children as defined in the Family and Child Service Act, "child" meaning a person under 19 years old.

[2:45]

So I am referring to a program that operates under the Attorney-General's department. Apparently when children are not apprehended as adolescents by the family court, they often end up in a custody program operated by the Attorney-General. When you read this article that indicates what these children are doing under this custody program, I submit that it sounds less like a custody program — even though what probably most of these children really need is some kind of a treatment program — and more like a scene out of Platoon. I just want to point out that what was involved here was that juveniles under this program were being used to bury corpses in a privately-owned graveyard near Hedley. Bernard Robinson, who is commissioner of corrections.... Just let me read this portion of the article:

"B.C.'s commissioner of corrections said Tuesday the One Way Adventure Foundation has a 'good' record of operating a work camp for juvenile offenders over the past five years. But the group's practice of using juveniles to help bury corpses in their privately owned graveyard near Hedley is 'not very acceptable,' Bernard Robinson said."

The first thing that I would like to ask is: Steven Greenaway, a special assistant to the Attorney-General, ordered the group to stop the practice and asked senior corrections staff to investigate, so my question is will the superintendent of family and child service be requesting a copy of the report on that investigation?

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Member, with all due respect, the whole subject is really out of order in this estimate. It has really nothing to do with me. I cannot answer just off the cuff whether the superintendent of family and child service will be requesting a copy of the report or not, but I think suffice it to say that the Attorney-General has dealt with it and has stopped the practice. But I repeat, the whole matter is really a subject for the Attorney-General's estimates.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, are you able to tie the subject in? Because it is clearly out of order so far.

MR. CASHORE: Well, I would like on a point of order to argue that it is not out of order, and I'm reading from the Family and Child Service Act of the province of British Columbia, and I am reading under the interpretation in this act where it states that "child" means a person under 19 years old. Then, turning over the page in the act, it states that:

"The minister shall designate as Superintendent of Family and Child Service a person appointed under the Public Service Act, and the superintendent shall be responsible to the minister for the administration of this Act and the regulations and be the Superintendent of Child Welfare."

Then, under the powers it goes on to say:

" (a) to enter into an agreement with a person for the development or provision, or both, of services to children or their families in the Province" — I assume that this is a service to children and their families — "and (b) to enter into an agreement with a person for the custody of a child of whom the superintendent is guardian, or of whom the superintendent has custody...."

It is an implied term of the agreement that the superintendent may retake custody of the child at any time.

The reason I am arguing that under the terms of this act it is valid to discuss this at this time is that I believe that the superintendent of child welfare has responsibility to monitor the conditions that pertain for all children within the province and therefore should be interested in this program to which I am referring.

I believe that this clearly comes under the purview of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing as well as under the purview of the Ministry of Attorney-General, and I would welcome some official comment at this time on this point of order.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The hon. member may not be aware.... I'd like to read an item: "The administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply." We are in Committee of Supply. So far, hon. member, I don't think that you've tied your question to the minister's responsibilities. If you'd like to continue in another way or with another matter, I think we'd appreciate that.

MR. CASHORE: Madam Chairman, I think that the question I was in the process of asking at the time I was called to order was a question that was indeed tying these two ministries together. In asking if a copy of the report of the Attorney-General's department was going to be requested by the superintendent of child welfare, who we understand is an advocate for the children of this province, it would seem to me that at that point it ties in, so that the person who is now in that position could find out what the connections are between the children for whom she has responsibility and that activity. Therefore, in my opinion, I have very clearly tied these two jurisdictions together. But again I will await interpretation.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: With all due respect to the member, I think he is misinterpreting the act. The act provides that the superintendent of child welfare is concerned when children are deemed to be at risk. His or her authority extends only to an investigative process where there is an allegation of abuse or neglect of children. The superintendent of child welfare is not an advocate for children; the act does not say that, and the superintendent does not have those responsibilities. The responsibilities for children lie with parents or guardians, and the only time that the superintendent of child welfare gets involved is when there is an allegation of abuse or neglect and the child or children are deemed to be at risk.

It is incumbent upon every person in society to report such acts of abuse or neglect. If anyone has specific knowledge of a child or children being abused, then they must,

[ Page 411 ]

under the law, report it to the superintendent of child welfare, who in turn will investigate.

MR. CASHORE: First of all, I think there is a basis for arguing the point that you make with regard to whether or not the superintendent of child welfare is an advocate for children. Yes, I would think that parents do have this responsibility, but I would also think that it's implicit within the intention of an act such as this that this responsibility also abides on a global basis, recognizing that there are those situations where, for whatever reason, families are not able to fulfil that responsibility and therefore that second line of responsibility exists within our social net.

I would think that the gist of remarks that the minister has made has affirmed that reality. That's part of the compassionate way in which this government operates within this society, a compassionate activity of this government that I affirm. So I think perhaps we might be disagreeing a bit over the semantics of saying that the minister of child welfare does not operate as an advocate for children. I would say it's incumbent, Mr. Chairman, on the superintendent of child welfare, I should say, to ascertain, in various circumstances that obtain throughout the province, whether or not in fact an intervention should be made. In order to ascertain, it means to have an overview of all the children in B.C., so that that key decision can be made about when to make an entry on behalf of a particular child.

Mr. Minister, you have referred to the point of intervention being at a time when there is either abuse or neglect. This is the very reason for me to be raising this matter at this time. Right before the public, in a widely circulated newspaper, there is a story from which it could be ascertained that the issue of abuse and neglect in fact is the essence of that story. That is the essence of the story — whether or not there is abuse or neglect. So, Mr. Minister, using your term, and again affirming your terms, the reason for asking whether or not a copy of the investigative report from the Attorney-General's department will be requested is to assume that the person who is now the superintendent of child welfare will use that report as a means of helping her to decide whether or not she needs to intervene on behalf of those children. I would appreciate it if you'd comment on my comments.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Once again, Mr. Member, this matter before us clearly — and I repeat, clearly — does not come under the act that you are quoting from, the Family and Child Services Act. It is a matter for the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith). The Attorney-General is conducting a complete investigation into these allegations, and it should stay there. With all due respect, Mr. Member, you are misinterpreting the act, as is quite common. It's done on a weekly basis by our newspapers and other media. They tend to want to misinterpret this act — what was the Child Protection Act and is now the Family and Child Services Act.

I point out, for the edification of all those in the House and, in fact, for everyone in the province, that it's the courts who make the final decision regarding children. Our workers make the initial decision, much as a peace officer does, at the scene. Many times our people make these decisions at 2 o'clock in the morning, and at midnight, and they have to make a decision on the spot, But it is the courts — and I repeat, the courts — that make the decision as to the final disposition of these children. So again, with the greatest of respect — and I know that you're relatively new here, as I'm relatively new in this ministry — you are misinterpreting the act and trying to connect it to something that falls under the purview of the Attorney-General.

MR. CASHORE: It appears that we've got to a point where the minister and myself, albeit relatively new, have come to a disagreement of opinion with regard to whether or not this act is connected at this time. But again, referring to what you've just said, I know from reading the Blues from yesterday that you don't like people to put words in your mouth and I'm not trying to do that, but I tried to write down what you said just now and you said that the decisions are made by the courts. I believe that's what you said. I agree with that. I agree that courts make decisions. But I also believe that the superintendent of child welfare, who's responsible to you, makes decisions every day. That is part of the very nature of that responsibility, to make decisions. It seems to me I'm stating the obvious.

[3:00]

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth in anything that I've said, but it does seem to me that that is the case, that the person who is in that position makes decisions every day. I would hope that many of those decisions would be decisions that relate to children, children as defined in the act as those under 19 years old. I was going to say "19 and under," but it's "under 19 years old." Therefore I would very much like to continue with my line of questioning. I think these questions are relevant. I think the people of British Columbia have reason to be interested in the answers to these questions. I know I'm very interested in hearing the answers to these questions. With the permission of the Chair, I would like to continue, but if there's some need for the Speaker of the House to issue a decision at this time.... I'm not sure, but I would like to proceed. So unless I am called to order, I will proceed.

Okay. I'll come back to my question. Will the superintendent of family and child service be requesting a copy of the report of that investigation?

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 56 pass?

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, the member has asked a question. Surely it's a very simple and direct question. Can the minister not respond, Madam Chairman?

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The member is entitled to ask a question; the minister is not required to respond.

MR. CASHORE: Well, thank you. As a rookie, I'm learning as I go along.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: We all are.

MR. CASHORE: Yes, and I appreciate that. One of these days I'll get these rhythms right.

AN HON. MEMBER: The rhythm method.

MR. CASHORE: Yes, well, as I said, we are learning. But right now I'm not learning the things I'm hoping to learn. I just need some direction on this. I take it that if I ask a question and sit down and wait for the answer, and if the minister refuses to answer, then somebody can jump in and

[ Page 412 ]

vote on the amendment and I won't have a chance to say anything else. Is that how it works?

MR. WILLIAMS: It could be a long wait.

MR. CASHORE: Okay. Well, If I were to ask a question in this House and sit down, I would hope that while I was waiting for the answer we didn't suddenly have the government vote on the motion so that I couldn't ask any more questions. I would hope that wouldn't happen.

MR. WILLIAMS: We all would hope that.

MR. CASHORE: So the minister not answering the question means that he refuses to answer that question. It seems to me, without prejudice, that he is neither saying, "yes, that is a valid question," nor "no, it isn't." He's saying: "I'm not going to answer the question." That would be my assumption of what that means.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: I can assume anything. Thank you. Okay. I think we may have a series of questions that don't get answers here. I do have other questions.

My next question relates to the purview of the superintendent of family and child service in the province. When did British Columbia start to use children for this kind of hard line commercial activity? I'd like to know how long that has been going on.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 56 pass?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. CASHORE: It sounds as though if I do sit down, that's what's going to happen. If I sit down to wait for an answer, they're going to try to slip this through on me. At least that question goes into Hansard.

What I want to say about that is that I thought that when the children for whom the superintendent of family and child service is responsible went into these kinds of often unfortunate programs, the nature of the activity they would be involved in would be at the level of community service, perhaps doing something around a community centre — something very close to what would be looked upon as volunteer activity. I really did not think that this type of activity would be getting into the type of thing that I said before, which was more akin to a scene from Platoon.

My next question would be: given that the superintendent of child welfare is concerned about the standards that relate to the various kinds of programs pertaining to children, especially children who have come out of situations where there's stress in the family or children who have been getting into difficulty on the streets and that sort of thing, I wonder why the superintendent of child welfare isn't in consultation with the Attorney-General on the fact that whatever standards there are for these programs aren't being followed. Or are there standards? I wonder if the superintendent of child welfare would be investigating what kinds of standards are operating in these programs where children could actually be used in this type of an activity in this province. It sounds quite bizarre.

I don't think I'll sit down. Perhaps you can just shake your head or something, so I know that you're not going to answer it; then I'll go on to my next question. But I assume you're not going to answer that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: My answer is maybe, and that's final.

MR. CASHORE: The answer is maybe. Okay, thank you. We've got a maybe. That's progress. We got quite a bit more that time than we did the last time.

Now this is a question I believe you will answer, so I'm going to sit down after I ask this. What is the role of the superintendent of family and child welfare in looking after the well-being of children who are in such a program, when those children are or have been under the jurisdiction of the superintendent of family and child welfare? When children in such a program are children who have come under the superintendent of child welfare, what is the role of the superintendent of child welfare in terms of monitoring and looking at standards, and being responsible for those children?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Madam Chairman, the member persists in pursuing a line of questioning — and I think I've explained it two or three times — in which he's misinterpreting the act of which he speaks. Everything that he is speaking of comes under the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General. The act clearly delineates and defines the parameters within which the superintendent of child welfare works. The superintendent of child welfare does not have responsibility for the programs that the member mentions. Any allegations of abuse or neglect of children are investigated by the superintendent, and children in the care of the superintendent are constantly monitored by the ministry. I believe that's about the fourth time we've covered this ground. If you want to persist in this line of questioning, I guess that's fine — I've got as much time here as anyone.

