[ Page 8709 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

(Hon. Mr. Richmond)

On vote 64: minister's office –– 8709

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Ms. Smallwood

Mrs. Gran

Ms. Marzari

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

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

On vote 64: minister's office, $301,553.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It's a pleasure for me to appear before this House to do the spending estimates of my ministry for the coming year. I want to make a few remarks, and I'll keep them as brief as I possibly can, but because of the importance and the size of this ministry it's only appropriate that we spend a few moments outlining what we plan for the coming year and some of the highlights of the past year. Joining me in the House today are my deputy, Mr. Dick Butler, ADM Sam Travers and Mr. John Pickering, the director of budget planning.

Substantial increases have been allocated this year to enable my ministry to enhance its services. In fact, the actual increases are just over 10 percent. This is indeed a good news budget for this ministry. I'd like to highlight a few of my ministry's major accomplishments over the past year and to tell you about some of the initiatives and program enhancements planned for the coming year. I'll start with the opportunities for independence and income assistance programs.

My ministry is committed to assisting those among us who are in need. We also believe strongly that it is only by assisting people to achieve independence that our commitment to these people can be met in a meaningful, permanent way. We now have the most extensive array of employment initiatives, incentive programs and support services that we've ever had. In the month of April, nearly 13,000 persons participated in these programs: native people, single parents, people who have been out of work for some time, youths looking for a first job; and the list goes on.

During the 1988-89 fiscal year, over 4,000 persons benefited from the Employment Plus program alone. This program provides wage subsidies to non-profit and private sector employers to provide job training and work experience to participants. To let you know what this type of help can mean to someone, I will relate some examples of the program as we go through the estimates. I won't take the time in the opening remarks, but as it comes up I'll relate some individual cases to illustrate exactly what I'm talking about regarding Employment Plus. Because these programs are so important, a $9.7 million budget increase has been allocated to expand the program and to target groups who need it most: single parents, youths, native people and older workers. As well, the forestry enhancement program is now being administered by my ministry.

It is important to note that British Columbia benefits from federal cost-sharing on these programs. The $26 million Employment Plus budget is matched dollar for dollar by federal employment and training programs specifically for income assistance recipients.

As I announced recently, we have also increased the income assistance rates. This will give a larger measure of security to those on long-term assistance such as the elderly and those with handicaps. Those who are employable but need temporary assistance also receive an increase in addition to expanded employment-related services. The increases, effective July 1, 1989, have two components: the support allowance has been increased by 5.6 percent; the shelter component has been adjusted to reflect increased shelter costs. Increases vary between 4.5 percent and 10 percent, depending on family size. These measures will cost the taxpayers approximately $42 million annually.

I'm also pleased to announce today that we have expanded our health care program for income assistance recipients with hearing impairments. Persons whose hearing range is less than 40 decibels and who require hearing aids to obtain employment or who are the sole homemaking support for adults with mental handicaps are now eligible for hearing aids. Coverage is already provided to children, parents with dependent children and persons involved in ministry training programs. We've expanded our coverage so that people with hearing impairments will be better able to care for their families and have a better chance for employment. The program also meets safety concerns, as below 40 decibels people can't hear sirens, horns and fire alarms.

Day care is essential for many parents to obtain or remain in a job. As you know, the federal government has postponed a portion of its national child care program worth $4 billion. Because many parents in British Columbia cannot wait any longer, we have decided to move ahead with provincial day care initiatives. As my colleague the Hon. Bill Reid and I announced, lottery funds will be made available to help build, renovate and expand day care centres.

In addition, day care subsidies are being increased to more closely reflect the actual day care costs. Income exemption levels are being increased so that more low-income parents and students will be eligible for the subsidy and so that the contribution required of those already subsidized will be reduced. The increase in subsidy and exemption levels will cost approximately $12.1 million.

Funding of approximately $1 million will be made available to non-profit agencies to recruit, train and support informal day care providers, and an additional $350,000 has been allocated for start-up grants to non-profit societies to equip new facilities on a

[ Page 8710 ]

matching basis. Our government will also actively promote employer-sponsored day care.

