[ Page 3791 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

B.C. Enterprise Corporation, Mr. Williams –– 3791

NDP pamphlet on Coquihalla. Mr. Michael –– 3793

B.C. Enterprise Corporation. Mr. Harcourt –– 3793

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

On vote 61: minister's office –– 3794

Mr. Cashore

Ms. Marzari

ML Peterson

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Barnes

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Over the years we have had the British Columbia Youth Parliament meet in the House from time to time. They are the future leaders of our province and indeed the future leaders of our country. In the gallery today, from the great constituency of Burnaby–Willingdon, is the deputy speaker of the British Columbia Youth Parliament, Mr. Ian Martin. Would the House please bid him welcome.

MR. BARNES: It gives me great pleasure to introduce some 14 students from the Urban Native Indian Education Centre in Vancouver, along with their coordinator Mr. Stan de Mello and instructor Ken Woodsworth. On behalf of the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Harcourt), I would ask the House to join me in making them welcome.

MR. WEISGERBER: I'm making an introduction today on behalf of my colleague the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long), who is unable to be here today.

In the House today we have Mr. Bob Porter and Vicki O'Brien from Crown Forest Products; with them from Sir Alexander Mackenzie Secondary School at Bella Coola are Miss Jill Harter and nine students. Please make them welcome.

MS. EDWARDS: I have two friends in the gallery today, and I'd like the House to join me in welcoming these two people who have shown a long-term commitment to and interest in the political welfare of the province: Harry and Evelyn Mathias from Cranbrook.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yesterday this House was honoured by the visit of Premier Bourassa of Quebec. Accompanying the Premier were some people who have stayed over and are in the House today. Once again I would like to welcome Mr. Yves Merzisen, the president, and Marie Bourgeois, the vice-president of la Federation des Franco-Colombiens, accompanied by Mr. Marc Roy and Aline Chalifoux, all related to the same organization. Will the House please give them a warm welcome.

MR. PARKER: In the House today are guests from the north and the central interior. I'd like the House to make welcome Alice Chen-Wing from Terrace and Whitey Anderson from Williams Lake, who are joining us in the gallery today. Make them welcome, please.

MR. SIHOTA: In the gallery today is a strong New Democrat who has been actively involved and chairs our legal and justice affairs committee. If the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) doesn't watch it, he will soon be replaced by this young gentleman; that's Mr. Jeff Hoskins. Members of the House, please join me in welcoming Mr. Hoskins.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we start question period, the Chair wishes to direct the attention of hon. members to the provisions of standing order 73 relating to the presentation of petitions. In all cases care should be taken to ensure compliance with standing order 73, as petitions not being in proper form may not be received by the House. Hon. members presenting petitions must satisfy themselves that the standing order has been complied with, and members presenting petitions are answerable that they do not contain improper matter.

The table officers may be consulted in relation to proposed petitions, and assistance will be given to the hon. members. There is no debate allowable in the presentation of a petition. Members in the presentation of a petition may read the prayer and make a statement as to the parties from whom it comes, the number of its signatures and only its material allegations.

The Chair hopes that this statement may be of assistance to hon. members, and that they will always take cognizance of standing order 73.

Oral Questions

B.C. ENTERPRISE CORPORATION

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Economic Development. Peter Brown, the chairman of B.C. Enterprise, learned of the Toigo meeting ahead of the meeting. He refused to go. Did Mr. Brown not advise the minister of the meeting at that time?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I already made it clear in this House yesterday that I was not advised by anybody of the meeting to which the member refers.

MR. WILLIAMS: Did Kevin Murphy, the CEO, not advise the minister either then?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I don't know how many times the hon. member for Vancouver East has to be told the answer to the same question. I want to make it clear to the hon. member that I was not aware through the office of anyone that a meeting was taking place, and I heard about the meeting the following day.

MR. WILLIAMS: You heard of the meeting the following day, Madam Minister? Could you explain why your concern about this was so delayed until last week when it appeared that you met with the Premier to express your concern about the meeting? Why is your timing, Madam Minister, so delayed and so delicious?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The hon. member is assuming that any expression I would have over any meeting was only expressed in the recent hours, this last week or two weeks. That's not true. But then the hon. member can never be accused of accuracy and is constantly asking questions that are not only based on assumptions that aren't correct but has done the same thing again today.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the minister advise the House when she met with Li Ka-shing?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I think I had the first meeting sometime last year — probably in the spring — when the interest of Mr. Li in investing in the province of British Columbia came to my office, not in any specific investment but in other and many economic development projects. May I say that I was pleased to hear of the interest in Mr. Li's investment in British Columbia, because for some 16 or 17

[ Page 3792 ]

years now, his corporation has had an investment in this province, and I think that all British Columbians have benefited in those years from his investment.

MR. WILLIAMS: And you met again, presumably, with Mr. Li Ka-shing in Hong Kong. Did you ever meet with Jack Poole of Bell Canada Enterprises regarding his proposals?

[2:15]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The member is asking about proposals. When he says "his proposal," will he identify what proposal he is speaking of?

MR. WILLIAMS: The group based in Vancouver, which Mr. Poole headed, put forth proposals with respect to Expo lands, as we understand it.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I have never suggested that Mr. Poole, Mr. Li, Mr. Brown, Mr. Smith or anyone else is bidding for B.C. Place lands. I have never named the bidders; I have never said how many bidders there are. And to this date I will not confirm any and I stand by that commitment; I will not be doing so.

MR. WILLIAMS: Would the minister confirm that she met with Mr. Li Ka-shing recently, which was subsequent to proposals?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to meet with Mr. Li in Hong Kong on a recent Asian visit and also very many of his principals regarding business interests. At this very present time in this week, the culmination of some of those proposals, which have nothing to do with the B.C. Enterprise Corporation whatsoever, is coming to fruition even as I speak. I am pleased to tell you that we think it will result in an investment in the province in a subsidiary company of Mr. Li's.

I'm not free to share that with the House until it is all put together, but I was very happy to speak of various concerns that we have in terms of development and job creation in the province of British Columbia. I did so with Mr. Li; I did so with many Hong Kong business people; I did so with many Japanese business people on the same trip; I did so with many Korean business people on the same trip. It is consistent with this government's international trade policies and its Asia-Pacific outreach to make sure that this province realizes its great potential in Asia-Pacific.

MR. WILLIAMS: Again to the Minister of Economic Development. No answer regarding the meetings with Jack Poole; many meetings with Li Ka-shing. Is it any wonder the Premier doubted the validity of your so-called pure process, Madam Minister?

Madam Minister, you say you're concerned about the leaks with respect to this exercise. If you're so concerned, have you requested an investigation as to how the leaks occurred?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The answer to the question which was posed is no.

May I just make a comment about what the hon. member is saying about the Premier "doubting the validity." I haven't heard the Premier doubting the validity of the process whatsoever. In fact, our Premier has stated — and I'm very pleased to say so on the floor of this House — that he upholds the process and has done, and has supported BCEC both prior to and during the publicity that has been emanating about B.C. Enterprise Corporation these last few days.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Economic Development: did you advise the Premier that Mr. Toigo was going to Hong Kong to see Li Ka-shing?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: That's a matter of public record; so did the Premier. The Premier has already confirmed that publicly, and that's no surprise to any of us.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's not clear who the source was.

To the Premier, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the meeting between Mr. Toigo and BCEC, a new proposal to take over the whole Enterprise Corporation, not just a bid for the Enterprise lands.... Did you consider getting an overall bid from anybody other than Mr. Toigo?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's not a matter of getting or considering a bid; it's a citizen of the province — or anyone, for that matter — who's aware of the privatization process obviously considering an opportunity that exists with respect to a part of that which we proposed to privatize. But if the inference is that somehow — and I've heard this said many a time; obviously there's been much reporting about that in the last week — Mr. Toigo, a British Columbian, a man who has considerable business interests and, incidentally, who employs, I think, 3,000 to 3,500 people, was somehow given preferential treatment, then I would suggest that my understanding of preferential treatment is very different from what the NDP view it to be. If I or someone had given him information, I suppose that could be considered preferential treatment. But to arrange an appointment is certainly not preferential treatment. It's something due every British Columbian wanting to do business with their government or their agencies of government.

Frankly, I am not at all ashamed of the fact that someone in British Columbia is aware of what the economy of this province is doing — the progress that we're making, the tremendous strides we've made during 1987 and continue to make in 1988. Instead of investing in Germany, in Holland, in the United States or elsewhere in the world, they're wanting to invest in this province. It speaks well for our province. It shows that we're doing the right things. I would encourage all British Columbians to come forth and participate in the privatization process.

MR. WILLIAMS: The Premier confirms that he did for Mr. Toigo what he did for no one else: provided access regarding the whole package, subverted the whole bidding process for a man that wanted inside information. That's what he did. Don't you know what insider information is about, Mr. Premier? Especially for your friends? I ask you, Mr. Premier: what kind of hold does Mr. Toigo have on you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is out of order.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Speaker, can I respond to his statement? Because I could talk about the flipping of condominiums and the purchase of pubs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think both members.... This House can only operate if we have free

[ Page 3793 ]

speech, and I would hope that both sides would appreciate that.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the Premier advise the House if there was any professional review of Mr. Toigo's proposal to take over the whole Enterprise Corporation for at least half of its value, and throw in the stadium for good measure? My God! Was there any professional review of his proposal in his letter?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We do have a number of processes, in that we're selling, through a process, the Expo lands. We have other lands that are a part of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation holdings. They'll also be sold, either as a package or as individual pieces; that's yet to be decided. Similarly, there are other things available in the privatization process which will be for sale initially to employees, if they wish to participate, or otherwise to those who would like to make an offer on some part of this.

This particular proposal that's referred to here was received, and it was decided immediately that there was already a process in place with respect to the lands and that we hadn't decided yet as to how we would best dispose of the other lands.

NDP PAMPHLET ON COQUIHALLA

MR. MICHAEL: I have a question for the Premier. There was recently a pamphlet with a red front page distributed by certain members of the NDP containing quotes from the Leader of the Opposition. One headline states: "Coquihalla: Chronology of Corruption." Has the Premier examined this pamphlet, and is he considering libel action pertaining to those false statements?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I happen to have that brochure with me, and I would like to put the hon. member from Revelstoke's mind at ease. It says: "Coquihalla: Chronology of Corruption." But the first headline in this red brochure is lies, so I think that well explains what the NDP are attempting to spread throughout this province through the use of this type of material. Mr. Speaker, this is despicable material; it's garbage, garbage and more garbage — NDP socialist garbage!

B.C. ENTERPRISE CORPORATION

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, we'd like to know who's in charge here: the Minister of Economic Development, the Minister of Finance, the Premier, the Premier's office or Peter Toigo. That's what we're trying to find out here today. You want apologies. You don't have to apologize to Mr. Li, Mr. Premier. You apologize to the people of British Columbia; that's who you should be apologizing to.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier to address the public's deep concerns about the role of his office in the disposal of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation's lands. To assure that the public's interest is being taken care of and protected, would the Premier now agree to a full public inquiry into all the BCEC proceedings to date?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would have to say as I sit here and observe, as all of the columnists have done in the last several days after the NDP convention in Vancouver: Mr. Leader of the Opposition, you lack leadership. You don't have it. Obviously you can't tell leadership when you see it because you don't know what leadership is all about.

I can assure you that we are in the midst of a very good process which will, as part of the overall privatization of this government, result not only in a booming and sound economy as we see it today, but a sound and secure economy for British Columbians that will last and last. You may be sitting there to watch it from the sidelines.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer questions posed in this House yesterday by the hon. member for Vancouver East and taken on notice.

The questions posed by the member for Vancouver East yesterday were regarding land transactions carried out by the British Columbia Enterprise Corporation in Coquitlam. As the member is aware, the current holdings of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation are extensive, and it was necessary for me to get the specific information on the transactions to which he referred.

I want to reiterate, as I have before, that the sale processes are approved by the board and carried out by open tender in a manner consistent with the public sale of government lands, and this has always been consistent government policy.

I must say that the questions yesterday displayed a most unfortunate ignorance of the development process, and I hope that in responding to those questions today I can help this member understand a bit about the process. Certainly the example he has chosen illustrates very well the reasons why this government believes that development properly belongs in the private sector.

The question yesterday by the member pertained to the market value of two parcels of land. Let me just give you the value, and I want to mention that those two points were to do with the Riverview development, which is on the corporation's books as an agreement for sale and purchase, with a value of $9 million; the Westwood property is on the books for $1.6 million.

In answer to that question, the member asked if I would confirm that the value on the books of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation for the Westwood property is $1. I am sure the member is aware that this was simply a nominal value used for the purpose of transferring the property to the responsibility of the Crown corporation when those Crown corporations had transfers of property last year. What he may not understand is that the book value is of no consequence in what we are seeking in our sale of these assets, because we are seeking the full market value in the sale of these assets, which has no relation to book.

[2:30]

Mr. Speaker, for those not aware, the development process is one where investors risk their resources to convert raw land into serviced lots and ultimately residential units. To do so they must construct both on- and off-site services; they must obtain appropriate subdivision and zoning; they have to manage all associated legal, engineering and administrative services and market; and ultimately they have to market and sell the product. This is all unserviced, unzoned, undeveloped raw land, and this member is trying to take that unserviced, undeveloped, raw land and compare oranges with apples to make a point for the member for Vancouver East. It all takes time for that developer, it takes financing, and over time it takes an additional cost. For this cost, for this

[ Page 3794 ]

investment, the developer ultimately can expect a return on the investment of time and money.

This is not a business which this government believes it should be in. It is not a business we feel should be undertaken by government agencies — taking risks with taxpayers' money. It belongs in the private sector where the skills already exist and the capital at risk is private capital. By selling land at market value, British Columbia Enterprise Corporation is returning this opportunity to the private sector, while still obtaining good value for the taxpayer who owns the resource.

Now let me get to the Fuchsia Place parcel to which the hon. member referred. The Fuchsia Place parcel to which he referred is an excellent illustration of what I have just said — the principle that government should stay out of the development business. The property was purchased in 1986 for $474,000. The new owners then installed both major trunk servicing and on-site servicing, and brought the lots to market at an additional cost of $644,000. This means that their total cost per lot averaged $43,000. The finished lots have been marketed to independent home builders for $51,000, for a profit in the order of 20 to 25 percent, which is a reasonable expectation for the time and risk involved. In fact, it may well be that they may never sell all of the lots; in fact, at this point the developers have yet to sell all of the lots, as opposed to what the hon. member stated yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A point of order.

MR. ROSE: Are you going to sit down, or what? There's only one person who has the floor here at a time.

Mr. Speaker, I've been dazzled by the minister's explanation, but surely in question period we do have a limit on questions and answers, and certainly to seize upon a question taken on notice to make a speech, using arguments and justifying positions and setting out whole philosophical stratagems, is abusing the business of the question on notice.

