[ Page 3843 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

Process of parole. Hon. B.R. Smith –– 3843

Mr. Sihota

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Social Services and Housing estimates.

(Hon. ML Richmond)

On vote 61: minister's office –– 3844

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Rose

Ms. Edwards

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Ministerial Statement

PAROLE

HON. B.R. SMITH: I rise to make a ministerial statement. I'm going to file with the House today a Green Paper discussing the process of parole. This will form the basis, I hope, for some public submissions and involvement in this province on the whole question of parole.

The paper provides a brief description of how the parole process works. It's very complex, and I don't think most people understand parole. They don't understand that there's one national regime of parole, but some of it is administered federally for the serious crimes, and the province administers people serving sentences of less than two years.

I've been very concerned over the past year, from justice tours and the many meetings that I've had on the subject of victims, that many members of the public and, indeed, many inmates have the impression that parole is somehow an automatic right; it's an entitlement. I believe that our approach to parole has to be a different one. It's not a right; it's a privilege and something that should be earned.

I believe there are some individuals who represent such a high degree of risk to the community that probably they ought never to be paroled, because of the dangerous nature of their offences and the fact that they are a continuing danger. I also want our system to give a clear message that parole has to be earned every day.

In this paper, I've thrown out for discussion a number of recommendations that include that a judge's intention should be one of the prime considerations, after you've considered first of all: is this person a real danger to the community? I'm happy to say that the National Parole Board, in its present mission statement, recognizes it as the most important consideration. There was some doubt that it did in the past, but it does now.

The second consideration is: what was the judge's intention, and what was his sentence? Why did he give this person ten years or 15 years, and why should that person be considered for parole, having served only one-sixth of his sentence?

The third consideration, I believe, is: have they earned the right to parole? When I say earned the right, I don't mean being a model prisoner; I don't mean pleasing the guards; I don't mean being easy to manage. I mean giving some indication that they are prepared to do something to change their lives and improve themselves, whether that's a skill, educational; whether it's the fact that they're prepared to take some step to pay compensation to their victims if there are victims; or if there's someone who is not employable, that he is prepared to embark upon some community service of a meaningful kind. But I believe there has to be some indication that this individual is prepared to change and be a useful member of society, and that then, and only then, should he be given parole; not because time has elapsed, because remission has taken place, but because he has earned that right.

When the parole takes place, that earning process should continue. And if they fall down on their commitments — if they don't pay compensation to their victims, if they don't follow through with these things — they should be back inside.

I also believe that day parole for one-sixth of a sentence is too short a time, that there should be no parole until one-third has been served.

I am also recommending that judges have the power to set parole eligibility dates in certain cases where individuals are convicted of very serious, violent crime.

I am also proposing that the victims of violent crime — victims of crime, period — should have a greater opportunity to have their views and concerns form part of the documentation of the parole board.

I'm recommending also, Mr. Speaker, that the parole board be given legislative authority to make compensation payments to victims and community service a condition of parole. I'm pleased to say that our British Columbia Board of Parole is very cognizant of these principles and that we will have later in this year, and in this session, a new provincial parole act which will express our philosophy as much as we can under the constitution.

So it's with great pleasure that I file today a Green Paper for discussion on parole, entitled "Parole: Earning the Privilege. "

MR. SIHOTA: At the outset let me express my gratitude to the Attorney-General for having made available to me in advance his statement on this matter, as well as the document that he has tabled in the House. I know that all of us on this side of the House appreciate that type of candour. It certainly assists all of us in triggering a debate that's much needed in this province, a debate that ought to be fair in light of the overwhelming concern about parole. If I can put it this way, it's my opinion that there really is a crisis of confidence with respect to the parole system in this province.

Parole has never been a right; it always has been a privilege and it ought to be something earned by the incarcerated individual. I don't think we should get heavily involved in the right or privilege debate, because it puts a particular political spin on it.

It's obvious to me, Mr. Speaker, that when dealing with the matter of parole there are obvious competing interests. On the one hand there is the public interest. The public wants to know that parole is not automatically going to happen; that there's going to be some difficulty in securing parole; and that, more importantly, the public safety is secure and people don't have anything to fear. That's one competing interest: the overwhelming need to have public confidence in the system and to alleviate concerns about public fear. Balancing it, on the other hand, is the concern of the inmate and the right of the inmate to have redress and opportunity for release in safe conditions. So it's an argument of safety versus rights.

I agree, Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the comments that the Attorney-General made, that risk to the community ought to be an overriding factor, and that the judge's position at sentencing ought to be a major consideration, as ought to be the voice of the victim. I don't necessarily agree that much has to be put on whether the review happens at the one-sixth or the one-third point in the term of sentence. I say that because the real issue here is that at this point the public has a lack of faith in the parole system. That doesn't mean that the system's not working; it just means that the public has a lack of faith.

Why does it have that lack of faith? Because there have been an abundance of celebrated cases recently which have

[ Page 3844 ]

withered away the public's confidence in the parole system. It's a matter of perception. What we have to do, and the challenge to all of us involved in this community, is to reduce the percentage of those celebrated cases to, hopefully, nil. This means doing many of the things that this government has chosen not to do. It means having adequate programs in jails — and we'll be talking a little more about this, in terms of rehabilitation programs in prisons, when we get into the estimates later today. It means funding halfway homes, and the record of the government in that regard is unacceptable. It means having appropriate transition and support services, and the record of the government in that regard is inadequate. And it requires, most importantly, proper monitoring by probation officers. The overwhelming caseloads of probation officers in this province is such that it is difficult, if not impossible, to monitor many of these cases.

[10:15]

More importantly and philosophically, Mr. Speaker, from the perspective of individuals on this side of the House, we have to take a look at parole not in isolation, as this paper in part tries to do, but as part of a process. There must be greater emphasis by government on the front end — in other words ' children and juveniles — to try to keep them away from the prison system. Then we must look at the matter of sentencing if they get involved in the system, and certainly we must take a look at rehabilitation when they're involved in the system. So the thrust of the debate must be not revenge but rehabilitation; it must be safety and not fear.

We welcome what the Attorney-General is proposing here today. We need to develop a system that protects the public and rehabilitates the inmate. We agree on that goal. What has been lacking in the past is the mechanism on the part of this government to achieve that goal, and we trust that now we will begin to take all those preventive steps to provide that much-needed mechanism in this province.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Agriculture seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: To my colleagues in this assembly, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce from Portland, Oregon, the Ockley Green Middle School. We welcome the students to beautiful British Columbia, and also their instructors. Please enjoy your stay. Would this House please make them welcome.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: My best wishes and welcome as well to the students from our neighbouring state to the south.

Committee, of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING
(continued)

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

MR. CASHORE: I have appreciated the discussion in the House with regard to housing issues. Many of these have been canvassed by my colleagues, and I have just a few items I want to refer to at this time.

Mr. Chairman, you will recall that on January 20 I released a study where we reviewed 86 offices of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing with regard to housing. That was a very extensive survey because we covered more than 70 percent of the total number of offices in the province. When we think of more scientific polls — and I admit that my poll would not be considered a scientific poll conducted by a polling agency — we should recognize that when we hear about a Gallup poll or a Decima poll, we hear about perhaps 1,000 families across Canada being contacted. We contacted more than 70 percent of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing offices.