The future of this province lies in our children and families, and we are committed to supporting families and to protecting children effectively. These commitments are expressed in many ways, and I just want to highlight a few of them.

The highly successful family initiatives program was designed to promote nurturing parenting, enhance services for children and families facing special difficulties, increase local participation and support family independence. The program is carried out in partnership with community agencies. Agencies identify community needs; we enable them to meet these needs by providing the financial means to do so. Projects include respite care for families caring for handicapped children, support for teen mothers, support groups for parents and the provision of over 90 family advancement workers throughout the province.

The Reconnect program for street kids is another extremely worthwhile initiative. Its purpose is to prevent young people from taking to the street and to reconnect those who are on the street with family, medical, residential and employment support resources. It is delivered through contracts with societies who employ specialized workers to reach out to these young people.

A special Reconnect outreach program for native street youth will begin this fall in Vancouver. The program is funded in partnership with the Vancouver School Board, and grew out of discussions I had with representatives of various native organizations who raised it as an issue.

Our commitment to families is reflected in several budget increases for this year. An extra $1 million has been allocated for expanded or new transition houses and emergency shelters in communities throughout the province. These shelters are absolutely necessary for families in trouble, and the additional funding expresses our recognition of this need. An additional $1.45 million has been allocated to enhance our family support and rehabilitation resources programs.

The special services to children program, which provides counselling for families with children who have exceptional physical, social or behavioural needs, will be enhanced to serve 260 additional families. The rehabilitation resources program assists youth with social or emotional problems which cannot be handled in a regular school setting. It is operated jointly with the Ministry of Education and school districts. Budget increases will be used to fund new programs and enhance existing programs.

A new budget item of $1.69 million has been allocated to provide special resources on an interministry basis to children with exceptional needs These children may be substance abusers, victims of abuse, multiply handicapped or severely emotionally disturbed. The funds have been allocated to three ministries — Social Services and Housing, Health, and Labour and Consumer Services — and will allow us to provide the necessary services to these children

[10:15]

The budget for contracted residential child care resources has been increased significantly. This will allow us to provide specialized residential care for additional children whose needs cannot be met in a regular foster home. The budget for foster homes has been increased in order to allow us to raise foster home rates.

Other budgetary measures include: an increase for our infant development program to bring the total number of children and families served to nearly 2,500; an increase of over $2 million for special needs day care; an increase of nearly $2 million to provide respite care and specialized residential care for children with severe handicaps; and funding for the new in-home support program for children with handicaps, which was announced recently, and the budget for that was in the area of $15 million.

As well as taking these budgetary measures, we are taking measures to ensure that our standards are of the highest quality. These include a task force on standards of social work practice and a task force on standards of residential care for children and youth. We also updated the interministry child abuse handbook to ensure that child protection efforts are coordinated and effective. The handbook prescribes integrated procedures for these cases in more detail and with more clarity than ever before.

These support and preventive services are working. For the past several years the number of children in care has not increased with the increase in child population. Our prediction of caseload increase in line with the growth in child population has not occurred. In fact, Mr. Chairman, for the first time in the history of the province, the number of children apprehended has gone down, while the population has increased. There are about 1,200 fewer children in care than predicted. We are extremely heartened by this trend, and it is the first time it has ever happened.

Just a few words now, as I wrap up, about all these services. We do them in partnership with the community. We contract with over 2,000 community businesses. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I believe our ministry has more contracts with the private sector — nonprofit societies, individual professionals — than any other ministry in government. This is cost-effective and returns service provision to our local communities where it belongs. Because costs increase, we must increase contract rates for our service providers. I am pleased to say that we have been allocated an increase of $11.61 million this year to do this.

I just want to conclude by saying a few words about our housing action plan. As we have announced, our goals are to increase the supply of affordable rental housing, to maximum the involvement of the private sector in meeting rental housing needs, to help British Columbians meet market-determined housing costs and, four, to assist in home-ownership.

