[ Page 447 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Public consultation on Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987. Mr. Gabelmann 447

Uranium exploration regulations. Mr. Mercier –– 448

Ms. Smallwood

British Columbia Teachers' Federation. Mr. Jones –– 448

Ministry of Highways subcontractors. Ms. Smallwood –– 448

Royal Commission on Education. Mr. Jones –– 449

Lunch program in schools. Mr. Clark –– 449

Tabling Documents –– 449

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

On vote 56: minister's office –– 449

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Miller

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Barnes

Mr. R. Fraser

Mr. Clark

Mr. G. Hanson

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH: One of the great growth industries in British Columbia is the software industry. I'm told that we now have approximately 27 percent per annum growth in that area. Today we're very honoured to have in the members' gallery the chairman of the Software Industry Development Association of British Columbia, Mr. Dave Nicol, and the vice-chairman, Mr. Robin Williams. I'd ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming, first of all, John Bergbusch, who represents the community of Colwood as an alderman. With Mr. Bergbusch, who is also a teacher, are 13 grade 8 and 9 students from the PACE program at Edward Milne Secondary School.

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour for me to welcome to the House today, from the village of Cumberland, Mayor William Moncrief and Aldermen Harvey Brown, Andy Harvey and Sandy Baird. Please make them welcome.

MR. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to join me in welcoming, in the members' gallery today, a former member of this House who sat here from 1972 to 1975, Gerry Anderson.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, representatives of the mine managers' group are here in the gallery today. They include Bill Price from Blackdome Mining Corp.; Jeff Thompson, Gibraltar Mines Ltd.; Mike Lipkewich, Teck Corp.; Mick Henningson, Cominco, Kimberley; and Rick Jarret, Westroc Industries. Would HON. members make them welcome.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I was fortunate earlier on today to have the pleasure of entertaining two of my constituents at lunch, and they paid good money at a charity to have not only that pleasure of eating in the dining room but also of attending the session this afternoon. I'd like to introduce to the House Teresa Rojas and Paula Bos.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome to the House a resident of Richmond, a business person and someone who serves on the Social Credit riding executive of our constituency, Ron Adams.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like all members to welcome, first of all, my mother, who is here this afternoon; and my godmother Phyllis Hanbury and her husband Harry Hanbury.

MR. CHALMERS: Mr. Speaker, somewhere in the gallery today we have two residents from Winfield, Mr. and Mrs. Art Pollard, and their son, Art Pollard, from Victoria. I'd like you to make them welcome, please.

Oral Questions

PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. In view of the increasingly widespread opinion in both labour and management circles that the recently introduced Bill 19 will lead not to improved industrial relations but in fact to greater disruption and unrest in the labour-industrial relations community, would the minister agree now that the bill be pulled and that the public who are interested in this legislation have an opportunity for full discussion and full consultation, leading to a consensus, which would lead to a new bill?

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I believe that that question would be out of order in view of our imminent second reading.

Interjection.

HON. L. HANSON: I'm asking the Speaker for a ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister is asking the Speaker, I would recognize you. I think parts of the question could be stretching the bounds of the rules of this House, but parts of it are not, and if the minister wants to choose to answer part of the question he can.

HON. L. HANSON: The answer at this time is no.

MR. GABELMANN: If the answer to the question relating to withdrawing for public discussion is no, faced with the serious consequences of pursuing this bill with the haste indicated by both the minister and the Premier, would the minister now agree that the appropriate forum for discussion of this bill is a parliamentary committee, and that that course of action will be pursued with discussion of this biII9

MR. SPEAKER: That question is out of order.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, participants and people close to the IWA-FIR dispute last year agree - all of them agree - that had this bill existed at that time, that dispute would have been longer and more divisive and more trouble to our economy. In the light of those kinds of comments about this particular legislation, why is the government so determined to pursue with such haste in dealing with this particular piece of legislation?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I recognize the member for North Island's sincere interest in this bill; however, clearly the questioning and the line of the questioning offend the rule of anticipation.

[2:15]

MR. GABELMANN: On a point of order, the order for the day hasn't been called. We don't know what the order of business is this afternoon. That's number one. Number two, I am not asking the minister to comment on aspects of the debate which are properly debated in this House at some stage in second reading and committee and are not the subject for debate in question period. I have not attempted to do that.

[ Page 448 ]

My question relates to the haste, the disruption to our economy and the questions relating to jobs and industrial relations in this community as a result of the haste with which the government intends to proceed.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Member, if you were to read May, twentieth edition, page 343, you would see that there are many precedents that questions should not criticize decisions of the House. That bill has been introduced to this House, so I would say that your point of order is out of order..

URANIUM EXPLORATION REGULATIONS

MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I do understand this is question period; I have a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources with respect to the uranium exploration regulations. Our regulations have been deemed too severe, according to an article in the March 30, 1987, Northern Miner, the widely read journal for the Canadian mining industry. In the opinion of the minister, are the new uranium exploration regulations restricting exploration or otherwise hampering recovery of the mining industry in B.C. at this time?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, simply put, the answer is no. The Northern Miner says that B.C. today is the only province in Canada to establish health and safety standards for uranium exploration; it's the only one that insists on Canada health standards; it's the only one that requires baseline studies to be done before exploration can proceed. These provisions were discussed with the B.C. Mining Association and the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, and they agreed that they were operative and that the industry really wouldn't have great difficulty complying with the regulations. But they certainly are strict, and they're certainly tougher than anywhere else in Canada.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Supplementary on the exploration regulations to do with uranium and thorium. I raised a question in the House last week regarding these regulations, and it has since been brought to my attention that the Aley Cominco claim near Williston Lake has indeed shown that the percentage of thorium at that claim is above the regulations that are outlined. This mine falls between the cracks of those regulations, and I'd like to know if the Minister is prepared to revise those regulations to deal with other minerals. As the Minister indicated when bringing those regulations down, the purpose of not continuing the moratorium on uranium mining was to make the mining of other minerals more feasible. I think that this particular issue points out a massive loophole in those regulations.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, it is far from pointing out a loophole. Firstly, the discovery in northeastern B.C. by Cominco occurred some years ago. Had the moratorium continued, we wouldn't know today about the thorium discovery. Now that it's a requirement for Cominco to report, we know not only about that occurrence, but the new regulations will be in place.

I agree with the hon. member that maybe we should have similar regulations with respect to other heavy metals.

BRITISH COLUMBIA TEACHERS' FEDERATION

MR. JONES: I have a question for the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker. The now Minister of Education stated last summer that the only problem with education in this province is the BCTF. I would ask the Minister of Education if this is still his view, and whether this explains the rationale for the legislation introduced last week.

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'd like the member to come up with his research on that, because there have been some misinterpretations of what I have said. I don't recall saying that the only problem with education in this province is the BCTF, so he'd need to document that for me.

MR. JONES: The Dave Abbott CJOR tapes will indicate so.

At a meeting this past weekend, the Minister of Education met with teachers, school trustees and board officials to discuss the recent legislation. Again the minister expressed a negative opinion of the BCTF Are the minister's continued attacks on the BCTF an example of the consultation, cooperation and lack of confrontation that have been promised by this government?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order.

MINISTRY OF HIGHWAYS SUBCONTRACTORS

MS. SMALLWOOD: My question is to the Minister of Labour. My question deals with the $20 million contract for highway access to the Alex Fraser Bridge. I'd like to know if the minister has decided to investigate the hiring practices of Maximum Contractors, Sonny's Excavating and Ike Unger, who are requiring employees, as a condition of employment, to sign undertakings not to become trade union members, in direct violation of the Charter of Rights and provincial labour legislation.

HON. L. HANSON: In answer to the question, no, because I was not aware of that situation. But I will take that question on notice.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I have a new question regarding this same development, for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Article 49 of the minister's standard construction agreement limits the value of subcontracting work to 35 percent. Has the minister decided -to investigate compliance of Maxim, Sonny's and Ike Unger with this limit, or is it the policy of the ministry to approve unlimited labour only subcontracting?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. Not being informed fully of this complaint and the names of the parties involved, I have not had an opportunity to investigate, but I will do so and take the question on notice.

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might beg your indulgence and ask the rationale for the ruling. Is any question relevant to the BCTF, because it is affected by legislation, out of order in this House now?

[ Page 449 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker cannot be asked a question, but if the member would refer to May and the decision I made, he could probably read why his question was out of order. Certainly not all questions about any matter are out of order, but they are if they pertain to a bill that is before the House.

I MR. JONES: My question was about the attitude of the minister.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON EDUCATION

MR. JONES: I have a further question for the Minister of Education. The recently established Royal Commission on Education was instructed to review all aspects of education in this province. In order to show that the commission is more than just a public relations ploy, will the minister refer the proposed act to the commission and pledge that it will not be debated here until the commission has reported on it?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, and I think the member insults the royal commission by talking about it as a public relations ploy. It is very sincere, and I think that the commissioner and all the people that he can appoint are going to be looking at it.

I might point out that in all of the submissions in the consultation that I had, one after another the BCSTA and the BCTF and all the people I have talked to said: "Please don't hold off the decisions about bargaining. Don't put that to the royal commission. Some of these things should be resolved." Virtually, this gives them everything that they ask for.

LUNCH PROGRAM IN SCHOOLS

MR. CLARK: A question to the Premier. Mr. Speaker, it has recently been revealed that many children in my riding do not get any breakfast and come to school without any lunch. This demonstrates, in our view, the inadequacies of welfare rates. We understand the government's position on this, but given that, has the Premier at least instructed his minister to institute a school-based lunch program to alleviate this serious problem?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think that question should be directed to the Minister of Education.

MR. CLARK: I'm going to ask the Premier another question along this line. This morning I surveyed all of the elementary schools in my riding, and according to the principals, over 200 children are coming to school without lunch. This has been in the papers - everybody knows it. I think this House deserves an answer from the Premier regarding specific programs to deal with children who are going hungry in this province.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I still think it's a question for the minister, but frankly I don't know how government can take responsibility for all children who come to school without proper breakfasts. Certainly I don't get the connection.

MR. ROSE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker, before we reach orders of the day. My colleague from Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) asks leave to table a document referred to in a series of questions.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Johnston tabled the 1985-86 annual report of B.C. Transit.

Hon. B.R. Smith tabled the annual report of the B.C. Police Commission for 1985-86; and the 1986 annual return on invasion of privacy under the Criminal Code.

MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I rise on behalf of my colleague the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser). He has advised me - and this is the first opportunity we've had to let the House know - that his name was left off the roll of the division that was taken in the vote recorded Friday on Bill 4, Sechelt Indian Government District Enabling Act. He has brought it to my attention and I bring it to the House's attention.

MR. SPEAKER: It will be corrected.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy to see the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) back with us. With that said, I call Committee of Supply,

[2:30]

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

(continued)

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

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, my remarks this afternoon, and questions to the minister, will follow on some discussion we had last Wednesday, when the minister made reference to the initial evaluation of the work of a group that we have called the Hewett Group. The report which he made available to us, at least in part, is called "Assessment and Referral Pilot Project: Preliminary Evaluation." I wish to make a few remarks about that report, which the minister spoke to on Wednesday last, and in the course of my remarks a little bit later I will be posing some questions to the minister as well.

Mr. Chairman, over the years a number of programs were initiated by the then Ministry of Human Resources around job opportunities for people in receipt of social assistance. We go back in the early 1970s to something called the Alliance of Businessmen, and in the late 1970s to a program that was called PREP - interestingly, a program that was also initiated in the municipality of Surrey, which is one of two communities that have been served by this particular program. All of those programs in the past have in fact been unsuccessful, and the evaluations of the ministry have home that out. To cite just one quote from the Times-Colonist in 1981 - one of a number - it speaks about the "statistically insignificant effect in reducing public welfare rolls."

[ Page 450 ]

Now I want to look at the work of the ministry at the present time - the initiatives that are proposed in this year's estimates for a program called JobTrac, and the work of this particular group, which, as I understand it, is work that will be ongoing and encompassed in next year's estimates. The preliminary evaluation addresses these points: valuable information provided by the program; meets the ministry's needs for case management and program planning; meets clients' needs; meets employers' needs; meets a need identified by social services agencies across Canada; notes that income assistance recipients are able and anxious to work; and although we do not have this particular recommendation in any substantive form, there is a recommendation for further implementation.

I understand the dollars that have been afforded to this particular project are $300, 000 worth of public dollars from a group that to my knowledge has no background in this field except that it has some computer expertise and has worked with Expo in the period prior to making a proposal to this ministry. I would like to refer to some of those sections and the evaluation which presumably has been presented in this documentation. I'd like to question some of the expenditures there, and in so doing raise some questions about future expenditures in this regard.

In his initial statement on the day we began our work in committee on these estimates - this is on page 357 of Hansard for March 31, 1987 - the minister made the following comment: "The majority of employable income assistance recipients are both able and anxious to work." I would note that that is a perception that all of us would accept. I want to read into the record a comment from the evaluation that suggests a perhaps more patronizing approach to this particular group from the various project staff who have been working with this group of people. They state: "The Hewett Group believes in the potential of income assistance recipients, and has demonstrated that they have the necessary skills to obtain employment." I would submit that there is a very definite difference in attitude reflected in those comments and the comments of the minister, which latter I endorse and share; and that is simply a knowledge that people who are on income assistance are there because of circumstances not of their making and not of their choosing, and in fact, in many instances because we have failed in terms of our economic development and strategy, which is not of their remedying. To have people working in a project where there is this patronizing approach that suggests that it indeed needs to be demonstrated is the first indication, I would suggest, that such a project is faultily founded.

The second thing that the minister noted in his initial comments about the nature of the roles of people who are on assistance was to state that 70 percent of employable income assistance recipients regain financial independence within seven months. In other words, there is an ebb and flow as people find themselves in need of the assistance of public coffers, and eventually, by their own initiative and efforts, they find work in our tenuous economy. The minister has noted a number of times that the number of people who are on income assistance is not a product of anything other than the ebb and flow of unemployment: as unemployment goes up, so do the social assistance roles; and as unemployment goes down, so do the social assistance rolls. In fact, we have from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) a prediction that the unemployment rolls in this province will go up this year, that we will not see a change from the unacceptably high levels of unemployment that have existed over many months - in fact, years - under the limited economic development and strategy of the present government.

So let me put to rest once and for all any kind of illusion that we need to spend $300, 000 on something that suggests we have to prove that income assistance recipients are able and anxious to work. That is a given. It's something we all accept and something that we should not be spending dollars to prove again.