At that time, we found that there was a very serious problem in Social Services and Housing offices in that those offices were not prepared or equipped to deal with housing. Therefore it called into question the fact that it is called the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. When people phone those offices, in some instances the telephone is answered: "Social Services and Housing." It is also interesting that in that period prior to January 20, many offices did not answer, "Social Services and Housing"; they answered: "Social Services." We understand that "Social Services and Housing" is the proper designation when ministry employees answer the phone.

We also found that the staff of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, in responding to our survey, were extremely polite. They were outstanding in the appropriateness of the way they dealt with our caller. I really want to emphasize that, because I know the minister has expressed appreciation for the people who work in the ministry. We were very pleased with the manner in which they responded.

But we also found, Mr. Chairman, that they simply did not have the tools to do the job when it came to the housing aspect of their mandate. What we found was that in five of those 86 offices there was a pamphlet on housing. All of the other 81 offices said they had no information. Eighteen offices said they were not involved in housing, and 17, when they answered the phone, simply said, "Social Services," and did not include "Housing" in their answer, which may have been literally correct but certainly not correct in terms of policy because it is the Social Services and Housing ministry.

Twenty-nine did know of the existence of BCHMC, but that was only 29. For most of the people in the province, that is not all that useful because it would involve a long-distance call in order to access a BCHMC office. In those offices where there was an awareness of the BCHMC, those people did not know anything about social housing programs in the province, or about the availability of public housing.

Mr. Chairman, I wrote the minister a letter on January 20 pointing out that information on housing was not readily available and outlining the need for a dynamic program to deliver housing services throughout the province, recognizing that the need for decent, affordable housing and other housing needs is very important and that it is a responsibility of this ministry.

In particular I called for improved information in Social Services and Housing offices, and a new design for the second mortgage program, which I think, in view of the change in interest rates, is an unnecessary hardship for a great many people who got into that program and are now locked into high-cost second mortgages.

I pointed out that there was a need for landlord-tenant assistance; that there was need for leadership, especially in

[ Page 3845 ]

urban areas with regard to the issue of illegal suites and the problem when the owners of those suites are clamped down on — what happens to the people who are then put out into the streets for lack of decent, affordable housing.

I pointed out that there is a need for an increase in the quota of social housing units beyond the approximately 1,880 units, more or less, per year over the three-year agreement between the federal and provincial governments.

I pointed out that there was a need for meaningful and significant response to homelessness, and that it simply wasn't good enough to say that some 70 of the allocated units would be directed toward homelessness in the Vancouver area. That simply was adding some verbiage to a program already in place.

I pointed out that there was a need to address the housing concerns of ex-mental patients, and again I link that to a point I made yesterday, where I think the ministry is doing a commendable job with regard to ex-mentally handicapped people. We do have those transfers from Health when ex-mental patients come out into the community, and therefore we need a similar type of response on behalf of those people. The only ministry I can see that falling into, because of both housing concerns and social service concerns, is this ministry, and the public should be more involved in the delivery of social housing.

I also stated in my letter, and I stand by this today.... I will quote, because I would like this in the record.

"As a first step, I suggest the ministry take immediate steps to train all management staff regarding the services presently available and the scope of services handled by the BCHMC. Management in turn should then be assisted in training workshops to enable field staff to assist all British Columbians who seek information on housing services."

I did expect that having provided the ministry with that information, there would then be some follow-up, some response. As of three days ago I have conducted a second survey — albeit a mini-survey, some 86 offices having been canvassed the first time around — in which we canvassed only 12 offices throughout the province, including the lower mainland. Again, as I said earlier, that's quite a good percentage of the total number of offices when you consider this type of review of data.

At that time we found only one improvement, and I would like to acknowledge it. Virtually every office we phoned, having paid attention to our earlier survey, presumably on instructions of the ministry, answered the phone: "Social Services and Housing." I want to acknowledge that, and I appreciate it, but I would add that it is simply not enough. We found of these 12 offices, 11 answered: "Social Services and Housing." There was one exception, but it was a very good average and we were pleased with it.

But this is what we weren't so pleased with. Nine offices of the 12 had no information — no pamphlets. There were lengthy delays on the phone while the well-meaning staff tried to help our caller. Eight of the offices were able to give out the BCHMC office. Two offices had bare-bones information; that is, they had a pamphlet.

One office I think it would be appropriate to say the same of this office, because this is positive. The Burns Lake office provided us with good, helpful information. I would think that your people might want to call the Burns Lake office and give them a pat on the back and find out how they're handling it, because they are handling it well.

The minister was talking when I was saying that, so I'll repeat it now in a more sombre moment. The Burns Lake office handled our call very helpfully, which shows that there is the capability.

Here are some interesting comments that came out during the most recent survey. One was: "Try CMHC, maybe." That's the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Another office, when asked for a number of someone to call, said: "I can't find it. Does it have a name? Is it under seniors or something?" Another office said: "No, I really don't know." Yet another said: "Not at this department. We really shouldn't be handling this stuff. Call a government agent's office; they'll know who you should call."

I have more complete details on this survey, but I think the point is well made that if we are going to have Social Services and Housing offices in this province, it behooves us to make of those offices a very dynamic and useful instrument for the many aspects of housing that the ministry is surely aware of. In the Social Services part of this ministry, apart from matters dealing with, say, consumer affairs aspects of housing, such things as building codes and building standards, we do know that the people who work in Social Services and Housing offices are dealing every day with clients who have housing needs and housing problems.

[10:30]

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

We also know some very delightful results come about when the three levels of government plus community nonprofit groups get together and work on putting in place a program that results in the delivery of decent, affordable units. As I acknowledged a while ago, the federal-provincial agreement calls for up to 6,000 units over a period of three years. But we have to ask ourselves: with the lack of availability of this kind of information in these offices, how are these community groups going to find the stimulus or the catalyst to get them involved and catch the vision of what the opportunities are for delivering really worthwhile housing throughout the province? As I said before, this is a win-win, because we have people working together in their communities with all levels of government to deliver this housing and we have something that is making use of British Columbia's number one product, lumber. It's also an opportunity to show people in less fortunate parts of the world some very good models of how these issues can be addressed.

There are some other items with regard to housing that I would like to cover at this time. My colleagues have canvassed seniors' housing, and late last evening the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) covered a matter with regard to group homes, which again is an issue that deals with housing and another aspect of social services. I want to say that I'm not going to belabour the estimates with other similar examples, but I have had calls from several similar organizations who have felt very disturbed that they have not been able to continue to serve their communities in the delivery of services through various group homes. In reviewing the material that they've sent me, I would say it leaves a large question mark with regard to the rationale for discontinuing this very effective service, and that is a cause for concern.

My colleague from New Westminster, as I said, covered seniors, and my colleague the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) covered housing issues with regard to youth. I think we had a very good dialogue around that. I want to turn now to a point that he made.

[ Page 3846 ]

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I have been really intrigued by the musings of the hon. member on this subject. As an intervening speaker, I give him breathing space and urge that he continue on with this very diligent and thoughtful approach to a particular problem faced in the housing concerns of our province.

MR. CASHORE: Thank you to my colleague. I think he deserves a ten-cent cup of coffee for those complimentary remarks.

With regard to the Residential Tenancy Act and people who live in hotels and rooming-houses, I listened carefully to the minister's remarks yesterday. I think the last act performed by the Liberal government in Ontario prior to going out on the hustings when it called an election was to proclaim their residential tenancy act with regard to hotels and rooming-houses in Ontario, and I think it would be worthwhile to take a look at it. When I attended the conference on the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, I met some of the people who had been involved in the efforts to have the minister at that time, Mr. Curling, proclaim hotels and rooming-houses as coming under that act, where they would have the same protection as other tenants.