Now really it is a ministerial statement, and if the minister wishes to make a ministerial statement so we can respond over here in kind, we would welcome that.

I didn't rise earlier, because I thought somehow this thing would tail off and die of its own volition. I was concerned about attempting to muzzle the minister, if that were possible. That's exactly why I didn't rise earlier. But it has gone on and on, and I must object that if we're to have ministerial statements disguised as questions on notice, then the right of response should be guaranteed to the opposition.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talks about an extensive answer. I refer him to yesterday's Blues, where we have two pages of questions on this issue posed by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). All of the questions were taken as notice by the minister, which is appropriate, and now the minister is answering those questions. The questions were extensive; they were all taken as notice, as a reference to the Blues will indicate; therefore the answers outside of question period will be extensive as well.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank both the members for their input. The Chair does respect the fact that the questions yesterday were extensive, through the whole question period. Quite often, hon. members, in question period the Chair would not allow answers of this type, but a lot of questions taken as notice would ordinarily be put on the order paper, where you would get extensive answers. I think the minister has to have some latitude in these questions, but I would hope that she would be as brief as possible so that the House could continue with its regular business.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I was hoping, in bringing the answers outside of question period, that I was not denying the opposition time within the question period. I felt I was being respectful of the House and the opposition in this regard.

As I say, Mr. Speaker, the developers have yet to sell all these lands. In fact, they've not yet even recovered their costs — a fine example of the risk associated with this type of development. What they have done, however, is taken raw land, used their own capital, and brought it to a fully serviced stage to independent builders who will now invest between $2.5 million and $3 million in construction, with all the economic activity it brings to the construction industry.

The hon. member referred to this process as a "flip," a term that refers to resale of property without improvement, without any value added. I would hope that he simply does not understand the terminology, as he is otherwise insulting a fine company whose hard work and investment risk have generated a great deal of value and economic activity, with only a very reasonable potential profit for their efforts — and that yet to be realized.

Perhaps the opposition believes, and perhaps this member believes, that we should be in the business of competing with these small developers. We don't. We don't believe we should risk taxpayers' dollars. It is government policy, and the member — I would like to finish my remarks by saying this — was positively insulting to the people in the development business. He has not insulted this government or the process under which we sell lands in this province; he has been positively insulting to small business and small developers who are putting their risk dollars on the line in order to create jobs and investment in this province. Mr. Speaker, I will uphold their case anytime against the one the member made yesterday.

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING
(continued)

On vote 61: minister's office, $224,319.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, when we, as members of government and opposition, are fulfilling our stewardship with regard to our concern for the way in which the public resource is being used, I think there is no more difficult area in terms of the sensitivities involved than that of family and child services.

As the minister has appropriately pointed out, often where there are child custody situations, we're dealing with material so intimate and confidential that one hesitates to even raise such issues. One hesitates because one is dealing

[ Page 3795 ]

with matters of pain for people out there in the community. They are matters that perhaps cause all of us to say: "There but for the grace of God go I."

So it's with great trepidation that I raise an issue reported in Sunday's Vancouver Province in an article by Don Hunter. I'm sure the minister and deputy minister will know the case of which I speak; it concerns two children in the Golden area.

Mr. Chairman, as I understand the situation, there was a family court decision made to take a three-year-old girl and four-year-old boy from foster parents and to re-place them with their family. I would not want anything I say to suggest that I categorically do not want to see children returned to their families; of course, I want to see such happy reunions take place. But there were details that came out with regard to this story that are indeed disturbing and that support contentions I have made ever since I've been a critic in this portfolio, as have my predecessors in this portfolio, that there are some very serious problems out there in terms of the delivery of family and child services, the processes of monitoring, the workload of the people who work in that field, and that this has resulted in some very distressing circumstances.

I understand, Mr. Chairman, that prior to the court rendering a decision with regard to these two youngsters, certain documents, which had been prepared by ministry personnel, were reviewed. But the report in the Vancouver Province states that a key report on the children's condition was omitted from the court documents submitted by Social Services officials who supported the parents' application. The key document was omitted. That has been reported, and I have not seen any response to that on the part of ministry officials. But if that is the case, we are dealing with an extremely serious situation. Certain questions would be raised because of that situation, one of which would be: why was the document omitted? Another would be that I understand the individual appointed by the ministry to be the child advocate did not make a presentation to the court. I'm quoting from the Province now: "He simply told the judge he was not opposed to returning the children to their parents." I understand that the journalist who was covering this story has made several phone calls and has been trying — appropriately, in covering a matter that is of public concern — to follow this up, but phone calls to the person who failed to make a submission at that court hearing apparently have not been returned.

I would point out also that a Dr. Wilson, an expert who was one of the people who had knowledge of this case, a person who is subject to medical ethics in terms of the way in which he carries out his work, is reported to have written a private letter to the court opposing the return of the children and calling the notion bizarre.

[2:45]

I do understand, as I said before and as the minister has said — and as I know he will say when he responds to me — that we're dealing with a very sensitive issue which precludes comment with regard to the specifics of the situation, but that does not preclude specifics with regard to the process. I believe the public has a right to hear about: 1) the process that's being followed; and 2) what is being done within the ministry to improve the process so that the alarming number of incidents of this type of situation — believe me, there are other instances we can cite — are diminished as much as possible.

I'll be saying more later about the number of such instances and some of the measures that have been addressed in the past to begin on this sort of thing, but I want to ask the minister at this time whether he would inform this House with regard to the process that is being followed to resolve this situation within the ministry. I would also ask him whether he has undertaken a high-level investigation of this case and whether the information coming forth from such a high-level investigation will be made available — at least tabled in this House — so that those of us who have responsibility for the monitoring of the way in which the people's resource is administered will be able to review how that process is being handled. I say that in the context of a House that has a Select Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social Services which has met only once — to elect a chairperson. We do have instruments, I would remind the minister, whereby we can put our best thinking together in order to do our job and to address such issues.

I would like the minister to comment specifically on the process with regard to the case that I've cited and on the measures being taken so that this sort of thing will not continue to happen with the frequency with which it has been happening.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: To answer the member as best I can, first, he says that this is an extremely serious situation. Any case where there is child apprehension and placement is an extremely serious situation. As he said — and I agree with him — probably the most delicate area that any ministry of government gets into is the well-being of children, and determining whether or not they are at risk and then taking the appropriate action to make sure that they are removed from any risk. I hasten to point out, however, that the final decision in all of these cases is made by the courts, not by the social worker or the supervisor. They make the initial decision, but the final decision is made by the courts of the province, and it will always be thus.

We are concerned, Mr. Member, that we are doing the correct thing every time we apprehend a child and take them into care, or whether we return them to their family. We're concerned to the extent that we have an ongoing internal investigation into these matters. We have a branch of the ministry called inspections and standards; they are an internal investigation team, and, as other internal investigation teams, they are very tough and impartial, and they do an excellent job in letting us know whether our people are doing their job. So I can assure this House and the member that we will continue to monitor all of these situations and to investigate them thoroughly.

This is one of the reasons why we're reorganizing the ministry and changing the supervisory level. We are concerned enough that we felt we could do a better job with a restructuring of the ministry — so we are doing just that.

On this specific case, I have asked for a report back as to whether there was information omitted from the court case of which he speaks. I again point out to the House and this minister that the decision to place the children back with their parents was made by the courts, not by us. But if there was information missing from that trial or that court submission, then we want to know that. So we have asked for a report back. When I obtain that information, I'll be pleased to share it with the member. But beyond that, I don't wish to comment on this specific case.

MR. CASHORE: I do understand and appreciate that ongoing internal investigations take place within the minis-

[ Page 3796 ]

try, just as I understand, as I said this morning, that that's the case with people on income assistance — that there are ongoing internal investigations taking place. I do understand that, but, Mr. Chairman, we're dealing with a situation here that has come out into public view. I hear the minister when he says that he has asked if there was a document missing. I would ask the minister: if the information comes back now that, yes, a document was missing, what happens next?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: As in all cases, of course, if a member of my staff did not do their job properly, that is one thing, and we will deal with them. If there is new information, then I would believe that we would try to get back in front of the courts. If the information was pertinent to that case, then we would do everything possible to make the court aware of that.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I don't think that is adequate. This indicates that this case and others like it need a much more comprehensive review, as I said before. Indeed, I would call for a high-level investigation of this case, with the results of it to be filed with this House and the individual so appointed to conduct the investigation to be independent of this House, so that a public that is seriously concerned might have the assurance that indeed a process is underway that is going to clearly be dealing with this type of situation.

We still have to recognize that while this information the minister has referred to is coming forward, this situation, if it is inappropriate, continues. Potentially, then, because of a decision that a court made, lacking information that should have been made available by the minister — if indeed that is the case, but that has been reported by the Vancouver Province, given that answers were not forthcoming to the Vancouver Province when they were seeking to get further details on this — it leaves an impression in the mind of the public of a coverup. And I know that the minister does not want to create that kind of an impression. I think it would clear the air to have a proper, independent review of these particular circumstances, and then I think there's a potential there for us to come out of that with the least possible damage done.

In the meantime, I understand that it's absolutely necessary to move with dispatch if there is information that has not become available to that judge, so that any subsequent error that resulted from the lack of information — information that I understand was readily available — will be corrected as soon as possible.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. SIHOTA: I thank the member for being so courteous.

Mr. Chairman, in the gallery today are a number of students from Grades 10 to 12 from the best high school in Esquimalt, Esquimalt Senior Secondary; and they're joined here today by their teacher, Mrs. Kirchner. They're enrolled in a pre-employment program, and I would just ask that members of the House join me in welcoming them on this occasion of their visit to the Legislature.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, the minister mentioned a few moments ago that one of the ways in which the ministry is addressing this type of problem is through the reorganization, and I must say I'm not all that hopeful that that result is going to be achieved. I hope he is right about that, but I think it will become apparent, given some of the information that I wish to present to the House at this time, that there is by far a need which goes beyond any reorganization to review this matter of family and children's services and their delivery. We have to go far beyond a reorganization that, given the limits that have been placed upon it, has made some improvements; but then there have also been the other factors that I mentioned this morning because we're shuffling around limited resources.

Apart from the reorganization, given some government initiatives in the past few months and certainly in the past few weeks, I think we should point out that services to B.C. families will not be improved by public relations campaigns or by ad hoc program changes. When I say that, I'm not referring to the reorganization; I'm referring to the program that was announced last week with regard to families, and I will be saying more about that later. I'm referring to the program to increase the number of foster care homes, a program that has some worth; but this is not going to bring about the substantial and basic change in the delivery of family and children's services that is needed.

I'm today calling for a review, as I did a year ago when I rose at the time of estimates. It would need to be a review that looks into all aspects of the delivery of services to families and children in this province. In stating the scope of such a review, I will also state part of the problem: it is that this ministry, more than in any other province in Canada, shares the responsibility for families and children with too many other administrative bodies; and what we end up with is too many ministries dealing with similar situations and without the coordination that is needed.

Now I know that the interministerial committee — I believe on child abuse — was set up some time ago, but obviously that committee is not able to bring about the result that is needed. So a review is needed that covers all four ministries: Social Services and Housing; Health; Attorney-General; and Education. Such review needs to look to the future and produce a report on changes in the family and how to provide services efficiently and humanely to families in the 1990s.

[3:00]

Again, I know the minister's going to say: "Well, that's what our reorganization is about." But let's just look at some information here, some hard data. The seven-year-old Family and Child Service Act needs review, because apprehensions have risen and support to families have been cut. We can demonstrate that. We get that information from the ministry's own annual reports. Even the measures that are mentioned today don't begin to make a recovery over the devastation of 1983.

This is important: three attempts by the government to undertake internal reviews. We were talking about internal reviews a few moments ago with regard to the Province story on the weekend. Three attempts have produced no results. Clearly, the government needs an external opinion, an independent opinion which would include an opportunity for public input, and should publish a statement of family policy and a public report so that we can really begin to address this.

The Family and Child Service Act needs review. It has been in effect for seven years. It has been extensively criticized by people who have very good credentials in the

[ Page 3797 ]

field for its vagueness in definitions — for example, the definition of abuse; for its narrowness of approach; for there being no statement of rights or of prevention; for the lack of powers of supervision; and for the lack of due process when apprehensions are needed. For instance, there is no provision for warrants.

I think that the ministry needs to know, and such a review would certainly point out, that more recent statutes in Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario provide good models for a review of alternatives which adopt a more preventive, better defined and less punitive approach.

Again, apropos of the incident that I referred to a few moments ago, the 1986-87 annual report of Social Services and Housing indicates that 71 reviews were undertaken. This is on page 32. These reviews were to respond to allegations of poor staff practice or improper conduct. I would like to ask the minister how many of these cases actually involved a situation that followed the death of children in care, or of children known by the ministry to be at risk. I would like the minister to include that in his comments when he comments later.

There's no indication in the report of the results of these reviews. Isn't this a matter of public concern? Shouldn't we be concerned that there is no indication of the result of these reviews? The public needs to know: were staff exonerated or were they disciplined, and were there policy or administrative recommendations, and have they been acted on? In other words, did these reviews bring forward information that is resulting in reformation and transformation and a developmental approach within that ministry? This type of thing goes beyond reorganization. Were clients who made these allegations given any feedback?

So a full report on the results of the reviews of these 71 cases that the minister acknowledges have been undertaken should be made available. The minister knows full well that such a report can protect confidentiality. It can be done in such a way, however, that it is made available so that the public can be aware that these matters are being addressed.

Why is such a thorough review needed? Well, I think the case I mentioned earlier is one example. The increasing number of apprehensions, the increasing concern around incidents of sexual abuse.... The issue of the poor cost efficiency of services, I know, is being addressed in the reorganization, but I think it still needs to be looked at. And there's the problem of gaps in services, the changing nature of the family, more single-parent and blended families and the greater poverty that exists, and the fact that there are fewer traditional families capable of following traditional patterns.

The government has announced reviews from time to time, but it has never provided for public hearings and never produced a public report. It causes me deep distress that the part of this ministry that need not be conducted in secrecy is being conducted in secrecy.

Here are some key facts. Number one, a review was announced by Jim Nielsen in May 1986 that was welcomed, but no report of the review was ever produced. I have to ask the minister and members of this House: what is the point of announcing a review and then not filing a report? Doesn't that simply mean that the review was announced as a means of removing the political heat? That would seem to be the case.

Secondly, the report by Sullivan on the sexual abuse of children by school board employees made several proposals for change in the Family and Child Service Act and refers to the need for a review of the jurisdiction of the office of the superintendent of child welfare. The report also indicates how their inquiries were blocked by the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. Again, there are definite, concrete recommendations available in the Sullivan report, yet what can we see forthcoming from that report? To quote from it: "Our recommendations would, if implemented, significantly increase the protection offered to each child from being sexually abused by school district employees." Why have Mr. Sullivan's recommendations for changes to the Family and Child Service Act not been acted on? That's a valid and very serious question, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I thought I would just respond to some of the things mentioned by the member before they get lost and we've forgotten them.