Briefly, our programs for achieving these goals fall into three areas. The first is rental supply. These are aimed at increasing the supply of affordable rental

[ Page 8711 ]

housing by making suitably zoned land available and encouraging the involvement of the private and non-profit sectors and other levels of government. The Housing Management Commission put out a proposal call in June for 2,000 units of affordable rental housing, and the response so far has been tremendous. There have been over 350 inquiries from builders, developers and non-profit societies.

The second program area is rental assistance for those who require it. Programs in this category include our social housing program and other measures to assist low-income renters such as the enhancements to SAFER and the GAIN shelter allowance.

The third group of programs assists homeowners and buyers and includes homeowner grants, the land tax deferment program, the second mortgage program, which is being privatized and enhanced, and property purchase tax relief. With cooperation from all the players involved — developers, non-profit agencies, municipalities, the federal government and the province — we will increase the supply of affordable rental housing for British Columbians.

The success of our programs in serving the people of British Columbia is due largely to the dedication of our ministry staff and to the many community agencies who are our partners in service delivery. I will end this address by expressing my appreciation for all of their efforts.

MS. SMALLWOOD: In the minister's introduction, if he wanted to prove that there is a lot of money being spent or being thrown at people in need in this province, all he would have to do is to quote the total amount being spent by this ministry: $1.6 billion. The questions I hope to deal with in this estimate are first and foremost, whether the money is actually going where it should be; whether it is being properly spent; whether it is being accounted for; whether this ministry is being accountable to the taxpayers; whether it is alleviating poverty, supporting families in need or, as this government has claimed repeatedly, strengthening families.

The case I will make is that the ministry fails desperately, that the money is not going where it is needed and that families are being further torn apart by the system and by the political system this government has set in place.

At the outset I want to make two comments. First of all, I believe the staff in the ministry are caring, dedicated people. I believe they are doing an extremely difficult job under this government and previous administrations. I believe that the community groups that are delivering services for this ministry are not supported. The commitment that those people have shown is an incredible commitment which can only be continued because they care very much about the people they serve. Every attempt to deliver those services has been frustrated by this government.

I'd like to start by framing the discussion in a bit of a historical perspective, and then I'll talk about the different areas I intend to deal with in the estimates

Because the ministry is perhaps one of the biggest bureaucracies in government, I can't begin to touch on all the areas. The two major areas I hope to deal with are poverty and teen and children's programs in this province — family and children's services.

In putting into perspective what is happening in this province right now, I think one has to begin by understanding what went before this government and the legacy this province is having to deal with. First of all, under the so-called restraint program.... Let me go through the list of services this province and this ministry has lost. There were 220 family support workers before the restraint era. The support workers were to assist families in crisis and help to maintain those families — help them stay together. Those 220 family support workers were fired. Child care workers in schools lost their funding. Regional coordinators for family and child services were fired. Special teams and coordinators for programs for children with handicaps were eliminated. Home care services for new mothers were reduced through the elimination of 35 jobs. Universal Pharmacare for families and singles had its deductible rates increased from $125 to $200. Physical education was made no longer mandatory in grades 11 and 12. Cuts in legal aid programs, particularly hard hit....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I interrupt the hon. member for just a moment to remind her that we're dealing with the estimates of the minister's office for this fiscal year, and the member seems to be talking about things that happened quite a number of years ago. Perhaps we could become just a little more relevant to the estimates that we're dealing with.

MS. SMALLWOOD: As I pointed out in my introduction, I don't believe you can deal with what is happening in this province today without realizing what happened to the system in the past. Many of the programs I'm talking about were preventive programs, and I'll identify some of those for you, Mr. Chairman. My argument is that with the neglect in the area of preventive programs, we are now facing a crisis situation for families. I think that will become clear if you will tolerate this line of debate.