What happened was that because Queen's Park is not far from many of those people who could be classified as homeless or close to homeless, a group of them took to showing up at Queen's Park and meeting on the steps of the Legislature with Mr. Curling for about four days, and there was a great deal of coverage. As that media coverage took effect, the public got through to Mr. Curling and that was then implemented. It's my understanding that this is not creating problems— or perceived problems — in Ontario and is working very well. It certainly was a banner day, because it brought a further level of justice to disadvantaged people. So I just leave that with you.

I want to refer now to an item that has been brought to my attention by some tenants' rights groups, including the Tenants' Rights Action Centre. They have pointed out to me that changes in court fees have resulted in up to $50 in costs for a tenant who is filing a complaint with regard to, for instance, a damage deposit being held back. We've been going through the limited income of people on income assistance, and we see a situation here that I think is indeed serious, given Mrs. Loring's information about the daily amount per person that is available from a welfare cheque. We have to consider that there simply is not the money available to families on GAIN — and indeed to other low-income families — to take their food money to pay for an action in the courts. I realize that the increase in costs is a recent initiative and that it comes under another ministry. And I realize that this ministry has not really had much time to respond to that yet, so I'm not expecting a miracle in the House today. But I would like to hear the minister say that the situation will be reviewed, and hopefully relief will be brought on at the earliest possible date, so that people trying to recover their damage deposits will not have that impossible stumbling-block prior to being able to do that. According to the people at Tenants' Rights Action Centre, it has amounted to a 150 percent increase in the cost of filing such an action when you consider filing fees, the average cost of an affidavit and the service fee. Those are the three fees involved.

There's another question with regard to this that I think the minister should be putting to the Attorney-General. Why would this increase be put in place, causing distress to many of your clients, Mr. Minister, when there is a Law Reform Commission underway, and when it would be far more appropriate to consider any fee changes after the results of that Law Reform Commission become available?

While I know and trust that the minister will address this issue, I want to make it very clear that we stand for a return of some manifestation of a rentalsman's office to deal with this type of issue, so that it's not such a formidable stumbling block for tenants — and indeed for landlords — when there are issues like this to be resolved. Surely a much more appropriate instrument can be made available to these people. Quite frankly, many of them find it extremely formidable to go through a court process. There are other citizens' processes that should be available and would be much more gentle and more appropriate.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will sit down and listen to what the minister has to say.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I'll try to address all of the concerns raised by the member this morning.

First of all, I appreciate the fact that he undertook a lengthy survey on his own of the Social Services and Housing ministry offices. We have taken note of that survey and have discussed it in the ministry. We have sent a directive out to the offices that they mustn't forget that we're in the housing business as well. I hasten to add that over 99 percent of their calls deal with social service problems. So I think anyone is to be forgiven if, in the hectic atmosphere of a busy day in an office when they're answering the phone 100 times or more, they answer: "Social Services."

However, we have brought it to their attention that we are in the housing business, and even if a small percentage of their calls involve housing, they should be cognizant of that fact. To that end we have given them explicit directions on how people can access housing information. For example, they can call the Housing offices around the province collect, or they can leave their name with the person in the Social Services and Housing office that they called, and they will be called by someone from BCHMC. I should point out that there are eight Housing offices in the province — four in the lower mainland and the rest in the interior and north coast of the province. So the information is always close at hand, and I'm sure that now everyone in the Social Services offices will have that information and will relay it to anyone who calls.

I'm pleased to hear the member say the staff is very polite on the phone; I have found the same thing whenever I call the offices. They're very professional and very polite and, as I said, I can forgive anyone in the heat of a busy day for answering the phone: "Social Services."

The member brought up illegal suites. I am sure he is well aware that this is a problem for municipal governments and not for us. But the problem does become one of ours if people are without housing. So we are in the process of setting up a registry where anyone in immediate need of housing can phone, and that should be operational before very long.

We canvassed the issue of the number of units provided in the province very extensively yesterday with the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe). We spent the better part of an hour canvassing that subject, so I won't go into it again today.

With the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), we also canvassed the question of tenants in hotels and rooming-houses. We did discuss the problem, especially

[ Page 3847 ]

where it is most prevalent, and that is in the downtown core of the city of Vancouver. The Ontario legislation was mentioned as well. Perhaps it is something we will take a look at. I'll get a copy and have a look at it and see if there's any way we can make it fit our goals and objectives in this province.

The court costs, of course, are a matter for the Attorney-General, as I'm sure the member appreciates. Perhaps I should just say that the items of which he speaks, such as damage deposits, etc., to my way of thinking shouldn't end up in court. Those are things that there should be a mechanism for settling without going to court. I'm not trying to invent new government policy or tell the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) how to run his ministry, but perhaps it's something we could look at to take some of the workload off the courts. It's something that's been in the back of my mind for a long time. So his comments regarding that and are noted and appreciated; likewise his comments on the rentalsman. I will leave it at that.

I would like to read into the record a fuller answer for the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick), who spoke yesterday about a particular group home in that city whose contract was not renewed. For his information, and for the Legislature's, money has been set aside in my ministry in this fiscal year's budget for the establishment of a four-bedroom resource for children with extreme behaviour problems. So we have taken note of the need in Nanaimo for such a facility; we have set the money aside. We identified the need during the planning for the '88-89 budget estimates.

As I said to him yesterday, while the home in question went far beyond the mandate that we wanted them to have, we have taken note of the problem and that there is a need in that community, especially for children with extreme behavioural problems.

[10:45]

MR. STUPICH: When?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Well, I won't pin a date on it, but it's something we are taking a very close look at. Like I say, the money is there, so if we decide that the need is immediate and that we can move immediately, the wherewithal is there to do it.

I would like to take an opportunity to welcome another class. I see we had a class of young children just leave. I don't know where you're from, but I sincerely hope you're enjoying witnessing the Legislature in action. On behalf of all the members of the House, I would like to make you welcome to the B.C. Legislature.

MR. CASHORE: There's one individual in the gallery opposite me and a number of other individuals in the members' gallery. I would also like to take the opportunity to welcome them and reiterate the comments of the minister with regard to your presence here today too. We welcome you.

Just a few more points with regard to housing. We have a situation with regard to rental accommodation that certainly varies from one part of the province to another. We find that the construction of rental accommodation has fallen drastically, because condominiums seem to be more financially rewarding for developers. This is a sense in which the market is catering to the wealthy, which is one of the things that markets tend to do. This has added to the problems for low-income renters.

Indeed, sometimes we see CMHC stats that indicate that vacancy rates aren't all that bad. But when you really analyze them, you find out that it's not that bad for the wealthy, but in terms of affordable housing for those who are on a low income, it would be approaching zero. The statistics that we get on vacancy rates are somewhat misleading when we look upon the expensive units that are included in those stats as being available to low-income people. The fact is that they aren't, and that low-income people have a very difficult time finding the accommodation they need. For example, if we go to BCHMC figures, at present the BCHMC has 2,332 families waiting for homes in greater Vancouver. I understand that to mean that they are waiting for homes in public housing.

The Public Housing Tenants' Association is having a conference this weekend. I know that the minister and the members of the House join me in wishing them well in their deliberations at their conference. I know that they would be very interested in the measures that the government has in place to deal with the fact that there are that number of people on that waiting-list.