MR. CASHORE: Madam Chairman, my question would be then — and you may have to take this on notice and come back with an answer another day: how many children presently under the responsibility of the superintendent of child welfare are involved in these programs operated by the Attorney-General?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Madam Chairman, the member is correct: I don't have that number at my fingertips to give him. But I will find out and bring an answer back if he would like to know how many are in care.

Let me give you some interesting statistics regarding children in care. The ministry, first of all, is involved with less than 2 percent of families and children in British Columbia. I think that's a pertinent point. The number of children in B.C. is approximately 800,173; the number of families in B.C., 456,150. The annual number of family service cases is 25,715. The annual number of children in care served is 13,177. The number of children in care as of September 1986 was 6,875, and the number of permanent wards of the ministry is 3,415. But I cannot tell you at this time how many children in care are in programs run by the Attorney-General. I can't even tell you if I can get you that number today or not. I don't know if we have it available.

[ Page 413 ]

MR. CASHORE: I certainly think it would be unreasonable for me to expect you to get that figure today. However, assuming that we'll not be dealing with estimates tomorrow .... I'm not sure what's going to be happening Monday, but if we are dealing with estimates on Monday, I would hope we could have an answer at that time to that and some more questions I'm about to ask. Again, if we could have those answers at the beginning of the estimates debate during the next session, it would help me continue on this issue at that time.

Here are some more questions that I would like you to take on notice. You've just stated some statistics about the number of children in care. I want to make it very clear that I'm asking a very specific question, and the question is: how many children under the responsibility of the superintendent of child welfare are involved in these custody programs operated by the Attorney-General? My next question is: how many of these children should be in treatment facilities — if they were really getting the type of care that they need? My next question is: are there persons appointed by the superintendent of child welfare who have the responsibility of looking out for the needs of these children, the quality of their care and the standards that obtain for them? My next question: is there an outline of what an acceptable standard of care is within one of these custody programs?

I wish to conclude this topic with just a comment: that I believe this situation and this rather unfortunate news story.... I don't think it would be right to say that this is a sensationalist story. I think the media has fulfilled a responsibility in drawing this to our attention. But when this type of situation is happening to the children of our province, to our future, I believe it underlines my call for a commission of inquiry into the delivery of child and family services in this province.

I have another question that relates to a story in the Province this morning concerning our Premier and the topic of immigrants. It states that the Premier: "would like to have a say over the people Ottawa allows to immigrate to B.C." "And he wants to negotiate a federal-provincial agreement on immigration." "'We want to greatly increase our government's involvement...."'

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, Madam Chairman. The member is clearly straying from the estimates of the Minister of Social Services and Housing, not only with his previous line of questioning, but with the one he is embarking upon now. If he has received a directive from his party Whip to spin these estimates out as long as possible — which is quite obviously what he's doing — that's one thing; but at least he should stay within the confines of the estimates of this ministry.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken, Mr. Minister. Would the hon. member please restrict his comments to the vote?

[3:15]

MR. CASHORE: On a point of order, I would like to express some concern about a point of order being accepted by the Chair when I have not been permitted to finish my sentence. I believe I needed to finish my sentence before the interruption in order to complete the thought that I was about to present. One has to get to the end of a sentence to say what one is saying. I realize that possibly because of my background I am a bit wordy at times, but certainly it's not the Whip's fault.

Perhaps I can finish my sentence.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The Chair was well aware of what you were saying, hon. member. You were cautioned before that you were out of order. All we're asking is that you speak on the subject that we're here for — the vote.

MR. CASHORE: In view of this initiative, has the Minister of Social Services and Housing planned within the budget, or does he plan, to recommend some initiatives that would ensure there are the kind of support services available in the community, such as housing, cost of income assistance, multicultural social workers and similar services, that would relate to the coming into our midst of these people, to aid in such a transition?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Madam Chairman, the member has asked me four questions in a row, three previous to the one on immigrants. I have written the answers down, so as best as possible I will answer his questions as he asks them.

The answer to the first one is none. The answer to the second one is I've already answered that question. The answer to the third one is yes. The answer to the fourth one is it's a federal responsibility.

MR. CASHORE: I notice in the budget, page 10, that a figure of $19.7 million is put forward to help with the vocational support and community placements for disabled adults. I would be interested in knowing what portion of that $19.7 million will be going into programs directed to helping get employable people into the workforce. I am referring here to real jobs in the workforce.

Perhaps I can just say a bit more about that. I'm concerned that while some really wonderful things have been happening, and I would commend the ministry for the ministry's positive efforts on behalf of the disabled, I recognize the urgency and the importance of the resources that go into research to try to resolve the medical problems, to try to resolve the kinds of problems that so many people in our community have.

But I think there is a segment of disabled people who are eminently employable and who are really having a great deal of frustration in their hope and their desire to find jobs in the workplace. Now I think this question relates to the hope that employers will become more aware of the employability of the disabled, and in welcoming — and I hope you're hearing me say this — this initiative within the budget. I'd be interested in knowing what portion of that will be going to helping disabled people find employment.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: I wonder before the minister responds if I could just ask the hon. members to direct their questions to the Chair.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I think the specific question was: how much of the $19.7 million is specifically targeted to employment for the disabled? I again can't give him a number out of that figure just off the top of my head. The staff will try to ascertain that. At one point in the member's dissertation there was a mention of not being able to work because of a medical disability and, if that is the case, that

[ Page 414 ]

comes under the Ministry of Health. If they have a medical disability, then it is a matter for the Ministry of Health.

MR. RABBITT: I thought possibly I should give the hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) the opportunity to recharge his batteries. I do have a deep concern. We have a budget in this ministry of $1.4 billion approximately, and to date I haven't heard one question asked from this assembly as to the efficiency of this ministry. I guess my question is: are the dollars going to the right spots; do we have waste within the ministry? Because every dollar that's spent on an individual that is not deserving means we do not have a dollar to spend on an individual that is deserving.

The question to the minister is this: do you have a monitoring and policing system in place, or are you implementing one, to help determine where the waste is and to eliminate it?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer to the member's question is yes, we do monitor abuses in the system constantly, on a continuing basis. One of the tools that has enabled us to do this more efficiently in the last few years, and which was started before I came into the ministry, is the use of computers. The computers pick up a tremendous amount of fraud that was not detected before. In fact, it has reduced the amount substantially. I won't go into the details of how we do it on the computer, because we don't want to give away one of the basic secrets of it, but it's a mistake that most people make and the computer picks it up very quickly.

We are concerned always that we do spend a tremendous number of taxpayers' dollars — $1.3 billion of them in the coming year — and we are as concerned as you are and as everyone else is that it goes to those in need. So I thank you for the question, and it's nice to have it on the record that we monitor it constantly. We also have an internal audit team within the ministry that monitors the functions and the people in the ministry. They are a pretty diligent and pretty tough bunch, and they travel the province monitoring all the offices to make sure that we are delivering the services that we're buying as efficiently as possible. So we have a lot of safeguards within the ministry, to assure the taxpayers and ourselves that we're getting value for our dollar.

MR. CASHORE: Madam Chairman, I apologize for not mentioning the Chair the last time. Again, it's just going to take a while.

I beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to introduce Paulette Dash-Hagel and David Hagel, and the students in their class, from the Nanaimo Skills Training Centre. I'm doing this on behalf of the members from Nanaimo.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Before I ask the minister some questions about his ministry, I'd like to zero in on a comment made earlier about the tremendous amount of fraud that was uncovered by the computer program. Can the minister tell us what percentages — how much this tremendous amount of fraud represents?

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Once again, Mr. Chairman, several of the members from the other side insist upon putting words in my mouth, and I don't appreciate that. I didn't use the word "tremendous" amounts of fraud. There was fraud in the system, as in all systems, I guess, there is fraud. Where you have human beings involved, there are going to be those who are less than honest. We uncover them all the time. In fact, there was one uncovered not too long ago in my own constituency, which involved over $100,000 by one person. We caught it, by various methods; the people have been charged, and the courts have dealt with it. That's what we will do in any case where we detect fraud: no matter how large or how small, they will be prosecuted.

No, I don't have numbers for you, Madam Member, and I have no intention of asking the staff to dig out those numbers. But I can tell you that we put quite a bit of effort into making sure that the dollars spent on behalf of the people of British Columbia go to where they're needed. We pursue any waste within the ministry, not just fraud but waste of any kind: inefficiencies, places where we can do the job better. We're always looking for ways of being more efficient and putting the money into the hands of the needy rather than into administration or into hands where it doesn't belong.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'll be looking forward to the Blues later on, to see the exact words, but I'm fairly confident that I did hear correctly. The reason I raise it is that I am very concerned about that kind of language, that kind of sentiment. I think the people in this province have got to have confidence that this government is doing its best for the majority of people in this province, and indeed is not bringing a particular bias to the decisions it's making. I think that the language we use — whether it's for those in need, or whether we're talking about fraudulent actions in the social service system, or whether, as was pointed out earlier, we're talking about labour problems — depicts a certain bias and a certain way of looking at the world, and I take exception to that.

The questions that I would like to ask.... I will start from the assumption that we in this House are all looking to improve government, to improve the efficiencies of government, and to ensure that the people we are serving, regardless of the ministry, are being served in the best fashion. My concern is in regard to issues that I have raised earlier in this House — to the feminization of poverty in this province.

I would like to ask the minister whether his ministry, in some of the reviews of the programs that the ministry has been involved in over the years, has looked at the gender bias in the system. It has been brought to my attention, and I believe to the attention of other members of this House, that there is an implicit gender bias in all systems. I'm not singling out this ministry, by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it's fair to say that, because there is a feminization of poverty, this is a ministry that we must look at for gender bias, to see that the system of delivery — not only of services, but of income support — is not one that supports one gender disproportionately or favours one gender more than another.

[3:30]

I'm particularly concerned about the number of single women — whether they are seniors or younger women — who are looking for income assistance and hoping to be able to access income assistance as equally as the young men. I think that what we're seeing when we look at singles, especially the homeless, are disturbing statistics about the number of homeless males. I believe that the reason we don't

[ Page 415 ]

see equal numbers of homeless females has something to do with a particular gender bias in the system, where the system tends to encourage women to look for support either from family members or from another male. I would think that what the Social Services and Housing ministry would like to work towards is the recognition of the right of a woman to income support equally with men, in that way enabling her to have the dignity she deserves.

If the minister could answer some of those questions, I have another to follow.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Well, the member is attacking the wrong ministry if she's talking about a gender bias. There is none in the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. The majority of social workers in my ministry are women; almost all the managers appointed in the last three years have been women; the other day I appointed a superintendent of child welfare who is a woman; and we have 35,000 single parents on welfare, and the vast majority of them are women. So for this member to try to make points about a gender bias, she's picking on the wrong ministry. I suggest maybe you try elsewhere, because most of what you said pertaining to my ministry is nonsense.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Beyond taking exception to the comment that my questions were nonsense, I'd like to take great exception to that. I would also like to take great exception to the fact that the minister is unable to understand a simple question put to him.