Let us look to some of the other things that this particular project purports to have achieved for its recipients. It notes that the program meets client needs. There is no question, I think, in anyone's mind that people who have lost a job, or people whose circumstances have changed so that someone who has been the caregiver in a home perhaps needs to work because of a change in the marital situation or in the income of that family, sometimes require assistance in order to be able to return to the workforce. They require information, and they require support, and quite often they require some training or retraining. That is something that we have always known, and it is something that the ministry's own officials, through the rehabilitation officers in the ministry, have, in fact, as their major mandate - to work with those people and assist them in a variety of ways to re-enter the labour force or enter it for the first time.

Let's look at the statistics provided in the report about the particular group of people who were involved with this project in Kamloops and Surrey. I won't go into great detail with the figures, because the minister has in fact made them available to this House. He notes that 45 percent of the original almost 3, 000 were prepared to be involved in the program, and out of that, 62 percent were in fact considered to be suitable for the program - job-ready, It's interesting that nowhere in this document is there any suggestion about what "job-ready" means, although obviously there was some assessment of the skills of these people.

So altogether we have just over 800 of the 3, 000, presumably, that have had some attention and some concentrated or unconcentrated work. We don't have any definition of what this program involves on the part of the Hewett Group to provide them with something that would be useful to them. They note that there were another 420 people who needed additional training, and we have no knowledge of what happens with that particular group of people. We have again the reaffirmation that these people want to work and that they don't like being on income assistance, which I think we've already canvassed and agreed is not an issue that needs to be addressed; it is a given.

Any project that uses public dollars around the issue of getting people back to work has as its particular goal some outcome, and it has been my perception that the outcome expected of this particular project was that these people who were involved - these 800 people who received some information, some support, perhaps some training in how to find a job - would have some prospect of jobs being available to them. When we look at the program statistics that are quoted in the report, the figures that are given to us would suggest that many people who participated in that program must indeed be feeling shortchanged and disappointed.

Of those 816 people who presumably had some kind of program made available to them, 40 have presently been employed, according to the statistics offered. In fact, the report notes that six of those have been hired by the Hewett Group itself - it's very noble and good of them to provide

[ Page 451 ]

employment for people whom they have had some opportunity to get to know, They are noted as key staff in the Surrey and Kamloops offices. That adjective "key" is not described. I would hope that that means they are being well paid and that in fact they are able to support their families with an income level that is sufficient for their needs at this time.

If we look at the statistics in terms of numbers of people who are in fact offered employment at this time, or who have achieved employment, even taking the most optimistic analysis of that particular group of statistics, we're looking at 5 percent of those people being deemed job-ready who have a job at this time.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You don't like that.

MS. A. HAGEN: I am delighted for the 40 people who have a job. I want to ask a few questions about those jobs in a moment. However, I thought it might be useful to present to the House today two other models that have been going on simultaneously with the work of the minister, where I think we have the kind of accountability and outcome that we would all applaud. One of them is in my own constituency in New Westminster.

Just before I came over to the House, I attended a meeting of the education committee of the school board, where a very exciting report from our adult education coordinator was presented to the board on a project which involved just under $250, 000 -1 want to note the comparison, the figures we're talking about here - and involved coordination between the Canadian Jobs Strategy, CEIC, the rehabilitation offices of the minister in my community, Douglas College and the school board. Teamwork and partnership in providing training and potential employment opportunities for people on social assistance in my community . . . .

That meeting was held either the second last or the last week in February. I talked to my school board office on Friday. There are presently in my community 120 people who are actively receiving job training on site and off site in six different programs. Almost every single person in that program has come through the rehabilitation offices of the Social Services and Housing ministry, with close working relationships, so that that group has been targeted as people who need attention and help.

[2:45]

My understanding from the coordinator of that program, who has worked in this area before, is that the outcome rate of similar programs that he has been involved with in terms of permanent employment in real jobs - and by real jobs I mean jobs that are present in the community, jobs that are not subsidized by any job creation kind of strategy, jobs that are there, looking for proper and trained people . . . . The Pace entrance for people in that program is in the order of arc 70 per cent success rate.

What I want to note here, just to give you some macro figures, is that in order for the ministry to assess 3, 000 people, work closely with 800 and at the present time employ 40 - six of them in the project that is in fact doing this work - we have spent $7, 500 to get those people to the point where they take a job. And I want to come back to those jobs in just a moment, because I'm not sure that they are real jobs, and I take that from the report.

In order for the cooperative efforts of colleges, school boards, Social Services and Housing and a number of social assistance recipients who are looking for support and help to get back into the work force . . . . We have, for 120 people, with the expectation that probably 90 of them will be employed, spent $2, 000 per candidate for that particular position.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I note that my time is up. I have some additional comments that I hope to have some opportunity to make in the near future.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I just wanted to take a brief opportunity to respond to some of the remarks that have been made thus far by the member. I know that she is just getting wound up and has more to say on this particular subject.

First of all, the project that she refers to that was put out to tender and won by the Hewett Group was not intended as a job creation project. We never said it was. We never intimated that it was, nor did we lead anyone to believe that it was. Nor did the Hewett Group. So before the member goes on to tell me about other organizations that have put people to work -I commend her for that, and anyone who's involved in that -this project was designed to match people up with the very people of which you speak. The Hewett Group is not intended to be a job creation project. It's to match up those people who are on the welfare rolls and who are employable with the very projects of which you speak.

The project has just barely gotten off the ground, Mr. Chairman. So I think it's very unfair to criticize the number of clients that they've been able to place. It has just barely started working, In fact, under tab 4 - and I made this report available to them - it states, and I quote: "Referral of clients to jobs. Active marketing of job-ready clients to private sector businesses has just started." Just started. "The number of job orders and clients placed increases daily." So the figures are very preliminary, and we're updating them every week; I don't have the second week's figures for you as yet. So yes, the numbers are small, but we've just barely started. But I repeat, so that it sinks in across the way and elsewhere, that this program is to match people up with other programs, with jobs, with training programs, whatever, and to get us into the computer age so that we can do this quickly.

I guess I could comment at length about the political statements made at the beginning about "able and anxious to work, " etc. I think that it's what is said in this House that's important, and I note the member agrees with the way I've put it. We've known for a long time that employables who are on income assistance rolls are able and anxious to work. That's why they're classed as employable. And we know that there are very few who really don't want to go to work. There are a few, but they're a very small percentage.

The average amount of time that people stay on our income assistance rolls in this type of economy is seven months. When the economy is in much better shape, it's about four months. So it varies as to the state of the economy at any given time.

There were a couple of other figures mentioned by the member that I made a note that I was going to mention, under tab I in the report. And, of course, the report is a very cursory report given to me on short notice by the Hewett Group, so it doesn't contain in-depth information that the member alluded to.

No, they don't go into detail and try to describe every word in the report, such as "key people." Some of the information I think you are looking for, Madam Member, the report would have to be that high if they had to define everything that they put in it. They gave me a very cursory

[ Page 452 ]

glance at how it is going because I asked for a report by the end of March.

But in pointing out that 45 percent of the clients accepted the invitation to join the program, I want to put to rest another myth that surfaced around this, and that was that everyone was going to be forced to come and register with the Hewett Group or terrible things were going to happen to you. I just want to reinforce that it is strictly voluntary. It is to help people help themselves, to help them get off the income rolls.

Again, 62 percent were classified as job-ready. No, they didn't go into a lengthy explanation of what that means, but I am sure they are quite able to assess someone's skills in very short order to determine if they are indeed totally job-ready. Some said they were not - for personal reasons, social problems, etc. Well, that's fair enough; they are not job ready.

But I guess I just come back to the final statement made by the member that other programs are putting people to work in real jobs. Well, that's commendable. That's what we want. But we want this program as designed to find those real jobs that are out there. That is all it is designed to do. It is not a job creation project. Yes, the Hewett Group hired six of the people who came to register. I think that is commendable. They didn't have to. It wasn't part of the contract.

But this program will work. The initial information tells us it will work; 100 percent of the people who registered in it thought it was worthwhile, and they recommended it to others. It will match people up with the organizations that you just spoke of and with others and with our JobTrac program and with other programs to find real jobs and meaningful employment for these people.

The object of it, Madam Member, is that it will do it in very quick order. It has computerized what used to take us a long time to do. We will now be able to do it in minutes.

The other thing that it does, Mr. Chairman, is that for the first time in some of these people's lives - not all of them, but some - they now have a written document outlining their skills, their aspirations and their qualifications, what they can do, so that in their search for a job, they now have something written down that they can go and show to a prospective employer.

MS. A. HAGEN: Firstly, I would just like to point out in commenting on the minister's comments that the 120 people that I have been speaking about, in a project of $250, 000 in what is available, is in fact dealing with jobs. We are simply looking at some matters of scale.

I would hope too, sit, that you have - like I have reviewed some of Hansard over the past weekend so that we will not recanvass some of the positions that we have already discussed.

I think it is important for us to move on to some new perspectives. I want to come back to the report in general terms, because I appreciate that the minister has requested a preliminary report. I would like to request, now that he has had an opportunity to review that report, that if there is any part of it that he has not shared with us, we would appreciate seeing that. At the time that it came forward, I think you expressed a wish to review it before making it available. We would welcome the complete report.

I would also like to comment that I think that any group that is involved with providing service should in fact have some means of its work being evaluated other than by itself. I think that most evaluation is something that should take place from what is perceived to be an independent perspective, and that might be something outside the ministry as well.

I would like to just look a little further at the jobs that have been created - accepting the minister's comments that there are additional jobs being created - and perhaps try to canvass what those jobs are. There is a section in the report called "Response from Employers, " and I quote: "The following are quotes from employers who were contacted in regard to the JobTrac employment subsidy program." That means that the jobs to which Hewett and company are matching potential employees are not advertised on the employment centre board or in the Vancouver Sun or the Times-Colonist. These jobs are in fact being created with this particular qualification: This government program pays employers a 50 percent wage subsidy - up to $3 an hour - to hire and train income assistance recipients.

Having for a long time been involved in my work in social service agencies - where, sad to say, because of the funding policies of government we often rely on job creation programs for much of the work that needs to be done - I recognize that when we look at those matching kinds of dollars, we're often looking at defining the wage rate. I would be interested to know whether the Hewett Group has provided the minister with any information about the wage rates employees are receiving. Is it in fact $6 an hour, which is often what is predicated with that 50 percent subsidy; that that 50 percent subsidy not only informs what's available to employers, but it tops the amount of dollars they are prepared to pay?

I would also like to have some information about the duration of these jobs. My experience of the past five years working with over a hundred people who have been involved in a variety of these programs is that in most instances they are short-term programs; they last for six months at the outside. Your job may go for a year, but you have to be very lucky and it has to be an exceptional project. So are we in fact talking about people getting out into the workforce? About the single mum who has a couple of youngsters, who has to look after the issue of child care - which a number of members on both sides of this House have discussed - who now has to have clothing, has to pay transportation, who may have to pay for some of the employee benefits in the way of medical services that usually are not covered by these minimum jobs? Are we looking at people moving into jobs that give them some prospects to plan for their families and for their economic future?

Again I want to draw the contrast with the program from New Westminster that I've described, which is a program to put people into the real job marketplace, into jobs where there are prospects for them to advance, where there are prospects for them to get in - not at high wages; I wouldn't want to pretend that they're high wages, but at an economic market wage and with the prospect for advancement. What are we talking about when we talk about these wonderful computers that are matching people to jobs that are created in order to have the computer able to match people with the jobs? That kind of thing is not really a genuine program using the resources of the community.

I want to enter into the record another story, from a person our committee met when we traveled to Kamloops to talk to over 30 groups, to meet a large number of people and find out how things were going in that town, where the official unemployment rate is somewhere in the just-under-20 percent range. This woman, too, is working with the system: with Social Services and Housing employees, the people who are

[ Page 453 ]

on the ground with a knowledge of the recipients of social assistance, who know these clients. She's working with the college, with the Canada employment centre in Kamloops, and again she's targeting her particular client group, looking at the jobs that exist in the community, looking at needs of employers, and then planning training for that group. The article, in a publication called Women's Education, was published in the winter of 1986. She has 15 participants. It's a small group; but remember, we're talking about a very small group that has jobs in this $300, 000 project.

[3:00]

Let's find out a little bit about this group and the integrated program that is available, a program that has a human dimension as well as matching up numbers. She notes that when looking at people re-entering the workforce, in most instances one has to look not just at employment training but at the kinds of things that are going to enhance a person's total ability in the world of work. She notes the need for helping people to set priorities, to gain personal growth, to broaden general knowledge, to have job-related competencies that are not just going to fit into this particular job, but broadly to make that person a good potential worker for employers, and a person who has a strong sense of her own strength and self-worth.

Fifteen participants ranged from 30 to 56 years of age in the program that she's describing. Sixty percent were single parents on income assistance. Note the preparation that had gone into this program. Many of the women on income assistance had previously been sponsored by the Ministry of Human Resources for a three-month bridging program -good programs, ones that the ministry recognizes are often necessary to do the transition. Others were sponsored for upgrading in mathematics and English, adult basic education, the kinds of things many people need in order to move into the workplace, and they've taken refresher typing at the community college. "A team approach, in which I worked closely with Ministry of Human Resources personnel, allowed valuable preparation time for the prospective recipients."

She talks about how she modelled the program to meet the needs of her participants. I won't read it in total detail.

Note the results: of the 15 participants, 13 completed the program, one student was transferred to the personal place ment program through the Ministry of Labour, and one did not complete for family reasons. Of the 13 graduates, 11 have already been hired, one has returned to school full-time in a certified general accountant program, and one has been of fered a part-time position. One of the key reasons for the program's success was the development of working relationships within the community, and a team approach to provide support to the participants.

I'm not knocking the idea of computers, but the idea that a computer will do the kind of work that needs to happen in personnelle development, in job location and in good placement, , something we know doesn't work, any more than it works when you deal with children being sat with a computer. You need people. You need people working together. You need a knowledge of that person, that person's need, and you need to have a sense of that person's personal dignity in taking risks and setting priorities.

I think that we will find, if we look in the minister's estimates, that there are a significant number of dollars in the rehabilitation programs that are available within the ministry's local and regional offices - ones where we have skilled people who work in a team to look after their charge of assisting income assistance recipients to become economically independent.

I would like to ask the minister to give us some information. if he can, about the jobs that are in fact being created by the Hewett Group where the matching is taking place. Are these jobs a part of what is called the employment subsidy program? Is it one of the mandates of the Hewett Group to promote in the marketplace people who will create those jobs'? If those people are creating those jobs, what are the wages being paid? What is the time-frame in which those people will be employed? What kind of assistance is available to them from the Ministry of Social Services and Housing for matters relating to day care, transportation and other needs, if those jobs are barely above a minimum wage? And I consider $6 an hour a minimum wage for anyone who has family responsibilities. Could the minister give us some information about these 40 jobs that have been created? He doesn't know too much about the key staff in the Hewett Group, but perhaps he has some information about those other jobs that have been created by the Hewett Group, and what we know about the economic prospects of the people who have been placed at the end of the pilot project.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, the member doesn't seem to want to listen, or to care what the Hewett Group task is all about. Her final statement is: "Can you tell us about the jobs created by the Hewett Group?" The Hewett Group is not creating any jobs. I told you that; I said that when we issued the press release. Let me say it again: the task of the Hewett Group, in this contract that we gave them, is not to create employment. I make that point for the third or fourth or fifth time, but the member doesn't seem to want to listen.