There are many social housing societies that deal with the delivery of co-op and non-profit housing. Another of these societies is called Roof Raisers, and they have 2,500 families on their waiting-list. I know that if you were to talk to the Downtown Eastside Residents' Association, the Chinese Benevolent Association, the First United Church Social Housing Society. St. James Social Services, Affordable Housing, or many of the seniors' groups dealing with housing, you would find that all of them have waiting-lists of enormous proportions. We simply have to be finding a way to have a more vigorous program in place, and possibly this has to be looked at as a job creation program as well as a program that delivers decent, affordable housing.

I have been delighted to see the transformation that has taken place in people's lives. people who were living in cockroach- infested places that were small and barren and dirty and smelly, places where there was just a hotplate. There are simply too many people having to rely on that kind of accommodation. I want to say that where BCHMC has been able to participate in getting people out of that accommodation and into decent. affordable housing, it puts a smile on everybody's face, and it really does transform people's lives once they get into that kind of accommodation. I'm sure we all agree with that.

Surely, given the need, we can put our hearts and minds to work on this issue in our society and increase the number of units being made available throughout the province to fulfil this need. I think it is something that we can improve on greatly. We have done some comparison of figures in Ontario and one or two other provinces. I think we can do a lot better than we are doing, and that some of those other provinces are serving a higher ratio of the population in this way.

I had some points here about the situation in Victoria, but I know the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) canvassed that well yesterday. Just to mention Victoria, with a vacancy rate of 0.4 percent, we see an increasing number of low-income families living in motels. The thought of having a program in place that's going to support the family, and then we see children having to live in motels in a city which is not able to find sufficient decent accommodation for these people — there's a family-oriented issue that really needs to be addressed.

We are calling for restoring the planning function to regional districts. In order to be effective, planning must be

[ Page 3848 ]

done on a large scale. It must be done in a way that enables local areas to do that. It must be done on a democratic, regional district model, not on the basis of a regional plan that the Premier is imposing on the electorate, because that does not have the opportunity for the input of elected people, which would be most important and appropriate at that time.

That also picks up on a point that the minister made a few moments ago when he said, looking at illegal suites: "That's a municipal issue, but yes, we realize we have to deal with it." What I'm saying is that the province can take leadership in that type of issue and that leadership can be a catalyst in helping municipalities resolve that issue.

Again, we're calling for the restoration of the rentalsman office, and I've mentioned the proclamation of hotels and rooming-houses under the Residential Tenancy Act.

Just a couple of comments with regard to BCHMC. Their annual report for 1986 states that 5,856 units are to be constructed under the three-year federal-provincial global operating agreement for social housing, but when we multiply the figure of 1,886 by three, which seems to be the yearly allocation, it comes out to a figure of almost 200 units less than the annual report states. The BCHMC admits that the figure of 5,856 includes not only the specific non-profit and rent supplement projects to be funded under the 1986 agreement, but also 10 percent of the federal contribution towards urban and rural native housing, and approximately 190 units per year resulting from the provincial government's special programs. That makes it possible, therefore, for BCHMC to report in 1989 that they exceeded their commitments by well over 400 units. That is, the figure of 5,856 units is somewhat misleading as it includes units not related to the 1986 agreement which do not involve non-profit or rent supplement projects.

My final point is that with the social housing aspect of the delivery of housing, a concern is being expressed to me by groups involved as social housing societies. They tell me that they feel they have less autonomy in terms of the nature of the finished product, and this makes it more difficult for them to be involved in the kind of planning that is site-specific and specific to the needs of the group they are seeking to serve in this partnership with the provincial, federal and municipal governments. I would ask the minister to address that issue and ensure that those community groups, in being involved in that process, are able to find it a meaningful involvement. If it ceases to be so, we will find that they will be less interested in being involved, and I fear then a self-fulfilling prophecy where the commission or the ministry could then come back and say: "Well, these people aren't really that interested any more, and we can hand this over to the private sector." I hope that is not the intent of the program the way it is being administered at the present time, because the input of these community groups is absolutely essential in terms of the vibrancy, the life and the creativity of what's happening in the delivery of housing in this province.

I also think that we need to make it possible in some of these projects for there to be something of an income mix. I'm not saying that the very rich should be there or that it should be dominated by people who have incomes above the poverty line, but I am saying that there is an important process where people from different walks of life and different parts of society can be involved. If we segregate different parts of our society off into different parts of the community, it is not socially responsible. I think we have to take a look at that. I know that the minister wants to deliver the greatest amount of housing for the dollars in the budget — I understand that answer — but I think we have to take a look at the finished product and the types of social problems that might emerge if we don't have a mix that can provide for a more representative part of our community.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will listen to what the minister has to say.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, just let me say that I appreciate the member's remarks. But let me repeat what I said a few moments ago, that almost all of this was canvassed pretty extensively yesterday with the second member for Victoria. I think we spent nearly an hour on the subject.

There is no question, though, that there are waiting-lists out there for social housing. We're quite aware of it and are doing everything within our scope of things to address the issue. But there are waiting-lists, and I suppose there will always be waiting-lists of some length or another. We'll try to keep them as low as possible by doing some of the things that the member talked about — for instance, innovative ideas.

We are putting our minds to innovative housing ideas. I mentioned one of them yesterday; and something we're exploring is the idea of granny flats, which are used successfully in other jurisdictions. As I said yesterday, and I hasten to repeat, there will be city council members and regional district members shuddering all over the province right now when I mention the words "granny flats," but they are very successfully used in other areas. It's something we're taking a look at.

I also mentioned yesterday that the other two levels of government will have to look more closely at some of their zoning regulations and maybe become a little more liberal in the zoning that they allow for multi-family and social housing. We have had in various areas of the province problems getting the proper zoning through municipal councils and regional districts.

[11:00]

The member brought up the subject of children in motels. To the best of my knowledge, the only time it is used is when we have to, as we put it, cool people down from a drug or alcohol situation and there is no place else to put them. We will put them into a motel on a one-on-one basis for one, two or three days until we get them brought back down to earth, so that they can be in a group home without disrupting the rest of the clientele. So the motels are used very sparingly and only in emergency situations, to the best of my knowledge. If the member knows of any other situations where motels are being used, I would be pleased to know about that.

Societies that build social housing.... As the member and this Legislature know, we do all of our social housing through non-profit societies who bid on the various projects. But there are some tests they must meet before they are granted a contract to build housing, and the first one is need. Believe it or not, we have many societies throughout the province who approach us and want to build seniors' housing and social housing in areas where there is no need; in other words, where there is a vacancy rate that's sufficiently high that the market can look after it, or where seniors and others are well-accommodated and there is no need, but they wish to build a project. So naturally we will not build projects in those areas.

Secondly, they must meet the cost-per-unit objectives of the federal government and our ministry. So quite often projects get turned down because of a price per unit that's just

[ Page 3849 ]

not in line. Thirdly, of course, is when the need and the price are established; then the location in that area is extremely important. Those are just three of the basic criteria that must be met, and I'm sure the member can appreciate that.

Then he speaks of a mix in these units. Well, at the moment we are not into any form of co-op housing. We opted out of that some two and a half years ago, and we are into the business of contracting for social housing and for seniors and the handicapped. We have no intention of getting back into co-op housing. So I think I have answered most of the member's concerns, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, I want to say a few words about transition houses today. Before I begin the substance of my comments, I would like to try to establish exactly what the budget is, whether in fact it indicates some hopefulness for us, and whether we are going to have more money in it for transition houses than we had before.