My question was not about the employment standards of the ministry. My question was pertaining to the delivery of services, and that was specifically stated; my questions were about the delivery of income support. If the minister does not believe at this time that there is implicit gender bias in the delivery of services, will he undertake in his review of services specifically to prove the point that he made, that there is no gender bias? Again, I make the point that the figures don't bear out his comments.

I'm not talking specifically about single-parent families in this ministry, but I'm talking about the delivery of services to single women. I can cite several examples where I have been involved directly as an advocate in the system for these women, where these women have been told by their social workers or by their financial-aid workers that they should perhaps consider going back home — and these are adult women going back home to be supported by their families. That same suggestion would not be made equally to a single man requesting income assistance.

There is, sir, bias. There would be something incredibly strange at this point if there were no gender bias, because the reality of our society is that there is gender bias throughout, What I am looking for is some cooperation and some support from the minister to explore those avenues, to commit some resources in his review, to identify where indeed those biases are and to undertake programs that would address those biases.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: For the record, I was speaking of the delivery of services. The managers and the social workers I spoke of, and the financial assistance workers, deliver those services, and if the majority of them are women, does it follow that there is a gender bias against women?

I spoke of the 35,000 to illustrate a point: that there is no gender bias now. It's very easy for the member to generalize. Anyone can generalize and say there's bias in the ministry, there's bias in society, and it's very difficult to prove or disprove that. If the member has specific examples where there is gender bias, as she calls it, in my ministry, then I would like to hear about it. You say you have examples. You said: "I can cite examples." If you can, then tell me. Every example of any kind of prejudice in my ministry will be investigated to the fullest.

When you ask for my cooperation you will get it, as well as anyone else. But you can't sit over there, Madam Member, and generalize and say: "There is gender bias in your ministry." Back it up with some examples, and I will investigate.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'll submit an example. My reluctance to do so is not a reluctance to give you an example of where the system treats women differently than men; my reluctance is in having a single issue or a single circumstance addressed and neglecting the system overall. So while I will be specific and request that your ministry address this inconsistency in treatment, I would again reiterate my desire or my request to have the minister, as part of his system, as has been done in other ministries and is constantly being struggled with.... For instance, in the Education ministry, teachers and the province are looking at curriculum to address gender bias in our society. I would ask that each and every ministry represented in this government do the same,

The example I would give is an example that.... As I say, I was personally involved with a situation where a woman was denied income assistance because she was renting in a residence that her landlord was also living in. The ministry said she was living with this man, and it was therefore his responsibility to support her, The ministry said that if the person she was living with had income assistance problems, he should apply for income assistance and his request would be considered. The income assistance would then be allocated on a couple basis, rather than on an individual basis for her.

That is a bias. A man would not find himself in the same situation. Had he come looking for income assistance, he would not have been asked whether he was living with a woman if a woman was the landlord and, in turn, whether she was supporting him. The situation went through the appeals process. The ministry representative tried to prove that there was indeed a relationship of a sexual nature and that therefore he was responsible for her support.

I believe that example demonstrates a gender bias and demonstrates the fact that the system we live in, rather than recognizing that women are themselves persons and deserve to have a certain amount of income in their own name, feels that women should be supported by men rather than receive their own income assistance.

That is an example. If that isn't a good enough indicator, as the estimates continue I will put out a request that other women's organizations bring forward examples, and we will use the time of the House to go example by example by example. I'm sorry to see that the minister himself is not prepared at this time, and I hope that he indicates by his answer something to the contrary. I think that what I'm talking about is a pretty mainstream acceptance in our society that there are inequities. It is not picking on or trying to make

[ Page 416 ]

points with this minister's estimates; it's a matter of acknowledging, as has been done across Canada with the constitutional debate and the entrenchment of individual rights.... It is something that our society has begun to recognize. I believe our society is asking that at every opportunity this government and every other decision-making body begin to grapple with those institutionalized discrepancies. I would hope that the minister would reconsider.

I would also like to ask specifically about the incentive program. Perhaps the minister can give us some information about the community initiative program — money that was at one time allocated for volunteer work, money to top up assistance cheques on a monthly basis. I understand that that has either been reduced or eliminated. I understand that there is still an amount available for handicapped people, but I would like the minister to perhaps provide some information about his future intentions in that area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd just like to remind members on both sides to direct their comments to the Chair.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, the member is not correct when she says that that situation can only happen if a woman is involved. We have several cases on record where quite the reverse happens, where the man is living with a woman. Further, I would like to add.... First, let me state that the policy is very clear. We make no distinction as to whether it's a man or a woman on income assistance — whichever the situation. We treat people living together as a family unit. And believe me, Madam Member, we are not the slightest bit interested in whether they have sex or not.

MS. SMALLWOOD: That's not what I meant.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Well, you mentioned that they have some sort of sexual arrangement. We're not the slightest bit interested. We treat people living together as a family unit.

On basic income assistance at the moment we have, for example, 49,000 single men, 20,000 single women and 35,000 single parents, of whom almost all are women. So there's a total of 55,000 single women on income assistance at the moment. But I just want to assure the member that the GAIN regulations and policy are free of all the gender bias she alludes to. Once again, I would say to the member: if you have knowledge of gender bias or abuses, then bring me those cases. You are still generalizing by saying: "I know of a person. I know of...." Bring me names. Tell me who, and we will investigate. We investigate any allegation of poor practice, bias or prejudice — anything like that.

As for your last question, the matter of the community associations was canvassed at length yesterday — if you want to read the Blues, Madam Member. We shouldn't go into all that again and waste the time of the House. It was well canvassed yesterday.

[3:45]

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman, my final questions are to do with funding programs that are specifically for women's needs. I have on some occasions been asked by transition houses, or other specific programs that are services to women, about their ongoing funding. It's very difficult, with the kinds of information that we have, to be able to pick out that information. Would the minister consider providing that information separately in next year's estimates, so that organizations serving women and the members of this House can see what the government's specific funding contributions to women's programs are? In that way, perhaps we can begin to look at who the poor are in this province and whether or not they're getting the support they deserve.

Further to that, I would like to ask the minister whether he can tell us about specific programs that are available for homeless women in our province. I'm not talking about emergency shelters or transition houses. I'm talking specifically about housing that would be of support to the homeless women. At this time it's very difficult for a single woman on welfare with a $200 shelter allowance to be able to find adequate housing. At this time most boarding houses or hotel rooms that provide housing for single people on welfare are not the kind of situations that many women would like to find themselves in.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, as far as breaking out the figures separately in the budget, first of all let me say that yesterday we canvassed again very thoroughly, I thought, the amount of money spent on safe homes and transition houses, but again — and I'm not trying to be flippant or facetious — if we were to break out the figures separately spent on women, we might be accused of a gender bias, so maybe we shouldn't do that.

We do provide shelter for women — the shelter allowances, which have been increased last year and which will be increased again this year — and we do provide emergency shelter, and we do provide emergency money for people in crisis, whether they are male or female.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman, my question was specifically about long-term housing for women — not for emergency housing, not for transition houses or short-term emergency shelter. And I certainly appreciate the minister's comment that he's not trying to be adversarial in the information that he is giving, because again I'd like to make the point that hopefully we're all here in this House to serve the people of B.C. and to ensure that their needs are being dealt with. I know that I stand and bring my concerns to the minister in the hope that we can undertake a genuine exchange of information in the attempt that we both can hope to make to serve our constituents better.

My question specifically was not on the funding of transition houses and women's places, but was on the separating out. I don't believe that the sharing of information indicates a gender bias; what it does is report on the specifics of whom the ministry serves. Again I put my question to the minister: will he separate out the funding for women's programs, and will the minister give me some information on long-term housing projects specifically for the women that I have outlined, the single women who have $200 and have very limited choices as to where they can find adequate shelter in our province?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I believe my words were that I didn't want to be flippant or facetious. I don't mind being a little bit adversarial; I didn't use that word, but I don't mind it. Our political system is an adversarial system — it has been since the days of the Magna Carta — so adversarial positions are fine, and I agree with the member that we should try for a good exchange of information, without being overly political, in estimates. We'll have

[ Page 417 ]

time to be political when we get into debates on bills, I'm sure.

The answer to the two questions is: first of all, we don't provide long-term housing specifically for women. We do, in conjunction with the federal government, build housing for seniors and the disabled. We provide shelter allowances for people on income assistance, but we encourage them to go and find their own shelter. We do not build long-term shelter specifically for women, nor are we going to. And to the question of will you break out the figures separately in next year's annual report, the answer is no.

MR. GUNO: Mr. Chairman, just to remind myself about the process, I guess you can describe it as one where we as the opposition.... It's legitimate to say that we're here to examine in some detail the amount that has been allocated under your program and also to ensure that the broad mandate of your ministry is being met. I think it's also legitimate for us to say that we have the right to examine just how this budget is being allocated within your program and also to examine, of course, the rationale as to how these allocations are being made.

Now my questions are going to be fairly specific and would more or less focus on the particular problems we have in the north. I spent some time in the northern part of my riding and in particular the community called Good Hope Lake. Now because of the economic situation in that area, a lot of these people are, of course, under social assistance. The problem that they have there is that they have to travel 40 miles to the nearest community, which is Cassiar, and Cassiar being a company town with a company store which has subsidized prices for the employees, it means that these welfare recipients have to pay a higher cost in terms of just basic foodstuffs.

I'm not too sure if there is any such thing as a kind of differential that would take into account the higher cost in the north. If there is, how much is it; and if not, will the minister indicate whether or not such a differential can be contemplated in view of this problem?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: To the member, first of all, and again with the greatest of respect, the subject of differential payments was covered at length yesterday. So if we go into it we'll go into it all over again. Of course, if you want to do it next week we can go into it again next week. It's almost impossible to get into differential payments because it is, for one thing, very difficult to set the borders of where you're going to do it, and then almost every region can come up with a need that is different than one in your area.

I appreciate some of the problems. Now that isn't to say we aren't ever going to deal with differentials. As I said yesterday, the committee is traveling around the province to hear specific views of people in various areas, and there are a lot of good points being made on travel and extra heating and extra clothing for the north. But let me point out to you also that when you get into the lower mainland, they can point out a need for greater shelter allowances and other things. So the whole subject of differential payments, while we're looking at it, is a very difficult one to address. We appreciate the problems in the north country.

Again, we canvassed yesterday the difficulty of staffing and retaining good staff in the remote areas of the country. In your particular case, in Good Hope Lake, that has been a problem for us. There's no question, and we tell you that right up front, that staffing and retaining good staff in that area has been very difficult. We are looking at the whole problem of staffing and retaining, training and procuring staff in the remote areas of the province. So it's a problem we are addressing, a difficult problem, and we appreciate the distances that people have to travel up there.

I've never been into your area but I'd like to very much, and at the first opportunity, hopefully this summer, I'm going to get up into that area of the province to see it firsthand. But I thank you for your question, and it was well canvassed here yesterday afternoon.

MR. GUNO: In posing that question, I guess I wanted to highlight some of the particular problems we have in my riding, which is the most remote, and the distances that have to be covered are far more problematic than anywhere else. In any event, I appreciate the fact it is being canvassed, and I certainly will examine that with some care.

Now there is another problem that I want to focus on, and that is the number of native children that are being apprehended each year by the superintendent of child services. You will probably appreciate the serious magnitude of this problem.

For many years I have also been aware of the fact that many of the native communities that have been involved or have suffered acutely from this problem have approached your ministry with proposals to deal with this problem themselves. In view of the serious problem, I was just wondering if the minister would indicate if there were any provisions made in this estimate to provide native communities with the necessary resources to deal with this serious problem.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We have made every effort to deal with the problem that the member speaks of. I am sure he will note that I made a statement in this House last week about a landmark agreement that we had made with the Nuu'chah'nulth Tribal Council. I'm sure the member is aware of that; it went out in detail in a press release and I made the statement here in the House. That truly is a landmark decision. It's comparable to the agreement reached with the Sechelt Indian band on self-government. We're always looking for ways to improve the services we provide.