On the specific case in Golden that the member referred to, I have quite a bit of information coming to me in bits and pieces, and rather than give it out in that fashion I would rather wait until we have it more concisely. Perhaps we will have it tomorrow and I can give you everything I have on that regarding the investigation and what has been done and said. I'm getting it in bits and pieces, and I'd rather wait until tomorrow, when we can get up in this House and give you a concise overview of where we are on that particular case.

The member mentioned.... I'm vague on this, so I don't know how to answer this question, because I didn't get the gist of what he was getting at regarding the death of children in care. When you get up next time, if you wouldn't mind, would you go over that a little more explicitly. I didn't get what you were driving at there.

The member mentioned 71 reviews that we did internally in the ministry last year, and should we release the findings. I have no problem with releasing the findings of those reviews, keeping them strictly confidential and keeping the names of cases out of it. To give him, this House and the people of British Columbia an overview of what took place in those reviews is, perhaps, a good suggestion, and I have no reason for keeping that type of information secret. In fact, it's something that we look at all the time in the ministry, and I'd be quite happy to share it with him and this House.

There are numerous suggestions coming forward from Mr. Sullivan's report, which you mentioned. We will be dealing with some of them in the very near future. Without being any more specific I'll leave it at that. But we are not ignoring the recommendations in that report and will be dealing with them. As you said, it covers many ministries, not just this one.

The other statistic I'd like to leave with the member is the number of children in care. It has gone down since 1985. I'll give you four numbers. In December 1985 the number was 7,183 children in care, in December 1986 it was 6,709, in December 1987 it was 6,433 and in January 1988 it was 6,396. So the number of children in care is decreasing. I just want him to be cognizant of that fact.

MR. CASHORE: With regard to that last point, I will be bringing forward statistics from the ministry's reports which indicate that, while the total number of children in care is decreasing, the instances of children being apprehended for child sexual abuse and similar situations is increasing. We don't want to get into playing a numbers game here, but I think we can readily agree that there is a very serious situation out there with regard to certain categories that result in the need for child apprehension. That is a reflection of the

[ Page 3798 ]

policies I am dealing with here in saying that we need to have a very thorough and comprehensive review that results in filing a public report which enables the public to speak to hearings with regard to such a review. It would have to be a review that has an independence.

I should point out that when we're talking about the Sullivan report, we're not talking about the present royal commission. We're talking about a report.... Unfortunately I'm having difficulty finding the actual date the report was published, but I think it was about two years ago. So there's some scathing criticism of the Ministry of Social Services, which was the Ministry of Human Resources at the time. There is some very serious criticism in that report of the policy and practice of the ministry with regard to family and children's services. Not to have acted on them for that length of time, I think, indicates that it is a really serious problem.

The minister asked me to clarify what I meant by the death of children in care. My question was: Of the 71 reviews, how many of those incidents involved the death of children?

I've mentioned two reviews that have been conducted. One was the Sullivan review; the other was announced by Jim Nielsen and again evaporated. We never had anything whatsoever to show for that. The Premier's office announced a review in December 1986, but again there were no hearings and no report. Are we to conclude that the PR campaign recently announced is the product? I don't know, but again we have a serious problem if we have a ministry that, when the public becomes concerned or outraged about an issue, announces a report. Do you see the point that I'm making? The government announces a report, and that somehow takes off some of the public heat. Then we don't see the report, or if there is a report it's not acted on. I don't think I can make it any clearer than that.

The former superintendent of child welfare attempted to bring change internally by questioning, looking for options. About a year ago at this time, Mr. Minister, as you know, that resulted in his dismissal. In the estimates a year ago I said, and I'll say again now, that I think the public service lost a fine and honourable public servant who was quite capable of providing tremendous leadership in the improvement and development of the delivery of social services in this province.

[3:15]

I would like to turn more specifically to the issue of the superintendent of family and children's services in the province. I would like to ask the minister to give a brief explanation of what the position of superintendent of family and children's services entails and to whom she is responsible. Would he just give us an overview with regard to what that position is and what its responsibility is and what the procedures are for accountability for it? I'd be willing to take my seat now and hear the minister's answer to that question.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I think, with all due respect to the member and to the superintendent of family and child service, that the best thing I can do to answer this question is to read the Family and Child Service Act. I don't happen to have it with me, but if the member wishes I will send for a copy and read it to him.

MR. CASHORE: I happen to have a copy of the act with me, so I'd be glad to read it. I won't read the whole act, but under the number 3, "Officials," it states: "The minister shall designate as superintendent of family and child service a person appointed under the Public Service Act, and the superintendent shall be responsible to the minister for the administration of this act and the regulations and be the superintendent of child welfare." So we see certain factors implicit within that statement that the superintendent of family and child service is appointed under the Public Service Act, is responsible to the minister — I think that's quite clear — for the administration of the act and is called the superintendent of child welfare.

I wonder if the minister would tell the House if he agrees with the words of the Premier during question period in this House on both March 1 and March 2, when we were fielding some questions about the responsibility of the superintendent of family and child service in the province with regard to children who may require abortions.

At one point the Premier, in response to a question that I asked.... If you have a copy of Hansard there, it was on page 3202, March 1, 1988. My question was: "When a child in care has an abortion in a hospital in this province, who will pay for that abortion?" The hon. Premier responded: "That will be a decision for the superintendent of child welfare."

We went through a couple of other questions, and then the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) asked a question which he concluded with this: "Will the superintendent of child welfare be using taxpayers' funds to pay for those abortions? Yes or no." The Premier replied: "I really can't tell what source might be obtained by the superintendent of child welfare. If the superintendent of child welfare deems a particular service necessary for a child in care.... I can't answer that. The superintendent of child welfare works independently of government."

So that was what the Premier said — the superintendent of child welfare works independently of government.

The following day we proceeded to ask some more questions. This is on page 3224 on Hansard, dated March 2, 1988. I concluded a question with: "Will the Premier confirm that the superintendent of child welfare has an arm's-length relationship with this government — that the interests of a child in care are of paramount consideration and are not to be tampered with by the government?" At that point the Premier responded: "Mr. Speaker, the superintendent of child welfare works independently of government. "

I found that exchange interesting, and at the time there were other matters that were of great urgency in the House and so I decided I would follow up on that question during the estimates. I find that this creates a very difficult dilemma for me in terms of trying to understand the Queen's English, because the definition of a superintendent of family and child service in the Family and Child Service Act states that the superintendent shall be responsible to the minister. In response to my question with regard to the superintendent of child welfare being at arm's length, the Premier responded that the superintendent of child welfare works independently of government. Mr. Minister, I would like an explanation. I'm wondering if somehow the Premier — perhaps inadvertently, based on incorrect information — unwittingly misled the House. I would like the minister's response on that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Let me make it clear that the position of superintendent of family and child service is a statutory position created by an act of this House. Whoever holds that position at any particular time is responsible for upholding this act. In that sense, he works independently of

[ Page 3799 ]

any political interference; he's responsible to uphold this act. Let me read from section 1. I won't read the whole preamble.

"...'in need of protection' means, in relation to a child, that he is (a) abused or neglected so that his safety or well being is endangered, (b) abandoned, (c) deprived of necessary care through the death, absence or disability of his parent, (d) deprived of necessary medical attention" — which I think is the section that comes closest to what the member is getting at — "or (e) absent from his home in circumstances that endanger his safety or well being."

I just reiterate for the member's benefit that the superintendent is responsible for enforcing this act, and it's a statutory position. In that sense, while he or she is responsible to the minister, his or her first duty is to uphold and enforce the Family and Child Service Act.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister just to state where in the act he was reading from; I couldn't find it.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Page 1.

MR. CASHORE: This is page 1, chapter 11, 1980, Family and Child Service Act? I think possibly you're reading from a consolidated version that I don't have in my hand. Okay, that's fine.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It's the Family and Child Service Act, chapter 11, assented to August 22, 1980, page 1, and it's all right there.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I realize that the version of the act that I have has the same information, but it's not the consolidated edition that the minister has there. But I don't think I heard him say anything in what he read that gives me any confidence that the basic point being raised here is being addressed. Clearly, an act that states that the superintendent of child welfare is responsible to the minister is different from an independent authority responsible to an all-party committee, for example.

Take the office of the ombudsman, for instance. To me, the ombudsman would be an example within the statutes of British Columbia of an office that has been set up at arm's length — at least to a significant extent — and is independent of government. I would like to ask the minister to reflect on that particular example. Would he tell me — given that the ombudsman is independent of government — how he would, in comparison to the ombudsman, explain that the superintendent of child welfare, who reports to the minister, is independent of government, the minister happening to be a member of cabinet, and cabinet happening to be the government of this province?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't think it could be much clearer, Mr. Chairman, that it's an act of this Legislature, the same as other acts that are enforced by certain people. The superintendent is a statutory position created by that act to enforce that act, and while the superintendent may be responsible to the minister, the law is the law and he or she must abide by the act, no matter what the minister or any minister of the Crown may say. This minister, I can assure you, has no intention of trying to tell any superintendent of family and child services that they can ignore or circumvent an act of this Legislature. I read that section out specifically because it mentions "in need of medical attention," and that's a decision that has to be made by the superintendent under that act.

MR. CASHORE: But since the superintendent must report to the minister, is it not true that the minister, as part of his function, has a political agenda, and in reporting to that minister she is aware that the minister has a political agenda as part of his function?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm sure there are very many — in fact I know there are many — acts that come under the Attorney-General's ministry, to quote a better example than the ombudsman, and many people under the Attorney are responsible for enforcing those acts because they're legislated by this Legislature, as is the Family and Child Service Act. So whether there's a political agenda.... I imagine there always is, whether you are the minister, Mr. Member, or whether I am the minister. But that doesn't change an act of this Legislature that must he upheld and enforced by the superintendent.

MR. CASHORE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is an act of this Legislature. It's an act of this Legislature that is not designed with an arm's-length relationship; and it is not designed independent of government, I think that's very clear. I think we have an example in the firing of Andrew Armitage one year ago.

Let me put the question this way: should it be deemed that the superintendent of child welfare was not performing her responsibilities properly, whose responsibility would it be to deal with that and possibly bring about that person's firing?

[3:30]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It's very clear, Mr. Chairman, that the superintendent is ultimately responsible to the minister, and if he or she is not performing his or her duties as they pertain to the act, then of course the minister would have to take appropriate action.

MR. CASHORE: That, then, brings us to the issue of the superintendent of child welfare being an advocate for children. If any individual in that position felt that it was the opinion of the minister and the government that child advocacy, in the sense of working vigorously within a ministry to alter and change the circumstances, say along the lines of the recommendations of the Sullivan report that we referred to a few moments ago, was not appropriate on the political agenda of that minister, wouldn't that person then feel, if that person did not want to be fired, that he had better be aware of that minister's political agenda?

And again, in point of fact, is that not the case that resulted in the firing of Andrew Armitage a year ago — that in seeking to perform the mandate that he thought had been given to him, he was found to be trying too hard and too well to perform his duties in a way that would benefit the future delivery of family and child services in British Columbia?

So the question is: if the minister does not really believe that the superintendent of child welfare should be an advocate for children in an active sense, would that influence the person in that position, and indeed that person then de facto would not be independent of government?

MS. MARZARI: I'm rising for a few minutes — 30 minutes to be precise — to talk to the minister about child

[ Page 3800 ]

care and day care policy, that being my contribution to this particular estimates debate.

I'd like to start my discussion by saying that it feels like a quiz show on television, "Same Time Next Year," and the spin of the wheel then sets us up this year, as it did last year, for me to ask you, I must say, Mr. Minister, the very same questions I asked last year.

Last year I asked you: why didn't you split up these estimates? Why can't I look at this book, and at this book, and find a breakdown for child care? Why can't I see the actual number of dollars — not going into handicapped children's services and into child care, but a separation between those two numbers — that tell me emphatically and definitely what I'm dealing with here? Would you be good enough to answer that question?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member perhaps like to continue for a moment while the minister is getting the information?

MS. MARZARI: Yes, I would love to continue for a moment.

Then I would like to ask: where is the recovery? The $26 million you put into child care last year ostensibly received a substantial recovery — perhaps a 50 percent recovery — from the federal government under the Canada Assistance Plan. Since 99 percent of the dollars you put into child care goes into the subsidy of usually single-parent families to make sure they can pay their child's way into a child care setting, those families are receiving so little money in the first place in order to receive the subsidy that they are certainly eligible to receive the Canada Assistance Plan recovery. I don't see the recovery figures in these documents either. Perhaps you can help by referring me to the correct column so that I can see how much money this government actually retrieved from the federal government for child care services — not residential treatment care, not handicapped children's care, not special needs care, but child care; the kind of care that my kids have had; the kind of care that 60 percent of mothers need right now in this society of ours in order to pull in the extra income for the family. I want to know what the recovery is. What kind of track record do you have on pulling that money in?

I'll put forward another question. Last year at the same time — probably the same day — I asked you about the federal government coming forward with a child care package. In fact, the federal government did come forward with a child care package, a seven-year package which we all can now sit back and wait for. I asked whether the minister would be good enough to bring to this House his negotiating position with the federal government so that we as a House — as a Legislature or a committee — could take a look at the validity, the strength of this negotiated package, of this deal that you're going to strike with the federal government. That has not come back to this House. Would the minister be good enough to outline what that deal looks like now and this year?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, the member is quite correct that the day care dollars are not broken out; they are lumped under rehabilitation and support services, a net of recoveries. There is day care training and support for the handicapped in that number. If the member wishes, I'm sure I can get her the day care numbers.

MS. MARZARI: She wishes.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'll endeavour to do that, and I'll get it to you.

The recovery dollars are listed on page 6 under the financial section. About the third item down is the $623 million that we share with the feds under the Canada Assistance Plan.

Federal day care: we are still negotiating with the feds on that, as you have stated. We haven't made our position public as yet, but suffice it to say that we are going for our fair share under federal-provincial cost-sharing arrangements based on population. I can say that to date the negotiations have gone very well and we hope to be concluding a deal with the federal government some time this summer. Last year we had hoped it would be earlier, but for whatever reasons beyond our control the process has become slowed down, so it will probably be this summer sometime.

MS. MARZARI: Before I ask my next question, I just want to throw out on the floor once again the comments that I made last year, without going into a long preachy speech.

Do you realize the opportunities that you're missing by not using the opposition to help you negotiate with the federal government? You must be aware that the federal government is putting forward a package which does not increase spaces substantially even to begin to meet the need in this province. You must be aware that the federal government is only offering us maybe 20,000 spaces in British Columbia over seven years. You must be aware, if you listen to your own critics and to your own side, that there are at least 200,000 children in this province right now who could use safe spaces — safe, licensed child care. You must know that. We talked about it last year, and nothing has changed. It's the same time next year, right? The statistics remain the same. The number of spaces has not grown in this province, but the number of children is in fact growing. It diminished between '83 and '86; it's on the rise again.