It's very difficult to find where this is in the budget. As I understand, it ultimately comes under "income assistance program" — I'm not sure why. But the amount included for emergency shelters, which includes transition houses, is $4.641 million. Could you give me some comparison with last year — going beyond what the emergency shelter budget is — of how of that is generally devoted to the transition houses themselves?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Give us a minute.

MS. EDWARDS: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

In waiting for that, I might note that as far as I can figure.... Well, we'll see what the figures are before we make any comment on them.

But there is always a need for more services in transition houses. I'm sure the minister will agree with me on that. 1 think it's fair to say, before we even know what the figures are — they're likely to be minimally larger than last year — that transition houses are not in every community in this province. Because of the widespread occurrence of battering and violence in the home, and because of the widespread need, I think I would be less than satisfied to hear that there is not a major attempt to put transition houses in at least the major communities of this province. I say very clearly before I sit down that the largest community in my riding, Cranbrook, does not have a transition house. So in view of that, I'll get the minister's answer.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: To answer the member's question as best I can — I don't have all of those numbers at my fingertips — this year the budget is $4.6 million for emergency shelters, which includes transition houses. We're endeavouring to get what the budget was for transition houses last year versus this year, but I don't have it. I'll give it to the member as I get it; we've got staff looking for it right now.

There's no question, Mr. Chairman, of the need for transition houses; we have recognized that over the last few years. I don't have the numbers with me, but in the last seven or eight years the increase in the number of transition houses has been phenomenal. We've increased it many-fold; again, I don't have the numbers.

Yes, I admit that there are some cities without permanent transition houses, but in most of those communities we do have emergency shelters for battered women and we do have safe homes. Given time, I could get you exact locations and how many, etc. I apologize for not having all that here at my fingertips. There's no question that there is a definite need.

I have some information that I can give you here. Currently, the ministry is funding 47 emergency shelters throughout B.C. at a cost expected to exceed $4.5 million. That's the $4.6 million that we talk of in 1987-88. In 1987-88 a new resource was opened in Revelstoke at an annual cost of $8,000.

Status of current funding requests. We have funding requests for second-stage housing in Victoria, so we have entered into negotiations with the Cridge Centre for the Family to provide it.

There's a request for an emergency shelter in Fort Nelson. The Women's Resource Information Centre there wants to establish a safe-home program in Fort Nelson, so we're talking about that with the regional staff. Regional staff have advised the centre that their request would be considered if they can demonstrate a need in the community. Likewise with Fort St. John: ministry funding has been maintained for this shelter despite reduced occupancy. I should add that we have been lobbied diligently by the local MLA for us to increase funding from the ministry. So Fort St. John's emergency shelter is intact.

Emergency shelter in Courtenay — we've received two funding proposals for a transition house. We entered into negotiations with the North Island Family Abuse Resolutions Society, but negotiations broke down and the ministry went to tender. As a preliminary step in service development, the ministry has agreed to provide funding to this society for six months. After that, an evaluation of the service will be performed and a decision made.

Those are just some of the transition home and safe home requests that I have. I still don't have a number for the budget last year versus this year, but I will get it to you as soon as I can.

MS. EDWARDS: I think that it's possible, even without last year's figures, to look at the trends that have been set up since 1982 and see that it's going along at the same dragging pace as it has been over the previous four years up to 1986-87, for which I have the figures. They show that at that time — and I'm doing a correlation here that is obviously not exact — funding for the emergency shelter program was about $3.5 million. when we had a capacity of 366 in emergency shelters.

I am suggesting that if, in fact, we have a $4.6 million budget this year, we may have a capacity across the province of 464 in emergency shelters, and that includes transition houses. It does not mean that that's totally for transition houses. Despite the fact that I recognize that you have saved a home in Fort St. John, I believe you said, even though the numbers went down, and despite the fact that you have had a new home in Revelstoke, Victoria's second stage, I'm told, has more to do with good bingo funding than with ministry funding.

What I'm saying to the minister is that there are still areas in the province — and the Kootenay is one of them, particularly my riding, where the people in Elkford, Sparwood and so on do not have easy access to transition homes. There is a need, it's very clearly established, for more transition homes. But even more important than that, Mr. Minister, is the need for the second stage of service and for more service within the transition homes that are there already.

[ Page 3850 ]

First of all, the women who come into these transition homes are coming mainly with their families. Most women come with some children, and they need full support in their situation. They need more support than the transition homes are able to give them. It's simply not happening in the transition homes — the kind of support they need to get out of the situation. The recurrence of that situation and the extent of the problem that creates the situation is coming more and more, as you are willing to admit, to the fore. People are willing to admit that they are beaten in their families, and to get out and come to transition homes.

The women who find themselves in the situation of having to leave their homes, with or without their children, need a full range of support. That full range of support is not being found in other parts of your ministry; it's not being found in other parts of government services or anywhere that the women who are suffering the battering are able to afford to get.

Beyond the women themselves who go to the transition houses, or even the safe homes that do exist, are the children who go with them. More and more we're recognizing a major problem right there. These children have been recognized, particularly in a recent study, "Battered but Not Beaten," which was a publication just last year of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. It became very clear there — and it's indicative of what's going on — that the children are trapped into this pattern.

This is the family that we're dealing with. When we're talking about families in British Columbia, these are families. The children in these families are caught in these homes, with no qualified child care workers working within the transition houses. Let me say that in almost every case there is no child worker. While the mother is needing the attention that she is getting — which is not adequate, I am putting to you — the children are mostly being ignored. They are — and the statistics bear this out — the children who will be, in one way or another, the offenders or the sufferers in the next generation.

So the crucial nature of the problem is becoming more and more obvious. I simply put that to you, Mr. Minister, as an area that is not getting nearly enough support in this budget. It's not getting nearly enough support in the whole system of social care that is available to the families who need this kind of support. We don't need any more scarred and damaged children or women. We need more services, and transition houses give you one opportunity to provide the kind of service that will keep the family together, the parts that are there and still operating well.

I ask you, Mr. Minister, to pay some attention to this. If you are going to go at this as slowly as you have been going at the numbers of transition houses, it isn't fast enough. In fact, we need to do something more if we're not going to pass the problems on to the next generation.

[11:15]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, I want to address the comment about the second stage home in Victoria. It's not bingo-related, or whatever the phrase was; it's a contract that we will enter into with probably the Cridge Centre. Negotiations are ongoing now. It's a firm contract with this ministry to run such a home and not reliant upon bingo funds or any such activity as that. I just wanted to make that clear.

Secondly, I appreciate the member's comments on transition homes. They are needed in the society in which we live today, and we are providing more and more transition homes as quickly as we can. But I also want to point out that all transition homes are staffed, so there is support there for the mother and her children. There is support in the form of their minister being brought into the situation, the physician, the public health nurse and other funded agencies. So it's not as if they're put in a transition home and left alone. I just wanted to put on the record that they are well supported, and there are specialists brought in to deal with them. We know that at that point in their lives they're going through a traumatic experience.