She insists that some computer is going to take the place of human beings in some program she's talking about. Far from it. All the computer is going to do is to point the way to these marvelous programs that the member is speaking of. I applaud the program in Kamloops that found 13 people work, I think that's marvelous. Whatever method used, to do it is great. The Hewett project is not designed to create jobs; it's designed to point people to those types of programs, if that indeed is where the people should be going.

Hewett's task is not to determine what wages these people will be paid. You make an assumption, Madam Member, that everyone pointed in the direction of a job is going to be pointed in the direction of a low-paying job. Why do you make that assumption? There may be some very highly qualified people who come and register with the Hewett Group and are pointed to very high-paying jobs. I sincerely hope that's the case. I can't tell you at this moment where the 40 people have been placed. In fact, by this time it may be 80 or 100 people; I don't know that yet. The program is barely off the ground. But you always assume, it seems to me, that we're endeavouring to place people into low-paying jobs. It's not the case at all. We're trying to place people in employment that they're qualified for, and if they're qualified for high-paying jobs, I sincerely hope they get a high-paying job.

We can't guarantee the duration of any job when we point someone in the direction of employment. We sincerely hope it will be a long-term job; we have no way of determining that. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't take the job. I don't think it means that if it's a $6-an-hourjob they shouldn't take it either. If there's employment there and that's what's available and that's what a person's qualified for, that's what a

[ Page 454 ]

person should take. If it lasts six months or six years, or whatever, so much the better, and if they're good people, as you say, it will be a real job where they can advance.

I'm sure that in the program you spoke of in New Westminster, every one of them wasn't a high-paying job and every one of them didn't last forever. Some might have been short-term. We have no way of looking into the future and seeing how long a job will last.

We're not trying to dehumanize anything. The computer in the hands of people who know how to use it is merely a tool to help us do the job quickly and efficiently and get people turned around as quickly as possible. Instead of taking weeks or months, it should take minutes or hours.

In one breath you say, "I'm not knocking the computers, " but you are knocking them. You are misinterpreting - worse than that - what the program is all about. This isn't a job creation. You say: "Are they going to point them to jobs created by government?" Perhaps they might. But you can't have it both ways. You people sit over there all the time and say we should be putting more money into subsidizing labour, in silviculture and everywhere else. Your member for Vancouver East tells us that all the time. And here's your other member knocking that kind of employment, and criticizing us for sending people to that type of job.

MR. WILLIAMS: Now you're putting words in her mouth.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: That's exactly what she said: "Are they going to jobs created by JobTrac?" As if it was something really bad. They may very well be, and then again they may not be. But at least they're going to be pointed in the direction of employment, and that's what they want, and that's what we want.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'd like to note, Mr. Chairman, that I am using the report from the Hewett Group to inform my discussion this afternoon. I'd like to just once again draw the attention of the members present to two particular aspects of that report. One - and I don't have page numbers, Mr. Minister - is a page titled "Assessment and Referral Pilot Project." "This project was designed to provide better information for ministry staff on the employability of income assistance recipients." The point I have been making is that ministry staff has proved itself, in programs that I have noted - and I'm sure we could duplicate those in many parts of the province - very capable of assessing and working towards assisting income assistance recipients towards employment.

"Information for income assistance recipients on the range of available government programs." I have not addressed this at length, but I know that in my own community - and I'm sure that the member for Surrey- Guildford Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) will be able to comment about this - there are many groups that do provide that information targeted to specific groups '

"Training and job-search techniques for income assistance recipients."

Every community college has been running wall-to-wall courses - excellent courses - in that kind of programming for years now, and are proven experts in that area.

Regarding employers, I want to note that from the document coming from Hewett, they themselves seem to be circumscribing the employers to whom they are referring clients., " Information for private sector business on government programs and the availability of job-ready income assistance recipients." I would note again, the only section that speaks of response from employers says: "The following are quotes from employers who were contacted in regard to the JobTrac employment subsidy program." If they are in fact involved with other kinds of employment and employers, they haven't told us.

I think what we are looking at here is a duplication of the services and programs readily available through our community colleges, Social Services and Housing offices, through the skills of social workers, financial aid workers and rehabilitation officers, and through a variety of community groups who have developed in the communities, who are indigenous to the communities and who are able to work with government and community group sectors to assist people on income assistance. I think it's important for us not to create another PREP, or another program that is looking at new ways to invent wheels. We have the programs.

It's good to see some additional dollars in the minister's budget. But let's look instead at how we can best use them. Let's have some outcomes that are defensible for the dollars invested. We on this side of the House have a concern that there be accountability that says that the outcomes are in fact in relation to the dollars expended. I would maintain that $2, 000 to put 120 people to work sounds a lot better, especially since it works within structures that are already a part of our public accounting and our public dollars. That sounds a lot better to me than $7, 500. It may decrease in some time, but I understand that there is another contract to be let and more dollars to be invested before we see some of the results. I'm sure that after April I the Hewett Group is not working for nothing; they are not working without a contract.

[3:15]

My final question to the minister would be: could he please advise us what amount in the estimates is available to this particular group? What kind of accountability will this group have, not to evaluate itself but to be evaluated by someone who has no interest other than to accurately report the success of the project they are involved with? We will, I'm sure, in the course of the year, once we know what is planned for this program, want to hear how it is going. So if the minister could tell us within his estimates what kinds of contracts have been let to the Hewett Group, what kinds of evaluation are there and what kinds of tendering may be involved, we would appreciate having that information.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'd be happy to answer the member's questions. First of all, I'd like to read something into the record regarding the project that I wasn't aware of and am pleased that my deputy has made me aware of. Our clients on the project are asked to give the Hewett Group a salary range that they will accept. They voluntarily register for the program, and then they give the group a salary range that they will accept. They are then offered jobs that fall into the salary range they chose. I think that answers a lot of questions about the jobs they'll be offered - whether they are at minimum wage, etc.

The other item that the member touched upon was accountability, or the evaluation of the work. I guess the simplest and best answer to that is that we will evaluate whether they are doing their job for us. The professionals in my ministry will do the evaluation, and they are accountable to the Ministry of Social Services and Housing.

[ Page 455 ]

1 have some up-to-date numbers as of today from the project. In Kamloops 25 people have been placed and there are nine job orders in process. In Surrey 21 people have been placed and 17 job orders are being processed. So it is just barely getting off the ground, Madam Member, and I'm sure you can see that it's starting to work. As we move into the lower mainland, where the numbers get larger, I'm sure we will see this really start to pay off.

You asked about upcoming contracts. We have decided in the ministry that because of the success of Surrey and Kamloops to date, we are going to extend those projects to the end of June. But we are going to initiate two Vancouver sites between May and August, and we will be re-tendering that contract. That contract will be in the neighbourhood of slightly over $500, 000, and it will be re-tendered. On the first contract, we went through an extensive tendering process. When we move into the Vancouver area, we are going to re-tender.

I should read into the record that the wages paid by the Hewett Group for the people they have hired themselves are as follows: the interviewers receive $11.25; the data processors, $7.50 an hour; and the receptionists, $7 per hour. I think I've answered most or all of the member's questions.

MS. A. HAGEN: One brief question to the minister, please. Would the minister please advise us on the amount of the tender for the Hewett Group to the end of June in the Kamloops and Surrey areas? I understand him to have informed us of the amount of the contract that he proposes to let in Vancouver from May until August, but I didn't hear the minister comment about the dollars for the extension of the Hewett contract.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't have that number in front of me, I'm sorry. I can get it for you, but I just don't have it.

MR. MILLER: I want to take a little time to outline the position that we find ourselves in in the north. I will refer specifically to the area that I'm most familiar with, and that's Prince Rupert, but I believe some of the comments I make are applicable to some of the other small communities in rural British Columbia.

First of all, I want to say that I'm disappointed, although I don. t ink the door is shut completely. I'd requested the mi mister to visit Prince Rupert as part of the comprehensive review of social policy, with specific reference to families and children, and I was disappointed that thus far only two communities have been visited, I believe. I could be wrong; it could be three.

Nonetheless, I think that some of those smaller communities such as Prince Rupert are deserving, and I think it's required that the ministry take a look at those communities, because I think we've got a mix of social problems there that are maybe not unique but are intense and certainly very severe in those communities. So maybe the minister could make note of this and advise me that he would be pleased to put Prince Rupert on the agenda at some point.

I want to take a moment to read some articles and letters concerning the problems that we have in Prince Rupert, so that the minister will be more fully aware of what I'm talking about. The first article deals with a meeting that took place in the community, and the headline is: "Officials Discuss Plight of Rupert Street Kids." The article goes on to point out some of the problems that exist, referring particularly to kids who live on the street: "Some appear in the soup lines at Harbour Light" - which is run by the Salvation Army. "Some sleep in the ducts at hospitals or in cars. Some runaways are found in the video games rooms."

It goes on to recite some statistics relative to those people who are sleeping in cars and ducts at hospitals:

"There are about 25 children between 15 to 17 years old who spend a lot of time on the streets, said a spokesperson from the MSSH . . . . There are eight under the age of 15 who do not attend school. Some are on probation. One is an alcoholic. Another is a runaway. Discussion at the last meeting focused on facilities available to provide youngsters a safe bed at night, or a place to gather that could provide some direction."

So here we have a community trying to grapple with the very serious issue of children who are essentially living on the street.

"Many of the youngsters don't want to go home because of alcohol and other problems at home. An estimated 13 young people under the age of 15 have shown up at the Harbour Light soup line of the Salvation Army. Their parents generally have alcoholic problems, said Captain Bob Townson, Salvation Army."

The Salvation Army and the Friendship House talk about the availability of drop-in centres. The Friendship House says that they have some capacity; school-age children are welcome. There are no trained counsellors.

"Friendship House has beds, but only for men who arc low in funds and looking for work, not for youngsters. About ten years ago, there used to be street workers who were hired by Friendship House and funded by what was then the Ministry of Human Resources. Street workers who can work with the kids and preferably have been there themselves could help, participants at the meeting agreed."

Another story concerns the Applewaite group home in Prince Rupert. It's being closed down and reopened to accept children who don't have problems as severe as those of the kind of children who were using that home until fairly recently.

"Previously the home had some fairly disturbed kids and needed backup from the mental health unit, but without a psychiatrist in Prince Rupert, help was difficult.

"Another intensive group home might open up somewhere else in the region."

No promise of any facility to deal with these children. It is just that we are closing down because we can't deal with the intense problems that these children have. We may open up another one somewhere in the district.

"Child care workers are 'pretty busy, ' says Clive Bickley, child care worker at the home. 'There is a lineup, and we are pretty well full all of the time.' This situation on the streets with kids is at the critical point."

The child care workers - and I will go on to discuss this later - are making a proposal to city council for a wilderness camp for youngsters at the home. So with that kind of background, my first question, Mr. Minister, is obviously whether you are prepared to come to Prince Rupert with that committee or part of that committee to see firsthand, to talk to the

[ Page 456 ]

people who are involved firsthand and to try to get a handle on some of these problems in terms of hopefully providing some solutions.

I have also a couple of letters that I received and the minister received. One is a very touching letter that I won't read in its entirety, but it is written by the principal of Roosevelt Park Elementary School. He's obviously a very concerned individual, an educator who has taken the time. I spoke to him afterwards about the letter, and I said: "Do you mind if I quote parts of this letter? Because some people are reluctant." He thought about it for a while, and he said: "No, because I think the situation is so serious that I want you to do that."

I will just quote a couple of the incidents. This is an elementary school in Prince Rupert.

"In this school two boys, age 14 years, 2 months and 12 years, 7 months have ceased attending school and are living on the street rather than at home. Their parents cannot control them, they refuse to attend school, the probation office has no influence on them, and the Ministry of Social Services and Housing has no support services to give these boys.

"We also have many children who come from single-parent and blended-family homes. Fifteen of these children are at risk socially and academically. Six children have suffered sexual abuse as identified by MSSH and the RCMP and are receiving minimal counselling at school. There is little or no psychological, psychiatric or community resource help available for these children or their families."

Now I realize I am straying, and I am going to make a point with regard to that, that other ministries are obviously involved in providing services. But I think there is a point to be made. It goes on, dealing with drug and alcohol counselling. Surely the events up-Island in recent days are a kind of a warning signal that we should all look at in terms of what is happening in the community. Maybe I speak with some passion. I have children. I have seen a lot of them go through quite successfully and with no problem, but I realize the risk that many youngsters run these days out in the community.

They refer to a program that we used to have in Prince Rupert. In my opinion it was very successful. It was funded jointly with the city of Prince Rupert. I should point out at this time that the city has never been reluctant to put its money where its mouth is. I used to be a member of city council in Prince Rupert, and we were pretty good at . . . . In fact, we had a policy that if we thought a program was worthwhile, even though we felt the responsibility for that program might lay at the provincial level, we were always prepared, and the Prince Rupert council of today is prepared, to put some money up front.

[3:30]

If we think it's important, we're prepared to help out whether that is in salary or facilities or whatever. We put money into Project Sea Adventure, as did the then Ministry of Human Resources and the Attorney-General's department.

Project Sea Adventure was a worthwhile program; it dealt with kids; it took them out of the community, which is really, in my belief, the only way you can reach some of these youngsters. It was dropped. It was discontinued several years ago. Maybe that is a result of one of the main people in it kind of falling out, but nonetheless it was the kind of program that, in my opinion, is ideal. I would like the minister to comment, although I did say that it is out of his purview with regard to that type of way of dealing with these kids, who after all, come generally from the homes of people who require the services of your ministry.

I will read one more letter before I get on to the other topic. It is from a woman who is actively involved in providing special services to children in Prince Rupert. They have formed the Community Enrichment Society, which is a kind of an umbrella organization that tries to coordinate and offer these services. She lists 15 items that in her opinion require some positive action by government, although I don't think government solves everybody's problems. At the same time, you can't say that government doesn't have a responsibility to move into those areas and provide the kinds of services that are required.