We've got to plan now. You could be using a provincial day care consultative committee that you, with the stroke of a pen, with all goodwill, could instigate tomorrow, could invite to sit at your boardroom table in the Belmont Building, and help you develop a strong bargaining position with the federal government, and not just accept what they're throwing in our direction, which is probably 10 percent of the day care spaces in this country over the next seven years. We have special needs in this province. We aren't Ontario. We need to generate jobs, and we need to get women into the workforce. There are many different arguments that can be used, but I encourage you, I implore you, to use the support that exists on this side of the House, and to use the support that exists in the community, to help you in your bargaining position with the federal government to do that, and to generate more than 10 percent — if I can assume that B.C. will get 10 percent of those spaces; maybe 11 — so that B.C. can present its case as strongly as possible, so that it won't be just you sitting there but a consultative committee of people who have worked on child care in this province. Many of them have worked for 30 years in this field. Many of them are looking for a way in, to assist you. Considering that your bargaining with the federal government will largely revolve around 50-cent dollars, possibly even 25-cent dollars, then I would suggest to you that it behooves you — and it would be a smart political, strategic move — to take advantage of what exists.

Would the minister be good enough to talk a little bit about what the federal government has offered British

[ Page 3801 ]

Columbia to this point? I don't expect firm answers. But could you talk just for a few moments about what the federal government has offered in terms of numbers of spaces, a percentage of that $5.4 billion pie?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, without trying to seem trite to the member, because I know it wasn't offered in that spirit, we do have good, strong bargainers on this side of the House — and people and expertise at the staff level, I should add hastily, who are very knowledgeable. We do work with groups involved with day care. We know what is required in the province. We know — within certain parameters — what the feds are about to give us, no matter how hard you bargain. You can stamp your feet and jump up and down and be political if you want, but you're only going to get, within certain parameters, your share of the pie.

We have about 11 percent of the population of this country. Without divulging any numbers, I think it would be fairly obvious that we would be going after that as a starting point for our day care. With our recent announcement of infant day care, we have now gone beyond that number. We're still bargaining on that. We don't have any promise of cost-sharing on that. We're bargaining with the feds on a lot of items right now, not just child care, and we do bargain pretty hard. We do listen to the people in the field who are involved in the business of day care.

So with all due respect to the member and the opposition, we feel that there wouldn't be much to be gained — as much as they would like to sit at the table — by having them there. We feel that we do have the expertise and the ability to bargain with the federal government.

MS. MARZARI: Let me talk a little bit about the need, once again. I've already suggested that there were over 200,000 children that could use safe spaces. The minister last year talked a great deal about parental choice in determining what kind of care their child would receive. I'd like to refer to the minister a recent document that I received, the Decima quarterly report, from a polling agency that did a rather deep poll into child care need in the country. I am sorry I cannot tell you who actually contracted or paid for the poll, but the questions asked revolved around perceptions of day care. What comes through to me, more than anything else, is the British Columbian responses to the poll. I will make sure that you get a copy, if you don't have one already.

The question asked was: " . . . I'd like to talk to you for a moment about the issue of day care. Thinking about day care ... would you say that it's excellent, good, only fair or poor?" British Columbians, generally speaking, thought day care was only fair; 53 percent answered in the "only fair" category. In the other provinces, most felt that we're on a better range than that. They generally felt that day care was pretty fair. I know for a fact that British Columbia and other provinces are on a bit of a par; we're not tenth of ten across the country in day care, as we are in post-secondary education. I give the department some credit for that. But I'm saying that the public perception of child care is that it's not as good. By talking about these other questions, perhaps it will illuminate this fact.

[3:45]

This is a quote: "When people talk about day care in Canada, they often identify problems. From your perspective, what is the most serious problem with day care in Canada . . . the quality of day care services available, the cost of . . . services or the amount of day care services available?" Would your believe it, British Columbia actually said, 41 percent.... By far the largest majority said it was the amount of service available that they were most concerned about. These are the same people who said the quality of care wasn't what they would like. They were also saying that the amount of service isn't all that great. More people in British Columbia talked about the amount of service than in any other province, so what does that mean? Does it mean that we've created a larger need, or does it mean that people in British Columbia are actually saying, "We want more service; we've made a choice in our minds, as parents, and we've decided that we want safe, quality licensed spaces," or that we are having difficulty finding people to leave our children with that we feel safe with, that we feel are qualified? Other provinces concentrated much more heavily on the cost of service; only 32 percent of our people were concerned about cost of service.

The last question: "...government should be doing something about the day care situation in Canada." Actually, people in British Columbia were interested in both public and private day care. There was an even split on that, and you should note that. I am particularly concerned about nonprofit spaces. Even commercial operators that I know don't make enough of a profit to be called profiteers in day care. In fact, the ma-and-pa operations that I know about — the small, independent, private day care operators — really do run non-profit day cares. They really don't make enough of a profit, but that's their choice. They want to go that route. Even those private operators, I should add, are very frightened of franchised day care coming into British Columbia, and I should put that on the floor right now, Mr. Minister.

There's one last question. "Another issue being talked about is providing day care or child care . . . for people who work. Who, in your opinion, should assume primary responsibility for paying for and providing child care services for parents who work — government employers or parents themselves?" In British Columbia, 27 percent of the people answered that government should be responsible; employers was 11 percent and parents themselves was 61 percent. So that does bolster your notion that there should be choice and that parents should have choice. But I would suggest that the other questions that have been asked suggest that parents want a real choice — not just a choice of which neighbour is going to mind their child, but a real choice between having somebody come in, taking the child to someone else, taking the child to the place of work or having the child in a nonprofit, licensed, safe space.

If I can turn for a moment to another topic around the area of child care, I would like to ask the minister about this very politically contentious infant care program that the Premier has announced as part of a family-strengthening program, but which we basically see as part of a rather questionable program intended to provide so-called choice for women who might otherwise be seeking abortions. I would like to ask the minister to what extent he's been involved in the ongoing discussions about the development of this infant care program.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just to answer some of the concerns of the member, with regard to the standard of day care, which is a concern to us, of course, as it is to everyone, we are putting in place a committee made up of people from the private sector who are interested in child care and who

[ Page 3802 ]

will monitor all child care facilities in the province, whether they are offered by a non-profit society or a proprietary child care centre. So the standards are very important. We will have a committee in place to monitor that. It will go far beyond the monitoring that's done just for safety, health, fire standards, etc. This will go on to the quality of day care that people will be receiving, so that we are convinced in our own minds — so that we know for a fact — that children will not just be plunked in front of a television set and left for eight hours a day or whatever.

The member mentioned franchised day care. I haven't seen any evidence of it yet in British Columbia. There may be; I don't know of it. I don't know all the concerns about it and the type of service they offer; but the reason I say "standards" is that whether they're franchised or not, they would have to come up to the standards we set.

I did see somewhere some of the study that the member is quoting from. I don't have a copy of it and I can't recall it all, but she did hit on two key points: where possible the parents will pay for day care, where they can afford to pay; and there should be choice. So we do agree on that.

The last question I got I didn't write down. You'll have to ask me again — the memory is the second thing to go, I guess.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, you asked me a specific question at the end, and now it's gone somewhere. Austin can tell me where it goes.

MS. MARZARI: It was about infant care. Have you been involved in any kind of planning process? Or has this program been as hastily put together as I fear, as almost a public relations package? And would the minister confirm that the subsidy rate for the infant care program, which is being put forward through the Premier's office, is $400 a month per child?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I can't confirm the figures yet. We did have some tentative figures, but they are not confirmed. We said that they would be announced by the end of this month, and I think we will make that deadline. The answer to the question is: yes, we were involved in putting the program together and have been for some time. It's been an ongoing process that we've been working on for quite some time; various members at the staff level and I have been involved for quite a while.

MS. MARZARI: Can we delve into it a little bit, since it seems to be well underway and well planned? The reason I ask is that $400 is the number that seems to have filtered through to my desk, and I'd like to remind the minister that a traditional three-to-five-year-old day care space now only pays in the order of $262 a month, I believe, which does not even begin to meet the real costs of day care. The real cost of the three-to-five space happens to be about $350 a month right now in the lower mainland. That is for a safe, licensed space with good-quality teachers who stay; there is no large staff turnover, and you can reasonably expect to get a consistent quality program. The going rate is $350 a month, yet $262 is basically what the subsidy rates pay. What it means, Mr. Minister, is that people who genuinely qualify for that subsidy haven't a snowball's chance in hell of being able to make up that additional $90 to get their child into a $350 space.

Now take that number and talk about the infant. We know there are now only 177 of those infant care spaces in this province, and they cost $550. If you have teen-age girls.... We used to call them "homes for wayward girls." They seem to be empty right now. So there is some serious doubt about the nature of this whole project, but I'll leave aside for now, Mr. Minister, the need for these homes for wayward girls, and we'll talk about this $400 subsidy. When these children's children are born, who is going to mind these children and get that $400 a month? They won't qualify for safe, licensed space, because those spaces cost $550 a month. Or did I hear you right this morning when you were making your opening speech? Did you say that the full costs would be provided for infant care — in other words, $550 a month?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just to reconfirm, we haven't settled on the exact amount that will be paid. But I must separate the toddler day care that you talked about — three to five — from the infant day care, which is up to 18 months. I can give you the exact words that I said this morning, I guess, if I look through my opening remarks to see what I said. I will do that so that we get it accurate:

    "A new infant day care subsidy rate will be introduced to assist women to maintain their independence by returning to work or school after the birth of their child. Estimated cost of this program is $6.1 million.

    "A new teen support program developed in cooperation with local school boards will help young mothers finish school by offering child care as well as parenting and life-skills training."

I think the operative words here are about helping young mothers finish school and assisting women to maintain their independence.

MS. MARZARI: So basically the program is going to be paid for in cooperation with school boards. That's my best guess. The majority of these young children producing babies themselves will be going back to school. My concern here — and I will repeat it — is that the real cost of a safe, licensed space for an infant is $550 a month in this province at this time, because our standards happen to be high and deservedly so and should remain high. If the young mother doesn't go back to school and chooses to seek a job, she's not going to qualify for the spaces that exist. She will undoubtedly be hiring someone. My experience, from having known some of these situations, is that very often the grandmother will mind the child. Will money be made available to grandmothers — the mothers of the children producing children — of up to $400 a month? Is that a possibility, since I know that your subsidies are often given to individuals and neighbours in the community?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The extended family that you peak of is something that we have been examining for a long time. I hesitate to give you a definitive answer on it, but you’ve hit a good point. We're looking very seriously at grandmothers or, if you like, extended families — mothers of mothers looking after children. We haven't said that we will do that yet, but we're looking very seriously at it because in most cases — or in many cases — it is the logical way to go. It

[ Page 3803 ]

is the person who probably should be looking after the child, so it's something we're taking a hard look at; it's something we've put an awful lot of thought into. I can't give you an answer today.

MS. MARZARI: You can see though, Mr. Minister, that there are some serious difficulties in this program. One is the fact that very often taxpayers' subsidy money is going out there in the community without the monitoring we would like to see. The kind — or not-so-kind — neighbour down the street might be receiving subsidies. I would think this government might even be legally liable if something serious went wrong using government subsidy money. So I'm concerned about that.

We have to talk about standards. There's not time today to talk about standards, but let us make sure that we maintain our standards and develop new standards for this new informal kind of care that you're talking about and we seem to be experimenting with.

The second concern is about an infant receiving care for 18 months, and then that care drying up, and the quality of that care drying up. An infant reaches 18 months old and approaches a care system which, once again, has only a few hundred licensed, safe spaces that meet our standards — most of them in the lower mainland — to cover children from 18 months old to 3 years old. Although it's rather nice to see money being put towards child care, we've got to worry about the standards and create new spaces, and we've got to worry about what happens in 18 months. That's something we should be worried about right now, because 18 months is going to go by much too quickly.

[4:00]

The third concern is the sheer number of spaces for the three-to-five-year-olds and then the number of spaces for the five-to-twelve-year-olds for after-school care. Those are all spaces that need to be developed within the framework of a plan which I would like to see this government working on. You could have three or four committees working right now, Mr. Minister, advising you on how to increase child care spaces.

For example, why not do what Ontario is doing and write into the legislation that any new schools built in this province should have child care built into them? We know that throughout the province, not just in the lower mainland, we need after-school care. Why not build it into any new schools being built anywhere in the province? Rather than you and your ministry paying for the self-contained unit in the school yard, why not incorporate it into the actual capital costs of new school construction and maybe pay for a share of that and get cost-shared for it? You'll get your 50-cent dollar on that. I'm sure CAP or the new child care program would be willing to help build schools if they knew that two rooms — one for the three-to-five-year-olds and one for the five-to-twelve year-olds — were going to be built in. We have enough communities building new schools now that it would be a worthwhile piece of legislation. Why not beef up this licensing task force that you've got going around and really make it a public enterprise? I haven't really heard about it. I've only got a couple of letters from people inquiring about it. I would like to see notices in the local papers so that people could get more involved with the maintenance of community standards.

Maybe there will even be some differences about different regions and what their standards should be. We should develop our base line of standards and then look at the regions and see if there are specific areas in which they might want slight variations on those standards.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

There are ways we can do it, Mr. Minister, and all I'm trying to tell you in this brief time we've got is that there is a lot of community support for this program, and all you have to do is add the priority of your own ministry to a crying need for child care spaces. We don't need the rhetoric about parental choice and family strengthening and special little programs for pre-born babies, as one of your side talked about yesterday. We don't need that. We just need the dollars, the priority and the investment into safe, licensed child care.

Last question — and I guess I'm just asking this because I'm going to ask it every year that I'm in opposition, which I hope won't be for too many more years. The privatization plans — I asked this question last year, so I'll ask it again and I'm sure you can give the same answer. I don't want to see day care and child care privatized. I don't want to see the standards or the education requirements for supervisors driven down. I don't want to see early childhood education farmed out into the private market where it's not monitored or supervised.

I want to see those child care programs in community colleges, and I want to see them being two-year programs. You know that they've been reduced to ten-month programs. Please talk to your Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen) — I will do the same, since that's my critic area — and try to ensure that in every community college there is a two-year early childhood education program, not a ten-month one. It's crucially important, because that's one area where we drive down standards.

Another area where standards could be driven down is the actual physical standards of a centre, the physical requirements. If those standards get driven down far enough, day care in British Columbia will become cheap enough to attract American franchise corporations, people who can come in and figure that, cost per head, they can deliver a service for $100 a month per child and charge $250 per child. That's not what we want to see in B.C., and it's happening in Ontario. We don't need it. So I say: keep the standards up.