But I should add, in regard to the comments about the children, that that is exactly where the initiatives to strengthen the family can come in. It is where we can provide more family counselling and homemaker support for this type of, shall we say, battered family, or disrupted family. So it does tie in very well. It's not as if we're just ignoring the children in this scenario and turfing them out, as you say, into society to become abusers, etc. Far from it. In fact, we realize the need for that. Family support services in the new program are budgeted at $6.9 million.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I know that the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) canvassed some of the items in the Premier's initiatives for the family, but there's just one point that I need to have clarified within that. It has to do with the $3 million for support of residential programs. I understood from what the minister said that that was somehow related in the information sent out to supported living arrangements. In talking to the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, I gather she got the impression from the minister's response that that $3 million was entirely for operating costs and not for capital costs. I want to ask the minister if he would clarify that?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I believe the member's asking about the $3 million allocated to supported living arrangements, and I'll just read what I have here on it. I read it into the record yesterday, but I'll read it again:

"...to provide residential and support services to women during pregnancy and after delivery. The minister currently contracts with facilities in Vancouver and Kamloops, and a range of other options will be developed as needed."

And I emphasize "as needed," because we don't know at this time exactly what the need will be, but that can include:

...private homes supervised by non-profit societies, home-sharing and support arrangements, semi-independent apartment living in clusters of three or four apartments, small group living situations. These options will be available up to four months before delivery and up to three months after. A user fee will apply, with financial assistance to those in need."

But I do want to emphasize — to answer the member's question very precisely — that this money is not for capital costs; we are not going out into the marketplace and building anything. This will be contracted with caregivers in the type of venue that I described. It could be private homes; it could be semi-independent living; it could be small group living situations. But none of that money is for capital expenditure.

MR. CASHORE: Does that mean, then, that there was a change in the policy on this since the announcement was made?

[ Page 3851 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, there has never been any change. This has been the intent since the program's inception.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I refer to the document "Initiatives for Strengthening the Family: Media Backgrounder." On the front page it states:

"Newly committed funds: supportive residential accommodation — $3 million." We then move through that document to the last page which was added on at the back of that, entitled "Financial Implications: Initiatives for Strengthening the Family." At the top there it says: "Program: supportive residential accommodation - $3 million. " There's an asterisk; you go to the asterisk; the asterisk says: "Includes $1.675 million in operating costs and $1.325 million in capital costs."

I would point out to the minister that it was this item that resulted in quite a furor in the press. It was widely covered and canvassed, and it resulted in a very unusual criticism of government by a person who works in a facility operated by the Salvation Army. You have to know, Mr. Minister, that when somebody from the Salvation Army criticizes government, that's pretty serious, because they don't very often enter into the arena of political statement.

The question of homes for unwed mothers was looked at at that time, and the press reported — and they must have reported it based on interviews conducted with members of government — that the $3 million was for homes for unwed mothers. I submit that that was the first explanation of the amount, and ever since the ministry has been scrambling for a rationale for that $3 million.

I have a copy here in my hand which I would be glad to make available to the minister. It states $1.675 million in operating costs and $1.325 million in capital costs. Given the situation that was pointed out, that there are presently two homes for unwed mothers in the lower mainland, one of them empty and one half-full, and that there only nine women staying at the Sally Ann's Maywood Home for Girls in Vancouver — it can hold nearly 20 — there was real concern expressed. Reporters reported on it. It was in the press, saying that this was for a home for unwed mothers, and it states in the ministry's own document that there was money set aside for capital costs. It was pointed out that building homes for unwed mothers in this day and age is a throwback; there are better ways of using those funds.

It states here that "Moffatt operator Ralph Krueger, whose home takes only pregnant women and women with babies up to six months old," said the $3 million should be spent on low-cost housing near day care centres and schools where unwed mothers can get an education.

Since the Premier announced this program — flanked by the Minister of Social Services and Housing and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) — has the game plan changed to accommodate public response? And how do you explain, in view of statements made by the minister in this House both yesterday and today that the $3 million is not for capital costs.... This document states that it is.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It's very simple. The capital costs referred to in the document that he has are for such things as furniture, furnishings and possibly covering rent or mortgage to get people started in these. As I said earlier, we don't know what the need will be and how much we will have to provide, but I want to make it clear that when I referred to capital costs in my comments before, we are not going to go out and build a bunch of buildings, as has been the perception by some out there. We will be contracting with private organizations such as the Salvation Army and others, and if necessary we will help them with equipment, furnishings and possibly even rent or mortgage, but not capital costs as far as constructing buildings. If that was unclear, I hope that has cleared it up.

MR. CASHORE: My case rests as far as that issue is concerned, but I certainly think it would be appropriate for that matter to be cleared up in the media, because the report has been covered extensively, indicating that this was for homes for unwed mothers. I have not seen anything forthcoming in an official sense to correct that if that is indeed misinformation. I think that issue should be canvassed publicly.

I wish now to begin some of my wrap-up comments. To put them into perspective, I hold in my hand a clipping from the Vancouver Sun dated March 2, 1988, an article by Neal Hall. It states that Vancouver had more homicides per capita in 1987 — 5.97 per 100,000 people — than any other major Canadian city because it has more of a "desperate population." "'We live in a province of extremes and broken dreams,' said Neil Boyd, the director of SFUs criminology department. Boyd also noted that B.C. provides fewer social services for desperate people than do such provinces as Ontario. "

The alternatives that we are discussing when we discuss estimates are the alternatives between a mainly crisis-oriented approach and a preventative approach. I think the good professor, in citing just one example of the kinds of problems our society in British Columbia is experiencing today, is indicating the very real need to address root causes, and to be doing so in a way that is far more meaningful than moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic.

We've covered a vast territory in trying to deal with these estimates. It's a massive area. I do appreciate the efforts of the minister and his deputies to respond to our queries, but when we look at the issue of reorganization, I want to say that that reorganization is limited by the myopic vision of the Social Credit government. It means that the people who are called upon to reorganize can do a very limited amount. Those involved in that reorganization have had to admit to the fact that because of Social Credit policies, because of subsequent Social Credit administration, there's a morale problem among that ministry's staff, and that needs to be addressed. Therefore that reorganization is providing more opportunities for advancement. But that reorganization, being a reorganization of that one ministry, cannot possibly address the crisis in family and children's services being experienced in this province. I would refer to the comments of my friend from Esquimalt earlier this morning, when he was responding to the Attorney-General's announcement. He made the point that in dealing with issues such as probation, we have to start at a much earlier stage when dealing with causative factors that result in so many social problems in this province.

As you know, I have called for a thorough review, a commission of inquiry that would took into the delivery of family and children's services in this province and deal with the issue of those young people who fall through the gaps in the coordination that simply cannot be put in place when you have, this multiplicity of ministries — the gaps between

[ Page 3852 ]

Health, Social Services and Housing, Education and Attorney-General. Witness, when we talk about what is falling between the gaps, the matter we've covered with regard to hungry kids. Witness the data I brought forward from the research of Beth Loring, who points out that families living on income assistance are left with $4.64 per person per day for food, clothing, bus, laundry and now small claims court to deal with trying to get their damage deposit money back.

[11:30]

It's a bleak picture that all of us must address in a very meaningful and significant way. It's a bleak picture that cannot be addressed by initiatives that move in the direction of increasing the number of administrative staff within the ministry. We need initiatives that will increase the number of front-line workers available for people.

I have a figure here that I was looking for. If we look at the drift that has taken place within the ministry from 1982-83 to 1986-87 and look at the number of staff, the front-line staff has decreased by 19 percent during that time — a time of an increase in social problems for all British Columbians. During that same period of time, the number of people in administrative positions increased by 25 percent. That's according to the ministry's own reports.