I appreciate the opportunity to be able to say to the member that welfare, if you like, or income assistance, whatever you want to call it, on native Indian reserves falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government. My ministry contracts with the federal government in one area only and that is in the area of child abuse. It is the only area that we contract with the federal government to provide a service.

I have a statement here that I'm going to read on Indian children in care. I think it's worth reading into the record and it does explain an awful lot of the situation. It starts out:

"The Minister of Social Services and Housing today responded to questions regarding the numbers of native Indian children which the courts have as signed to the care of the superintendent of family and child services." I point out that statement again: " ...which the courts have assigned to the care of the superintendent of family and child services.

"During the 1985-86 fiscal year, approximately one-quarter of total admissions to care were children of Indian heritage. A slightly higher proportion was discharged during that same period, which points

[ Page 418 ]

toward a gradually declining total population of Indian children who remain in care."

In support of this statement, I would like to indicate that the children of Indian extraction represented 40.2 percent of the total number of children in care at March 31, 1973, compared with 31.6 percent at March 31, 1986. So it's a good trend, a downward trend.

"It is also important to understand that every effort is made to place these children with their ex tended family, where possible. And we have been reasonably successful. Approximately 25 percent of children in our Child in Home of Relative program are Indians."

I would like to emphasize that Indian children generally are discharged from care within a relatively short period of time. Close to half of those children are discharged within three months or less, and over 80 percent leave our system within two years.

So I think, Mr. Member, that we have made a lot of progress in that area, but I specifically refer you back to the agreement reached just recently with the Nuu'chah'nulth Tribal Council; and I'm sure you'll find the press release most interesting if you haven't already read it.

[4:00]

MR. GUNO: Before I begin my next line of questions I want to be sure if this particular subject matter falls under the bailiwick of the minister, and it's pertaining to home care for seniors. Would I be on a right course in pursuing that?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just start into it.

MR. GUNO: Okay. I have a document here which I received just recently from the Home Support Association of British Columbia. You probably received that. At any rate . . . .

HON. MR. RICHMOND: For the member's edification, the program of which he speaks falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health.

MR. GUNO: Thank you. Then I'll reserve that for that particular event.

One last question which is specific. You mentioned in one of your replies about the fact that you're making every effort to retain good, competent staff in the north. I have a situation which was brought to my attention yesterday. In Atlin, the beautiful town of Atlin, which is in the northern part of the riding, I think in November, a counsellor dealing specifically with sexual abuse was hired on contract by your ministry. However, it was, a six-month contract which is to terminate on May 15, 1987. During that brief time this counsellor has made a tremendous impact on the community, according to my information, and is not confined just to counselling related to sexually abused children but, because of the demand for his service, is dealing with marriage, alcohol abuse and just a wide range of these sorts of things. However, there's an indication that his services are not going to continue.

I'm not too sure what the circumstances are, but in light of your comment that you wanted to retain people who are trained and competent . . . . If this person leaves, then the nearest area that the people of Atlin can go to for this kind of service is Fort Nelson, which is about 700 miles away. I wonder if the minister would care to comment on that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, yes, I would. First of all, I will accept the compliment on behalf of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck), because it falls under his jurisdiction — the contract of which you speak. But the issue of recruiting and retaining competent staff in the remote parts of the province falls across all ministries. It's not just specific to one ministry. We are dealing with it at the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy simply because it does cut across all ministry lines. I appreciate your comments on the program, and I'm sure the Minister of Health will be most interested in them.

MR. CLARK: I am going to be very brief, and talk about a particular issue in my constituency. I'm going to try as best I can — very unusual — to be non-partisan, and I'm sure that the minister will reciprocate.

Senior citizens in Vancouver East. I think my colleague from Vancouver South will concur that it's an ageing population in the part of the city that I represent. The recent statistics bear that out. I don't think the social service network has quite caught up with the demographic changes, and of course I don't think that's by design; it's simply the changing nature of the community.

What's happened is that seniors, then, are becoming a higher percentage, and many of them live in single-family homes, so they don't have the network and service available. This brings me to the nub of my point. There is one agency in my constituency — it's called the Renfrew-Collingwood Seniors Society — which is a volunteer board that administers some limited programs for seniors and is located very near my home at 22nd and Nootka. It was incorporated in 1976, and for six full years, from 1977 to 1983, they were funded entirely by Human Resources. They were in fact advised not to apply for funding from the Ministry of Health, but the community people, as they call them — people who come in off the street and are served by the agency — were funded entirely by the Ministry of Human Resources until 1983.

In 1983 they were cut 100 percent — completely cut off. The volunteer group — the Renfrew-Collingwood Seniors Society — really did an admirable job, I think, of maintaining the service. What they did was they applied to the city of Vancouver, they got a very small grant, they worked very hard at raising money themselves through bazaars. They've had yard sales and all kinds of things, and they managed to keep it going, all the time applying for money both from the Ministry of Health and from the Ministry of Human Resources — now Social Services.

What happened was that very recently they were just about at their end, and the Ministry of Health came through with some funding for two days a week. It's extremely useful: they've got adult day-care funding for those two days. But they still functioned the other three days, until January of this year; they had to cut it back to two days. What's happened is that they are slowly reaching the end of their tether. They had a little bit of money in the bank. The place is running down a little bit; they had to put in new ramps, which exhausted all the money they had. They're still raising some money, but they're having more difficulty, because again the clientele is changing and they're having more and more trouble doing the kind of crafts that they do and raising money on them.

[ Page 419 ]

I've visited it a number of times — I'm really impressed by the work they've been doing. It's preventive work, and it's providing a service that I don't think sort of falls.... It's not the kind of service I'd like to see institutionalized. I think that kind of volunteer agency is really excellent. It's a tribute to the community and its community people.

So what I'm asking the minister to do today, if he could, is to review this case specifically, with a view to trying to provide some funding within his mandate. I think a very modest amount would be required. The city of Vancouver, by the way, has put them on notice that this is the last year that they'll have any operating money. Next year they can't expect any. I think it's really an ideal program, and it fits within the minister's mandate. I hope you'd review that with a view to trying to give them some alleviation.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for his question. First of all, on the changing demographics in any given area: we are very cognizant of that, and we do have a program to adjust, and we do, So we adjust staff on a continuing basis to respond to changing needs. Off the top of my head, I can't give you specific examples, but I can get information for you to show you where we have moved people. Yesterday we gave some good examples. In Prince George, for example, the staff has almost doubled in the last few years. We are constantly reviewing every region to make sure that the right number of people are in the right area. You're quite correct, in your particular area the demographics are going up at an alarming rate — not "alarming," that's the wrong word — at a rapid rate.

On the senior citizens centres, 1 just have a statistic I can give you. Back in 1983, when the funding was cut off, the budget for seniors centres was approximately $400,000. Most of it went to two centres only, out of 30 in the province. Most of them function quite nicely without funding. So that's just a bit of history that I'm giving you there.

Your question was whether I would undertake to have a look at it. It's not really on the agenda, but I'll tell you that I'll take a look at it. I won't make you any promises. But if you wish to submit to me some of the statistics you've given, or give me a brief on it, we'll take a look at it. I won't make any promises, The budgets are not all cast in stone for this coming year, so we will take a look.

MR. CLARK: I'd like to thank you for that undertaking. I just want to say one further thing, and that is that l know that you adjust the staffing, but I think this kind of community self-help program is more cost-effective. I think they've been doing a good job with limited funding. This is really ideal, in terms of alleviating some of the burden on staffing, and to provide a limited array of continuing funding to a community volunteer organization.

MR. WILLIAMS: I join with my colleague with respect to the previous request, and I thank the minister.

I'd like to raise another area, and that's the amount that's allowed people on various allowances in terms of additional income, if they work for some community group, or that sort of thing. I was talking just recently to a person on the handicapped allowance, a single person that's handicapped. This person has an income that is now, I think, $574 a month; out of that, rent has to be paid, along with hydro, telephone, and looking after himself in terms of food and the like. This particular individual that I spoke to pays a rent of $360 a month out of that — you know, decent accommodation; and then there's hydro and telephone on top of that. It probably leaves a disposable income of around $174, which isn't very much.

Back in 1973 or 1974, the former administration that I was part of established the option of obtaining $100 a month maximum in terms of additional income. They could work for community groups, or whoever they might work with. A long time has passed since 1973 or 1974. If that $100 simply tracked inflation, then the number would be significantly higher today. It does seem to me that a look at that is really probably long overdue. A doubling of that allowance, it would seem to me, would be more than reasonable.

I suspect that there's kind of an underlying assumption about people in that situation. Many of them have a difficult time, because of the various disabilities, finding a full-time job; but more and more, because of these community opportunities, they can get a part-time job working with one of these organizations. A hundred dollars is pretty modest in this day and age. If that were doubled, it would really transform the situation for some of these disabled people, in terms of simply making their life a little more enjoyable. I wonder if the minister has considered that.

[4:15]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to respond to the member. You're speaking specifically of handicapped. The thought behind it is that they receive a much higher level of income assistance than someone who's employable. So last fall we increased the income earnings exemption for employables to allow them to earn a little bit more, but we don't have such an allowance for the handicapped, because, basically, by declaring themselves handicapped, and being judged handicapped, they are saying that they are unemployable. They have the option of becoming employable and having an earnings exemption or remaining on the handicapped list and getting much higher income assistance.

MR. WILLIAMS: I understand what the minister is saying, Mr. Chairman, but at the same time, if it was reasonable in the mid-seventies to allow a leeway of $100, it would seem to me that it is more than reasonable in the late eighties to double the amount or to allow $200 in terms of optional earnings, I think there is an underlying assumption in what the minister is saying that it is either/or. A lot of these disabled or handicapped people probably couldn't get a full-time job, when you get right down to it. So there is that harsh reality there for them. It seems to me that it just locks them into a situation that shouldn't be quite so tight or quite so locked up; and $100 in 1972 has to be worth probably $300 today, I suspect, not the $200 that I am suggesting. It strikes me as a rigid kind of view of this situation. It isn't an either/or thing. There are people who couldn't get a full-time job, no matter how much they would like to, and that is the reality for them. So I just would hope that the minister might reconsider this area or review it with his staff. I see he is nodding, so I assume that that will be the case, and I appreciate that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Certainly the point is well made, and it is one that we have considered. When we discuss rates and earnings exemptions, we always review everything. We review the handicapped, the unemployables and the employables. The other thing that fell under the same review was

[ Page 420 ]

subsidy for day care so that single parents could get on. We review the whole gamut of exemptions. I appreciate your comments. But naturally — and I don't have to tell the member this — whenever we make an adjustment of, say, $100 a month, a tremendous price tag goes with it. When you look at the overall, it's a big number. A 10 percent increase in my budget, which is coming this year....

MR. WILLIAMS: This is an outside-income earnings exemption.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Okay, just the outside earnings. But whenever we increase anything or make an adjustment, there is a cost attached to it. So we look at the whole thing, and nothing is cast in stone forever. We've taken a look at this year's, at the number of dollars we have to spend, and committed it, but we don't have a closed mind to it. Your point is well made.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Minister, I can appreciate that there would be some sort of ricochet questions around this in terms of the implications for other people receiving help from the ministry, and that you might have to review some of those; but it is hard to understand how substantial the impact would be on budgets, since this would be outside earnings. Anyway, I think the point is made, and I don't want to belabour it. I think we understand the situation.