Is the minister at all contemplating encouraging large-scale, private child care in British Columbia or the privatization of existing child care?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Well, I dwelt a few minutes ago on standards and the committee that we will have in place to ensure that standards are kept at the highest possible level, and we mean that very seriously. As I said, we'll go far beyond the physical requirements of the building, which is really what is monitored now under the Ministry of Health. We want to bring this under an umbrella of concerned people — people in the business, people who work with children — so that we will have more than one committee traveling this province monitoring the level of day care to make sure they're not plunked in front of a television for eight hours a day and left there. That's not child care.

We have no intention of interfering with or privatizing the college programs. I will pass on your remarks to the Minister of Advanced Education regarding a two-year course.

The other thing I was going to get at was that if we do subsidize child care in the extended family, such as the

[ Page 3804 ]

grandmother's and mother's home, then the standards will also be monitored. If we're going to put taxpayers' dollars into child care, whether it's in the grandmother's home or not, the standards will be monitored so that we make sure we maintain the standards.

On the subject of schools and child care space, a great deal of that would fall under another minister's jurisdiction, but I would hasten to say that with the new teen support programs, if we enter into this with school boards, it naturally follows, I think, that we're going to have to provide for child care or day care spaces. I would think that that will follow as a matter of evolution. As far as building them into schools, that would be an interministerial thing, and the final decision would be with two places: the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) and the federal government, which would perhaps cost-share on it.

I just want to assure the member and this House that we are very concerned about the standards of any day care spaces that are provided, whether they be non-profit or proprietary. You mentioned Ontario; I do have to say that I talked to the minister from Ontario, and the largest percentage of their spaces are proprietary day care spaces. They're quite pleased with them, according to the minister. They seem to be doing as good a job or better than the non-profits. So there's great division philosophically on this. I know the former minister from Manitoba thought otherwise; they wanted to go strictly non-profit society. We happen to believe — and we know — that many of our best day care centres are run by entrepreneurs.

MR. PETERSON: I'd like to take a few minutes to discuss the adoption procedures in the province, in particular our current eligibility rules for individuals or families to adopt children.

I wonder if the minister could answer a couple of questions. First of all, are we going to undertake a review of the eligibility of people who can adopt children in the province? Specifically, I wonder if we could address two things: (1) is a single individual eligible to adopt a child in this province; and (2) will you take the age cap off the ability of an individual to adopt, which I believe is either 39 or 40 right now?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: 1 thank the member for his questions on the adoption procedures. In my opening remarks this morning I did say: "The Adoption Act will be reviewed to ensure that it reflects the changing social attitudes and practice regarding adoption." So we are going to review the entire Adoption Act, Mr. Member. It hasn't been changed for a long, long time. The act that we currently operate under was, I believe, written in 1920. It has only been changed twice. Once was last year, when we instituted an adoption registry, and once before with some minor modification. So there's no doubt in my mind that the Adoption Act is out of date. It's not serving the needs of people in the 1980s and into the '90s simply because it was written too many years ago.

The two specific questions regarding singles and age. We are already being a lot more flexible on the age matter simply because we find that even people on waiting-lists for adoptions have gone past the age limit before they get to the top of the list. So we are taking a more lenient view of that at the moment. These specific questions will be addressed when we review the act. We're going to review it completely because, as I said, it is not meeting the needs. We will look at the two items you mention of singles and the upper age limit for adoptive parents.

MR. PETERSON: I had the opportunity to speak to the annual general meeting of the Women's Institute in my own constituency this Monday morning, and that very topic was brought up to me as a concern. One of the points you brought out was that by the time an eligible child becomes available, people who want to adopt are too old under the current rules to be able to take.... They've lost their eligibility is what I guess I'm trying to say. So I thank you very much for that response.

One last question to you, Mr. Minister: could you give me a time element? Do you have any objective in mind in terms of when this review will be completed?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The review has been commenced. As you can understand, I'm sure, it will take some time to go through the complete act. I would like to see it completed by the end of this calendar year, so if we're going to change it and introduce a new act, which is really what's required, we would attempt to do it in next spring's session of the House. Don't take that as a firm commitment, but something we will aim for is to have it reviewed and rewritten in time to introduce it next spring at the next session of this Legislature.

MR. STUPICH: I want to talk a little bit about perhaps the second most serious problem that I've had to deal with over the years as an MLA. Certainly Workers Compensation Board comes first. But those who have trouble getting along on assistance levels, such as they are, must be second. I'm sure all of us have had individuals, families, into our office from time to time complaining, expressing concerns and just having great difficulty in making ends meet.

The minister takes some satisfaction or pleasure from the fact that the number is going down, but it is still at unacceptably high levels — there's no question about that. In June 1983 the number was 230,132. That was just before restraint started. Of course, with restraint coming in, the number ballooned upwards very rapidly, reaching a high in 1985 of 261,485; and that, incidentally, is the year in which the amount provided for GAIN was underestimated by $150 million. People talk about the $100 million overrun when the NDP were in office; they forget the $150 million overrun which the Socreds really brought on with that program of restraint. There can be little question about that.

[4:15]

Now it is coming down. We all hope it continues to come down, but still, with 240,000 or whatever, it is an unacceptably high level in British Columbia. The figures, I think, hadn't been changed since 1982, until this minister introduced some changes last year. That means that over a period of some seven or six years the cost of living went up an average of 4 percent a year. So it's up around a 25 percent increase. I think last year the two increases raised the support allowance by something like 10 percent — certainly no more than a third of catching up to the increase in the cost of living since the last change in the amounts available for support and shelter allowance.

This just isn't good enough in a country as rich as Canada. With the resources we have in British Columbia, we should be able to do better for those in our society who, for

[ Page 3805 ]

whatever reason, have found it impossible to look after their own needs.

Since I've been a member, we've changed the name of this department at least three, perhaps four, times, always because there was felt to be some stigma attached to it. And there is a stigma attached to welfare or assistance — GAIN, whatever we call it. We all know individuals who have appealed to us: they don't want to go on welfare; they don't want to go on GAIN; they don't want assistance, because they feel it's not right to be accepting charity. Perhaps that's one of the things that's wrong with this program.

We all live in an environment that has been created by generations of human beings going back over many years. The fact that we're in the surroundings that we're in today, wearing the clothes that we are, is not because we've been so good but because many people have gone before us and have all left something behind them. Simply by being born as human beings we have a right as individuals to some share of that. We also have an obligation and an opportunity to participate, to create more ourselves and to leave something behind us.

If we could change this program somehow . . . . Increase the amount, yes, because these people are going to spend the money in their communities, in the province or in the country. But if we could change it so people felt they were simply drawing on money that's been deposited or on resources that have been deposited by generations long gone, and still coming, if we could feel that we're simply drawing on those resources and that we're going to put back in when our circumstances change . . . . But for the grace of God, a lot of us could be in the same position.

Accidents happen, situations develop; it can happen to anyone. Fortunately it's the minority, but it can happen to anyone. But really, I think we have to change the whole philosophy of this GAIN program. I've said this before and I'm trying to say it again this time: people have to feel different about it — the ones who are collecting it.

The government's attitude, as I hear from different members on the other side, is that people are there because they are too lazy, because they don't want to work. Well, Mr. Chairman, I've been around longer than you and longer than the minister, and I can recall during the war, when we had a million people in uniform, that a large part of our population was busy developing and building munitions and all kinds of other things that were to be sunk in the north Atlantic — in the vain hope that we would fill it up one day. In spite of all that, we were all living better than we were before that and everyone was employed. I say everyone; I'm not saying right down to the last individual, but certainly there were job opportunities for people if they wanted to work, and there weren't people around who were too lazy to work. Now there might have been some who chose a different lifestyle. There aren't people now who are too lazy, but there are people with broken spirits, people who, because of the circumstances they are in now and because of being asked . . . . Their only way out is to appeal to charity. They are people who have lost their spirit, have lost their ambition. That's our fault, not just theirs.

We have to change that somehow. We have to change our society so that people will feel they have a right to draw on the resources that have been deposited by generations before them, and also an obligation and an opportunity to contribute to what is going to be left when they go, left for generations yet unborn.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just let me address a few remarks made by the member. I guess I'll start by saying yes, we have realized the overall picture and maybe tried to take a look at new methods of providing assistance to people. We're looking at the tax credit concept at the moment and we will be discussing that with the feds. We are a ways yet from being there, but there are a lot of pluses to a tax credit concept whereby a person could even get to negative income tax, etc. I think you're probably quite familiar with it. We're looking at that, and maybe the time is approaching for a change in the way we deliver welfare.

I happen to agree with the member on some of the things he said. I agree that most people don't want to be on welfare; I know that. If I had to peg it at a figure, I would say about 96 percent of the people on welfare do not wish to be there. As near as I can pin it down, that would be the figure.

I do disagree with him when he says people on this side say that people on welfare are lazy. I've never heard anyone on this side say that. We have meetings in caucus and we talk about it; we talk about it in cabinet; and I've never heard anybody say that you've got people there because they're lazy. I hear people from that side saying that we say that, but I never hear anybody here say it. It's certainly not the philosophy of this minister or my colleagues, as far as I know. We do all agree, I think, that there is a very small percentage of people who will probably always be there, and it's something less than 4 percent, but most people genuinely want off of welfare — and let's call it what it is; it's welfare.

I looked at the figures the other day to see what other provinces pay — to address your first concern about assistance levels. Yes, we would probably all like to see them a little higher. We have had several increases since I've been the minister — two last year, as the member kindly mentioned. But when I looked at the figures and compared them with across Canada, in most categories we are almost right on centre. We are about number five across the country. It does vary when you get into some of the various categories, because there are some 22 different categories: single, employable, unemployable, with dependents, etc. But when we look at all the figures across the country, we are about in the middle, which is not a bad place to be. We are not the highest and we are certainly not the lowest. In some specific categories we are quite a bit above other provinces, and I must admit that there are a couple of categories where we are quite a bit below. We do monitor where we sit with the rest of the country, and I think it's important, so that we do keep some perspective on where we are.

I agree with the member also that the numbers are unacceptably high. I feel the same about unemployment figures: whatever they are, they're too high and we must work to bring them down. I don't take any great joy that the numbers are coming down, because they're not coming down as fast as I would like. But it is a good sign that they're coming down. I guess we could get into a political argument about why the numbers rose when they did. The member says because of restraint; I happen to disagree with him. I think they rose for economic reasons. But this is probably not the time or place to get into that political discussion — unless the member wants to, and then we could eat up the clock, as the member for Maillardville–Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) says.

I think I've addressed most of the things. I appreciate the member's comments, and as I said, on some of the things he has said I agree and on some I disagree.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) having introduced this

[ Page 3806 ]

section of our questions that deal with the GAIN act. I always find his input on these issues supportive, because it comes from an economic perspective.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: A short break; I'll be right back.

MR. CASHORE: I understand. Mr. Chairman, we're into a phase of some of my questions being written down, and the minister will return to the House fairly soon.

When the minister responded, I appreciated his tone; he too would like to see the number of unemployed decrease, and he would like to see the number of people on welfare decrease. I'm sure we all would. But there is a fundamental difference in our way of coming at that. The first member for Nanaimo was pointing out that when we as a society decide to address poverty as vigorously as we have addressed other calamities that have visited themselves upon our society, such as in time of war . . . . We were able to do so in such a way that the collective community pulled together and unemployment was at an absolute minimum.

Many of the points we make in our critique would be that we believe the ministry is in too many instances addressing symptoms. What we need to do is get at root causes.

Mr. Chairman, I move on to some information that has become available today. If I can just reiterate a bit, this morning the minister rose and we felt that he was about to announce the reorganization of the ministry, which he did; but there was a part of what he had to say that I was kind of seeing as part of the announcement of the reorganization, but which, it seems to me, was really an announcement of some changes in the way that GAIN was to be administered. I think those announcements could have been forthcoming whether or not a reorganization had been announced, although I'm sure he'll say that that reorganization helps to facilitate some of this.

I have been trying to get a grasp on some of the initiatives that have been mentioned with regard to changes in income assistance. Both from the media backgrounder and from the news releases that have been issued — and I also made notes when the minister was speaking — it's very difficult to try and assimilate all of this and really come out with an incisive perception of it. But in reading through this, there are a few points that I really want to address.

There seems to be a process taking place here whereby one initiative doesn't seem to philosophically fit in with others that are taking place. I would just like to mention one of them. We understand from this information that has come forward that the designation of "employable" will be limited to situations involving the health of recipients or their dependents. Therefore, for example — and I find this absolutely preposterous — a single mother with two children under the age of 12 who is presently on GAIN will now be considered employable. It also indicates that following the birth of a child, this is now limited to 15 weeks, whereas it was half a year before.

I find this absolutely astounding, coming forward at this time. This is clearly in contradiction to the rhetoric we were hearing last week from the Premier, when he announced his family life program. What we have here is an absolutely unnecessary announcement that I think is at very best insensitive; it is simply going to heap pressure onto the backs of people who are out there struggling. If a single mother who has a 15-week-old child needs to go out and find work, certainly the circumstances that will make that possible will be what result in her going out to find work, not putting this type of pressure on her.

[4:30]

I cannot emphasize enough how terrifying it is for people in this category when this type of move is announced. Why this announcement would be put forward at this time, seeming to disintegrate and demolish any public relations gains that have been made by the announcement of the Premier's initiative last week, is beyond belief. I would like to know just how much that particular mother, who would now be defined as employable after 15 weeks, would lose once she loses that designation "unemployable." I'd also like to know just how many of these individuals there are. How many single mothers are being targeted in this category? I would like to know what the ministry expects to save by doing this. Is this part of the reason for the reduction of $42 million in the projected amount for income assistance?

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to point out to the minister that unless we have available child care spaces out there, it's going to beg the question. Even though there are announced supports that would make it possible for such people to go out and look for work, if the child care spaces don't exist, this is going to place additional pressure on the number of spaces that exist now. So this is not contributing to a situation that is going to result in an improvement out there in terms of that.

Also, if there is not the availability of decent jobs, it raises the spectre of these women, 15 weeks after their child has been born, being forced to go out and pick berries at great travel expense, to leave their domicile and their child. Possibly the work only lasts for two or three days, and then they have to travel elsewhere. It does not conjure up the support for the family — I hope we can include the single-parent family in that — that we were hearing about last week, with all the sanctimonious talk about how the Premier of this province was going to come around and support the family. That's a need that we've been calling for for a long time: consistent, responsible programs for the delivery of services to families. I would like to ask the minister for his response to that, and then I'll get on to some other aspects of the announcement.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm pleased to respond to the member, and I trust he has carefully read the news release that I put out this morning regarding changes to the GAIN program, because it does go into some detail explaining the philosophy behind what we are doing. I think the key is that we're trying to move people from a philosophical mindset of being unemployable to being employable; to get them off that semi-permanent or permanent designation of "unemployable" and make them believe they are employable.