In the 1983-to-1985 restraint days, legal aid programs were particularly hard hit, Women seeking to obtain and enforce maintenance orders from deserting spouses were hard hit. Funding for planned parenthood was eliminated. Preventive public health programs in nutrition have been reduced. Dental care programs for young children eliminated. Family first home grants were wiped out. Renter tax credit and personal tax credits wiped out. There's a lack of services for disturbed youth. Property taxes for lowincome homeowners have been increased by 60 percent in three years. Post-partum counselling for new mothers and funding for the Vancouver Women's Health Collective was eliminated. All of these programs were put in place to support families. They were preventive programs that were cost-effective. I think most of the studies done by professionals in the field point out that support for preventive programs

[ Page 8712 ]

eliminates the need for crisis intervention or reduces the need for crisis intervention in the long run, and in the long run makes for a much healthier society.

What we're seeing now in British Columbia, I will argue during the estimates, is an increased cost to the ministry because the ministry is now increasingly engaged in crisis intervention because of the reduced emphasis on preventive and supportive services to families. In this past year the minister has begun to reinstate some of those programs, some of them under different names, different titles, so that the majority of people are not aware that the government is recognizing the error of its ways.

I'm afraid that the introduction of some of these programs is done in an ad hoc, knee-jerk way. There is not the kind of coordination, not the kind of guarantee of accessibility, not the kind of equity throughout the province that is needed.

In the last several months I have on several different occasions approached the ministry asking for information. It's very clear that there is a need for accessible information — information, I stress, that is not covered under the confidentiality that is required for client relationships but statistical information that will help in long-term policy development. The ministry has been asked for several years to provide that information. My requests are not new by any stretch of the imagination. Unfortunately, the minister has not consented to providing that information; therefore, the statistics that I use had to be accessed through the Ministry of Finance and other research documents. I have not got the kinds of overall information that I had hoped for.

I looked at a couple of different areas. First of all, the budgets from the ministry by region. In an attempt to be able to look at programs that are delivered region by region I believe and have been told repeatedly, by both professionals in the field and the people who are relying on these services, that there is not the kind of universal delivery of needed services that one would hope. All too often in areas off the lower mainland people needing services find themselves having to commute and having to house their family members in the lower mainland to be able to access needed services.

[10:30]

I've looked at the overall ministry budget — and we talked about the fact that the ministry has $1.6 billion. I was interested to find out where the ministry has gone in the last nine to ten years in percentage of the overall provincial budget, and perhaps the minister can help me with this as we continue through the estimates. Numbers I have — and this is from the Ministry of Finance — indicate that since 1981 the ministry has spent increasing amount of the provincial budget: 1981-82 shows something like 12 percent of the provincial budget and 1988-89, the last figure I have, shows 15 percent. It's very difficult to get percentages because the government's books change from year to year, and it's very hard to compare. With an increasing amount of the provincial budget going to Social Services, one asks: why are we seeing an increased percentage of family poverty in this province? If indeed we're throwing so much money at family and children's services and at the Ministry of Social Services, why is there an increase?

We heard from the Premier... As the Premier gets up to leave, it just jogged my memory. In the Premier's estimates yesterday there were all sorts of glad tidings and good news about the economy and all the good work that the government has been doing. I hope the Premier sticks around for these estimates, because I understand the Premier cares about families and children. Quite frankly, if you, Mr. Premier, were in my shoes and had dealt with the people who have become victims of your government and your ministry, you would have a very different view of the record of your government and of what families have to deal with in this province.

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Well, the fact of the matter is that there are an increasing number of families and children in this province who are living in poverty. The number of families and children living in poverty.... We are the only province in Canada.... We lead the pack in poverty statistics. In the estimates I will explain to the minister and to the Premier what that poverty means to families and children. I'll also point out to the minister that some of the programs in place — due to the crisis intervention nature of this ministry — are in chaos, because the minister has been more interested in using tax loopholes than providing services.