She goes on to list these 15. She says:

"With your attention now focused on Prince Rupert, I will list the lack of services which have put our area in serious trouble: no psychiatrist;" - that may have been taken care of recently; for many months the Prince Rupert office of the mental health office was closed down completely, and I understand that steps are being taken to try to reopen that - "no child psychologist; no mental health; no crisis line; no children's services through the psychiatric day care centre (over 18 only) ; no sexual abuse prevention program; no program to deal with sexually abused victims; no psychiatrists, psychologists or social workers in private practice; no program to deal with behavioural and non-attendance problems within the elementary and junior secondary schools; no program to deal with families in crisis when a sexually abused child discloses; no program to offer in-depth support to foster parents who have taken in sexually abused children; no program to assist sexually abused victims and families through the court process; no one to deal with suicide, depression, runaways and violent behaviour in children; a high turnover rate of social workers, probation officers, and a lack of health professionals, especially in the north; treatment facilities in the south are swamped with hundreds of new calls for help, Prince Rupert doesn't have treatment centres or even a phone number to call."

So you can see . . . . There are other letters, and I won't take the time to read them into the record, but there's a real crying out in that community to try to get a handle on what they see as a very, very serious social problem.

Specifically with regard to the street worker program, I'm wondering if the minister would entertain requests to reinstitute that program in Prince Rupert. It seems to me that when it was in place at least there was some vehicle or mechanism whereby these children could be reached. On the other side of that there's a real problem, because once you reach them, what kind of programs and facilities are available to treat them? I suggest that these are all too lacking, and I would ask the minister to comment on any plans he might have in that area as well.

As well I would like his comments: the ministry previously put money into Project Sea Adventure, and I'd like to know what the minister thinks generally of that kind of program and whether or not it's worth putting money into, and if it's not functioning now, whether or not there should be some encouragement from the ministry level to get those kinds of programs in place.

[ Page 457 ]

Lastly, I'd like to ask the minister what his views are . . . . I've touched on the need for the cooperation of three ministries here, the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith), who is responsible for probation services and dealing with people who come in conflict with the law, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck), who is responsible for providing those kinds of health services that in my opinion are really needed to deal with some of these children - psychologists, mental health workers in general . . . . I'd like to know what's going on, and what's taking place in an interministry or an interdisciplinary way to coordinate the activities of these three ministries so that we can provide effective programs and funding in places like Prince Rupert and obviously wherever these kinds of situations develop. I think there's a lot of talk of this kind of getting together, but I really don't see a very intensive level of it. I'd like to know what's taking place to bring the ministries together to really coordinate. To decide that, sure, a youngster may need . . . . His family is on social assistance. But that leads to other problems -health problems, problems in terms of dealing with the ministry of the Attorney-General.

So I'll leave it at that, and I'm hopeful that the minister will give me a positive answer on my first question. There's nothing like coming to a community and taking a look and talking to the people who are involved. So with that I'll allow the minister to respond.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I sincerely thank the member for his comments. They're well taken and well made.

Yes, I do recall getting a request from you to take the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy to Prince Rupert. However, it was just impossible to do it this spring. When we decided to take the committee on the road . . . . I'm sure you can appreciate that it's difficult to get six or seven ministers all agreeing to a schedule, because they all have very busy timetables, and it's becoming especially more difficult now that the House is sitting, and it puts added pressures on everyone, so we are finding that difficulty. I would dearly love to take the committee into virtually every community in the province, but that's impossible. What we tried to do is hit key centres and then have the smaller communities represented at the larger ones. I realize the difficulty with Prince Rupert, and the distance involved between Prince Rupert and Prince George, and when we went to Prince George, which was the first of our series of meetings, I don't believe we had anyone come all the way from Prince Rupert. They came from Kitimat, Terrace, Vanderhoof and that area, but I don't think anyone came all the way from Prince Rupert, and I can understand why. It's an awfully long way.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

So I'll make you this commitment. I'm not going to be sure, Mr. Member, if we can get the whole Committee on Social Policy to Prince Rupert, but I'll make a commitment to go there myself as soon as I'm able. We haven't set an agenda for the committee past later this month. We've done three communities - Prince George, Courtenay, Kamloops -and we're going to do Vancouver East later this month. Those are the four communities we're doing this spring; we will try to set a timetable for this fall, but we haven't done that as yet. But I'll give you a commitment that failing the whole committee going there I'll go up myself and spend the day. I was in Prince Rupert several times when in my former ministry and I always enjoyed it very much. In fact, I've been very fortunate', every time I go to Prince Rupert the sun shines, so they keep asking me back. So you will know that the day I go there the sun will shine - I hope.

I also appreciate your comments on the problem of street kids. It is a growing problem in all municipalities, not just Prince Rupert. It's a problem that seems to be peculiar to our times; aggravated, I guess, by the times we live in, the pressures on children and the increase in single-parent families. It's one that we're very cognizant of on this side of the House; it's also one - as you point out - that tends to fall between ministries. A lot of these responsibilities just seem to fall between the stools, as it were, and nobody has responsibility until something happens. If they run afoul of the law, of course they become the problems of the Attorney-General's ministry; if they develop health problems, they become the problems of the Minister of Health; and if they are at risk from either abuse or neglect, then they become wards of my ministry.

But failing all that, if they just leave home and are on the streets, they seem to fall between jurisdictions. We are addressing that. You say: 'Are we coordinating between ministries?" I think better than ever before. The social service ministries are working together in government as never before. We have our social policy committee meetings every week, of course, which include all the social ministries, as well as a deputies' committee which meets every week to try to coordinate all of these activities. We are working in concert with each other to try to address the very problems of which you speak.

In your area, there are no reductions in dollars. In fact, you will have more money in that region in '87-88. But to reiterate what I said the other day, decisions on social services spending are made at the regional level; each regional director has the prerogative, within his global budget, to set the priorities for his area. So I would suggest to you, as I've suggested to all the other MLAs, to have a close working relationship with your local offices and regional directors, because they're the people who on the spot make some of the decisions you're speaking of. The regional director in your area is a fellow named Cam Miller; you probably know Cam. Talk to him as well. I appreciate your talking to me, and I will go up and have a look at your community and meet with the people. I'll give you plenty of notice when I'm going there.

But by all means stay in close working relationship with the regional director, because he's the fellow who makes a lot of the decisions that you speak of. If money needs to be put into a specific program - maybe the one you talk about, the Project Sea Adventure . . . . I'm not intimately familiar with the project, but it sounds like a good one, and it's something you should convince the regional director to take a close look at. He's the guy who will probably make the final decision within his global budget.

I hope I've answered all of your questions; I've given it my best shot. If I haven't, you can let me know.

MR. MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I appreciate your responses. I just want to pursue a couple of things with regard to coordination.

You can say you have coordination and you have meetings of deputy ministers, but is there an effective coordinating group? I'll refer to what took place - I don't know if it still exists - between some of the hard-line ministries, the

[ Page 458 ]

Environment and Land Use Committee, where there was a definite group that dealt with these problems. I notice, for example, that when concerned people in Prince Rupert -and probably other communities - start writing to the government, as people do when they feel there's a serious problem, they send you letters that deal with issues outside your jurisdiction.

Coordination is an easy thing to talk about, but is there a definite group, beyond a meeting of deputy ministers, with a name and a title, with a mandate to deal with these problems among the three ministries and further down the line in terms of going to Mr. Miller? I've talked to Mr. Miller - I have excellent relations generally with all the heads of provincial agencies in my community - and he's pretty frank with me in terms of the seriousness of the problems with street kids and the need for some kind of action. But he alone can't initiate it. We have to have the Ministry of Attorney-General. Of course, when we talk about budgets at that level, it's pretty hard to get anything going. It has to be at the top level. There has to be a defined agency or coordinating group among the ministries that deals with this, in terms of planning, budgeting and all the rest of it. So I wouldn't mind some comments on that.

Finally, I've been in touch with two individuals who are currently running a group home. One of them is a bit of a character, but he's had a lot of success with children in the community because of his nature, I suppose. He feels quite strongly that what's required is a wilderness setting to remove children from the environment of the streets, to get them out of town so they can't easily run back into town. That's really the only way you can isolate them in terms of starting to deal with them. Again, acknowledging that it's not your purview specifically, I'm wondering if you would be prepared to commit yourself, or at least some of your top officials, to meet with this individual who, I understand, is coming to Victoria on the 13th or 14th. We could probably talk about the details of that afterwards, but if you would make that commitment and respond maybe a little bit more to my question, in terms of cooperation at both the ministry and local levels . . . .

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, sure, you provide me details of this person, and when they're coming. I can usually fit it in somewhere in my agenda. No matter how busy it is, we'll meet with him.

The other thing is that we are attempting - and, I think, doing it very well - to coordinate all the social service ministries. First of all, we are doing it with the social policy committee of cabinet and with our trips around the province, and we're getting a look at social problems on an overall basis, rather than one minister at a time going out. Secondly, as I mentioned, there's the deputies' interministry committee, and there are local committees that do the same thing. You talk about a children's committee. Well, that is the deputy ministers' committee. They look after the problems of children. We have published an interministry manual on child abuse, covering the various ministries. As I said, never before has this type of cooperation and coordination taken place, with the various ministries working together.

[3:45]

1 also have a follow-up comment here - a letter drafted for me by the people involved with the Sea Adventure project. It was written to the principal, Mr. Forssell, and I'll just read a little bit of it for you. First, the Community Enrichment Society originally ran Project Sea Adventure.

"Both the city and my ministry terminated fund because it was no longer meeting its mandate. However, the money allocated for that program was included in the ministry's Special Services to Children program in Prince Rupert. The number of child care workers has been reduced, but the ones now employed by the society work on a full-time basis, rather than a large number working only part-time. The overall time availability of child care workers in Prince Rupert has increased."

So I think I've endeavoured to answer most of your questions.

I don't want to expand on this too much, because it's a little bit premature, but I realize the problem with some of these, especially teens, who fall between the jurisdictions, and I'm working towards an interministry solution to that problem. This ministry will probably take the lead in that. I mentioned that in the House. I will mention again that it is a problem we're very much aware of and that I want to address. I haven't gone beyond the planning stage of it yet, but I started late last fall to put in place a plan for the troubled teens - as I would call them - who seem to fall under no one's jurisdiction. So I'll leave it at that. It should be coming to fruition very quickly. I know of the problem and some of how it manifests itself - as you said, the tragic accident in Nanaimo, the other day, the increase in teen suicides, etc. There's no question that all across North America it's becoming a burgeoning problem. We are addressing it.

MR. MILLER: I want to leave with just one brief follow-up. I've read the letter that the minister quoted in the House, but I think it could be somewhat misleading in that my understanding was that the ministry only funded . . . . There were three teams in Project Sea Adventure. One was funded by the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, one by the Ministry of Attorney-General and the other by the city of Prince Rupert. I think they were only about $30, 000. Although I say the letter can be misleading, you're only talking about 30 grand here, and that's not a heck of a lot of money when it comes to providing some resources.

The minister may or may not want to comment on that, but I just want to get that on the record.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Madam Chairman, just a very brief comment. I don't have in the letter the amount of money, so I take your word for it that it was $30, 000. 1 know it doesn't sound like an awful lot of money, but when you start multiplying it by every project in every community, it does add up to a lot of dollars.

One other item that I will read into the record for your information: last month an additional social worker position was added in the Prince Rupert office. So we have added another social worker, bringing the number of social workers in Prince Rupert to seven. I mention that only to point out to you that we do adjust in areas as needed. We may not add to our total FE's - full-time equivalents - in the ministry, but we do move people around to fill needs as needs increase here and diminish there. I pointed that out in the House last week and gave a few examples, and this is just one more example where we do move people around as they're required.

MR. CASHORE: Madam Chairman, I would like to say that it does my heart good to hear the hon. member for Prince

[ Page 459 ]

Rupert refer to Friendship House. It brings back memories of 1959, when I worked with the Rev. R. W. K. Elliott in Prince Rupert at the time that Friendship House was founded. Dr. Elliott actually came and worked for the ministry here in Victoria toward the end of his career. So it was good to hear about the good work that they do there.

Madam Chairman, and Mr. Minister, I'd like now to move to the issue of housing. First of all, I'd like some clarification on the issue of social housing units. We know that in 1986 the three-year federal-provincial agreement was signed, and there was a cost-sharing with an expectation, 1 believe, of 6, 000 social housing units over a three-year period. As the minister stated on Tuesday of last week in the House, for 1986 the number of units allocated was 1, 895. We understand that these are currently being developed under the proposal call system administered by the B.C. Housing Management Commission, meaning that although they are 1986 units, the actual construction is taking place in 1987. Now I wonder if the minister would clarify what he stated to be the number of units for the current year - that is, 1987. Does he mean that there will be 1, 886 social housing units built in B.C. in '87-88, or is this number the total proposed for '87 and '88 - for each of those years? It doesn't add up to over 6, 000 units over a three-year period if '87-88 is the second year of that program, as stated in the number of units. For instance, if 1, 895 units were allocated for '86 and 1, 886 for '87, that would mean that in the third year there would remain 3, 781 units to be built.

Also, I'm interested to know if the unit allocation has changed from a calendar-year basis to a different basis. I could understand if that is the case, given the government fiscal year, which I believe would be a change from the way in which units were allocated during the time that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation covered that program.

That is one question. Another one is, have the units for the second call - that would be for the year 1987 - been announced at any time other than during your remarks last Tuesday? Was that the first time that those units were announced? I'm not aware of having heard of them being announced at some other time. I'm just wondering if that was the official announcement that that was going to be the second lot of units to be allocated. Also, with regard to those units for the second year of that federal-provincial agreement, I would be interested in knowing how many are for families, seniors, singles, disabled and intermediate care, or if those figures are available at this time.

Moving on, I commented during the time of the throne speech debate that I was very concerned that it would appear that this government and this ministry are missing an opportunity, with this being the United Nations International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. I would think, at the very least, that it affords this ministry an opportunity to present a demonstration project that could be very, very beneficial to British Columbia, and I would encourage this ministry to still consider this as a possibility and a very timely opportunity. I think the point has been well made on many occasions, both in this House and elsewhere, that when you combine the need for housing, and we know there is a serious need in this province, with the need for jobs - and we know that employment is a very serious concern to this government - and the need for the marketing of B.C. products, which would be used in the construction of this housing, that it would make a great deal of sense to come forward with a very bold proposal that would be a win, win, win in these three different areas, and something that would go far beyond the number of units that have been announced under the federal-provincial agreement. I would think that this could go a long, long way towards helping to resolve some of our economic problems, because of the stimulating effect that it would have on the economy, and of realizing that this might be just one of the kinds of initiatives that would free up a lot of the money that British Columbians have in savings accounts, once they see that such measures were being taken in good faith to stimulate the economy by this government.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has data on the direct and indirect impact of the construction of housing. They report that 2.04 person-years per dwelling unit produced is a result of this kind of project. Also, when there is renovation, it's actually more labour-intensive. Not only does renovation often save historic buildings, but at least 25 percent of the costs go into wages. Indeed 25 per cent of all social housing costs go into wages, but when renovations are involved there is even a greater amount of job creation. I would recommend for study a paper entitled "Housing and the Economy, " by the planning and mortgage division of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, dated January 1985. In the conclusion of that paper, it states:

"It is clear that housing can be used as an employment-generator. It is estimated that, on average, some 2.04 man-years of employment are generated for each dwelling unit started. However, only permanent programs designed to increase the affordability of housing can bring about permanent employment effects. Untargeted short-term programs, on the other hand, can only alter the pattern of employment over time, leaving the number of employed essentially the same over a housing cycle.