To answer the specific question as to how many dollars a client loses by losing that designation, it's $50 a month. Let me go into what we are adding at the other end to make it possible for that single parent to return to the workforce. We have increased day care subsidies. If you look at section 9 of the news release I put out, Mr. Member, it says: "Payment of the day care surcharge for one year for single parents who become employed. The surcharge is the difference between the actual cost of day care and the maximum subsidy provided through the day care subsidy program." We have included transportation allowances. We've increased the infant day care for the woman you talk of who has a child who

[ Page 3807 ]

is more than 15 weeks old; that is similar to the maternity benefits policy of unemployment insurance. We've removed the existing waiting-period for those who are truly unemployable, so they are immediately eligible for a higher rate. We want to move people from that category of unemployable as quickly as possible.

It's the same as the handicapped. You asked this morning: and, yes, we did consult with groups who represent the disabled, and the vast majority of them don't want to be labelled that for the rest of their lives.

So every one of these cases will be done on an individual basis. That's why we have provided more workers. We have provided some 200 new positions dedicated to the income assistance program, and they will be established so the staff have more time to assist clients to independence. The key is independence, so that if a handicapped person's status changes or technology changes, and they are able to get full and gainful employment, they will lose that stigma of being labelled as handicapped; so that unemployable people can lose that designation through counselling, because we have more people to do counselling. Instead of doing paperwork, they'll be counselling people and moving them towards independence.

I think, Mr. Member, contrary to your remarks that it is not consistent with strengthening the family, that it's just the opposite. The vast majority of these people want off GAIN or welfare. They want to get back into the workforce, and we can help to strengthen the family by raising their self-esteem and their opinion of themselves, and break the syndrome and the cycle that we have going in some families in this province. I don't think I have to tell the member that in some families we're into third-generation welfare cases. We are putting this program into place to try to break that cycle, and to get people back into the workforce and independent as quickly as possible.

MR. CASHORE: There is no question that when you take these announcements that were made today, some pieces of them have some value, and I certainly am not denying that. But to go back to the philosophical point the minister just raised, we still have the problem that we do not have the stock of jobs in reasonable employment that these people would find available. It really makes it very difficult to say that these people who the minister says want off GAIN . . . . I agree they want off GAIN, so why do they have to be pushed? Why does this type of thing have to be placed there, like a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads? If they find they are not able to leave, perhaps for reasons of a child in the home requiring a great deal of supervision, then they're stuck with this loss of $150 a month.

Mr. Chairman, the minister has said that people have been consulted with regard to these issues. He mentioned that the disabled had been consulted. It sounds to me like there has been a very selective kind of consultation. I find this extremely disturbing. If the people want off welfare, as the minister says, then they already have that incentive; they don't need to be pushed. And at the same time as those kinds of supports for transportation and day care are in place, that's well and good, but if we're not creating the new stock of affordable day care spaces in properly supervised settings, then we can't really accomplish that much.

Let's take a look at the announcement with regard to the "handicapped" designation being reviewed periodically. It will no longer be a lifetime designation. I would expect that this announcement would strike fear into the hearts of a great many handicapped people. I would recognize that the minister is concerned about many handicapped people who have demonstrated their outstanding capability, in terms of being able to live fulfilling lives and participate as fully as possible; all of us want to celebrate that and enhance it in every way we possibly can. But the question is: are those people going to get into that very positive framework as a result of being pushed or as a result of there being positive policies and procedures out there that make it more likely that they will be able to develop and to find employment, and that they will be more likely to find employers out there whose consciousness has been raised with regard to the services that they are able to provide, etc.?

I would have to ask: why this periodic review, as a blanket thing? Could the minister give some indication of what those periods of time would be, so that those people out there who are designated "handicapped " will have some idea how often they are going to have to go through that procedure? Is the minister aware that when somebody receives the designation of "handicapped," he already goes through a very difficult process? A medical doctor, subject to the responsibilities and the ethics of medicine, is involved in substantiating that application for handicapped status. So when these designations are made, Mr. Chairman, they are not made lightly. I would ask the minister to clarify why it is necessary to announce this initiative in this way at this time.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, we all realize that there are varying degrees of disabilities, and we also know that there are some who will remain in that category for their entire life. There are many who will not. There are no formal expectations that recipients participate in the workforce or pursue independence. We're not pushing people, Mr. Member. Those are your words. We're not pushing anyone; we're trying to assist people to become independent.

Medical science and technology has advanced such that lifelong disabling conditions are becoming less common. Many people who were probably considered severely handicapped and totally unemployable a few years ago are now in the workforce and have meaningful jobs and are sustaining themselves. So there is no timetable laid down as to when people will be reviewed. As I said, there is no formal expectation that some of these people will ever be in the workforce, but we are here to assist them. What we're saying is that the designation of "handicapped" will not be there for life; likewise the designation of "unemployable."

Because there doesn't happen to be a job available for someone at this moment really has no bearing on whether that person is employable or unemployable. There may not happen to be a job available. That doesn't make them unemployable; it just makes them unemployed. We're saying that we must break that psychology of people thinking themselves unemployable. Once they've been on welfare for a certain length of time, they then lose any desire or drive to go out and become employed again. The figure, just to correct you, is $50 a month — not $150. You asked me a specific question: how much does a single parent lose? It was $50 per month.

I think the important thing here is the psychology of not saying to somebody: "You are unemployable just because you do not have a job at the present time." It's the only way we're going to be able to assist people back into the workforce to improve their self-esteem and get them independent and off welfare. I still stand by what I said: the vast majority

[ Page 3808 ]

of people do not wish to be on welfare. We're not pushing them; we're assisting them. Some of them do need some assistance.

[4:45]

MR. CASHORE: When you talk about assisting them, you use terms such as "break the psychology." That sounds to me to be a fairly aggressive way of going about that. I think that you can achieve the ends you're seeking to achieve by making sure that there's the availability of jobs out there on the one hand, and on the other hand, by providing the kinds of supports — some of which the minister has been referring to — that make it more and more possible for people to get out there. For instance, you could provide support in getting to job interviews with bus fares and those kinds of expenses.

In the information that came before us today with regard to the changes in GAIN administration, I understand that there's an enhanced earnings exemption — the term "enhanced" is a term I'd like to have explained — and that it's going to be extended to include those receiving GAIN for the Handicapped. It will be limited to one year for all recipients. I can see something positive in that, but at the present time with regard to the earnings exemption, everything over $50 earned by a single recipient is taxed at the rate of 75 percent. I know this question of the earnings exemption has come up on many occasions with regard to being an incentive. The minister is talking about incentives. We're talking about incentives here that don't push people, but encourage people. I think it would be timely to provide further encouragement by addressing that issue of the earnings exemption and taking a look at the fact that after that initial $50 for a single person and $100 for a person in a family, those earnings are taxed back at the rate of 75 percent. That's quite a high rate of taxation for a person who is in poverty. But I do recognize and acknowledge that in extending that to those receiving GAIN for the Handicapped, that's a step in the right direction. I would also like to have the term "enhanced" explained.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: To go back to the topic we were on a few moments ago, I also want to point out that medical coverage will be continued for single parents who become reclassified under the new rules as employable. So the only thing they will lose is the extra $50 a month given to those classified as unemployable. It's an important point that they do not lose their medical coverage.

To answer the one about enhanced earnings exemptions, the program has been in effect for some time to allow anyone on GAIN to enhance his earnings by a certain percentage beyond a basic $50 per month. The program hasn't changed in essence, except for two things: we are extending that benefit to those in receipt of GAIN for the Handicapped; and we've put a time-limit on the program of one year for recipients. Singles are allowed the basic $50 per month plus 25 percent of their earnings; couples with dependents, $100 per month plus 25 percent — up to a time-limit of one year. I should clarify that because it's not in the news release that after a year the only thing cut is the enhanced earnings of 25 percent. So the basic $50 and $100 still remain.

MR. CASHORE: I want to thank the minister for correcting me on that figure. I had $150. 1 had not heard correctly, and I acknowledge that $50 is the correct figure for the amount that the single parent would lose.

With regard to the extension of medical and dental benefits for one year to these groups, I'm not sure if we can really look upon this as an extension. Isn't it in actual fact a limitation, in that it's being limited to one year? Was not that benefit there before?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: To clarify, it's been extended to those on GAIN for the Handicapped who didn't have it before; but the program is time-limited now for one year — again, to try to break that cycle and not get people caught in the so-called poverty trap, where they get very comfortable with earning just a little bit more and then stay on it ad infinitum. The idea is to help them for the first year they're on income assistance, and then after a year the enhanced earnings goes — again, to give more incentive to become independent and get off the welfare rolls.

MR. CASHORE: I really do find it difficult to hear the minister repeat so many times terms such as "to help people get out of the poverty trap" and that sort of thing. I've heard the minister disclaim many times that he and his colleagues have an attitude that tends to look down on people who are in these circumstances. I hear him say that, and I know he means what he says. At the same time, the fact of poverty is not a trap that somehow people spring on themselves. Poverty is something that we all address as a society. I see in this particular point that, yes, it's good that that benefit has been extended, but I would question the limitation. I don't think it's necessary. We don't need to get into a situation where we're blaming the victims for somehow not getting up and getting going. The fact is that when our society addresses poverty in a very meaningful way, we will see these situations start to change of their own volition rather than out of some sort of requirement that is going to increase the need for administration or, for instance, in the case of the handicapped, for doctors to be involved.

One has to ask what the ultimate benefit is going to be when we have not seen our economy turning around except for the very wealthy in our society. Our economy is not turning around for low-income people, and that is the reason why so many low-income people are finding it difficult. No matter how many ways we try to come at this, if they're predicated on somehow seeing the victim as the problem instead of seeing the victim as one who is encountering problems brought about by the entire society, we will not be able to get at it.

There's an item in here where the ministry says it will develop an equitable policy for dealing with small business applicants for GAIN. I would like to ask what would make such individuals eligible for income assistance, and what would provide a greater or lesser viability. Actually, what I'd like to ask the minister to do, in reading over this part of the announcement .... I think it is on page 2: "The ministry will develop an equitable policy for dealing with small business applicants for GAIN. This will include using a private sector approach to assess business viability to assist in determining eligibility for income assistance." Well, I think that requires translation.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, I don't think the member understood what I meant by the phrase "poverty trap." It's not a trap that people spring on themselves; he's

[ Page 3809 ]

quite correct. Governments, I believe, put people into poverty traps, because you get them accepting welfare or GAIN, if you like, and then start increasing it by categorizing them as unemployable and allowing them more and more enhanced earnings income without putting a time-limit on it. What is meant by a poverty trap is when a person is at a point and has been on GAIN or welfare, if you like, for such an extent and at an income level where it really is difficult for him or her to get off and he or she has little incentive to get off welfare and back into the workforce. It's referred to in many of the books that you read on income assistance, written by some noted professors in the United States, where we do create poverty traps for people. What I said, and I still maintain, is that we must spring people from that poverty trap and put programs into place where they can get out of that trap.

The economy is the biggest assist that we have to that. To quote the statistics that I gave this morning, in the last year, from January to January, there were 90,000 new jobs created in British Columbia. So there are more and more jobs becoming available to help these people get off income assistance. Quite often, all they need is that assist. In the month of March 1988, there were more people employed than ever before in the province's history. What we are endeavouring to do with this program is to assist people out of the poverty traps and back into the workforce.

To answer your other question on the equitable policy for dealing with small business applicants, we do have a program in the ministry, which is probably one of the most difficult to administer and make decisions on. It is a program to assist the person on income assistance into his or her own business, to make them an entrepreneur. It's a difficult decision to make, whether you assist someone to go into business and leave him on income assistance for two, three or four months until they get established.

We are, as it says here, endeavouring to develop an equitable policy for dealing with small business applicants for GAIN, because you tread a very fine line as to whether you're assisting someone into business, whether you're just subsidizing them until they go broke — that's why the private sector approach will be used to assess the viability of the business — and thirdly, whether you are just assisting them to compete with an established business somewhere down the street or in another community.

It's a difficult one for us to get our mind around. We are developing a policy; it's not in place yet. It's one that I would like to pursue, because the philosophy is correct. To get a person, if they can't find a job but they think they could become . . . . A house painter, for example, was one application we had. If we would set him up with the necessary equipment and keep his GAIN cheque coming for three months, he could make it as a house painter. Well, sometimes there is some doubt about whether he or she could make it as a house painter, and we may be better off to look elsewhere to assist that person with work.

As best I can, I've explained the small business application. There are very few, and they are difficult to deal with, but we are coming to grips with them.

MR. BARNES: I'd like to express my greetings to the minister, and tell him that I'm pleased to take my place, although very briefly, in the debate on the spending of his budget. The minister made it quite clear that this was a record budget as far as the categories of expenditures are concerned. I guess that should be commended, because it indicates that the government is recognizing the needs, at least in part. Unfortunately, though, the expenditure has another perspective, and that is that it indicates the problems still exist; they're still growing, and where will it all end?

[5:00]

You say you've created some 90,000 new jobs in the last fiscal year. That's to be commended, but yet the numbers of people on welfare, dependent on social assistance, people on unemployment insurance or in some other category of assistance are up. So I think we have to take a look at the system itself. This has already been touched upon many times before, certainly by the member for Maillardville–Coquitlam, in terms of the need for more resolve.

I'm not going to suggest that the minister's motives are not good as far as doing his job is concerned, but the evidence on the streets of degradation and, to use a general expression, of poverty in general, of social breakdown, of waywardness, of lack of direction by a certain category, say, of citizens who just aren't fitting in, is getting to be endemic. It is something that I do not think the minister can really accept himself. Perhaps he's just overwhelmed by it all and doesn't really know what to do.

I must say that I don't think there are any simple answers to the problem, but the problem is there and that's what I'm talking about today. In other words, there are far too many young people we call street kids who are just out there. We have parents finally taking the law into their own hands. A headline recently in one of the papers was "Moms Join in Pimp War," to try and rescue their kids from the captivation of young men who would exploit their sons and daughters.

The government has embarked upon a program to save the family; to support the continued integrity of the family; to try and save those traditions that seem to be fast eroding; to cut down on divorces; to reaffirm the values of matrimony and all of the values that we would all like to see in a stable, democratic society that truly relies on healthy young people and healthy families in order to protect our traditions, our institutions and our way of life, and to give us cause to invest in the future. So there are all those values that are at risk, and the government has appropriated $20 million or so for such a program.

I commented yesterday that I thought the program was a little bit farcical in light of the government's previous record, at least over the years of restraint from 1983 onward. I'm not going to repeat all of those cuts that were taken with respect to family support programs, etc; we all know what they are. But the point is that the government is now saying that the families are the strength of our future. We all agree with that. The Premier has embarked upon an ambitious television advertising program to get that message across to British Columbians — dinner jacket and all, by the fireside in his home where I'm sure he's very comfortable — and to talk about why we should keep the family together.