I refer directly to the issue of foster care and the foster care system in this province. The reality is — and we will deal with it specifically — that the area of services to teens is in absolute chaos. Many of the children who are under the responsibility of this government will find themselves either back in very bad situations or on the street.

I would like to start off with the issues of poverty and the impact of government's decisions on the people of this province. I'd like to start by relaying a story to the minister. This was told to me by some anti-poverty workers. An anti-poverty worker in Vancouver was meeting with a woman who is an anti-poverty worker from Africa — a Third World country and certainly Third World conditions. A couple of months ago these two workers were comparing the skills and reality they were dealing with. They were swapping stories about poverty and the situations of families.

As they were exchanging stories, the woman from Africa said: "Well, let me tell you what I tell the families and the women that I work with and some of the skills that I share with them." Talking about the issue of shelter, the woman from Africa said that when it becomes very hot: "I tell the women to go out and pick up the donkey dung and spread it on the walls, and it helps to cool the house down."

The woman from Vancouver said: "Well, that's not the problem we face here. The people who are poor here in British Columbia and Canada face problems

[ Page 8713 ]

of cold, meeting the cost of heat and of being able to clothe their children to protect them from the cold." So the woman from Africa said: "Well, that's very bad. That's a very difficult situation. But let me tell you what we in Africa tell our women and children around the issue of food and nutrition. We tell the women to seek out some of the natural plants in the area, bring them back and plant them around the house, so that they always will have food, and they can always feed their kids."

The woman from Vancouver said: "Most of our poor live in apartments, rental units. Most of our poor don't have access to areas where they can plant food. In apartments they are surrounded by blacktop and they are unable to plant the natural foods. It's very difficult for them to feed their children. We rely on food banks here." The woman from Africa said: "You think we are poor, but I believe that your poor in Canada are far worse off."

One has to remember that when you're dealing with poverty, what you're dealing with is the basic needs. You're dealing with food and shelter. On those basic needs, our society has failed. When I heard that story, it really brought home the reality of our so-called advanced society. It brought home the reality of what families and children face here in British Columbia.

Mr. Minister, I believe your system is a punitive system. It is based on a feeling that the poor are not worthy, that the poor are poor because of something that they themselves have done, that they are poor because they are lazy. We have heard repeatedly — and I'll quote some actual comments from the minister and the ministry's documents that indicate this — that the whole premise of your ministry is to discourage people from receiving welfare and to get them back into the workforce, as if there was something wrong with them.

I think that what you have to do as a government is begin to look at who is poor. Only when you understand who is poor — what the bigger picture is — can you begin to deal with that reality. I think that the statistics bear out that women are disproportionately poor and that native people are disproportionately poor. The statistics show that if you are handicapped, you have a 60 percent chance of living in poverty. If you are old, you have a disproportionate chance of living in poverty. The statistics will also bear out that if you are young, you have a disproportionate chance of living in poverty if you are unattached. I think increasingly we are seeing that men over the age of 50 are becoming a group that are identified as being victims of poverty due to the changing technologies in our society.

If you start by recognizing that certain groups in our society face that reality, then as a responsible government your policies must reflect that and must start on the premise of dealing with those inequities and realistically approaching them

Well over half of all single-parent families headed by women are on welfare. Surely that says something to your government. Surely it says that when you deal with the issue of labour strategy, you must begin to deal with those realities. If you are effectively going to end the poverty cycle — and that is language that your government loves to use — you must deal with those realities. The only way to do that is to begin to deal with those inequities in society.

I believe there is evidence that the only involvement your ministry has in labour strategy is one that subsidizes business and gives short-term job opportunities to people. It does nothing to end the poverty cycle, but instead is more interested in giving breaks to business. I submit to you that with this strategy you are not only not ending the poverty cycle, but you are encouraging and supporting it and giving people that are living below the poverty line no option. You are, indeed, closing doors.