"This also implies that to minimize the contribution to the instability in residential construction, and to maximize the add-on or incremental effect on housing starts and thus employment generation, stimulative programs of a short-term nature could be targeted to low-income Canadians and to the construction of new housing. Because of the short response lag to stimulus and the ability of the industry to increase capacity rapidly, housing is still one of the more effective instruments to reignite growth in times of sagging economic activity."

I think that that perspective is one that could well be very beneficial to the people of British Columbia at this time. With regard to the United Nations International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, I would point out that there's going to be a conference on homelessness in B.C. at the University of B.C., and the keynote speaker will be Stephen Lewis, Canada's ambassador to the United Nations. This is one of the ways that the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless is being addressed. I think, besides the kinds of initiatives that government could take, it's very clear here that the community is involved, is interested in cooperating with government on such initiatives and in trying to find creative ways that these three needs - the marketing of our products, the need for employment and the need for housing - can work together.

I'd now like to move on to the question of the I percent tax on real estate that was announced in the budget. With regard to housing, as it affects a great many of our young people who are hoping to get into their first dwelling, I don't think we could say that it's either your prime example of

[ Page 460 ]

getting the government off the back of business or a good example of getting government off the backs of people.

One question that relates to this is: will this apply to those social housing units projected to the social housing program? If the answer is yes, have you calculated the cost of this to social housing groups, city councils, etc., who are involved in acquiring property? I think it really can be answered with a yes or a no. Will this I percent tax be an additional burden to those groups that are involved in the delivery of social housing and to those municipalities that help to facilitate it? I am very concerned about this in my own riding, because I know that our council in the district of Coquitlam is very seriously looking at participating with the community by going into some social housing projects.

[4:00]

I'd like to turn now to the B.C. government second mortgage program. We have been talking to the assistant superintendent of the home mortgage branch here in Victoria and have confirmed some of the points of interest that we have in this.

As I understand it, the B.C. government second mortgage is supposed to help first-time home buyers finance their purchase. However, I think that we should recognize that there is a ceiling of $85, 000 on the cost of the home in order to qualify for the B. C. second. I would like to ask the minister if he would consider taking a look at this because of the high cost of housing in the lower mainland and also in places such as the capital region. This would mean, given the cost of housing, that many young families would have a very difficult time being able to qualify for that second mortgage, because they simply wouldn't be able to find a home to suit their needs that would be under that amount.

Also with regard to the B.C. government second mortgage, I would point out that the interest rate seems to be substantially above the going bank rates. Now I realize that it is a second mortgage, but at the present time it is 10 1/4 percent, and that's considerably higher than what is available on the market for first mortgages right now. Yet unfortunately, so many people the government is trying to help could not qualify for the kind of first mortgage that they would like to be able to get. The interest rate is locked in for the term of a second mortgage, and I think, especially during this time of low mortgage rates~ that it would be very, very important for your ministry to take a look at that.

We had a call from a man in Surrey who got a B.C. government second mortgage in 1981 at 15 percent. Now he's having financial difficulty, and he's having problems meeting his payments, and unless there is a foreclosure, he is stuck with paying that interest rate. I would think it would be very appropriate for this government to try to find some way that they could give some kind of relief to that person. Often persons in such circumstances cannot qualify to simply go down the street to the friendly bank and get consideration, because they don't have the collateral that would make that possible for them.

I would just like to put forward a question with regard to social housing projects that designate units for physically disabled people. They receive a 10 percent capital grant subsidy, and in addition a 5 percent target exists for such units. No such incentive program exists for mentally handicapped people, and I wonder if the minister would take a look at that.

I think it is very important that we commit ourselves to making available social housing that will ensure access to quality, affordable housing regardless of an individual's economic circumstances.

I think sometimes in statements that have been made with regard to . . . .

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Time, hon. member.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The reason I called time there is that number one, the member's time was up, but if he asks me any more questions I am going to forget what they were by the time he sits down.

I am going to try to go through the long shopping-list that he rattled off there and see if I can't answer most of them.

In 1986 we committed ourselves to building 1, 895 units of social housing. In 1987 we are committed to building 1, 886. To meet our commitment for the three-year project of 6, 000 units, that would leave us 2, 219 to build in 1988. So we are on target. We are going to meet our commitments for 1986 and 1987, and I have no doubt that we will meet our commitments for 1988.

The next item that the member mentioned was the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless by the United Nations. Just a few facts that I happen to have in front of me. First of all, the focus is on deteriorating conditions in the Third World, rapid urbanization, squatter settlements, etc. But North American homeless are also identified.

Estimates of the homeless vary considerably and are unreliable. Some 20, 000 to 40, 000 are estimated for Canada; that is a pretty broad range currently being used. The Canadian Council on Social Development has done a homeless survey for Canada by province; release is expected in early April, so that is imminent. Ontario and Quebec appear to have the bulk of Canada's homeless problem. Ontario particularly is heavily involved in promotion and spending on the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. Current emergency shelters in Vancouver have some vacancies, for example -little evidence of real homelessness. The problem is more a lack of affordable long-term housing coupled with the social behavioural problems.

A couple of statistics here. The BCHMC conditionally approved two projects in 1986 for the downtown east side. DERA is building 90 units for seniors, older singles, 45-plus; Mavis McMullen Society, 38 units, single women, 45-plus, plus single-parent families. The projects are examples of B.C.'s action to reduce the risk of homelessness. A further proposal call for between 150 and 175 units is planned for 1987.

BCHMC is sponsoring a workshop in successful approaches to homelessness at a national conference to be held in Ottawa, September 16 to 18, 1987. BCHMA has also underwritten costs of $1, 000 for a Third World social development leader to participate in a housing training program in Canada. BCHMA has also agreed to participate in a provincial International Year of Shelter for the Homeless workshop in May 1987. Group homes for the mentally disabled, a group at risk of homelessness, continue to be a high priority for BCHMC.

The member talked about economic impact, and I will just quote a figure from proposed housing for 1987. The 1, 886 new social housing units will be constructed with funding obtained through private lenders, estimated at $113 million. These funds will generate nearly 32, 000 man-years of employment throughout greater Vancouver, Vancouver Island, and northern and southern B.C.

[ Page 461 ]

The member went on to talk about the B.C. second mortgage for first-time home-buyers. It is a program that we evaluate on an ongoing basis. In fact, we have just finished taking another close look at it, We must remember that that program was intended for people most in need, the first-time buyer buying a modest home, not for someone buying a very expensive home or for the second- or third-time buyer. But with that in mind, we are constantly taking a look at the ceilings we place on it, and in light of last week's federal government announcement of increasing the amount that they would lend on a first mortgage and the amount they would insure, we are taking another look at it to see if $85, 000 is a realistic number. We just recently instructed staff to extrapolate some figures on that and assess the impact on the treasury, and also to see if we are fulfilling the need by leaving it at $85, 000. We'll probably have an answer back on that in a week or two. The rate, I suggest, is not a bad rate for a second mortgage. It's considerably less than what is available out there in the private market, if you look around the market at what second mortgages go for.

The only other thing I could reiterate - something I mentioned a moment ago - is that this ministry, through purchase of service, puts a lot of money into shelter for the mentally handicapped. I haven't got the dollar numbers at my fingertips, but it is a considerable amount of money,

Another item is the I percent property acquisition tax. I think it would best be canvassed under the estimates of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), or when we are debating the bill. It is a bill before the House, so I think we'd best leave that one there and canvass it either in debate on the bill or in the Minister of Finance's estimates.

MR. CASHORE: I just want to say that under the federal-provincial social housing agreement, I understand, the co-op program is still being operated by the federal government, but there is a portion of the agreement in effect whereby the British Columbia government has the right to designate a percentage of those in need - I believe it's one half of the 30 percent, or 15 percent - as being people who would be on income assistance. I have no complaint with that. But I sometimes wonder if in statements made about the co-op housing program there isn't something of a philosophical difference between the two governments on what the co-op program really is.

I have a letter here that was written in Ottawa by Marilyn Sloan, special assistant to the Prime Minister, on January 13 of this year, and she says:

"The new cooperative housing program developed in consultation with the Cooperative Housing Foundation of Canada, has been designed to provide housing security for moderate-income households who can pay market rents but who cannot afford home-ownership. Although it is not meant to be a social housing program, some units in each cooperative will be reserved for low-income people. The majority of tenants, however, will pay market rents."

I would like to say for the record that I think that co-ops are a very socially responsible sector of our body politic. Sometimes it is felt that people staying there are perhaps benefiting because they have a moderate income on the upper side of what would be described as moderate. Yet I think it should be remembered that when people move out of those projects, they don't make a windfall profit. If the value of housing has gone up incredibly, they don't get the benefit of that. That remains a benefit of the co-op itself. In that way, I think, it contributes to a kind of collective and socially responsible philosophy. I just want to point out that many other kinds of housing are subsidized - housing that isn't necessarily for low-income people. I think MURBs would be one example.

Also, with regard to social housing, it is sometimes felt that there's a process there that cuts out the private sector. Again for the record, I would like to point out that in social housing, even that which is developed by social housing societies, 90 percent of all the profits and all the work goes to the private sector, the way it is now. So there is a good relationship in social housing between the private sector and those community organizations who are involved in that.

I would like to say a few words about tenants' rights. Again, I would like to call for all permanent residents of hotels and rooming houses to be included as tenants under the Residential Tenancy Act. I would like to call for recognition that we need province-wide minimum repair standards to be set, incorporating municipal authority for local enforcement with avenues for expedient tenant recourse of all infractions. I would like to call for the abolition of security deposits and point out that there are no security deposits in Ontario and that the system works well there. I believe that monetary disputes should be removed from the court system, and there should be control over unjustified rent increases, with realistic avenues for review, especially on older low-rent units.

[4:15]

Madam Chair, I was going to sit down at this point and let the minister answer, because those are my questions on housing. So I will move to the next item that I was going to be dealing with, and then when he returns I'll sit down.

The budget states that funding for services to the disabled will increase to $147.7 million, I would like to know if the minister would given us a breakdown on all the planned programs for the disabled. Will he table that information in the House? That's my first question under this new set of questions.

The second is with regard to crisis grants. As the minister acknowledged the other day, crisis grants are often refused when people apply for them and very often they are refused to singles. We have pointed out that, according to the SPARC report, singles are suffering from a 71 percent shortfall in terms of a subsistence amount that they need simply to get by. I know that the minister has responded to that in the press and in the House and has tried to make points that would diminish the quality of the SPARC report. I think that any time a report is put forward by any organization, we can certainly find ways to pick away at it no matter how many dollars or how powerful the corporation may be that is behind the production of such a report. But I think that that is to quibble and that if we looked at the basic information coming through from the SPARC report, there still is a truth within it that needs to be recognized, no matter how much we try to downgrade it with the various kinds of arguments that might be put forward. In this case, I still think and will say again that the SPARC report stands as a very solid and important piece of research.

So with regard to crisis grants, I think it becomes very much apparent that there are people in our society who don't have enough money to be able to eat properly, that they find themselves often appealing for a grant and being turned down, and that they also go to some of the outlets in the community such as food banks and soup lines. I would submit at this point that this ministry depends on charitable

[ Page 462 ]

organizations. Often these organizations, because they have to set priorities and they are limited in terms of their resources, have a families-first policy. What I would like to know is: will the minister admit that singles do not have enough to eat on income assistance and that the ministry actually relies on food banks, soup lines and various other ways that people have to try to provide for themselves, which often includes going through garbage? I've seen this happening myself in back alleys throughout many parts of communities in British Columbia.

Recently a woman who had applied for a crisis grant and been turned down called my office. When I was discussing this with the supervisor in that particular district, trying to go through what actually happened and compare her story with the story that the staff were telling me, it turned out that they were both telling the same story: that is, that after she had applied for her crisis grant, she was told she was not eligible to receive it; she hadn't demonstrated that she had tried to make use of every other resource available in the community. She said: "What kinds of resources would you be referring to?" and the answer was food banks, the Salvation Army, St. Vincent de Paul and this sort of thing.

When I was talking to the personnel in the Social Services and Housing office, I said: "From this story, it seems to me there definitely is a policy that the ministry depends on this type of resource in order to top up what people need." The person working in that office said: "No, that's not the case." But when I said: "This woman told me you actually gave her a list of outlets. Did you or did you not?" Yes, they had given her a list of outlets where she could try to get something because her family was without food that weekend.

So I think we have a situation here where it is policy, and it isn't policy. It isn't policy in that it is not policy for the ministry to recognize that it does depend on this, and yet it is policy to tell people they have to exhaust every possible resource available to them in the community. I submit that that is a contradictory situation, and a situation that I think causes unnecessary problems for a great many people.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I try to respond to all of the member's questions. I apologize that I was out of the room for some of them, but nature calls. My deputy took notes for me; unfortunately, his handwriting is atrocious so I might not get them all absolutely correct, but I will give it my best shot.

First of all, in the social housing for which we are responsible, we do maintain minimum repair standards. As far as a breakdown of all programs for the disabled, I don't have it right at the moment, but I can get it for the member if he wishes.

As far as rent controls or some such thing for those on income assistance, the answer is no. Those people are treated the same as anyone else. We get requests all the time, for example, to pay rents or shelter allowances directly to landlords because it would make the landlord's life easier. But we don't wish to do that, the same as we don't wish to tell people where to spend their money when they are on income assistance. We want the landlord to treat these people the same as he would any other tenant, and he's responsible for collecting the rents the same as for any other tenant.

On the SPARC report, we attempted to answer that in total. We didn't pick away at it, as suggested. We took the whole SPARC report and put out a written response to it. Many of the figures are subject to debate and interpretation, so we don't take their report as gospel. We covered that fairly well last week as to whether it was scientific or not.

The other question that the member asked was whether we would admit to deliberately underfunding to take advantage of other agencies, and the answer is no, we do not. Nor do we recommend that people go to places like food banks or the Salvation Army. If asked, we do tell people the location. We have been asked to do that by the food banks. They say to us: "Will you advise your clients as to where we are?" It's not the policy of the ministry to recommend that they go there, but if they ask we will direct them there.

I've just been handed a note on the programs for the disabled; I don't have numbers to put with this, but I'll read it into the record for you. We fund the infant development, special needs day care, training for handicapped, Woodlands, community residential care, volunteer services, family support services and the Chance program.