I want to ask the minister to explain to us the relationship of that $20 million budget, which I suspect will be used to a large extent for television advertising and full coverage in the various daily papers. How much of that $20 million is going to be used to deal with the situations that are happening on the streets today? How much of this money will be used as an outreach for wayward youth, young men and women at risk, who as we know are being murdered, exploited and neglected, and who feel that they are, in effect, forgotten citizens, sort of like in nobody's land. That really is a

[ Page 3810 ]

reasonable characterization of what happens when you're selling your body on the streets, not knowing what your customer's personality will be like or what may happen. It's really a frightening situation that is on the increase.

In my constituency, Vancouver Centre, among the native people in that area alone there are some 75 of them in a small area along Hastings Street. That's just the native people. They only represent a small portion of the number of people who are selling their bodies in that area. That's not to mention the area in Mount Pleasant and other parts of that constituency. These are the ones out on the streets, you know. There are a lot of other prostitutes, I'm sure, in all kinds of places, who are protected by a different clientele; they're in a different environment.

This is a serious problem. It is one that I think is reflecting tragically upon a society that still talks about the integrity of the family and a growing, blossoming, promising economy. It's spending a tremendous amount of time and energy in building economic muscle on an international level. It talks about the Pacific Rim and free trade. We are talking about streamlining government and everything, but what happens to those people? I think that's their duty, as the minister pointed out this morning in his opening remarks: to ensure that the individuals under his ministry receive an opportunity to reach their full potential. That's their concern.

One of the questions, Mr. Minister — through you, Mr. Chairman — is to relate the $20 million to initiatives that address the street people, those who are selling their bodies on the streets. How much of this money is being used for outreach? How much of it is being used specifically to assist the native population in those areas, who we know are proportionately way out of line with the rest of the population in terms of the numbers of native people who find no other recourse but to exploit the streets at the risk of losing life and limb or of permanent injury.

There was an article, if you don't mind me referring to the daily paper, that quoted the executive director of the Native Counselling and Referral Centre, who was describing the situation with respect to the native people down there in that community. Has the government been in contact with this referral centre? Has the government attempted to cooperate with this agency to try and assist them with funding? How many counsellors are there, that the government knows of, that it is supporting? And is it monitoring this situation? How many of those 75 native people are on social assistance? What strategies does the government have in place in terms of their eventual removal from that area — because I would suspect that most of them would desire another alternative to where they are. Can the government assure this House that it is aware of the situation, that it knows the numbers, that it knows the categories, that it knows the abilities of those people and their resources, and that it is actively working with the people in that community to try and do something about the situation?

We're not talking huge dollars. When you think of the kinds of moneys that have been made available at the whim of the government through a pen, an order-in-council or any other decree, it is very easy for the government to come up with the money. So that isn't the issue. We're talking about political and conscionable resolve. We're talking about trying to give those people down there the hope and encouragement they need to believe that this government's initiatives relate to them.

This is what I want the minister to tell us: how this budget — which has apparently increased substantially over the last fiscal year — relates to the street people, relates to outreach programs, offers the opportunities necessary to assist these people to find alternatives to selling their bodies.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, I'll answer as best I can on the native centre, because I'm not exactly sure if the centre you mentioned is the one we invited to our meeting to discuss the specific problems in that area.

I called a meeting here — I think it was in January — of everyone concerned with that downtown core that you just spoke of. We had the mayor of Vancouver at the meeting; the police chief; Carole Taylor, the mayor's alderman in charge of social programs; Jim Green of DERA; a captain from the Salvation Army — I forget his name; May Gutteridge from the St. James establishment; and one of the native Indian leaders — the name escapes me — and the name of the native centre that he represented just doesn't come to mind. The specific one you mentioned — I can't answer if they were represented at the meeting. But I just wanted to reassure you that, yes, we are aware of the problems. That's why I called the meeting: to try to do something in that downtown core for all the people there — the real down-and-outers, the native people and the rest.

We are addressing the problems. We have now entered into two contracts — one with May Gutteridge of St. James and one with DERA — to help us to get some of these real hard-core cases paying their rent, establishing bank accounts and learning to manage their money, so that we can improve their status and give them some sense of permanence. That's on one side.

On the other, we are addressing the problem of drugs and alcohol in that downtown centre, because it is a huge problem and we realize that. We realize that we have to get at the root of some of the problems, and that's what we're endeavouring to do. It crosses several ministries. My colleague the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services (Hon. L. Hanson) is on top of the alcohol problem in the area; the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) is working closely with us in the social policy of cabinet to address the drugs of choice in that particular area of the city, specifically Talwin and Ritalin.

As the member knows, I took the problem of street kids very seriously last year. I did go out on the street for two and a half nights with the police, rehab officers, parole officers and social workers, and I saw firsthand the problem of which he speaks. There is no question that everything you said about that, Mr. Member, is the truth. It is a tragic situation, where we have children in their very low teens — 13, 14, sometimes even 12 years old — out on the street.

So we did initiate a program, called Reconnect, to try to do several things: firstly, to put more workers on the street, to get to these kids before the street gets to them, before these vultures, as I call them — they're called pimps — get hold of them. That is the ideal situation, where we can get them when they get off the bus and get them back to, if not their own home, at least a family-like setting and perhaps back to their own community.

[5:15]

Secondly, failing that, we are putting facilities into place to place kids, once they've been on the street for three or four years . . . . I think you know the cycle, where if the street does get hold of them, it takes them two, three, maybe four years before they realize that they're in a downward spiral that's going to end with their death. Usually this happens by the time they're about 16 and a half or 17. It's a tragic

[ Page 3811 ]

situation, when you see, as I did, 15- and 16-year-old girls . . . . I know there are boys too, but I met some 15- and 16-year-old girls in a group home, who were totally burned out at those tender ages — psychologically, morally, spiritually and physically — with the veins in their arms so collapsed from needles that they can't even find a spot to put the next needle in. It's a very tragic situation. So to that end we have increased the budget for Reconnect this year by an additional $1.32 million. We know that we're not going to stamp out that problem. If we can save some lives and alleviate the problem somewhat, it will have been successful. I would like to do more along those . . . .

MR. BARNES: Just outline briefly what Reconnect is doing.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The initial move in Reconnect was to put more workers right on the street. As I've said, to get additional workers right on the street, which we have done . . . .

MR. BARNES: How many are out there now?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't know if I have the number. I'll have to get you the number.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Oh, yes, I worked with John Turvey and his assistant for one night, and I worked with Mr. Demoskoff and his assistant up on Richards and Seymour Streets for another night. We have another one: Allan Roscoe. I didn't work with him, but he's another one on the street.

MR. BARNES: You need quite a few of them out there.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, we put more out; and possibly you're right that we need more, because the idea is to catch them before the pimps get hold of them, and get them off the street.

MR. BARNES: What do you do with them when you get them off the street?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It's hard to say, because each case differs. There are some we will take back to the community they came from. If they cannot go back to their own home, which is quite often the case — they've been abused or whatever — then we will get them into a group home or a safe house, preferably in their own community. If that's not possible, maybe another community. But we get them into as close to a family setting as we can, preferably into a group home until we can get them settled down and keep them away from the street, and then possibly into a foster home or something like that. The other kids who have been out there and hooked by the street for three or four years require an awful lot more work to get them reconnected with society. So there are two or three steps we have to go through, from the initial home to a group living situation to semi-independent living and counselling. We have been fairly successful — not in huge numbers, I'm sorry to say, but that's why we've put more money into that side of Reconnect.

To answer your other question about where the $20 million is going, as simply as possible, $16 million of it is going into my ministry to administer the programs we announced and $4 million is going into Health.

MR. BARNES: How much for advertising?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't know, but none of the $20 million I mentioned — $16 million is in our ministry and $4 million is in Health. If you like, I can get you a breakdown of exactly where our $16 million is going, but I think most of it was in the announcements we made in the last few days. I haven't got it right at my fingertips, but it's here.

MR. BARNES: I appreciate the minister's candour in dealing with this matter. Of course, I've known all along that the minister cares and is concerned. I think what we're trying to do now is find effective ways of addressing this vexing problem. We all know it's vexing. I feel as if we should be declaring war on the problem. When mothers start talking about declaring war on pimps, I think that's a pretty strong message that we should be declaring war ourselves on the problem.

This is a little political because I quite frankly don't think there is a policy in place, but I want to ask the minister: does the government have an affirmative action policy, a plan, in terms of helping those who obviously need some help? We are in a society where everyone clearly knows that native people are the last ones — pardon the pun — on the totem pole. It's always been a problem. It was that way with the blacks in the States for many years, and they still are to some degree low on the totem pole, although things are looking a little better. But native people in this province are truly the last ones to get a break. I'm just wondering how many native people are working in the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. How many work for the provincial government? How many of these graduates that we had here today from the native education centre are going to have any success getting employment anywhere? We're trying to reconnect them, to plug them back into a society that many of them have been alienated from all along. So we're going to have to be a lot more aggressive.

I'm looking for constructive, tangible evidence that we're going to do something. If you get the people off the streets, put them in a transition home or a foster home or wherever you put them . . . . Look, their real problem is acceptability, being able to live in dignity, getting a fair break, a fair chance in society, and that's the kind of thing that's missing. Where are the jobs, where are the opportunities, where is the tangible evidence?

I would even go so far as to suggest to the minister, Mr. Chairman, that if we went down and talked to those 75 native prostitutes in the downtown east side, on Hastings between the Carrall area and Strathcona, if we were to pull them into a big auditorium and say, "Look, enough is enough. What can we do to straighten this situation out," I'll bet most of them would have an idea of what they would like to do. If we were prepared to invest in them, we could probably knock a big chunk of that problem out right away. Not 100 percent, but a large number.

That's the problem. Where is the motivation? Where is the confidence and the belief that we are really committed to doing something about the problem? That's what is missing. I want to say, with all due respect to the minister's motivation and desire — because it is a problem that isn't easy to address — you have to exude some confidence when you go down

[ Page 3812 ]

there. You were down there for two and a half days. You are the only minister on the Social Credit side, I think, who has ever done that. Believe me, I've been around enough to know.... I know of no other minister from your side who has done that. You've shown courage. You've been available. You've listened. I know you've even been attacked verbally a few times, but you've managed to handle that. I think you are willing to try to find out what's happening.

I believe you can make a giant step forward if you go down there and tell those people: "Look, we want to work with you. We want to stop this before it gets out of hand. We don't want a San Francisco here." You're talking about Ritalin. It's crack that people are using. You're blowing away lives. Once people lose a certain amount of their cerebral capacity through damage by drugs, it's permanent. These people are already at a despondent stage by the time they begin to abuse themselves with drugs and alcohol. It's a dangerous business. We've got to stop it in advance. But we've also got to take the lead.

The Premier was talking about leadership, trying to chide our leader for not being loud and bombastic. The point is, whether or not you're loud or bombastic, let's find effective programs, however you want to put it. I think what the people down there want to hear is no more rhetoric, no more promises, no more studies. They want to know that you've got $20 million to invest in them. Give them some jobs. Show some affirmative action. Let them know that there is some result for their commitment and willingness to try to adjust to a system that generally is hostile and not that accommodating to their needs.

I'm going to go on just briefly to something else before my time runs out. I know we've been through this before, but I wanted you to repeat for me the government's position with respect to children of the hungry. Now don't jump out of your seat when I mention that. Every time hungry children is mentioned in this place everyone starts yelling: "Politics! They're playing politics, riding on the backs of the children." I was at a forum recently — last week in fact — at Britannia Community Centre in my riding. There were educators, people who don't normally get involved in politics, who are non-partisan. There were people from the food bank, people from city council, the Vancouver School Board and others, private citizens.

HON. MR. REID: And Jean Swanson.

MR. BARNES: Yes, Mr. Member, Jean Swanson was there. But Jean Swanson was only one. I was there. Mayor Gordon Campbell was there.

MR. CASHORE: Tell them that I was there.

MR. BARNES: I won't mention his name. I'll just say that the member for Maillardville–Coquitlam was there. Margaret Mitchell, MP, was there. Sylvia Russell from the Vancouver food bank was there and a number of people from the school board: councillor Carole Taylor, to mention one; Libby Davies, to mention another. I believe the government was invited, but they were tied up that night.

All I want to say is, what's the situation? Are we going to deal with this problem or aren't we? I read in the paper today where Alderman George Puil says that the city has had enough. It doesn't have any more money. It's not its responsibility. He suggested that we go to Fantasy Gardens and look for some help. That's playing politics. Let's not dilute this thing. Let's be very serious about this. What is the government's position with respect to hungry children? I've said that it's probably an ideological thing that the government does not really want to get involved in this type of program. You've said in the past, Mr. Minister, that it's a matter of good management, of available funds and resources; that we try to teach people to manage their resources. Would you tell us if in your honest opinion those families who have those hungry children.... There are issues about whether we should or should not identify these families, so I can't suggest that you get this information directly. But if you did have that information indirectly, would you ensure that those families had adequate funds to do the job themselves if it were demonstrated to you that the funds they had were inadequate?

That's the gist of the question. Rather than my carrying on, you might want to respond to that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, I'd be very happy to respond to that. Perhaps I should take the second question first while it's fresh in our minds what has been said. It's an opportunity for me to lay out the government's position on this once again. We've done it many times over the last little while.

First of all, let me say that we are very concerned about hungry children in schools. It is our mandate to look after children, and we are very concerned. It bothers me very much to think that some children may be sitting in school hungry; it truly does, because I wouldn't want that to happen to my kids. I wouldn't want to do it myself. I truly believe that a child can't learn on an empty stomach, because their number one concern is what they are going to have for lunch.

I'm sure that Mr. Denike and the school board are equally concerned; we're all concerned about the problem. We differ on how to tackle the problem. I think, if it's any consolation, that we must be on the right track because we're of the same mindset as every other province in Canada. There is no program in place in any other province in Canada nor does the federal government want to cost-share on a program to feed children at school. Having said that, we take the position that we want to look after those children who are hungry, but not just feed a few children in half a dozen schools in downtown Vancouver. What about the other children that may be in that household — the preschoolers or the brothers and sisters of the child in school who is hungry? You're feeding the one that goes to school. What are you doing for his brothers and sisters at home who may be going hungry because their parents have misplaced their priorities and are not spending their money where they should?

We talk about inadequate or adequate funds. There are some 84,000 children — in round numbers — in a welfare situation or belonging to parents who are on GAIN, income assistance or welfare, whatever you want to call it. If we start feeding some of them — say we feed 700, 800 or 1,000 at school — what do we say to the parents who are managing, and their children are not being fed? Maybe there are 82,000 or 83,000 other children who we're not feeding. What do we say to the parents of those children?

[5:30]

If two of us — you and I, Mr. Member — are on welfare living next door to each other, and we don't like to be on welfare but we are .... I'm feeding my children and sending them to school with food in their bellies and you're not. If the school board or my ministry starts feeding your

[ Page 3813 ]

children at school, then I'm going to say: "Well, you'd better start feeding mine too. " Every other person on welfare is going to say the same thing: "You'd better start feeding my children too."