I want to talk about what child poverty means, because all too often your government, as I said, when dealing with welfare recipients, encourages and perpetuates the myth that people who are poor are unworthy. Let's talk about the kids who are victims of your policies. Let's talk about what poverty means to children. A child who lives in poverty runs twice the risk of dying in infancy; that comes from StatsCan. It has a higher risk –– 1.5 times — of being born premature, twice the chance of being born on time but underweight or being born with birth defects. Being premature and underweight increase a child's risk of various handicaps and learning problems, risks that are higher still if a child is poor. Those are Canada, U.S. and United Kingdom statistics.

[10:45]

In childhood, ages 1 to 14, a poor child has an increased risk of death –– 1.5 to 2 times — and an increased risk of accidents — a 10 times greater chance of dying from fires, falling or drowning; a 7 times greater chance of dying as a pedestrian. Those are United Kingdom statistics. A poor child has an increased risk of being hospitalized and, if hospitalized, for 4 times more days than the child of a more affluent family. A poor child has an increased risk of being considered by parents to have chronic health conditions and only fair to poor health. In those areas, the health problems are pneumonia, rheumatic fever, diarrhea, tooth decay, lead poisoning, anemia, hearing loss and learning disabilities.

The costs to the children in this province of poverty are phenomenal. Quite frankly, Mr. Minister, if you don't care about those kids, the balance sheet alone, just the cost to taxpayers of perpetuating this poverty, is exorbitant. The Ministry of Health, in the last year or so, has begun to talk about holistic health, to talk about wellness. My challenge to you, Mr. Minister, is to look at your responsibility in the same way: to talk about social well-being; to talk about the kind of social system that perpetuates well-being, dignity, independence, and allows families to get on with the process of being together, of raising children, of giving them opportunities and chances in our society.

I believe that many people in British Columbia have begun to recognize the fact that the social welfare system in B.C. is causing poverty rather than

[ Page 8714 ]

alleviating it, breaking up families rather than supporting them. In increasing numbers we are seeing a call for a royal commission, an inquiry that people in this province can have confidence in. I don't believe for a moment that people support the actions of this government or previous governments in the area of social welfare. I know the minister is aware of this, and I'm going to talk specifically about church groups and social action groups that have called for an independent inquiry.

I'm going to start by quoting from some of the correspondence I've got. The first letter is from the British Columbia Conference of the United Church of Canada, and the resolution goes like this:

"Whereas God challenges us to do justice, to show mercy and to walk humbly with our creator;

"Whereas this invitation compels us to develop a society built upon a solid foundation that is measured by how we treat the most vulnerable;

"Whereas our present social assistance system is not working, the present welfare rates for all categories of clients are substantially below poverty levels, food banks are still essential for many people, affordable accommodation is an urgent problem, and more children and women are victims of poverty;

"Whereas there appears to be confusion in the underlying principles of the social assistance system;

"Whereas we believe a royal commission can be a helpful way to have significant issues studied publicly, and we are encouraged by the social assistance review commission in Ontario;

"Therefore be it resolved (a) that the sixty-fourth annual meeting of the B.C. Conference of the United Church of Canada urge the B.C. government to establish a royal commission to review and recommend changes in the social assistance system in British Columbia...."

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member's time has expired under standing orders.

MS. MARZARI: I would like to continue to hear the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley's estimates speech.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The resolution:

"...(b) that this royal commission be impartial and broadly based so as to include a significant number of people who have had actual experience of receiving income assistance."

That resolution was passed by an overwhelming majority.

Secondly, a group of religious communities that formed a social and economic policy committee start off by providing information as to how different religious groups have spoken out against poverty and against the system that is now in place. It starts off with Pope John Paul II in Edmonton: "The human cost of unemployment, especially the costs it brings to family life, has frequently been deplored by Canadian bishops. I join them in appealing to those in positions of responsibility and to all involved to work together to find appropriate solutions to the problems at hand, including restructuring the economy so that human needs will be put before mere financial gain." The United Church, the thirtieth general council: "...that the needs of the poor have priority over the wants of the rich, the freedom of doirdnation must have priority over the liberty of the powerful, and the participation of the marginalized must take priority over the preservation of the order that excluded them."