The only other thing I would like to raise is quite separate, and that is about Ministry of Lands operations and transferring some of their lands to B.C. Place. This is outside the so-called B. C. Place in downtown Vancouver — handling major suburban subdivisions in the Coquitlam area primarily. One of them is in Riverview and the other is in Westwood Plateau; I think there were some in Pitt Meadows as well. The question simply is: has the ministry looked at these publicly owned lands as social housing opportunities in the suburbs? I realize there will be an extensive discussion and debate around B.C. Place itself, in terms of the mix and percentage that would be social housing. But I wonder if the suburban lands have sort of slipped through the net and not been looked at in terms of social housing opportunities as well.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I can't answer that specific question on those two specific properties off the top of my head. The philosophy that we follow on social housing is one of, first, establishing a need for it. Of course, if there is a need in the area, there are usually many non-profit organizations who want to come forward and build such housing. Second is the cost per unit, etc. under the guidelines laid down by the federal government. As you know, they pay 67 percent of the cost; we pay 33 percent. I can't answer you, but I can bring back information on whether or not we've looked at those two specific properties. That is generally the criterion: is there a need in the area? I can't answer that for those areas off the top of my head.

MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate your comments. I raise those two areas because they are huge. The area above Riverview is a very significant chunk of land, and it is an area that might well support some social housing, as is the case in Westwood Plateau. These are huge — hundreds and hundreds of acres of public lands — so that in a sense they could almost become ghettos the other way, in terms of the middle class in suburbia. There's bound to be some need for seniors and lower-income groups and the handicapped and so on for getting a mix.

I think the truth of the matter is that you get a more sophisticated argument in the city. I don't want to sound like a snob because I come from Vancouver, but it's the truth — mainly because the debate has been going on for a long time, and maybe because the need is greater. But when the city of Vancouver dealt with the south side of False Creek — under Mr. Hardwick, primarily, who has worked with this administration and continues to do so; he's a former alderman and did a superb job on the south side of the creek — they dealt with this question of the mix of social groups on those civic public lands. The results, I think, have been very positive, and I think most people would agree in that regard. The debate continues with respect to the north side in terms of how that's going to happen. But we haven't seen that kind of debate in the suburbs. I think it's valid; it's not as pressing, but it's valid. That's why I raise the point.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm going to raise an issue which in many ways really affects the women of this province in a very direct way. It's an issue that I feel personally quite strongly about, and it's an issue that I am sure we could all agree is essentially a non-partisan issue; it is the matter of spousal maintenance for women. I'm sure that the minister would agree with me that there are an inordinately large number of women and particularly single family women that are on the social assistance rolls and in need of income assistance. Many of them, and I go back to my experiences as a lawyer, and particularly in the community where I reside.... It was evident to me right from the very outset that we were failing as a society in terms of enforcing maintenance orders and that if we were successful in being able to enforce those orders, it would indeed have an effect on the quantum of money that is extracted from the ministry and paid out in the form of social assistance benefits.

I want to start off by simply asking the minister in an open-ended way what plans he has afoot now to assist women in securing funds payable through maintenance orders so that they can be shifted away from social assistance programs.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I thank the member for his question. I have addressed the point several times publicly in the media, and I couldn't agree more with him that it is a tremendous drain on the purse of the province. For every spouse who defaults on maintenance payments, it comes out of the taxpayer's pocket. I can't give you a number, but the cost to this province is incredible; it runs into millions of dollars. So we have addressed it; we first of all recognized the problem, and we have addressed it. But the legislation does not come under my ministry; it comes under the ministry of the Attorney-General, so we are working with his ministry to close the loopholes, if that's the correct word, that allow the errant spouse to get away with not paying.

We have a pilot project going on at the moment in Vancouver. Let me just read you some statistics on it, to bring us both up to date on where it is right at the moment. The staff of my ministry have assessed the maintenance potential of 5,600 clients and have referred 2,300 — 40 percent — to resources that will assist in the pursuit of maintenance. As of November 31, 1986, 600 clients were enrolled in the project. Over 400 initial variation and enforcement orders are being monitored for clients who would not otherwise have made the attempt to secure maintenance. The average project award is

[ Page 421 ]

15 percent higher than the provincial court average — $160 versus $139. The project average masks very different award sizes when the respondent is employed versus unemployed — $211 versus $82. Sixty-eight percent of the orders were obtained by consent, thereby avoiding high court costs. The payment rate on orders is between 55 percent and 60 percent, or 15 percent to 30 percent higher than the average payment rate in the province. The project is monitoring orders with an annualized dollar value of $600,000. As of October 1986, the project was recovering 40 percent of average monthly expenditures, up from 16 percent one year ago. Just to reiterate, the project is under the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General and his legislation.

MR. SIHOTA: I appreciate those comments from the minister. Of course, one of the reasons I'm raising it now is because I didn't know for sure if it was going to fall within the purview of the Attorney-General or within this ministry. There used to be a time in this province, if I recollect properly, that women in particular — but spouses, in general — who required assistance in court to secure maintenance payments or to enforce maintenance orders were entitled to legal assistance. I believe that that program was eliminated in 1982. I don't know if that program was provided under the auspices of this ministry or the Ministry of the Attorney-General. But if it was provided under the auspices of this ministry, could the minister advise whether or not there is any intention on the part of the government to reintroduce a program along those lines?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The program was totally under the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General, and I can't advise as to whether there is any intention of reinstating that program. But I would just venture to say that we're pursuing the other line along the pilot project I mentioned. I don't presume to answer for the Attorney-General, so on that question you're going to have to ask him during his estimates.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

MR. SIHOTA: Speaking of the Attorney-General, I'm obviously beginning to have the same problem he did earlier on today.

Has the minister made any representations along those lines to the Attorney-General; i.e., the need of that type of a program?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We haven't made inquiries along the specific lines that the member mentioned, but we have had lengthy discussions with the Attorney-General on the subject — hence, the pilot projects. Of course, the concern is that many millions of dollars are being expended by taxpayers when they should be paid by spouses that have generally been ordered by the court to pay such maintenance. So we've left the enforcement of maintenance, I think, where it rightly belongs: in the hands of the Attorney-General.

MR. SIHOTA: In conclusion, all I want to say is that I'm glad to see there is indeed a pilot project. I guess it's certainly not a surprise to me that we both agree on the need to have that kind of program in place. I would certainly look forward to the introduction of legislation that would make it easier for women, specifically — and spouses, in general — to secure maintenance payments. I thank the minister for his comments.

MR. CASHORE: I won't be asking any questions for a few moments. I want to make a few comments with regard to a subject that was discussed quite a bit yesterday. It related to food banks. The hon. second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) carried on a line of questioning with regard to food banks. I want to talk about food banks and other ways in which our society is, I believe, supplementing the work of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing.

[4:30]

In making these comments, I am commenting on the point our philosophical debate, I think, is taking on during these debates on the estimates. On the one hand we're talking about the perspective that says the phenomenon of food banks is something that is happening in the volunteer segment of our society, and that it's not something that is caused by our particular policies but is simply a phenomenon that has occurred. That is how I understand the perspective of the government on the phenomenon of food banks and other kinds of services that are provided by volunteers to try to support the need.

On the other hand, our philosophy is one that says that there is a direct relation between the ways in which our political institutions function, the ways the policies of this ministry function, the ways in which the budget of this province functions and the fact that so many people are in poverty; the fact that so many people, tragically — especially since the year 1980 — have been added to the rolls of those who are experiencing poverty. Therefore we say from our philosophical perspective that there is a connection. I think that it's a good thing that we have an opportunity in the process of these estimates to talk about that. In some ways we're talking about what might be cause-and-effect relationships.

I had the opportunity to talk to Sylvia Russell of the Vancouver food bank a couple of days ago. As you know, Ms. Russell has become very well known throughout the province because of her advocacy on behalf of those who are needy in our society, in our midst. I've said this before and will say it again: I do agree that there will always be a need for a volunteer sector in our society, no matter what the economic circumstances, no matter what the poverty. But I would say that the experience of Sylvia Russell and those colleagues who have come to work with her in the food bank has been very interesting, as is so often the case with volunteers who go from whatever their lifestyle is, to work in a volunteer capacity with people who are perhaps experiencing a lifestyle where they have smaller financial resources.

I think the experience is this: new perceptions and new awarenesses develop as one goes down to the food bank and rubs shoulders with people working there as volunteers who happen to be on income assistance, as one works with volunteers who happen to be having a very difficult time financially but are volunteering in that sector, and as one meets those hundreds and thousands of people who come hoping that there will be something put into the food bag each week that will help them with putting nutritious meals on the table. While on the one hand that is a service to those people, on the other hand it is a means whereby the understanding of those people who go to work in that setting often is transformed with regard to the meaning of poverty in our society, and with regard to what they see as their responsibility in that regard.

[ Page 422 ]

would submit that one of the reasons that Sylvia Russell and many others who have gone to volunteer in that type of enterprise in places throughout British Columbia, be it Prince George, Prince Rupert, Fort St. James, Trail or wherever.... One of the things that those people have come to do is to become advocates on behalf of those in our society who seem to have so little of the financial resource, while there is another sector of our society which, it would appear, has so much.

These are some of the points that Sylvia Russell made to me. She has been saying quite clearly that one of the reasons why the people who come to food banks are having such a rough time is that poverty has become institutionalized in our province. She is not saying that as a person who is riding some political hobby-horse. She's saying that as a highly respected human being who has gone into that setting and formed that opinion, and she is presenting that opinion.

She told me that in the last two months the donations have been down. We talked about why that might be, and one of the reasons we speculated was that on a number of occasions it has been indicated publicly that welfare rates were going to increase. This was indicated shortly after the election. It was also indicated at the time.... There was an announcement just before Christmas that there would be an increase in the allowance made at Christmas time — something we were pleased about. But when it's announced that welfare rates are going to go up, or that a plan is being considered so that they may go up, and then it's subsequently announced that they are going to go up and the date — July 1 — is finally set, in the public's mind I think there tends to be a perception, every time they hear that, that, "Oh, the welfare rates have gone up again," when in fact they have been frozen for over five years and, for some people, have diminished. So on July 1 there will be that 5 percent increase, but I dare say that on the basis of news reports, some people probably think those increases are already in effect.

Yet the people who desperately need those increases are having a difficult time. I think that needs to be acknowledged. Perhaps that's reflected in the fact that contributions to food banks throughout the province are down at this time. Quite possibly the people of British Columbia aren't contributing as much to food banks because they have developed a perception that the people on income assistance are better off, when in fact they aren't at this point. One of the points I think we need to recognize is that if the people availing themselves of such services as food banks are the average people who receive GAIN, then according to people such as Sylvia Russell, they need at least a 50 percent increase right across the board in order to begin to make ends meet. The people who work in that setting feel that what has been proposed is woefully inadequate. Did you know, Madam Chair and members of this House, that 70,000 people in British Columbia go to food banks each month? Some studies have been done on that. For instance, each week 3,000 people go to the Vancouver food bank and 200 people go to the single parents' depot.

One of the problems for those who have to make decisions within the board of the food bank is whether or not they should expand their services to include the seniors who are finding that they are not able to provide nutritional meals on their tables. Yet they know that if they make such a decision, it could very well become, as food banks have become, a part of the social net, a part of the social structure, a part of the expectation. Sometimes that expectation has been characterized as crumbs from the tables of the rich going to provide charity — our leftovers for the poor. That image of crumbs from the tables of the rich is not an image that I would want in any way to be seen as a criticism of those who contribute to food banks.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: I think it would be helpful for this member....