So what we're saying is that the vast majority of people in this situation manage; there are some who cannot manage. If we can identify those people, we will go to their home. Maybe they need counselling, maybe they need a crisis grant, maybe they need all kinds of things. But we can't get at the problem if we can't identify it. This is why we have repeatedly asked the teachers who see these children day after day in school, who know they are coming to school hungry, why they don't go and identify them to the principal of that school so the principal can identify them to the social worker involved so that social worker can go and do some counselling in that home.

MR. JONES: It's the teacher's fault.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, I didn't say it was the teacher's fault. What we're saying is that the teachers refuse to identify the children. They have some convoluted reason that they're going to break some confidentiality if they identify them.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't think there is at all. If a teacher says to a principal: "There is a child in my class that is going hungry, and I think the social worker should be notified.... Maybe there are two other children in that home that are going hungry. If we feed the child that's going to school, we haven't addressed the problem. There may be other children in that home or children in another school that don't come under these six schools the school board wants to feed — maybe it's up to eight schools now. We're saying we want to address the problem at the front end. We provide the income assistance for those people, and we don't want to have two levels of welfare, where we pay at the front end and for some people — just some — we pay at the other end. It's a two-level welfare system, and we're not going to get into it.

We have announced today that we're going to put some family support workers into the downtown core to make up for some of the social workers who are being transferred to places like Surrey and Saanich, where they really need some more social workers. So we're going to put some family support workers in. Hopefully they will be able to identify the problem and get at the root of it.

One more point: if the Vancouver School Board still insists that they must put a program into six or eight schools . . . . It was six when Mr. Denike visited me, but I've heard since it's up to eight, or maybe ten. If they, in their wisdom, decide to put a lunch program, breakfast program or snack program into a school, that's their decision. We're saying that we're looking after our responsibilities and our mandate by looking after it at the front end. If the school board decides on top of that to put a program into a school, then that's their decision. Mr. Denike talks about it being a drop in the bucket in our budget. Maybe it is, but it isn't a drop in the bucket if we start feeding every child in every school in British Columbia. How can we selectively, as a provincial government, pick out six schools and put in a program? But if any certain school board decides to put in a program, then that's a decision they have to make.

When he talks about it being a drop in the bucket, I remind him that the money they're putting in — which I think is $280,000, if my memory serves me correctly — is not a very big percentage of their budget, which is in the neighbourhood of $200 million. So if they decide to put a few hundred thousand into a lunch program, that's their decision. I think the government's position is very clear. We are consistent with the rest of the country and with the federal government, and I think we are taking the right approach when we say we are responsible for the well-being of all the children in the province, not just a few in a few selected schools.

MR. BARNES: I appreciate the minister's extended response. Are you saying, Mr. Minister, that the federal government, under its Canada assistance program, has in fact rejected the request to co-fund a program to feed the children; that you in fact have applied, that you have made a gesture, and they have rejected it? I didn't know that was the case. If it is, it's news to me because I was under the impression that the school board and others were going to be making an application, and that your department had offered to support in principle the idea but were not prepared to provide any funds. Has that situation changed?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, the situation, to my knowledge, hasn't changed. We said right from the outset that if the school board wanted to approach the federal government to cost-share a program with them, we wouldn't stand in their way. And we still won't. In fact, my deputy was in Ottawa when the school board met with the federal government; but at that time the federal government refused to get involved in that program. Now I believe, having watched it on television, that Mr. Denike is still going to pursue a program with the federal government. I can't answer....

MR. BARNES: But the feds haven't in fact said that they wouldn't fund it?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, they haven't. I want to correct that; I didn't want to leave that impression. But to date they have not agreed to get involved, and their indication was, on the first trip to Ottawa, that they wouldn't get involved with the school board in a cost-sharing program. Now the school board may go back and the federal government may change their mind. We've said from the start we're not going to stand in the way of their doing that; that's fine, if they want. We're just saying we're not getting involved in a program of that nature.

MR. BARNES: There are several ad hoc feeding programs in the city already, as you know, that are just being done because of the need.

I'm just going to make one final challenge to the minister, and I realize that I've overextended my period of time, with the debate leader wanting, I think, to make some remarks.

Would you defend the position you've taken? It is pretty compelling to try to challenge, because you've laid out the problem. I agree that there is a problem with not being able to identify children in need, for obvious reasons, administrative and otherwise — to pursue the problem, try and chase it down as it were, in the tradition of the old ways of dealing with social problems. But why not clarify for the House the

[ Page 3814 ]

validity of the funds that are available to families? In other words, you are providing X number of dollars based on facts, presumably, of the purchasing power of those dollars. As we've been saying all along, the dollars available are simply not sufficient to meet the needs of the individual or the family. If you could state a case for us, tell us that in your judgment there is no need for any of these cases to exist . . . . If a family is mismanaging its funds, if there is squandering or neglect or any of these problems, let's deal with it. But demonstrate for the House how a person can live on the amount of money you're giving, provided they were doing good management. In other words, what are your counsellors going to do — teach them how to stretch something that is already stretched to the breaking point? We're suggesting that the amount available is about 50 percent of what it should be. You're saying it's adequate. Even with your extended ability for extra earnings, it is still far short of what most actuarial experience and stats will indicate is needed in order to deal with the cost of living.

I'm not going to get up again. I just want you to defend that position, and then I'll let the debate leader deal with it from here.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I know full well, as the member does, that it is not very easy to get by on what is paid on welfare. Whether you're single or a family or have children or not, it's not easy. I know that. But as I said earlier, the vast majority of people do manage. They don't send their children to school hungry. Only a few, a relatively small percentage, go to school hungry. Many of them manage.

As I said to the member for Maillardville–Coquitlam earlier, across the country we are exactly mid-range in welfare payments. I'll give you an example. We were talking about children being at home while one or two are in school.

A single parent with three children receives in benefits $1,370 a month. Now that includes the average monthly family allowance, child tax credit, school startup funds and an average for medical, dental, drugs, etc. If they add in the potential earning exemption on wages or family maintenance, the automatic $100, it's $1,470 per month for a single parent with three children. We're not saying that they can live high on the hog, as we used to say, for $1,470 per month, but many of them — in fact, the vast majority — do manage.

MR. BARNES: How much would they pay for rent?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The maximum monthly shelter benefit is $526. I guess what I'm trying to demonstrate is that the majority of the people manage on those dollars, and there are some who cannot. Across the country, we are in most categories right in the middle.

MR. CASHORE: It has been very interesting to hear, for the umpteenth time, the minister reiterate his position on hungry schoolchildren. I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I listen to this.

In the budget estimates, under the heading GAIN, we have a $42 million decrease over last year, which is actually more when you consider inflation. We're dealing with parents whose income has been fixed since 1982, except for a very small blip that occurred last year. In the case of those on handicapped persons' income assistance, that amounted to a 4 percent increase in the shelter portion of their allowance and zip in their living allowance. For people on GAIN it amounted to 4 percent for shelter and, I believe, 6 percent for living allowance. I might be corrected on that. But it really amounted to a very small amount, because 10 percent of very little is still very little. And when we put that up against the increase in the cost of living, going back to 1982, we're looking at an increase somewhere in the category of 28 percent to 30 percent. So we hear the minister saying that we can't really feed those children in those schools, because if we do, that's not fair to the other children and families. Of course it's not fair. There's nothing about this whole situation that is fair. It's extremely unfair, and the parents of these children are certainly aware of that unfairness. You don't need to be a Philadelphia lawyer to understand that if a parent doesn't have children in school, and they're at home and see their neighbour's children having a feeding program in school, certainly there's a discrepancy there.

We might be able to appeal to them to argue among each other over who should get that support. But the fact is that the entrenched poverty that has resulted very largely from government policies — and recognizing changes in the world economy over the past few years.... The way in which poverty has not been addressed as an issue has resulted in this very sad situation where crisis intervention is now something that the public is seeking to take over because the government isn't even handling that part of its mandate properly.

That is why so many people on the school board — and I would point out that it's an NPA school board who voted to put this government into power — do not support the ways in which this minister is trying valiantly to support the Premier and to support the simple inadequacy of resources that are being made available to deal with the appalling situations that we find people experiencing in our society. I would remind the minister that when people have inadequate income, the impacts of poverty on them are absolutely devastating. To stand there and say that we can't even support those good citizens who are trying to at least do something on a crisis intervention basis by putting a meal program into place and that we can't even support them by enabling federal cost-shared dollars to come into play, it just doesn't wash. When you've removed $42 million from the GAIN budget, for Pete’s sake, it simply doesn't wash.

[5:45]

It doesn't make sense. It cannot be defended, and there's no point in trying to defend it. I would like to suggest to this minister that I've heard him say things in this House today that make it very clear to me that he does care, as the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) says. But how long can we expect him to shore up this position that is absolutely untenable, this position that results in a kind of pinball approach to social services programs, where one week we hear the Premier coming in to save the family and then a few days later we hear about a mother, whose infant child is barely 15 weeks old, losing the unemployable status? This is absolutely incredible.

I'd like to share with the ministry some facts on poverty as they relate to children in our world today. To look upon this as caused because parents are irresponsible is simply inappropriate. What these parents need are the dollars that enable them to provide food, clothing and shelter, something that is protected by the United Nations charter of rights and certainly by our own charter as Canadians.

    "To be poor is to face a greater likelihood of ill health — in infancy, in childhood and throughout your adult life. To be born poor is to face a lesser

[ Page 3815 ]

likelihood that you will finish high school, lesser still you will attend university. To be born poor is to face a greater likelihood that you will be judged a delinquent in adolescence and, if so, a greater likelihood that you will be sent to a correctional institution. To be born poor is to have the deck stacked against you at birth and to find life an uphill struggle ever after. To be born poor is unfair to kids."

That's from a report by the National Council of Welfare, entitled "Poor Kids."

A British Columbia child development study has shown that poor kids (a) have a 50 percent greater possibility than non-poor kids of being born premature and underweight; (b) have more than twice the likelihood of being less than normal height at age 11; (c) have twice the chance of contracting any number of childhood diseases; and (d) have more than twice the probability, compared with non-poor kids, of missing one to three months of school because of illness. People are not often found dying of hunger in the streets of Canada. "In a sense that is less dramatic but no less real, people are starving in Canada. Children in particular are suffering the effects of under-nutrition that can reduce their physical and mental development and deprive them of their one chance to develop the full potential of their lives." That's from "One Child, One Chance, " by the National Council of Welfare.

Mr. Chairman, we've talked a lot today about addressing the underlying causes of poverty, but somehow we have to recognize that when we look at that situation of the hungry school kids as a microcosm of this wider issue, we're not going about it the right way. Clearly, crisis intervention is part of the mandate of the ministry. The ministry has refused to get involved in that. But clearly, on a more appropriate basis, we need a Family and Child Service Act and a GAIN act in this province that recognize the rights that people in this society have not to live in poverty at this time. It is not necessary for them to live in poverty and we do not need to require them to live in poverty.

I would like to refer to a letter that was written by the minister on September 29, 1987, to Mr. Denike, and to some of the points that the minister made. He said: "We want to help people manage their own affairs without relying on government intervention, except when absolutely necessary. A school meal program can remove parental responsibility for providing food, and runs the risk of creating an indifference to family responsibilities."

Mr. Chairman, it's awfully hard to deal with situations such as indifference when you're subject to the results of inadequate nutrition. At the event the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) mentioned that took place in Vancouver the other night, poor people put on a skit. They put on a series of little plays that came from their life experience. They were called the Dignity Players. One of the very appropriate little presentations showed children in a school lunchroom, and it showed the stigma that some of these poor kids had experienced. These children themselves had gone through these experiences, and the script had been based on their life experience.

It showed a couple of students ridiculing a student who didn't have a lunch that day, and it showed a student fainting in the area where those children were having lunch. That's pretty tough for kids at any age, but certainly in the adolescent years, that's devastating. As I said once before, we're not talking here about teenagers who want to have Calvin Klein jeans so that they can somehow feel that they're with it; we're talking about children who are hungry in our society. I realize we're not talking about children who have distended bellies and are in a starvation situation, as we see on the TV sometimes in scenes coming from Biafra and other places. But what we are seeing is those circumstances that impact drastically on that child's ability to have equal educational opportunities, to have the ability to at least enter into adulthood in a fair way and be able to compete with others as they set out on trying to come to terms with employment and all those things.

The minister went on to say in his letter that when parents are unable to provide food for their children the ministry will provide further assistance, which may include counselling on budgeting and effective shopping — the point the minister just made a few moments ago. Then he went on to say that when a family does not have money for food or shelter, they can be given a crisis grant.

I know the minister isn't trying to say something that doesn't communicate what he means, but the impression is created that if a family runs out of money they can go running down to the Social Services and Housing office and get a crisis grant, and that's simply not true. They may receive a crisis grant, but there are some factors limiting that. One is the budget that the person in charge of that office has, and quite often that budget has been under such strain that there isn't enough money left to provide that crisis grant. I certainly think that should be considered when you're thinking of lowering GAIN by $42 million.

There are other factors there, and I would like to describe one that is representative of several experiences I've had since I've been debate leader on this topic. It goes something like this. It usually happens on a Friday afternoon. Friday afternoon I get a phone call from somebody's constituency office saying: "I have an emergency; I went to the ministry office. I was turned down."

I listen to the circumstances. I sometimes talk to the people who work in the constituency office and try to get my facts straight. Then I start making phone calls. It often turns out that that is not a good time to reach the people you want to reach, but in more than one instance personnel in that office went at 9 o'clock that night to take $40 to that person who had applied for that crisis grant. Why? Because I had intervened, not on the basis of them being able to assess the need — because clearly the need was there without me intervening — but they decided that the need was such that they should follow through once they had heard from me. Mr. Minister, that should not be necessary. We should not be saying that families that run out of sufficient food will automatically get a crisis grant; that is not the case.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just very briefly I'll address the comments, because we've gone into it extensively with the other member. First of all, I don't think I said in my letter that the people would automatically get a crisis grant, and I didn't mean to infer that. But they may get a crisis grant.

Secondly, just to, I guess, address the school-kids problem for one final time, I'm still of the belief, as are my colleagues, that a school lunch program does not address the problem. It's just cosmetic to a large extent, and it doesn't get at the root of the problem. If it did, I'm sure that other provinces in this country would have such programs. Even the province of Manitoba, which used to be NDP, does not have such a program in place.

Interjection.

[ Page 3816 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, it soon will be, and it won't be NDP anymore.

MR. BARNES: Maybe they don't have the problem.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Every major city in this country, Mr. Member, has the problem to one degree or another. We're not saying there isn't a problem. I said in my opening remarks that there was a problem, and we are as concerned about it as you and the Vancouver School Board are. We just disagree on how to solve the problem. But no other province has such a program. There are a few cities who have put in a school lunch and/or breakfast program. I believe there's one in Toronto and one in Winnipeg. But the provincial government in Manitoba doesn't participate. I say again, if the Vancouver School Board still feels there is a need for such a program, then they should institute that program.

Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report great progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.