Crisis grants are another thing that, if allowed, would soon become abused. There are those who would be there every month for a crisis grant, and we cannot condone or encourage that. It would be kind of like rewarding people for getting their priorities mixed up and spending their money in the wrong place. When there is a genuine crisis, we do respond with a crisis grant, but we do not always provide crisis grants when they're asked for; there has to be a genuine crisis. And no, we don't use them to top up the income assistance payments to people.

So I think I've answered most of your questions; if I haven't, you can re-ask and I'll answer.

MR. CASHORE: I think that we will simply have to agree to disagree on a great many of the responses that we're getting here. On one point, though, I would like to recognize that when it comes to needing a time-out, the hon. minister has a greater capacity than I have, and I commend him for that.

The next question I have has to do with the policy of discriminating against people on the basis of age, in terms of GAIN rates. According to the GAIN regulations, schedule A, section 4 (2) (a) and 4 (2) (b) under this act, you have the power to reduce their rates for under-26-year-olds by $25 in the first month, and another $25 is taken from them in the next seven months.

It would seem to me that it would be worthwhile for you to consult with the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) with regard to the Canadian Charter and this policy to see how you feel about whether or not it coincides with and fulfils the Charter. That would be one question.

Another would be to recognize that the issue of age discrimination was dealt with years ago in the ICBC program. It would seem to me that this government has given tacit recognition to it being wrong to discriminate on the basis of age. I would, again, think that it would be worthwhile to consult with anyone with whom you could consult about those two points: the fact that ICBC, which is a Crown corporation of this government, does not discriminate on the basis of age; and also to talk to the A-G about the discrimination, whether or not it is in keeping with the Charter - that is, with our Canadian constitution.

I just want to go on a bit further with some of the items with regard to the GAIN rates. I just want to read into the record that in the case of a single parent with two teen-aged children, we have calculated that after the announced increase in the GAIN and shelter portion come into effect, that

[ Page 463 ]

family will still be able to live at a subsistence level for only 255 days of the year. On a yearly basis they would run out on September 13, if they were given all the money simply to live at subsistence.

I would also point out that there is no increase for the disabled. With regard to the issue of the earnings exemption, recipients have a 75 percent tax on earnings over $50 for singles, and over $100 for a family or for the handicapped. What can be done to bring the earnings exemption into a very realistic and worthwhile program for people who might be able to make use of that?

[4:30]

1 also would like to say that I want to question the splitting of the shelter portion and the support portion of income assistance. Landlords - and not recipients - benefit from an increase of 6 percent in the shelter portion. Also, it could be said that this is anti free enterprise. For instance, a family of four receives $450 for support and $476 for shelter. If, as you said in your remarks criticizing the SPARC report several days ago, there are cheaper units available to low-income people, why not lump all their allowance in one stop, listing shelter as a maximum? Then the recipient can shop for the best deal.

The other thing I would like to say before I pause is that I haven't had the opportunity to go through in detail all of the Blues and all of the copies of Hansard that are available to me, but 1 do believe there are a number of questions that have been taken on notice. I wonder if I could have an undertaking that if there are such questions, they would be tabled in the House at some date before too long.

I'm not sitting down till he stands up!

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Madam Chairman, we have a fellow that's nervous over there that this vote just might pass.

On the subject of the reduced income assistance for singles, it would be inappropriate of me to comment right now, Mr. Member, because there is a case before the courts -that is, a challenge - right now under the Charter of Rights. Since there is an ongoing court case, we'll leave that subject and go on to the next.

The other topic is the method in which people are paid both income assistance and shelter allowance. The fact is that it is broken into two segments, but the people get one cheque. They don't get two cheques, they get one, and I know in many cases the two overlap in the way the money is spent. But we intend to keep it as two separate amounts, and this year there will be increases to each - both the income assistance and the shelter allowance.

Questions taken on notice. I will endeavour always, when taking a question on notice, to give an answer, so you can be assured that answers will be forthcoming.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The second member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to thank the hon. House Leader as well for his welcoming me back this afternoon. I have been away for about a week with the flu, and I don't think it's completely finished with me.

My question is to the Minister of Social Services and Housing. I'm not going to be very lengthy. I just wanted, for the record, to comment on a number of initiatives that the government seems to be playing with. In sort of a general way, I would like to say that the government seems to be having some difficulty setting its focus on just what the important issues are with respect to the community, the population, out there.

I've tried to be patient. I've listened to a number of comments by members on that side of the House and, you know, in the last three weeks it's been something of a bit of a consternation to try and determine just what the government's philosophy really is; I'm not talking about just the NDP and Social Credit, but in terms of what the government's bottom line is. Let's keep in mind that we are first of all committed to the service of the public - all of us. And we all know we've been through some tough times in terms of the economy. In fact, we refer to the last four years or so as having been an extreme recession. The revenues have not been forthcoming, the economy has been a victim of changing world markets, and all kinds of reasonable explanations. But the fact is that British Columbia lags behind the rest of the country, if indeed not the industrial world, in terms of its overall economy and its initiatives with respect to dealing with future economic challenges.

Were the NDP in power we would probably be talking about a depression, the lack of fiscal competence, the ability to manage money. I say that because I recall listening to the former Premier suggest to this House that there would be no free lunches, not a dime without debate, that the government was going to let the private sector bring us back to the road of plenty, etc., etc., etc. At the same time we have gone from something like a $4 billion deficit in 1975 - including the debts of Crown corporations as well as direct debt on behalf of the government - to, I'm sure, something near $20 billion today. I'm sure that if we were to calculate the interest that's required to service those debts and Crown corporations and failed attempts at stimulating the economy, such as northeast coal, and the support for major projects such as ALRs, and the rental of the fleet of ferries, etc., we would have to wonder whether we were going up or down, with respect to the government's approach to programs.

But all this leads me to the really serious question of just what governments can do and what they cannot do for people. I want to just ask the Minister of Social Services and Housing: does he ever consult with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) or, for that matter, with any of his colleagues, particularly the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) ? I was absolutely amazed when I looked at one of the documents that the ministry puts out for pharmacists when they're completing their service charge, their fee, for Pharmacare for the dispensing of drugs to a client. I wonder if the minister himself has ever looked at one of these forms. It was such an astounding thing. When I read this thing, I just couldn't believe it. I don't see the form number, but it's a standard pharmacy form, Mr. Chairman; it's called a "Pharmacare Prescription Record, Province of British Columbia."

Listen to these details. This is a patient who attended a pharmacist recently, under plan A, 65 years of age and over. The prescription number is given; the quantity of drugs was one; the ingredient cost of the drug was 0. 05 - that's 5 cents; the dispensing charge was $6.40; total charge was $6.45. There's another prescription number, three items: total cost of the ingredient was 0.30 - 30 cents; the dispensing charge was $6.40, for a charge total of $6.70. So far, that's 35 cents' worth of substance of material value. The taxpayers, the government, or whoever, in this case, with the new regulations, 75 percent of the total . . . . The total was $13.15, less

[ Page 464 ]

35 cents; 75 percent of that was paid for by this senior citizen, 65 years of age and over.

Anybody reading that would really wonder what kind of operation we have. I'm no actuarial expert; nor am I an economist, and I don't pretend to be. But surely at a time when the government is forgiving just about every conceivable bad debt it can find among certain selected people in the community . . . . For instance, with respect to its taxing formula for education, the policy with respect to taxation for high-income earners as opposed to those low-income earners - oh, there are any number of schemes that the government comes up with in justification of its fiscal policies. But this is a classic example of how bad it is in this province. You're going to go from a 0 percent commitment on the part of people who are on the Pharmacare - in other words, they were paying zero for the dispensing of their drugs - to a 75 percent increase, which when we look at it is about 99.99 percent the value of the product.

There have been debates across this country, including in the House of Commons, for years about the need to bring in generic drugs, the need to have a more accessible means of people getting essential services. This, I think, is the issue. We bog people down in detail, and they don't know what is going on. Fundamentally there is something drastically wrong, and it reflects negatively on the management at the top when we think that people should not be concerned about a system that spends $12.80 to dispense 35 cents worth of . . . . The pharmacists may not like what I'm saying, because I'm sure they have overhead. They have costs, but we are not talking about the cost of the drug. We are talking about the cost of dispensing the drug, of staff, of keeping supplies, of any number of things. So what will we call it? Is this free enterprise, or what? Is it socialism? Is it a combination of both? What are we talking about? In the meantime, what is happening to those people?

[4:45]

The member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen), in her presentation with respect to this issue, laid it all out loud and clear: the Minister of Finance made an arbitrary decision to make certain increases, including, for instance, the upper limit on the deductible for medical services. That's something like an almost 30 percent increase, to $275, that seniors have to pay; and there's a 75 percent increase, a brand-new tax, for people with fixed incomes. What impact studies did the government conduct to see if in fact that increase related to increases in disposable income for those categories of people?

Depending on which side of the House you're on, you can argue whatever you want to argue. But from a strictly humanitarian point of view, and from the point of view of respecting people who have spent most of their years contributing to society, either working privately or working for someone else .... Whatever their situation, they have reached the age when they are not able to get around as well as they used to, or in many cases really find themselves alone. Their families have grown up. Maybe they are raising families of their own and are unable to help these people. So what is their prospect for the future? They see the costs going up and their ability to maintain themselves going down. You have a very sad commentary on our free, democratic society, where politicians are elected to have compassion as well as intelligence, resourcefulness and the ability to govern with some expertise and responsibility.

1 have a few examples of correspondence from people who are in the unblessed professions, shall we say, who are not in the medical profession - the podiatrists, the chiropractors and the massage therapists. You see, it is again taking advantage of people who don't appear to have as good a lobby group as the big guys. When you think of a podiatrist . . . . Some people can't even spell it. Chiropractors? Well, those guys are a bunch of quacks, anyway. As far as naturopaths, massage therapists and all those people are concerned, they don't have big lobbies. These guys are not the ones who have got the big bucks. They're not the ones who have got $500 million over the last five years, as the medical profession has - which some people suggest is the reason why these fees are being imposed.

But that doesn't really matter to me. Whatever your reasons are, you're imposing them on people unfairly. I know that the Minister of Social Services and Housing is not himself directly responsible for what happens in the Ministry of Health. But on matters as closely related as these, you would think that they would consult with each other, because it certainly does affect his people.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, your time is up. I'm sorry.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I'd be more than happy to intervene on my friend's behalf

MR. BARNES: I'm surprised. I thought the government House Leader was getting up to attack me, Mr. Chairman, because I was beginning to get over my sickness, starting to feel a little better.

I just want to ask the Minister of Social Services and Housing if he has personally taken the time to talk to a few of these people who have to go and see a chiropractor, for instance. I'm not that far away from the age when I'm going to have to start getting a little extra help myself when it comes to bad backs, so you could say that I have a firsthand experience with bad backs. I can tell you that if I were on a fixed income below the poverty line - which is the case with at least half of these senior citizens you were talking about that are going to have to pay the burden of these new taxes - a $5 fee every time I went to see my chiropractor, up to your $125 maximum, would be very discouraging. I can assure you, Mr. Minister, that there is a relationship, because your clients are going to have to have some more money.

Are you going to raise the welfare rates? You said you were going to raise them 5 percent now and 5 percent later -which brings me into another question. So you raise the welfare rates in order for this person to be able to purchase these non-medical services, or services that are sort of ancillary to conventional medical practices. You give them a raise. What side of the ledger is it going to be on? Is it going to be on the maintenance side or on the shelter side?

I don't know if anybody in the House has raised that issue with you in this debate, but you've got to took at it from the point of view of a person who has X number of dollars, which in most cases is about half the amount of money they need in the first place, and anything you do whatsoever is going to have a serious impact on their ability to function. Now I've never been able, no matter how hard I've tried, to reconcile our welfare system, which tells people that we're going to

[ Page 465 ]

give them half as much as they need . . . . We know this by all kinds of tests. We've talked about the SPARC test - the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore). We know about Stats Canada tests. There are many studies with respect to what the poverty line is and how it fluctuates from month to month and year to year. Yet we continue to give people half of what they require.

Surely sanity must prevail. It doesn't really matter whether you can out-debate me with your excuses. The point is that there are people out there who need the help. What are they doing? How are they doing it? I would like for the minister to stand up and tell me: "Look, a single person needs at least $700 a month. We can only give them $350-$375, but I know that that person is going to make it because - what is it? - God's on his side."

The point is, they make it, but how do they make it? Let's look at the impact on society of a person who doesn't have the means - the impact on themselves. Somebody has got to pay; you're quite right. There are no free lunches. Somebody does pay, but who? In some cases, it becomes a motivation for a person to begin to commit petty crimes. But when you are committing crime that way, I submit that it is not criminal as much as it is survival. A new phrase has been coined, in fact, with respect to this type of activity: it's called survival fraud. As you will remember, the former Minister of Human Resources used to have what they called a fraud squad, going out and chasing down those people who were trying to make the other 50 percent of their minimum amount of money they needed to survive.

It's ridiculous that we would have a situation such as this. You've been condemning the opposition because they are talking about creating jobs, and you're saying, "We're trying to create jobs, " yet at the same time JobTrac or some of these other programs are not really job-creating; they are something similar.

The point is, a person on social assistance, Pharmacare or any kind of minimum income has a right as a Canadian citizen to fulfilment, to opportunity. That should be our commitment in here today. We should be saying, look, there are limits to which the taxpayer can go. It is true that we cannot give everybody everything they need, but we have a duty to make it all add up to 100 on the balance sheet. You know how you do when you balance your books? You've got that coming in and that going out, all these figures, but it always adds up to 100 percent. Even if it's 100 percent of nothing, it's got to add up at the end.

I see a few eyebrows raised over there. When you start talking percentages, you have to show where all the dollars go. We have 50 percent of the money we need. That means we're 50 percent short. So what do we do in the short category, Mr. First Member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) ? What do these people do that we've been talking about who do not have enough money? What do you think they're doing? That's the question, and I think it's a serious one, a number one question. When we start doing that, then we can go on and have a good time. But if we're going to go into debt, let's at least go into debt helping people who need the help.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: You are not doing it. We have not been doing it. When you start doing that, then we'll have the books balanced and people will begin to feel they're participating in this society equally and equitably.

I maintain that people should have options on the other side for that 50 percent. If they're young people they should have the opportunity to get a full education, job training. They should have some kind of a commitment, like the youth guarantee programs that the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) was suggesting. Tell them that you're going to give them something when they get out of high school. They can either go to university or get on-the-job training. They can commit themselves to something where they can grow and develop, instead of being out there on the streets for two or three years until they get themselves into difficulty, until they resort to drugs out of desperation or begin to commit suicide. Believe me, those are very real things I'm telling you about out there. They're not made up. All of you who follow the facts know that it's true. In the last decade suicides among teenagers have more than doubled, compared to the rest of the population. There's got to be a reason for that.