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Point of order — the second member for Victoria.

MR. BLENCOE: The member who is heckling our critic is not sitting in his own seat. Perhaps he would return to his own seat.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

Would the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam like to continue?

MR. CASHORE: I think the point that the hon. member for South Vancouver made is well taken: that these people should not be criticized for their contribution and for what they are doing. It has become very necessary for them make those contributions, and I'm sure it's deeply appreciated. At the same time, I would invite the hon. member for Vancouver South to try to perceive this from the perspective of a person who has found himself or herself locked into the welfare syndrome, one of those 220,000 people who are on income assistance, wondering what the shelf life was of that particular can that happened to come into their bag of groceries, wondering just what the circumstances were whereby that had come there, and wishing that somehow they would be able to have the choice to go and make their own decisions with regard to the way in which they would be providing nutritional meals for their families.

I think it's worthwhile, first, once in a while in our lives, to visualize something from the angle of vision of those who are less fortunate in our society. I don't say that in any way as a put-down, but I say that as something that has indeed happened for those volunteers who have gone from some of the more affluent sectors of our community to work in food banks. That's why I said a moment ago that sometimes those people go through a kind of transformation in their perspective, with regard to poverty. But I think that's worthwhile. I think any time people go through a transformation in their perspective, that indeed can be seen as a learning experience, and that can be seen as worthwhile.

I know that we talked before, and I know that we will talk again before these estimates are over, about the Social Planning and Research Council. They have done research into food banks: research that was commissioned by a food bank task force. Again, I don't want to put words into the mouth of the hon. Minister of Social Services and Housing, and he might check the Blues before he comments on this, but I believe he said yesterday that the Social Planning and Research Council really did not produce a scientific study. I don't think we need to quibble about that. We might have different definitions of what it is to be scientific, or what it is to be involved in a social science. But I would repeat that the people involved in the council are very highly regarded in the area of social science; and, as I said before, the board of that council cuts across all political lines. Very distinguished

[ Page 423 ]

people in British Columbia are members of that board, from all parts of the political spectrum.

[4:45]

That report pointed out, as I said a while ago, that 70,000 people each month avail themselves of food banks, and that the needs of the hungry far exceed.... I think we really need to hear this: the needs of the hungry in British Columbia, on this day and for the last too many years, far exceed what food banks can provide as a level of support between what income assistance is able to provide and what they need. It also points out that the average users spend 55 percent of their income on shelter and 45 percent on other items. This report was in June 1986, not even a year ago. But I suspect that those percentages are moving in an unfortunate direction.

They also point out that the minimum nutritional diet....

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, your 15 minutes has expired. The second member for Victoria.

MR. BLENCOE: Madam Chairman, I think our critic the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, is going through some very useful information and providing some useful background for the government. I think he should be allowed to continue. I certainly would like to hear him continue, with your indulgence, Madam Chairman.

MR. CASHORE: That report points out that the minimum nutritional diet cannot be purchased with what people are receiving on income assistance. Nearly two-thirds of the people that come to food banks use the food bank every week. Most are employable people. Over one-half have above grade 10 education. Over 37 percent have a formal job qualification or skill, and 31 percent had worked prior to the recession. Twenty-one percent were seasonal workers; it has become necessary for them to use the food bank, owing to recessionary impacts, Sixty-five percent of those on welfare had recently been on unemployment insurance. Each user who went to the food bank was collecting for 2.3 people, and each bag of food was used to help feed 2.2 children. Fifty-eight percent of the users were looking for work.

I think that that indicates quite clearly that the tragic story of food banks is that the people who are using those facilities are not ne'er-do-wells. They're not people that we would look upon as cast-offs in our society. They're flesh-and-blood human beings, for whom this ministry attempts to care and for whom indeed all of our society has a concern; meaning that it behooves all of us to put our most creative thinking and our diligence into finding ways that we can share resources with these people.

Yesterday the minister stated that he did not think that food banks would always be with us, and I find that a hopeful statement. But I happen to believe that if that statement is to become true, it will become true because of a conscious decision on the part of this government to end those kinds of decisions that result in what I consider to be legislated poverty.

To illustrate, I would like to talk about what happened to the food bank phenomenon in Seattle. I think this relates very directly and very clearly to what I'm talking about. The Seattle food bank began organizing in late 1969. It was intended to be a temporary measure, just as the food bank here was intended to be a temporary measure. The first food bank was opened in 1970 by a coalition of the Ecumenical Metropolitan Ministry and the Seattle church council. They had a program called Neighbors in Need, which was considered to be temporary.

The need for the food bank at that time was connected with the economic problems being experienced in Seattle, just as during the time of the recession here, that was seen as the reason for the food bank coming into existence— as a temporary need. It was connected with layoffs at the Boeing plant. At that time Boeing contracts were down. Many of those who lost their jobs became the new poor, and when some of them actually did go back to work, they went back as blue-collar workers at lower wages.

The government began giving some funding to food banks in Seattle in 1972-73. There were still volunteers, and it was still based in the volunteer sector, but there was some government funding. Then in 1975, realizing the difficult process of decision-making that goes on, in terms of the philosophy of this, the government got out of funding food banks. They said there weren't any more problems. At that time the volunteer sector came back again and kept it going with a program called The Hunger Response, and then that same pattern followed and repeated itself. In 1976 the government in Washington decided to fund food banks again, and they did so until the beginning of 1978. Then the volunteer sector picked it up again.

What happened was that one food bank in 1969, to help with the rainy day, then went through a period of time when the economy in Seattle improved until today, when there are 50 food banks in King County — which is comparable to the lower mainland — and 25 of those are in Seattle itself. What has happened is that what was seen as a temporary measure — what our minister says he doesn't think will always be with us — became more, with the people in that experience, during the time of their economy going up..... Indeed, per capita wages in Seattle during that time increased to among the highest in the nation. In 1980 the per capita income in Seattle was $11,785, and in the U.S. it was $9,510; by 1984 the Seattle per capita income was $14,787, and the U.S. per capita income was $12,726.

So it would seem that unless there is a will on the part of those who have responsibility for what we legislate with regard to poverty, unless there's a will to change that structure, the prophecy of our minister — which I uphold — that says, "I don't think they will always be with us," will never be realized. The only way we'll be able to realize that prophecy is if government decides that we cannot afford poverty. We have to have a transformation in our thinking that will enable us to address this issue in a way that makes it possible for those 220,000 people on income assistance, the working poor, the people on UI, to have a fair share of the financial resource, which should be available in this abundant land, so that they can at least put those things before their families — those nutritious meals, the food and clothing that is needed — that would bring them up above what the SPARC report has referred to as a subsistence level.

I don't know if the minister wishes to respond to some of the comments that I have just made.

MR. BLENCOE: It's unfortunate the minister didn't respond to some of the comments made by our member for Maillardville-Coquitlam. I think he has made an excellent presentation this afternoon.

[ Page 424 ]

MR. LOENEN: He heard it all yesterday afternoon.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, perhaps you've got to keep hearing it, and we'll keep referring to it and keep talking about these issues, because the message has got to get through one day.

There are a number of things I would like to ask the minister about. The minister may or may not be aware — and I see the deputy is not here, unfortunately — that in Victoria we run a very busy community office and have many staff who deal directly and specifically with problems related to his Ministry of Social Services. We deal with literally hundreds of cases a month, sometimes, and thousands in a year; and, if I do say so, that office has developed a high degree of expertise in dealing with some of the problems related to social services.

There are, however, some issues or points that I would like to ask the minister about directly that we find in our daily work in our community office on Blanshard Street. I would like to go on the record this afternoon to indicate that many of these questions come to us through our staff who work on the front lines in that office, and not only our staff but those who work in the various agencies in this community whom we work with daily — organizations like the Salvation Army, St. Vincent de Paul, St. Andrew's Cathedral. St. Andrew's Cathedral has run for a number of years a kitchen for those who need food, and there are various other agencies that our office over the years has developed a very close relation with. So if I may, I will go through some of these specific items and see if I can get some response from the minister.

One of the things that we have found in the last few years when we deal with ministry district offices — and we deal with many of them, not just district offices for our riding — is that we get clients from all over the capital region, particularly ridings represented by government members. And I won't go into those reasons.

MR. LOENEN: Well, there aren't too many others.

MR. BLENCOE: That's a very intelligent remark from that member over there. We've found in the last few years that we often find no one in charge in those ministry offices, those district offices. This creates delays of a number of hours, or even overnight. It becomes particularly serious when a crisis grant is needed, as the supervisor has to approve this. I suspect this has got something to do with the stretching of staff and supervisors, but we are finding this is more and more becoming a problem.

Again, it probably refers to the nature of much of our work in that office, and we would like.... Perhaps the minister can explain the background to this and whether, indeed, in the future we are going to be able to get quicker service, particularly when we arc dealing with emergencies and crisis situations.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would like the member to give me examples of when there is no one in charge of the office. I would like to know about that, if he can give me times and dates and specific examples. It's very easy to generalize, as I said to one of the other members. You can stand here and make general comments, and nobody can prove or disprove them. So if he has examples of where the staff is being lax, in his opinion, we will investigate. If he goes into an office and there is nobody in charge, I want to know about that.

MR. BLENCOE: I didn't want to get into a discussion about staff being lax or anything. The question was meant in good faith, not in terms of an accusation against staff. I know the deputy minister knows exactly what I'm referring to. We have had some problems over the last few years in terms of supervisors not always being available, and it's not because staff don't care. It's because they're stretched, and it's become quite serious in terms of obtaining grants or getting information. I'm just wondering if the minister is aware of this and we can look forward to some changes, particularly in the capital region — no reflection, Madam Chairman, on staff.

[5:00]

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 56 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. BLENCOE: Madam Chairman, it's too bad the minister can't respond in some way to that question. I'm not about to give in to give names or dates or anything like that. The minister and senior staff are aware that this is a problem, and we just want to see if we can resolve it and get to the bottom of it, that's all.

Another issue, Madam Chairman, that comes to our attention: when deductions or recoveries are made from monthly cheques, the cheque itself is cashed and the tear-off application form is returned to the ministry. Therefore the client, we find, has no record of the number of payments recovered, or for what, or of any changes or additions to payments. To be fair, we feel that a record is needed for the client. I don't think any business in the private sector would treat clients in such a way. Is there any way that the clients can get a record of payments and deductions, so they can keep a record, and if there are problems down the road this can be clarified? Because sometimes we find clients just don't have a record.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Madam Chairman, on the question of supervisors, there are supervisors in every office, but that doesn't mean that they're in the office at all times. They have many, many other duties to perform. They're in and out of the office on a regular basis, but they are doing many, many other things during the day. So the member may be quite right that he could walk into any office in the province at any given moment and there would not be a supervisor there, but they would not be very far away.

On the item of the cheque stub, I'm not intimately familiar with the process, but I am told that the cheque stub, of course, must be returned so that we have a record that the cheque was indeed cashed. Beyond that, I could take anything further the member has regarding the details of how the cheques are processed and bring back specific information. I don't have it at my fingertips.

MR. BLENCOE: On that point, Madam Chairman, all I'm really requesting is that the client be able to obtain a record of the number of payments recovered or any changes made in deductions. We've found that this has become a problem in the past.

[ Page 425 ]

In terms of my first question — and I thank the minister for answering in general terms — the minister is quite correct that the supervisor is out of the office. But we often find that nobody is designated to take the place of the supervisor, and I think that's something that needs to be looked at. In our work we need to know exactly who we go to down the line, down the chain of command. I just share that, and we'll leave that item.