It goes on to quote the Mennonite Central Committee; the Lutheran Church, "Poverty in Canada"; the Salvation Army; Citizens for Public Justice; and the Unitarian Church of Vancouver. Group after group has spoken out against poverty. I would again put the challenge to the minister that if you care about poverty, you must take another look at your ministry. Tinkering won't work.

The resolution put forward by this committee for social and economic policy points out: "At the same time we believe it is appropriate to declare that unemployment and poverty are not just social and economic problems but also moral and spiritual problems." If this government talks about Christian ethics and morality, then this is a challenge on that basis. If you will not acknowledge the fact that you are spending exorbitant amounts of taxpayers' dollars and doing nothing to support or change the realities that these groups have identified, then at least, for heaven's sake, acknowledge that there must be something done on moral and spiritual grounds alone.

"What is required is an investment in people, with an emphasis on their creativity and adaptability. Public policy must recognize these human qualities. Problems of economic inequality must be addressed by a truly progressive tax system in concert with an income maintenance system that lifts people above the poverty line. The problem of unemployment requires of the public sector a new commitment to job creation, post-secondary education and retraining. At the same time, the private sector should be encouraged to expand employment opportunities by such devices as reduced hours of work and job-sharing. In addition, the private sector can redistribute power by applying various forms of industrial democracy, cooperative enterprise, profit-sharing and employee share-ownership plans.

"The committee requests that the government and the House of Commons of Canada and the government and the Legislature of British Columbia take the lead in developing programs and in working with others to achieve the objectives set forth in this petition."

The petition is signed by the bishop of British Columbia, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada; rabbi, Congregation Beth Israel, Vancouver; minister, Unitarian Church of Vancouver; director, Mennonite Central Committee; chairman, Canadian Society of Fiji Moslems; president, Vishva Hindu Parichad; Citizens for Public Justice; Committee for justice and Peace; the Presbyterian Church in Canada; pastors, First Christian Reformed Church of Langley; and the chairperson of the health, housing and social services working unit of the United Church of Canada.

As we proceed through the estimates, I will argue that the minister is tinkering in all of the programs; that we need fundamental change; that that change must be broad; that you cannot deal with the minis-

[ Page 8715 ]

try in isolation; and that the Ministry of Social Services must be an integral part of economic development. While the government is jumping on the bandwagon of environmental change and embracing the Brundtland report, the most fundamental point Brundtland makes is that unless we deal with the issues of poverty in this world and with the issues of equity and justice, there will be no change. We cannot deal with catastrophic problems within the environment unless we deal with the fundamental issues of justice and poverty. I would argue that this minister needs to be part of that debate.

I've introduced several different areas. I hope now to be able to talk specifically about issues of poverty. But I'll give the minister an opportunity to respond, and we'll deal with some specific questions.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: There weren't any specific questions in there. Rather than opening remarks for estimates, it was a political speech. All the rhetoric and catch-phrases we've heard for years and years: "We, the socialists, are the only ones who care about people. You don't care about children. You don't care about families." We've heard the rhetoric for as long as I can remember being in politics, and you've learned well. You've got all the catch-phrases; every one of them is there.

You're correct: we spend $1.6 billion of the taxpayers' money annually — and we take that very seriously. We endeavour to spend it wisely and to get value for our dollars. In fact, just to expand on that a little further, in the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy, which I chair, the ministers on that committee spend in excess of 80 percent of the provincial budget, and all of those expenditures are on people So when we hear the rhetoric from the opposite side that says we don't spend enough money on people.... How much is enough? If 80 percent of a $13 billion budget is not enough, then perhaps during the course of the estimates you can tell me how much is enough. Your leader, making a speech a year or so ago in Kamloops, said we were underspending by $3 billion a year. Maybe the target figure we should look to increase the deficit by is $3 billion.