And why is British Columbia number one? Why is there a red dot on the demographic map pointing out British Columbia, especially the Surrey area, where you've got all your seats? Why are they having the main uprising out there with the young people? There is a reason for it, and it's neglect. It's a lack of understanding. Perhaps not a lack of desire, because I think you care. I've said this in the past. I don't believe you're an unloving group of people, despite your actions. I believe you care, but sometimes you just don't know. And we're trying to show you, because you have a duty and responsibility to help these people. We are failing, and we're paying for it. We're paying for it because of the numbers of people who are finding themselves before the justice system, the number of people who are hurting themselves: child abuse; behaviour that is asocial, antisocial; despair.

When you put a $5 user fee on your clients, the minister should realize that his colleagues are making his job that much more difficult. I have gone to general practitioners for assistance, and the general practitioner has sent me to see a physiotherapist. Yet I did not pay that general practitioner a fee for the office visit. In fact, I did it over the phone. I don't know what he charged for the phone call. But now you're going to say that if he refers me to a physiotherapist, a chiropractor, a podiatrist or any number of those professions . . . . I referred to them earlier as ancillary. But whatever they are, they feel they're being discriminated against, and I agree with them.

[5:00]

The point is, I think the government takes the view that nobody cares about those guys anyway. We have substantially created the impression that they are less than deserving, that they are really not the chosen group, and therefore we can get away with doing this. But what you're doing is wrong. A lot of people rely on those services, including myself. I'm sure that many doctors would not want to waste their time rubbing my back; many of them are not too sure what they could do, anyway. But there are people out there who have made it their profession, and they deserve a fair shake with respect to these health care strategies.

Mr. Chairman, I have just one comment to you. I think it was about four years ago that the government was spending something like $32, 000 as a contribution to the suicide prevention and crisis intervention centre in Vancouver. As a matter of fact, I believe it was longer ago than that - 1980 or 1981. Today the government is spending $26, 000. It makes a

[ Page 466 ]

contribution of $6, 000 less than it was giving six years or so ago. Now what's your rationale behind that? An organization that needs $350, 000, and the provincial government gives something like $26, 000 to a major program that involves hundreds of volunteers 24 hours a day in a vitally important and necessary service. While the incidence of suicides and near suicides is going up, the government's contribution is going down. And yet the overall debt is going up.

Housing. Would the minister comment on the rationale for not including the support and shelter cost under one umbrella? Why should there be a distinction between the two? We on this side of the House suspect that when you do that it's just a way of paying your political debts to those guys who own the property. If you tell a person that by regulation they have $350 which they can use to pay their rent - well, actually it's not $350; they've got to find the rest . . . . I think you have something like a $200 ceiling. I forget how you break it up, but tell me what the differences are when you stand. If you've got $350, $200 is for rent and $150 is for food and other necessary items to sustain yourself.

Why don't you just give them the money? Why not give them an opportunity to practise free enterprise at the lower end of the scale? Give them a chance to go around and shop and tell the landlord: "Look, in the past you have been getting all this money because you knew I had no choice. You know that when I come to you and ask the rent, you're going to say, 'What? You're on welfare? That means you're getting $200; that's what the rent is."' Now if you were to go to that same landlord and say: "Look, I'm on welfare and it's true that I've got a cheque for $350 in my pocket, but I can spend it any way I want, and I'll pay you $150 for your stinky, rat infested room, and that's it . . . ."

MR. R. FRASER: He can do that now.

MR. BARNES: He can't do that now.

MR. R. FRASER: Sure he can.

MR. BARNES: All right, stand up and tell me how he can do it. And when you finish, Mr. Chairman, I want my place back. Go ahead.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, to the member and to the minister and to everybody else who happens to be listening, it strikes me that because you have a maximum rent allowance given to you it does not prevent you from asking the question or presenting a case.

Now that we're on the subject of debating this particular estimate, it strikes me that there are some funny things coming from the other side of the House. We hear things like "the crumbs of the rich going to help people, " which seems to me to be a dreadful thing to say about those people who are helping at the food banks, and we hear some of the other ones saying things like, "Yeah, I think it's part of a political plot" that certain things are going on in the Ministry of Social Services and Housing.

I think what I want to say to the member there and to all of you here is that the commitment to help people is genuine, as you point out, and you have to understand that there isn't enough money in the world to satisfy everybody's needs, although we might wish there was. Clearly, if we're going to point out some of the good things that the government does, we wouldn't have enough time to do that. While we could be sympathetic to many of the aims and desires that you express - and we might share those with you - the fact remains that we do not want to institutionalize everything.

There was a very interesting article in this morning's Globe and Mail about institutionalizing day care, which we talk about in this ministry as well. Some lady said in the article that if two adults choose to have three jobs, one being raising the children, is it responsible for them to conclude they should subcontract out the rearing of the children, the most important job they have? Her answer was no.

So when we talk about the estimates of the Minister of Social Services and Housing . . . .

MR. BARNES: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the hon. first member for Vancouver South, I took my place in order to allow the member to make a contribution to a debate with respect to the dispensing of the funds that people receive on welfare for social housing. The member is using this to filibuster and get completely off the subject. I asked him to explain to me how a person could benefit from shopping around with their shelter allowance. He has not addressed that question. If you don't want to address it, fine; let me get on and explain to you that it is not possible to do it under the present system - and the member knows it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, may I suggest, with all due deference to you, that I don't really think that is a point of order per se.

The second member for Vancouver Centre continues.

MR. BARNES: I'll just conclude that point by saying that it is not possible for a social welfare recipient to profit or benefit or make gain or anything whatsoever by going around, as that member suggests, and making a suggestion to the landlord, or whatever he's talking about. The fact is that if you are allowed - and I'm sure the minister will stand up and confirm this . . . . If your shelter allowance is X number of dollars, and you go to a landlord and try to negotiate an amount less than that amount . . . . Say it's $200 and you negotiate a deal for $150. That $50 which is remaining does not accrue to the welfare recipient; it goes back to the government, and that's wrong. Fair is fair. You have budgeted for X amount of dollars, and it should go to the welfare recipient.

The welfare recipient should at least have the dignity of being able to negotiate on their own behalf. I think that's what free enterprise is all about. But a person on welfare doesn't even get any semblance of free enterprise. Even if they did have a desire to go out and try to negotiate a good deal for themselves, they couldn't do it under this government.

The final point I want to make . . . . And then I'll sit down, Mr. Chairman, because I know the critic wants to wind up, and he's got more things that he'd like to talk about. What's the government's position with respect to the social planning department of the city of Vancouver, which has recommended the closing of the Red Door Rental Aid Society? I would like the minister to comment on that, because here again are a number of your constituents . . . . I keep saying "constituents." A number of your clients use that facility: handicapped people; people on low incomes, fixed incomes, or whatever you might think. But they are not in a position to look after themselves. They are restricted to that geographic area in the city, which is generally the downtown

[ Page 467 ]

east side, where times are pretty tough at the best of times. Their options are very few.

Social Planning, in conjunction with the province, is talking about a new registry, which will be something like your job-finding project, which is a big computer that sticks names in and comes up with numbers, and sends people off on their merry way. Many of these people require counselling; they require sustained support. They come back and back and back again, because they're what we call the "hard to-house." These are not your typical people looking for a place to stay. We're talking about people who have been hard done by, in many cases, who've been kicked out of their homes, and there aren't sufficient shelter facilities to accommodate them. And you're going to tell me that there's going to be a cheaper way of doing it than what is happening at Red Door? I would like the minister to respond to that.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your indulgence.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I too would like to welcome the member back to the House. I sincerely hope he's feeling better. It's always nice to hear him speak.

One of the things that I will point out, though, with all due respect, is that because you weren't here all of last week . . . . Many of the subjects you have raised have been canvassed very thoroughly. I will try, in deference to you, to highlight them, but suggest that, on a couple, maybe you could pick up the Blues or Hansard from last week. We did spend three full afternoons and canvassed a lot of the topics that you brought up.

I'm going to try to take your comments in the order that you made them, and do the best I can to answer your questions. You started out, Mr. Member, by saying that first of all we have difficulty setting a focus on where we are going in social policy. I don't think that's true, but I do concede that we're looking to the future and trying to make our committee of cabinet, the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy, truly a committee that's going to set a social policy direction for the next few years.

This is one of the reasons we are taking the committee throughout the province. We've visited three centres now, and later this month we will be in Vancouver East - familiar territory to you, I'm sure. We will be there to do exactly what we've been doing throughout the province: to literally take the government to the people, but more than that - not to try to quote corny clichés or anything - to hear from the people right on the firing-line in these various areas their ideas of where we should be going with the social policy. They are the experts in the field, the people who deliver the product. There's no question about it. If you want to hear exactly what's happening in any of these fields, you go right to the people on the firing-line - which we've been doing, and they've been coming to us and telling us certain things. Some of the things we already knew; some we didn't know, but we appreciate the comment. We don't always agree philosophically, as I'm sure you and I don't always agree philosophically on exactly which direction we should be taking.

But to make a statement that we have difficulty setting our focus on where we're going - I don't think that's true. The ministries in social service are working very well together, probably better than ever before. You are correct when you say a lot of these problems cross many ministries, You can't just categorize people and say they fit under this ministry or that ministry. You can't pigeonhole people like that.

1 guess there was a little bit of political comment in there about deficits and things, and I suppose, again, philosophically we could argue for a long time into the night - maybe sometime we will do that - on philosophy and where the deficit is now and where the deficit would be had we had a socialist government for the last ten years. I mean, if you say it's $20 billion now and . . . .

MR. BARNES: We'd be in the black. And that's no pun.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would submit that whenever you're talking social policy, it is not a black-and-white issue; there are many grey areas. That's what we're talking about now: all the grey areas. You and I have plenty of grey areas ourselves, I can tell you.

But when you say the deficit is $20 billion now, including all Crown corporations plus direct debt . . . . You may be right with that figure; I'll take your word for that.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's $18 billion.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Is it $18 billion? All right, you're pretty close. When we're talking deficits, I could surmise where the deficit would be had you been in government for the last ten years - $30 billion or $40 billion, I don't know. Because when we listened to the throne speech debate and all the budget debate, from every second member - no, every member, practically - who got up over there, all we heard was "spend": spend some more here; spend some more there. With a spending philosophy, the deficit could very well be something we couldn't afford or couldn't live with.

You asked the question: do I consult with other ministries? I think I've answered that by saying yes, we meet every week as the social policy committee of cabinet, and we discuss all aspects of all of our ministries, and many of them cross all ministerial bounds.

[5:15]

Pharmacare - a subject that you spent a lot of time on -now falls under the Ministry of Health, as you are well aware. But it does impact on my ministry and on others.

No, I haven't seen the form you talked about, but I've seen the numbers regarding dispensing fees. I will make only this comment. First of all, we have to enunciate very clearly that Pharmacare affects only those over 65 years of age. And the dispensing fee has nothing to do with the value of the drug. That pharmacist could be dispensing, as you said, a 30 cent item or a $30 item or a $300 item; the dispensing fee is the same. For those on Pharmacare, the drugs are free, so we're talking, naturally, about the dispensing fee. But when you look at dispensing fees around the province, you're talking anywhere from about $3 to $12. One of the things this change in focus will do is cause the seniors who have to pay that 75 percent to get on the phone and shop around for the dispensing fee that's going to suit their pocketbook.

I will leave it at that, because the rest of the Pharmacare issue falls under my colleague the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck), and you can canvass that more thoroughly in his estimates, I'm sure.

We are increasing the GAIN for Seniors this year, which will compensate those seniors who receive GAIN for the amount that they must pay for dispensing fees. The average per senior is not that great. It is not a great amount of money, and it is probably compensated for in large part by the I

[ Page 468 ]

percent reduction in the sales tax on other purchases that they would make. So I submit to you that seniors will be hit by the 75 percent of the dispensing fee by not that great an amount of money on average. There are some who will go to the $125 maximum, but the great majority will not come anywhere near that figure.

The comments on podiatrists, chiropractors and massage therapists fall under another minister, the Minister of Health. But it would impact on some of the people who are clients of my ministry. Of course, it is up to their physician, if they require medical care, to determine whether they should have these other kinds of help. We in the ministry don't presume to recommend where these clients should go for their medical treatment. So I will leave that one there, too. There will be an impact, quite correctly, on those who require these specific treatments - no question about that.

I have already spent some time in the House, twice now, talking about a problem that is dear to your heart, and that is the problem of the teen in trouble. You made an eloquent speech a week or two ago on the subject. I know it concerns you, and it has concerned me since last fall. I would just recommend to you that you get my comments on this subject from last week's Hansard. I won't bore the House by going into it all again. You might be interested in reading the comments because you are mentioned in them. That will get your interest, and now you will go back to Hansard and read those comments. But I can assure you that your name was not taken in vain. I am sure you will be pleased with what you read there.

There's another thing I want to address. Your colleague the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) mentioned the breakdown of cheques into shelter allowance and income assistance. I canvassed that with him just before you came into the House. But suffice it to say that yes, we do break them down. One of the reasons is federal regulations under CAP. However, they do receive one cheque only. So there's no need for them to feel that they have to pay a certain amount of money to the landlord.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Well, he may, but the rate he can charge and get away with - if you want to put it that way - is pretty well determined by the vacancy rate. We have areas in this province with a 20, 30, 40 percent vacancy rate, but that doesn't happen to be the case in the lower mainland and Vancouver. That's another reason why this year we're building 1, 886 new units of social housing. Most of them are going in the lower mainland, because that's where they're needed.

The other point you brought up was on the Red Door closure. The lead is being taken there by the city of Vancouver. We do help fund that, but on that particular agency they're taking the lead. We consult with them. They have their reasons for wanting to look around to see if they can receive the same service or better service for the same amount of money; in other words, are they getting full value for their dollar. We do this in our ministry - not in this case, but in other cases - on a regular basis. We ask for re-tenders because we want to make sure we're getting good value for the dollar. I'm sure they're doing the same thing. We consult with them very closely. There's nothing to prevent the Red Door people from resubmitting a tender on this one. We tell the people we contract with, whenever a contract comes up for re-tender, that we're not precluding them from re-tendering. It may very well be that they'll come in with the best submission on the Red Door. But in this issue of the Red Door, Vancouver city is taking the lead. We are funding it with them.

A few other points. These aren't in the right order, but . . . . As far as medical benefits go, those people who are clients of this ministry will continue to receive medical benefits. There will be no change under the ministry to the status of those who now receive medical benefits. For those who do not receive medical benefits - the points you raised about Pharmacare and the $5 charge for visiting chiropractors, et cetera - yes, there will be a change to them.