The next is a specific question which comes out of dealing with a particular client. We had a client who didn't want her new landlord to know that she was on income assistance, and I think the minister can understand that. The worker totally disregarded her wishes and contacted the landlord directly. Again, it may be inadvertent or whatever, but I'm just wondering if the ministry has a policy on such a thing if a client requests that information not be shared with a landlord. Is there a policy?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Madam Chairman, to the best of my knowledge, we attempt not to divulge to anybody anyone who is on income assistance. This is one of the reasons, for example, that we do not pay shelter allowances directly to landlords. We have that request very often from landlords, and we refuse to do that. We want the clients to receive the money and be treated as anyone else renting any premise is. So we don't normally divulge that sort of information to anyone.

MR. BLENCOE: I thank the minister for that comment. We will keep that in mind, and when clients do inform us that information is passed on, then we will deal with it directly.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Privileged information.

MR. BLENCOE: Privileged information, thank you.

Another area in which we get heavily involved in the Victoria riding is appeals to decisions made by the ministry. The deputy minister is quite aware of this. One of the things we find, though, is that many times the clients or the recipients are not informed they can appeal decisions. It is not generally shared. Is there a stated policy on this particular issue?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Madam Chairman, in every office we have posters explaining the clients' right to appeal, pamphlets on it. Information is gladly given out. We don't try to hide that fact from any of our clients. It is well advertised, and I believe well known to most clients. That is about all I can say on the subject.

MR. BLENCOE: Maybe it is an internal problem, but we have noticed that we find that many clients haven't been informed they can appeal. I should indicate that we don't like to go to the appeal procedure. We like to try and work it out. And, indeed, we do have a very good relationship here in Victoria with the various district offices and have a good system in place — one that took some time to develop but is a good system. So we try not to go the appeal route, because it is a lot of time on behalf of our staff and of course the ministry staff as well.

Back to this food bank situation that the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) was commenting upon. We are finding more and more poverty and hunger in this community. We are finding that the food banks are running out of food all the time. St. Vincent de Paul and various other social agencies frequently refer clients to us in our community office. They just have not got any way to deal with them. We see people regularly who have no place to sleep, no money for food, no money for baby formula, and so on. I think all members can relate those kind of problems.

I guess my general inquiry to the minister is that there have been substantial cutbacks and reduction in staff, particularly those staff who directly work with families. I'm just wondering what the ministry has planned in terms of trying to put more effort and more staffing into areas that directly relate to families. Again, the member for Maillardville Coquitlam talked about this and the Premier has talked about this. We can't consistently rely on the food banks and the charitable organizations to do the business that the government really should be doing. I can send to the minister all sorts of evidence and documentation of people who really are at the end of the system and who can't even get help from the charities. We can get into political rhetoric about what you are doing and what we are trying to do; I don't think that's the issue. The issue is people and service to them, and I don't think there is any question that the system really has been hurt over the last few years. And I am not just talking about the people who have traditionally been seen to be on social assistance, but about all sorts of new people — newly unemployed, people who never thought they would ever be in that position.

I just wonder if the minister is aware of these hurts and the damage that has been done to the ministry, and what can we expect in the years ahead to rebuild this ministry, to rebuild it so that it can really start to help those who we are daily finding have got nothing at all? The organizations that sometimes the government calls upon to help, cannot help. They cannot help, and we often just don't know where to go either. I know it is a very wide-open question, Madam Chairman, but I think it has to be addressed — not in a political vein but in a vein of caring for those people in our society, the most disadvantaged.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We canvassed this subject fairly thoroughly yesterday along the same line of questioning, so I guess to go on any further would be very repetitious. I should reiterate that we do care very much for the underprivileged in our province — this last year $865 million worth, plus many other programs, for those who are less fortunate than ourselves. And the ministry is in great shape, in spite of the member's comment. The number of staff has not been reduced in the last three or four years; in fact, it has been increased and the budget is going steadily upward. We are delivering a good product very efficiently. We're very proud of the way this ministry functions.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

He did make a good point, though — and I just want to build on it — and that is that they have a good working relationship with the local office. I encourage that, as you all know. I've had the staff in to talk to both caucuses on both sides of the House. The staff likes it. So I just want to reinforce that comment by that member and urge everyone as an MLA to establish a good, strong rapport with your local office. The staff would be only too happy to help you.

[ Page 426 ]

MR. BLENCOE: On the same theme, but a more specific question, one of the things we find in our work in Victoria over the last few years is a definite lack of resources in child care and contract workers to work with families in crisis. Much of it is to do with the elimination of I don't know how many family support workers a few years ago. About 60 of them, I think, were let go all at once. I think those were the numbers?

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Over 200 across the province?

Again, this is just a general comment. We could get into all sorts of discussions about the delivery of services of your ministry. It is a huge area, a large ministry. It seems to me, and I think to this side, that if there's one area that we have to prioritize in the next few years, it's the delivery to families and to children. More and more we are seeing that the resources and services are not there for those who can deliver family support services or contract workers to work with particularly difficult children.

The minister wants to say he's got a marvelous ministry, I know, and say there's no problem. But I hope he will admit there is a definite lack of resources for child care and for family support. I'd like to hear what plans he has in the years ahead to put kids and families back as the number one priority in terms of what we're doing in this ministry, and in many other ministries that are involved with families and children.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The member makes it very easy for me, because he is almost quoting the words of the Premier when we were sworn in as cabinet ministers, if you recall. The Premier — wisely so, I think — gave each new minister a mandate that he or she had to perform by a certain date and keep as ongoing priorities. The mandate that he gave me in this ministry was to put first emphasis on families and children. I believe we have done that. The increase announced in the budget, which is up by almost 11 percent this coming year, is targeted at families and children. So I think we are on the very same wavelength when it comes to that.

[5:15]

We realize the importance of the family as a first responsibility, and the way of curing a lot of our ills — preventing, I guess, is a better word. Preventing them before we have to cure them is in the strength of the family. So we're on the very same wavelength, Mr. Member. Our plans in the future are along those lines. The emphasis has to go to the family unit and, of course, to the care of children.

Again, I know we're plowing up the same turf as we did yesterday, but the intent seems to be to spin out the clock a little bit longer, so I'll talk a little bit about what I did yesterday. I have had one meeting with my provincial and federal counterparts across the country in January. The task force report has just come in on child care. The deputies are fast-tracking their process so that the ministers provincially and federally can meet again in June to put in place a national strategy regarding child care. The Prime Minister has said he would do this. Mr. Epp, the federal minister, is committed to it, as are all the provincial ministers. It is a very long complex process and, as I said yesterday, guaranteed not to please everyone, because there are so many variations on the theme of child care, but it is a very high priority with us, and I can assure the member and this House that families and children will always rate very highly in our plans for the future in this ministry,

MR. BLENCOE: I know that at least one other member on our side of the House referred to the soaring teen suicide rates in the province. I won't go through the statistics that back up that statement, but I think we all agree that we are in a bit of a crisis. I have, for instance, a report called "Canadian Youth: Perspectives on Their Health." It came out in 1985, International Youth Year. It has some shocking statistics relating to children and the increasing number of suicides and attempted suicides. For instance, of the five provinces considered, British Columbia posted the highest rate of hospitalization for attempted suicides. The minister is probably aware that we are the highest, as I say. Also, in the suicide rate for population aged 15 to 24, we're ahead of the national average considerably.

With that crisis.... I don't think anyone denies it, and I'm sure the government is going to try and deal with it. They may not want to deal with it as fast as we might, or with the resources we might put into it. But I'm wondering what discussions, if any, the minister has had....

Let me back up a little bit. One of the problems that we find is that when you're dealing with families and children in crisis, there are numerous ministries that relate to children or family issues. A number of ministries are involved. Sometimes it's very frustrating to get the decision from one ministry— for instance, Health — on suicide, and then deal with Social Services on those problems. The bureaucratic maze can be overwhelming at times. When you're talking about families and children, you can deal with the Attorney-General's ministry, with Social Services, and with Health. You can deal with Labour, in terms of youth unemployment. It seems to me that we need to take a look at that maze of ministries involved with families and children.

I'm going to ask this minister, as I will ask all other ministers that work with families and children, what consideration is being given to creating a ministry specifically for the family, a ministry that would pull together all the various aspects of dealing with families and children which currently are being dealt with in about four or five ministries. Putting them all under one umbrella would not only simplify the process, in terms. of dealing with family and children problems, but also, I think, indicate to the province of B.C. and the citizens that we in this House, and the government, are saying that the families and children are so important to the future of this province that we want to create a ministry of the family or a ministry for children, whatever you want to call it. Pull together all the various components that currently are being dealt with by many ministries. One-stop shopping, if you will, to put it a certain way. Has the minister had any discussion with his colleagues on that concept, and what does he think of the idea?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, just before we recognize the minister, I don't know as that particular question is entirely in order. It deals with future decisions of the government and also involves legislation. However, if the minister feels inclined to respond, why, we'll leave it up to him.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I won't spin out my answer, which I could do, to use up the time remaining today. We canvassed that subject fairly thoroughly yesterday — in fact very thoroughly — on the problem of teenagers, which we

[ Page 427 ]

recognize; problems of families, etc. Yes, it does cut across many ministries; that's why we deal with this problem at the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy, which is made up of all the social service ministries. We have a deputies' committee of the same ministries to deal with the same problems with children.

We look after children very, very well and are very cognizant of the needs of children. Because I went into it thoroughly yesterday, I won't go into all the details of the one child or category that does seem to fall between the stools: that is, the teen in trouble — the parent-teen conflict. I addressed that yesterday and told the House of the plans that we have and that we're going to involve one of your members in the process because he has a very keen interest in the subject. So I will put that on the record in answer to the member's question; but if he would care to grab the Blues from yesterday, I went into it very thoroughly.

MR. CASHORE: On page 9 of the budget it is indicated that the increase in income assistance will amount to $51.7 million. Could you tell me: does that $51.7 million include any money from the Canada Assistance Plan? I hear someone shaking their head, or I see somebody shaking their head.

MR. BLENCOE: Can you hear their head shaking?

MR. CASHORE: I can hear their head shaking.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No.

MR. CASHORE: Would I be correct in assuming, then, Mr. Minister, that this would mean that an equivalent infusion of that amount would also be coming to this program from the Canada Assistance Plan?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, the answer to the member is that we will get back half of that through the CAP program.

MR. CASHORE: In looking at the estimates on vote 57 — page 172 of the estimates — I just wanted to note that it states there that for the income assistance program, '86-87, the estimate was $855,108,676, and for '87-88 it was $864,838,302. That would be an increase of just over I percent, according to that part of the estimates. I know the budget predicts that unemployment is expected to increase in British Columbia. So it would seem likely that more people, if that prediction of the budget is true, would be added to the welfare lists. I have difficulty in understanding why the increase would be just over I percent. Perhaps you could clarify that for me.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, the explanation is quite simple. It is due to a reduction in caseload. If we hadn't put the increases into the budget, it would be down substantially more. That is the answer in its simplest and purest form: the caseload has gone down.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to ask the minister to what extent the caseload has gone down.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: As I am sure you can appreciate, ours is a demand-driven ministry. That side of the ministry is demand-driven. The best we can do when we budget is to take a best guess, by factoring in all the components from the experts that we have in various ministries. We predict that this coming year the caseload will decline by 4 percent. Hopefully we will be very close, and if we are, our budget figures will be close. But we could be out. It depends on the economy and what happens to unemployment figures. So that is the best that I can give you for the coming year. Our best guess is a decline of 4 percent.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I understand. I think you said that the reason was that there would be a decline in the caseload, and yet part of my question was that the budget predicts an increase in unemployment. I have a hard time relating that to a decline in the caseload, and I wonder if you could clarify that item for me, please.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I am not aware of the prediction in the budget of an increase in unemployment. If it is in there, then I apologize, but I am not aware of that. What we are saying is that our best information tells us that there should be a reduction in the caseload of 4 percent.