While I have heard the minister say that under this reorganization we will be maintaining current staffing levels, I still think that we have to ask ourselves in year one or year two of this reorganization: are we going to see a continuation of this drift to more people managing each other and fewer people available to serve the needs on the front line of those very serious situations out there?

I want to reiterate that the Golden case that we've referred to in these estimates is one current example of a situation that must be addressed through some kind of an independent inquiry. There were 71 reviews of comparable situations that were entered into during the last fiscal year, yet the public has no way to have an indication statistically or in general terms without going into details. But it would give us an indication of how these matters are being dealt with and responded to; that is certainly called for.

Since I am trying to abbreviate my remarks as much as I possibly can and economize on time.... I have a question here, but I'm not going to sit down after it; I'll just carry on. I hope that a note would be made of this question. It's with regard to the announcement of the changes under the GAIN act and people being classified as employable and deducting money from their monthly stipend. Has the ministry checked with the Attorney-General to see if there may be a contravention of the Charter of Rights contained in the Canadian constitution by reason of section 15, which guarantees the equal benefit of law? That's one question I would like to put to the minister.

Another question that I have here — if it could be noted — has to do with the workload of social workers. Given that social workers have certain requirements under the law, does the minister agree that no workload should be assigned which would prevent employees from fulfilling their statutory obligations? I'll be interested in the answer to that.

Mr. Chairman, there was a point that I wanted to make about the adoption registry. I'm aware that this has now been transferred into Health — vital statistics — but it was a statute brought forward by the Minister of Social Services and Housing. We've been looking at comparable passive registries, and we find that in Alberta, for instance, there were 1,655 applications for reunions, and only 33 links were made. So there's a potential for possible successful reunions, but that would only be 2 percent, which is a very low figure. Can the minister confirm that in British Columbia — where we have a passive registry — in the few months it has been in effect, as of April 5, 1988, approximately 300 applications have been made, and no reunions or links have occurred as a result?

There are some items I wanted to go into with regard to foster care. These are issues that I raised in a statement in the House a few weeks ago. So I will leave that and will not be commenting on foster care at this time, although I expect to be placing some questions on the order paper.

I want to refer now to two final points. The first has to do with the Premier's smoking-jacket program, which might also be referred to as the "smoking gun program." That program has been exposed — not only by debate in this House, but also by the debate taking place among the public — as a program put in place to help the Premier resolve a political problem. If he were genuinely concerned about that, those would have been the first measures he would have instituted after becoming government. It absolutely boggles the mind to think that he would have discovered that families are in need this far into his time of being Premier. Surely a Premier who was a former Minister of Human Resources has the background to recognize need where it exists, and clearly his timetable is the most cynical gesture one could possibly imagine.

All of us recognize the need for supports to the family, and we welcome measures that will be put in place and be helpful. But we are deeply troubled over the institution of these measures in such a highly political way. What we need and what we are calling for is consistency in programs — not programs that are severely slashed one year, then for several years some minimal steps towards damage control take place.

I think it must be extremely difficult for ministers of the Crown these days to deal with the pinball politics of this Premier. They really don't know what's going to happen next. If I were the Minister of Social Services, I would be deeply disturbed to see a slush fund being set up under the Minister of Finance that enables the Premier, through that fund, to interfere in the delivery of social services. Surely, if the initiatives made available through that fund are important, they would be made through the Ministry of Social Services and not through some other, separate ministry of government. This is akin, only a step further, to the concept of the Excellence in Education fund — which is a misuse of the term "excellence."

Mr. Chairman, I can only conclude, when I look at the way in which the Premier is becoming involved in social services.... Each day we find that this achieves new heights of something absolutely beyond credibility. We have the prospect.... This morning the Premier stated that if some of these women were hard done by when they were classified as employable and therefore had this $50 taken from them — food from the mouths of babies; done in a way that is pushing these people when there are much more appropriate approaches to help people get into the workforce, such as job creation — he would personally intervene. Is this Premier now going to set up an office in the Premier's office that is going to go throughout the province and visit the 235,000 people on income assistance? The Premier is now saying he will personally intervene. This smacks of the kind of intervention he's doing with regard to the BCEC lands. It's

[ Page 3853 ]

absolutely inappropriate, and I find it phenomenal to have to sit in this House and realize that a member of this House, a minister of the Crown, has to endure this type of interference while he is seeking to diligently fulfill his responsibilities as minister.

When I observe the actions of this Premier and this government, the only words I can use to encapsulate what he is doing are that he seems to have a messianic complex. I don't think a messianic complex in the Premier of any province is appropriate, and it certainly isn't helpful to the people of British Columbia at this time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, hon. member, but your time under standing orders has expired.

MS. EDWARDS: I believe that my colleague for Maillardville-Coquitlam is just getting to some of the real points, and I would like to hear him continue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before the member continues this debate has gone along very well, but I feel compelled to remind hon. members that we are dealing with the estimates of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. It might be much more appropriate to debate those matters which pertain to the Premier's office when the Premier's estimates come forward.

MR. CASHORE: Your point is well taken, Mr. Chairman; that would certainly be an appropriate time to canvass those issues in much more detail. I do feel, however, that while we are dealing with the estimates of this ministry we have to deal with the kinds of pressures that are brought to bear on that ministry by the whole area of government involvement. The initiative that was brought forward by the Ministry of Social Services and Housing dealing with the "unemployable" category for mothers is highly inappropriate. As I said before, it takes food out of the mouths of babies — it's going to force women and children onto the streets of this province. It is entirely inappropriate, and I think this minister has to answer for that because it is a policy that comes through his ministry. It is absolutely alarming that it comes forward at this time and in the wake of the other initiatives which are put forward as some kind of facade to try to indicate that the Premier is going to be the saviour of the family. Now we have this kind of kick in the teeth for the family.

I want to come now to my final point, and it has to do with the issue of the superintendent of family and child service being an advocate for children. It's an issue that we've canvassed before. Earlier in the debate I read into the record passages from Hansard where the Premier had said that the superintendent of child welfare is independent of government. I also read from the Family and Child Service Act, over which this minister has responsibility, and it states right within the act that the superintendent of child welfare is chosen from the public service and is responsible to the minister. I am saying categorically that 1 do not understand how it can possibly be stated by this Premier, or how he would not be corrected by the minister, when he states that the superintendent of child welfare operates independent of government. As a matter of fact, there have been several submissions to government from various social work organizations and from our own caucus stating that the superintendent of child welfare should be independent of government.

Independence would mean an arm's-length relationship where this person would report to perhaps the Select Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social Services. That would be moving towards independence. There would be that removal from the minister's office. There would be the realization that if the minister's office did not believe in the concept of advocacy that is warranted to serve the needs of children in this province, that would be the case. The minister need only look to Alberta to realize that in that office the child advocate is independent of government. That's what independence of government is.

[11:45]

1 can only conclude, when I look at what this Premier has said in the light of the act.... I cannot imagine that he would do this on purpose. It appears to me that the Premier has misled this House during the debate on abortion. I do not like to say that, but I am trying to find words that are appropriate. I would ask the minister to make it very clear in his comments just how he would explain, on the basis of dictionary definitions, that the Premier of this province has not misled the House on the issue of the superintendent of child welfare.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm sorry to interfere, but we must be very, very careful when we use terminology like that. In debate it's just not appropriate to say that. You said it the first time and I let it go, but then when you said it again I felt compelled to interfere. Perhaps you would avoid using terminology such as that, and I'm quite prepared to hear you continue with your discourse.