The other item you raised was a philosophical one that I suppose again we could talk about at length: that is, do we pay enough? That is the type of question that if you ask ten different people, you will get ten different answers. I recently went on a television show on the local TV station here in Victoria, and we talked about welfare rates and the philosophy of welfare and whether we were paying enough or too much or the right amount. Interestingly enough, before they started the interview with me, they had sent their camera out into the streets to do a man-on-the-street interview with the average person walking up and down the street. Depending on who they talked to, the answers came back all the way from here to there - from the extreme that we were paying too much, to the other that we don't pay nearly enough.

So I guess on a philosophical basis when we talk about income assistance - or let's call it welfare, that's what everyone calls it - the thing is that it's a safety net that we put there to catch people before they hit bottom. It's a last resort when all else has failed. The thing that we argue about most is how high the safety net should be. Should it be down here; should it be there or should it be there? We seem to be getting criticized from both sides, so maybe that's an indication that it is in the right place. I'm not sure, but we do seem to be criticized from both, that we're paying not enough or too much.

You mention the fraud that exists. We canvassed that last week, too. It's at a minimum now. The computer, thankfully, has enabled us to catch an awful lot of what used to be fraudulent receipt of welfare cheques. One day, if you've got five minutes, I'll tell you how it's done, but I won't tell you in the House for the record. Let's spend five minutes, and I'll tell you how we catch them.

The other thing, I guess - again, philosophically - is how much the taxpayer can afford to spend. Again, I suppose that's why we're elected here: to make that determination. Eventually we have to answer to that taxpayer. I wouldn't have it any other way, and neither would you. I know that our philosophies may be a little bit apart on that, but probably not all that far.

MR. CLARK: I'd like to briefly follow up on my questions to the Premier this afternoon. I'm sure that the minister has seen three newspaper articles in the Vancouver Sun Thursday, Saturday and then again today: "Hungry Kids Teach Principal a Lesson ... ... Sharing Shelf' Speaks Silently of Hungry Kids, " and "Forum's Poverty Tales Bring Tears." Having read them, I and my constituency secretary followed up by phoning all of the principals in my constituency - 21 schools out of 25 - and in almost all the cases the principals indicated that they had sharing shelfs or sharing boxes, where the kids eat half a sandwich and put the other half down for

[ Page 469 ]

the kids who don't have lunches. In almost all the cases they indicated that there was a very small number - it's not a large number; six to ten children - who come to school with no lunch, who can't afford it. In Carleton Elementary School, in particular, they have at the beginning of the month about 15 children and at the end of the month about 30 children who simply don't have any food when they come to school.

I wonder if the minister could tell the House, in view of this .... It is our view on this side that that indicates that social assistance rates simply are not high enough. But recognizing that the government's decision has been made on that, and firmly held by the minister and told to this House, 1 wonder if the minister is prepared to look at a specific program targeted to children in schools - a school-based lunch program or something like that - to deal with this very serious problem.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I thank the member for his question, and yes, I am aware of it, having read the same articles, and our ministry is very much aware of it. But I guess the thing that has to be pointed out is, number one, that it is a problem in that one particular area. It doesn't seem to be surfacing anywhere else.

The other thing that I would point out to the member and to everyone else is that every person - school principal, teacher or others - has a responsibility to report any cases of a child being malnourished or abused or neglected. If these school principals have knowledge, and I'm sure they do - or at least I think they do; I shouldn't say I am sure - of children who are coming to school undernourished or without sufficient lunches, I ask them to report those cases as a specific case to the officials in my ministry, because it is so easy to generalize; it's hard to deal with generalities, but it is easy to deal with specifics. So if a child is being neglected by parents, we have a responsibility to investigate and take the appropriate action, but the person who detects that neglect has a responsibility to report it. It is incumbent upon them to report it. So if you say it is only a very few children in each school, maybe six - I think you mentioned the number six - then they should be reported, and we will follow it up with what we would deem to be appropriate action.

MR. CLARK: I really am not satisfied with that answer, and I just have to say very briefly for the record that it is not a question of neglect. It really isn't. It's a question of poverty, and it's a question of not having enough money. The principals and these articles will tell you that these parents are loving parents who are doing the best for their children and who simply don't have enough money. A program targeted to schools, to deal with the general problem, would, I think, be far preferable. It's not a question of neglect, and I hope the minister is aware of that. It's simply a question of poverty.

[5:30]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: What we would like to be able to do is determine whether it's a matter of neglect, because in many cases these parents - whether they be parent singular or parents plural - have their priorities mixed up. We would like to be able to go in and make that determination, and take some appropriate action, which could range from giving a reminder to parents regarding their responsibilities to guidance concerning better management of their financial affairs and better supervision of their children to, ultimately, even direct administration of the income assistance payments, which we would not like to get into. But I would like the professionals in our ministry to be able to make that determination, because in many cases it is a case of people having their priorities mixed up.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, this has been a very interesting experience, trying to figure out just what the purpose of estimates is. I'm not sure that I have figured it out yet, but I've been giving it a lot of thought, and discussing it with my colleague from North Surrey. Maybe after two or three years I'll really understand this process. Sometimes I think we're trying to make points with each other, or maybe we want to be able to demonstrate to our constituents that we're making statements on behalf of the issues we know they're concerned about, or maybe we're trying to impress our colleagues, or maybe it's a combination of all of those things.

I have a sense that we are coming to the point where this first set of estimates in this session of the House is winding to a close. I just want to make a few wrap-up comments. We've covered a number of topics, and I don't intend to go into every topic that we've discussed.

I want to commend my colleague the hon. member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) for her research with regard to the JobTrac program, and I just want to make three points on that. One is that I really did get the impression, during the time we were discussing the budget, that it was a perspective of this government that when we were saying there really wasn't an employment-creation program, what we were hearing in response was yes, there is employment creation in the JobTrac program. Perhaps I need to stand corrected on that, but that was clearly the impression I got.

Secondly, with regard to JobTrac, I think the hon. member for New Westminster made the point very well; that this is actually a recycling of programs that have existed throughout the years whenever there have been right-wing efforts to try to resolve "the welfare problem." We only need to remember Phil Gaglardi and the Alliance of Businessmen program, ZOOOM, PREP, Job-finders, and now JobTrac. Possibly I've missed two or three others that I just don't remember the name of, but it seems to me there have been a great many recycled programs throughout the years.

I would like to read some of the things from an article in the Vancouver Sun on December 1, 1981. It's written by Ros Oberlyn and headlined: "PREP Sinks Soundlessly."

"The program was PREP, the provincial rehabilitation and employment program" - an ambitious job-finding scheme. "In the Legislature Mon day NDP Human Resources critic Rosemary Brown exhumed PREP's corpse by making public an internal report that shows the program was a failure. The October 1979 report by MHR research economist Robin Hanvelt was marked 'Confidential' and ad dressed to Deputy Human Resources Minister John Noble. It concluded that PREP had little effect in reducing welfare rolls in B.C. The report said: 'In estimating the impact of PREP on the income assistance caseload we found that PREP job placements have a small, statistically insignificant effect. The estimates suggest that PREP reduces the caseload by such a small amount that the precise estimate is not possible.' After the first year"

- and here it refers to the man who is now the Premier of our province -

[ Page 470 ]

" told the Vancouver Sun 'PREP is here to stay, and will expand."'

It goes on to say that the researcher suggests that the Surrey project did not work when expanded to the rest of the province because the supply of jobs available to those on welfare dried up.

"But the major reason for PREP's failure was one common to programs expanded from a pilot project, the report said. The report found that Human Re sources was misled into thinking PREP was a promising program, because 'the ministry was unaware of the true character of the welfare caseload."'

Clearly, when we are looking at the grand old custom of attaching people on income assistance to these kinds of schemes, it really is a scam. And we're not really going to address the issue in any way in this province until we get down to the task of job creation and finding ways to get people back to work - people whom the minister recognizes want to work. We have to make that possible for them.

Now I'd like to get on to some issues with regard to the family. The phrase "restoring the integrity of the family" has been used. I think that we have to see this in the context of the cat-and-mouse game that's been going on for many years between Social Credit governments and the public: slap them down in 1983 and promise to revive them in 1987. It's not the integrity of the family that's at issue here today, Mr. Chairman; it's the integrity of this government.

In 1983, some 259 family support workers were dumped. This government has to take responsibility for the actions of 1983. You can't just abandon that responsibility. You can't just say: "We're a new government, and we're the one that has defeated the old government." You are a continuation of that old government. There's a saying: "Sow the wind and you reap the whirlwind." This government sows the wind, and the increasing numbers of marginalized people reap the whirlwind. That's the unfortunate legacy that this government is leaving for people on income assistance.

I think you have to recognize the costs when your policies result in family breakdown, when your policies result in undue stress, when your policies result in people having to endure unnecessary hurt in their lives.

Let's look at some of the facts about poverty. Over 80, 000 B.C. children depend on welfare rates that are at less than half the poverty line. One in five Canadian children lives below the poverty line. Children of the poor - and let's hear you heckle me on this one, Mr. Member for Vancouver South -have nearly twice the chance of dying as babies as those from homes with adequate incomes. Children of the poor have less chance of finishing high school, less chance of attending university, and more likelihood of being judged delinquent. Children of the poor have a 50 percent greater chance of being born premature and underweight, and twice the chance of contracting a number of childhood diseases.

Thinking about the family support workers, these people helped families deal with stress, they helped families with their budgeting problems, and they helped prevent abusive relationships. As a result of their work, many children were able to stay with their families rather than be apprehended by the ministry.

I think it's incredible that we would think that there would need to be such a thing as a "sharing shelf." It is simply inappropriate, Mr. Minister, to say that you understand, but some people have their priorities mixed up when it comes to spending their income assistance cheques. People in this province who have their priorities right on still have a very difficult time making ends meet right now.

I sincerely hope that the Premier of this province will visit that school and learn from some of the firsthand stories what people are experiencing down there. Because I know he is a person who does express some real genuine openness, I would hope that he would be touched by that and that we would see some changes forthcoming. I would really hope for that, and I have faith that that very well could be the case.

Under questioning, the Minister of Social Services and Housing stated on Thursday - and this is in Hansard on page 410: "The superintendent of child welfare is not an advocate for children." That is not a quote out of context. It is a complete sentence. True, it is in the context of the debate, but he said that the superintendent of child welfare is not an advocate for children. This is an incredible admission of an abrogation of responsibility. It is an incredible omission.

On page 361 of Hansard for March 31, a few days before that, the minister said: "First of all, when the member says that the children need an advocate in the province, they have many in this province. They have the superintendent of child welfare, whose job it is to be an advocate for children."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. CASHORE: The minister said that. And then he goes on to say that all MLAs have this responsibility as well.

The point is, Mr. Chairman, that this ministry is confused. It is confused about its role on behalf of families and children in this province. This is the problem that underlies my call for a commission of inquiry into the delivery of family and children's services in this province. This ministry is not clear on its own responsibility. Is it the Tuesday statement of this ministry in Hansard or the Thursday statement of this ministry in Hansard that we are to believe?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's doing your research?

MR. CASHORE: I'm doing my research on that one. It was very interesting, and there are several other examples in Hansard. I would want you to be very much aware of that.

Another one that I found this morning over coffee; while I was having my breakfast I found this one. If you would refer to page 414, on April 2, the minister said in response to a question: "The computers pick up a tremendous amount of fraud that was not detected before." Then the member for North Surrey said: "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." Immediately after that, the hon. minister states: "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."

Now I am finding it very interesting to have to deal with this stream of consciousness that we are experiencing here, a stream of consciousness which manages to erupt during the handwriting notes, albeit some of them not all that legible, we have been told. But in all seriousness, we don't need to be browbeaten with regard to our questions, and we don't need to be accused of putting words in your mouth or anybody else's mouth. What we need is straightforward, honest debate on the basis of the points that are made.

[ Page 471 ]

We have to ask ourselves: what are the responsibilities of the superintendent of child welfare? I think that when we look into the act it states very clearly that the superintendent of child welfare is responsible to the minister. Anybody who has any understanding whatsoever of the responsibilities of a ministry such as the Ministry of Social Services and Housing would agree with one of the minister's statements, which contradicts another, and that is that the superintendent of child welfare is indeed an advocate for children.

[5:45]

1 would like to say that I think a real disservice has been done to the people of this province when the minister refuses to explain anything about the firing of a very good and faithful civil servant - Mr. Armitage. By refusing to explain this to the public, he has hung a good and honourable public servant out to dry, and I think this is deplorable. This could have the result of planting seeds of doubt in the public landscape with regard to the minister's sense of responsibility, and I think that we really need to take a look at that kind of thing in this House, The act states that the superintendent reports to the minister. I think the minister could at least have informed us with regard to the process, if not the substance, that was involved in that decision.

I would like to conclude by just saying a few words about the cost of poverty in this province. I'm glad to hear the members of the government applauding my statement that I'll be concluding very soon. I take that as a very positive response to the job that I've done here during the past few days. But I want to say very clearly that it's the cost of poverty, not the cost of welfare, that is a drain on the people of British Columbia. It is poverty that is expensive, and it is poverty that we as an opposition and as a government must put our heads together in order to address . . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, hon. member, your time has expired.

The first member for Victoria.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I was enjoying the spirited summation of the member, and I look for-ward to hearing the conclusion of his remarks.

MR. CASHORE: I just want to conclude by saying that the theme of our part of this debate has been that the government's approach to this ministry is one of crisis intervention. The minister has recognized that in his comments. We are not arguing that point, but we are saying that as well as crisis intervention, we need a preventive approach so that we can serve the people of this province well, so that we can help people get out of poverty, and so that we can help the economy get going again. All those issues are connected. And because this government has recognized the importance of the committee system, 1 just want to say to the House, in conclusion, that I have a motion on the order paper which I do hope will be brought forward so that we can do as follows:

"That this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social Services to examine and study the following matters, namely:

1. Social services delivery systems in British Columbia, their control systems, quality of service and equality of access across the province;

2. Day-care delivery, with reference to cost, standards, service quality and equality of access;

3. The adequacy of provincial welfare rates;

4. The extent and measurement of poverty in British Columbia; and

5. The use made by the government of British Columbia of federal-provincial cost-sharing arrangements relative to other provinces.

"Be it further resolved that the said Committee is instructed to report and submit its recommendations to the House during this session, or following the adjournment of the House, at the next session."

There's more to the resolution than that. I won't read the rest of it, but I do commend it to all members of the House, and look forward to the work of that committee in enabling us, together, to delve into the serious issue of poverty in this province.

Vote 56 approved on a division.

Vote 57: ministry operations, $1, 385, 939, 454 -approved.

Vote 58: British Columbia home program, $10 -approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Bon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.