MR. CASHORE: Looking at vote 57, it indicates that for health care and dental services in 1986-87 the estimate was $34,809,053 and that for'87-88 it decreases to $30,218,062. I understand that GAIN is being increased for some individuals to reimburse them for amounts that they would be paying out for prescription fees, and while I can see where there's going to be an added cost in a way, I have a hard time understanding why there would be a decline in the budget prediction in view of that additional cost.

I have two questions. One, how much do you predict it will cost to reimburse GAIN recipients for amounts paid out for prescription fees? The other is, perhaps there are some pieces of information that are missing here, because with the information as I see it, it's awfully difficult to understand why that amount would decline from $34.8 million to $30.2 million.

[5:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before recognizing the hon. minister, for the edification of all members I would just like to tell you that we are still dealing with vote 56, not 57, although we've had some pretty free-wheeling debate in this respect.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: With all due respect, it's a little difficult to follow your questioning, as it's kind of around and around.

Our predictions in the ministry have been pretty accurate in the past. This last year, for example, we were within 0.06 percent — a pretty fair guess by some pretty competent people. I would think that this year we will be pretty close.

Here again, crossing various ministries.... Pharmacare relates to seniors only, and Pharmacare is no longer under this ministry, so as far as income assistance recipients are concerned there won't be any impact on us in the budget.

There was one other point you made. I've lost my train of thought. I'll let it go at that.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, again I understand that it is appropriate to be discussing the various votes during the vote on the minister's estimates. It's not?

[ Page 428 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the member would like, we could move on to 57 by my calling the vote on 56. Shall vote 56 pass?

MR. CASHORE: No, I'm still on my feet, so....

With regard to the comments that the minister just made, to put it as simply as I possibly can, I have a hard time understanding why the budget estimate.... I'm not in any way trying to impugn the ability of your ministry to make budget estimates; I'm just wanting to understand why it goes from $34.8 million plus dollars down to $30.2 million-plus when the budget states that GAIN is being increased for some individuals to reimburse them for the amounts paid out for prescription fees. So I'm just saying the information that has been put before me doesn't explain to me why this amount would be going down.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Again, to the best of my ability, there are several things that impact on it. One is the caseload going down. Secondly, the elimination of hospital user fees: the saving to my ministry on that is $5.48 million, so that comes into play as well. There are many factors that go into it, and that's about as specific as I can get.

MR. CASHORE: I would like now to refer to a few examples of the things being experienced by people out there who are clients of this ministry, just to give a bit of a sense of fleshing out some of the human interest stories that from time to time come to me from constituents from various places, with regard to the issues of this ministry.

One person I was talking to who was disabled and confined to very limited mobility was telling me that because of his circumstances he has an older car. While I recognize the importance of the environment and the matter pertaining to unleaded fuels, etc., he is one of those people among our lower income people who tend to own those older cars that are the ones that are going to be affected by that tax. I asked him what that was going to mean to him in terms of his handicapped person's income assistance, and he told me, well, it was going to cost about another $10 a month. He said that he would find that pretty difficult. He also said that with the minimum on the property tax going from $1 to $100 a year that was going to affect him in rather a difficult way. He also said that while there are increases within the budget for people on income assistance, people in his category — disabled people — were not recipients of an increase. He also stated that he has to make visits to a chiropractor on several occasions and to a podiatrist, and he was estimating that this would cost him an extra $150 a year.

Now that's one case. That's a person I was talking to today who was saying that this was how the budget is impacting on him. He wasn't saying that he was wanting to make some kind of wild statements about this government or anything; he was just saying: "I hope that you will let them know on my behalf that this is how this is affecting me." And I think that's a valid story.

I have a letter here from a mother in her thirties; I'll just read portions of the letter into the record. Again, this is a person who is out there and this is what she is experiencing.

"I am a mother of two children who has been on social assistance since separating from my husband last year. I had an appointment with my financial worker..."— recently; I won't say the date — "...and during the meeting he informed me of a damage deposit I received in 1979 of $139. He told me the ministry wants it back, so I will have a deduction from my cheque of $10 until it is paid in full. I am quite stunned, as that was eight years ago when I was in a similar circumstance, and if I were not on welfare at this time, I would not have to pay it back. I receive $824 per month; my monthly bills are $515 for rent, $35 for hydro and $17.85 for my telephone."

She doesn't go on to list the other costs of living — like food, etc. She goes on:

"Then, to put the icing on the cake, my FAW informs me that since my eldest is now 12, I am now employable, and the policy is of course another deduction of $35 from my cheque. It is amazing what a birth date can do to a family. I am in a state of shock. The total of $45 a month off a cheque that is already inadequate scares me. How am I to manage? Did someone say the rates are to rise? It will be more than $45, won't it?"

Then she goes on to say where she lives and that she had gone out into the environs of her home and she had decided to pound the pavement, to make out a few applications for employment. She says:

"Of all the places I went, only one gave me an application to fill out — and that one was put 'on file.'

"I want the amount of my cheque at least up to what it was. I am not fortunate enough to receive support payments. I need every penny to support us. I also feel that it is my God-given right to be with my children, until I feel it is the right time for them to have me seek employment.

"Why should I be punished for this? I can't believe someone who doesn't even know us saying to me: 'Your son is 12. Get a job.' Do I have any say? Does anyone hear or care what I am saying?"

By reading that letter I'm not trying to imply that your ministry does not care or does not hear. But I think it is worthy, for the record, in a sober moment, for us to hear the cry of one who is having a very difficult time in the present economic circumstances in this province.

The next anecdote, I guess you might say, is a little different. It has to do with some of the experiences people on income assistance go through. I know that there has to be a concern within this department, with regard to the proper administration and the monitoring to see that funds are not applied inappropriately. I know that, and I understand it. If we were government, we too would have to do proper monitoring; there's no question about that. I think that when fraud does happen it's unfortunate, and it certainly isn't desirable. It's not desirable if it happens to be among very low-income people, and it's not desirable if it's among very high-income people. Fraud is fraud, and it's not reserved for one segment of our population. When that is mentioned, I think it really is important that we recognize that; that this is something that goes right through our society. So I recognize the need to do monitoring.

This is a letter that an income assistance recipient has received with regard to this. I understand that the letter is in keeping with the regulations, but you can imagine what it must feel like to receive a letter like this when you are in the circumstances. It's from a person who works in a Social Services and Housing office, and it says:

"Your file was selected at random for a home visit to be made to your address for verification of your

[ Page 429 ]

residence. This random selection is in line with guaranteed income assistance policy as described under the 'Application: Basic Income Assistance.'

"To this end, I will be visiting your home on.... Please have your most current rent, hydro and/or propane, oil and phone receipts...available at this time so I can verify shelter costs. If this time is not convenient, please notify me by...so we can arrange a mutually convenient time for me to visit your residence.

"If you have found employment or feel you are no longer in need of income assistance, please call me as soon as possible so we can make the necessary adjustments to your file."

Then it is signed.

This is the kind of thing that people are experiencing. As I said before, I am not saying that there should not be a monitoring, but I really wonder what the business community of this province would feel if they felt that routine auditing procedures would say "we will just arrive at your business on a random basis" for that kind of a visit. It would seem to me that yes, there are times when authorities go into businesses to do an audit, but I think the procedure is much different. I think it involves court orders and things like that. But this is one of the things that people who are involved in this syndrome have to experience, which is very distressing for many of them.

There is a group of women up in northern British Columbia, women who were all income recipients. They formed a kind of a support group, which I thought was a very worthwhile thing. They said within this group that they really wondered if there was some way to help the public understand what their experience is actually like, and they developed a game something like Monopoly, a board game called the The Poverty Game. You've probably heard about it. In this game you collect your welfare cheque every time you pass "go," and it is very well done, because when you land on different squares, different experiences happen to you.

[5:45]

1 was involved with a group who played this game one day, and they guided us through it. We were given an identity, and in my identity I was a woman with a 12-year-old son who was having some really difficult times adjusting, because his father, after a kind of violent occurrence, had left home. This was very hard on the child. I should say that in developing this game these women used actual case histories and case studies; they used flesh-and-blood examples.

One of the things that I found very difficult, and which really tested my moral strength just in the time of playing this game, was when I landed on this square that said your child's dog has been hit by a car and you have the choice of either paying a $120 veterinarian bill to get the dog functioning — and I'm not advocating dog medicare here; I hope you won't think I'm saying that — so that he could again be the pet for that child who is going through the personal loss of a father....

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the question?

MR. CASHORE: I'm not asking a question, I'm giving some examples. I don't think it hurts this House to hear, for a few moments in a sober time, some examples that are given in good faith with regard to what some of our citizens are experiencing. I really do not believe that's an imposition on this House. I found it very difficult to try to put myself in the place of somebody who had to make a decision to either kill the dog or find the wherewithal so that that child could continue to have that pet. These are the kinds of things that tend to remind us that people in our society are being worn down by the kind of experiences they're having, and I think this should be viewed very seriously.

I would like to ask a question, however. The minister mentioned, on the first day of discussion of the estimates, that social assistance recipients can receive crisis grants for food. He was responding to some of the information in the SPARC report. Is he aware that in many circumstances people are refused when they go for crisis grants?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm going to try to answer a couple of the member's questions as best I can. I want to clear up a point, and he brought it up just now, regarding crisis grants. I mentioned them yesterday, and I didn't want to leave the impression that anyone can just go down to any one of our offices and get a crisis grant. We don't hand them out just because someone runs out of money. A lot of people run out of money every month. But they are there, and each office has a local budget for crisis grants, and when people are definitely in need they are given one. But it's a local decision by the local manager, as we are a very decentralized ministry,

I just want to make a few comments on the comments by that member about reviewing people on income assistance. I put out a press release on March 25 this year saying a few of the things that we were doing along these lines. I announced that we were finalizing a review of client eligibility for Guaranteed Available Income for Need — GAIN. "The review of income assistance cases is being carried out over the period November 1, 1986, to March 31, 1987. A similar project was carried out during the period November 1984 to May 1985." I stated that my ministry is conducting comprehensive eligibility reviews, including home visits, to confirm recipients' shelter arrangements and other information on file with the ministry.

Based on the caseload activity, each region has been allocated from 5 to 14 staff. To date, the results show that 86 percent of recipients have been receiving the correct amount of benefit. But the letters do have quite an effect, because they result in a number of clients advising us that they no longer need income assistance. It's amazing. We send out a letter and several people volunteer. They phone and say: "Don't come to my home. I no longer need income assistance."

MR. WILLIAMS: What do you do then?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We thank them very much for the phone call.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, we thank them very much for the phone call, and we probably follow up on them, but I'm just telling you that those letters saying that we're going to review their case have an almost magical effect. We intend to continue the practice, because for some reason sometimes people forget to tell us that they no longer need income assistance.

[ Page 430 ]

I just wanted to clear up one other point that the member made, that all people who commit fraud are not low-income people. I just wanted to make that point. I didn't want to leave that impression, and you happened to mention it. We have many people in higher-income brackets involved with this ministry who commit fraud.

Mr. Chairman, because of the time, and the great progress we have made, I am going to ask that the committee rise, 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 5:52 p.m.