MR. CASHORE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your advice on this. I realize that I need to phrase my comment in terms of a question so that the minister can have a chance to respond to it.

If I am not to use that term. then the term I would have to use is that it would appear to me that the Premier seriously lacks understanding of the Queen's English in terms of interpreting, first, the act, and second, his own words that I have quoted from Hansard. No one has disputed the words in the act; no one has disputed the points that I have made in quoting Hansard. It only leaves me with the conclusion that this Premier has a very serious inability to translate the meanings of those words.

I would conclude by saying that this province needs a superintendent of child welfare who carries out her function independent of government, at arm's length, and advocates on behalf of the children of our society. I would say that it behooves this minister to have a chat with the Premier and explain to him what the Queen's English really means with regard to those issues.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just a few brief remarks to conclude, to answer some of the questions posed by the member opposite. First of all, let me start with his inference that the media has the wrong idea of the supportive living arrangements. If they have, then that's their fault, not mine. But to clarify it one more time, the member can call them homes for unwed mothers if he chooses to call them that, but we say that they are supportive living arrangements for all those who find themselves in a situation that perhaps wasn't planned — may be undesired, may not be — but who require help and support before, during and immediately after pregnancy.

The budget is $3 million, and to state once more for about the fourth time: we will not be building any buildings with

[ Page 3854 ]

that money. It is to provide services; however, we may assist with startup in purchasing furnishings and equipment. or even assist with mortgages, etc.

The member continues to insist that we have a crisis in family and children's services. I disagree with him. I think the family and child service side of the ministry is functioning very well. We have a very competent superintendent, whom I have every confidence in. We are addressing many of the social problems that the member speaks of through the initiatives to strengthen the family as well as other programs in my ministry.

We have not decreased the front-line staff at all; in fact, we have added some supervision for these people to assist them to do their job. Their workload is such that they can manage their statutory requirements. This is one of the reasons, Mr. Member, that we have moved social workers from one area of the province to another: to recognize the shifting populations and to alleviate the workloads that have become very heavy in certain areas.

Some of the other questions. The 71 investigations that the member mentioned again. We canvassed that the other day, but I can assure him and this House and the people of the province that in every case where there's an investigation, corrective action is taken, and as he pointed out, there were 71 such instances in the province last year.

We have consulted with the Attorney-General's ministry regarding GAIN and the classification of "employable" or "unemployable" that he brought up. Perhaps this is a good time to address the other item that he mentioned, that with single parents, following the birth of a child, the "unemployable" status is limited to 15 weeks. We did this for several reasons. For one, we don't feel that a lot of people want to continue to be classed as unemployable and to be put on some list where their case is never reviewed. And we did it to bring it into line with the regulations of the Unemployment Insurance Act, which is federal; theirs is 15 weeks, and we brought it into line with that.

However, having said that — and I want to make this very clear, and I said it yesterday but I think it's worth repeating — we have increased the number of counsellors to enable people to get back into the workforce so that we can, on a more one on-one basis, sit down and assess the situation of these people and decide with them what is the best category in which they should remain. So the Premier's quite right when he says we're not holus-bolus going to be telling people: "Well, now the 15 weeks is up, you have to get back to work." That is not the intention. The intention is just to remove the label "unemployable" from as many people as possible, to remove that stigma of being unemployable, to get people back into the workforce and to break some of the syndrome that sets in when people stay on income assistance for too long. We see it time after time. In fact, I don't have to tell the member that in some cases now we are into the third generation of welfare families. We want to try to break that syndrome.

The adoption registry. I have asked for a report on the status of the passive registry that we introduced in January of this year. That should be forthcoming. I told the member last year, when we introduced it, that we would monitor it closely, see how it's working; and if it's not working, we are quite prepared to take another look at it. However, we want to give it a chance to operate. It has only been up and running for some three months now.

The member mentioned foster care and said he didn't want to get into it today, but I'm just happy to report to the House that the foster care recruitment program is going very well. We have had in excess of 1,200 legitimate inquiries from people throughout the province. I thank the people for responding, because foster care is still our front line of defence — to put it that way — or the backbone of our children-in-care services. We must have more options when we place children in foster care, so that we're not forced to place children in situations that are less than desirable or less than ideal. Once again, I thank everyone in British Columbia for the response to the program.

The other day we canvassed the member's contention that the superintendent of family and child service is at arm's length from government. I don't know if we have to go into all of that again. Yes, the superintendent does report to the minister; however, the superintendent's position is statutory — legislated — and he or she must enforce that piece of legislation, regardless of who is the minister. So while maybe the strictest interpretation of the wording would have you believe that the person is not totally independent of government, they are certainly at arm's length from government and are responsible for enforcing a piece of legislation with which this minister would not tamper; nor, I think, would you, were you the minister.

I just caution you as well. We've had a good debate over the last two or three days. I appreciate the mood and the manner in which you have conducted the debate from your side as my critic, and that of the other members who have risen in debate. In fact, it's been most informative and very enlightening, and the give and take has been excellent. I would just caution the member, as the Chairman already has, that when you refer to someone in this House misleading the other members, that's probably the most serious charge you can bring against a member in this House, sir. So I would caution you that when you use those words, use them very carefully.

I don't know if that concludes the debate on my estimates. If it does, then I thank the members opposite for a good two and a half days of debate.

MR. CASHORE: I said, when I began to speak last time, that I was coming to the conclusion of my remarks, but I did not say that that was coming to the conclusion of the debate. I do expect that there are some items that we will want to canvass this afternoon.

With regard to the point that the minister just made, I too recognize that we've had very civil debate around issues that are extremely serious and where there is a potential for an extremely tense mood, given the context of the issues. I think there has been an effort on the part of both the minister and myself, and on the part of others who participated, to try to exercise restraint — an appropriate use of that term.

I would say, however, with regard to the last point the minister made, that I am still not convinced by the explanation with regard to this arm's-length stuff. The fact remains that one year ago the then superintendent of family and child service was fired. The minister has not been forthcoming with how that came about or what the reason was. It meant that someone whom I believe to be a good and appropriate and useful citizen has been left hung out to dry. I can only conclude that the decision was made within the minister's office, since that person reports to the minister. I can only conclude, therefore, that there's a political dimension to that decision, a dimension that has to do with the superintendent of child welfare's understanding of his or her role, and the

[ Page 3855 ]

minister's understanding. I can only conclude, because information has not been forthcoming, that anything but an arm’s length relationship did exist and does exist, and that present and future incumbents, given the way the situation is organized, will continue to realize that there is a very real connection to the minister, and therefore to the cabinet, and therefore to the government, and that it is anything but an arm's-length relationship.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Normally I wouldn't respond on individuals and whether they retain their employment or not. We usually don't discuss those issues in this House, but the member seems to keep bringing it back, and he seems to be a personal ombudsman for Andrew Armitage. So I feel compelled to reply when he says that the decision was made in my office.

First of all, Mr. Member, let me tell you that people do lose their jobs from time to time. Nobody has a lock on any job for the rest of his life. And let me tell you one more time that the decision was not made in my office. The decision was made by the deputy minister of the day for reasons that I won't go into, because it's a personnel matter and it's probably very personal. Nevertheless, it was an administrative decision, not a political one, and I just wanted to set the record straight on that once and for all.

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 12 noon.