[11:00]

You talk about family poverty. You quote statistics, everyone quotes statistics, and we all have opinions on it. I guess you can sit over there and tell us that the welfare or income assistance rates are not high enough, but I'm just going to quote you some statistics from Stats Canada — not our statistics, but the ones you were using from Stats Canada. The Statistics Canada poverty line, in a city over 500,000, for a family of three.... StatsCan says that the basic needs require $11,950 a year. These are not my figures; they're Statistics Canada's. Our current GAIN rates for that same size of family — one parent, two children — with basic income assistance plus family allowance and child tax credit, not counting medical, dental or other allowances, is $13,210. So we're considerably above the basic needs.

We strive very diligently to keep our income assistance rates in the right area, and two criteria we use — only two of several.... Firstly, that we don't want to be out of line with the rest of the country. We don't want to be at the low end of the average welfare rate across Canada; nor do we want to be way out in front and run the risk of becoming a welfare magnet, as it were. We monitor that very closely, and at the moment in most categories we are among the top three or four in the country, especially when it comes to the handicapped, the elderly and single parents. I think that's important.

The other thing we must always bear in mind is that we don't want to get out in front of the working poor in this province. We have an awful lot of people who are just barely above the rate that some people have on income assistance. In fact, we have some that are below, depending on the size of the family, where they live, shelter allowances and things like that. A single parent in British Columbia with two children receives $974 a month plus medical, school start-up, Christmas bonus, tax credits, earnings exemptions, etc. The potential monthly benefit for a single parent on income assistance is somewhere between $1,340 and $1,357 a month. There are many people among the working poor who don't take that much money home each month, and I can cite examples of that. If we were to put our income assistance rates much higher — or any higher — we would run the risk of going ahead of some of the people in the category of the working poor.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

I don't agree with the member that this ministry is giving breaks to business. It's not our purpose; we're not an economic development ministry. But we do give breaks to people who are looking for that first job or trying to re-enter the workforce. I quoted the numbers in my opening remarks of how many people now have something on their résumé that they have worked for a minimum of two months, maximum of six. We have letters thanking us for giving them that first start. We have kept a lot of small businesses in business with the program, and if that is giving a break to business, then okay, I will admit to that.

We went to Prince George recently, where some 125 employers have taken advantage of our Employment Plus program, and several of them told me that they would not have been able to stay open had it not been for our program. So not only have we helped them, but we've helped several hundred people in that area alone to obtain employment. Even if it's just for the summer, it's better than no employment. It's teaching them work habits, they feel good about themselves, and they have something to put on their resume. In some cases it has helped mothers who have been out of the workforce for 15 or 20 years to get back into the workforce, so I don't apologize for that program.

Perhaps as we progress through the estimates the members can let us know over here what they think would be an adequate income assistance rate, and maybe I'll get a chance to expand on many of the other programs that we have put in place to assist

[ Page 8716 ]

people to get off income assistance and back into the workforce. We have more programs in place than we've ever had before. Last year we put $26 million into that effort specifically.

When we had a conference in Victoria recently of the western Canada ministers of social services, we found that we were out in front of most of the other provinces in getting people off income assistance. Indeed, we had a federal-provincial conference in Whitehorse, where we spent a day and a half, and found that in most areas we were either equal to or leading the rest of the country. Certainly in our programs, especially Employment Plus and some others to get people off income assistance, we're way out in front of the other provinces. In fact, two of the provinces from central Canada asked if they could have all the information on our programs, which we gladly gave to them, including videotapes, how the program is put together, etc. I don't think we're lagging behind the rest of the country. In fact, when it comes to family initiatives, child care, employment initiatives and certainly services to the mentally handicapped, we are leading the rest of the country.

Since there were no specific questions, I'll just respond to your opening remarks with that brief statement. A couple of times in your opening remarks I think you were in danger of losing all your credibility. If we read back in the Blues....

MR. JONES: What about your own?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'll worry about mine.

I'll make a comment about remarks I heard from over there, and maybe I'll circulate some of the comments comparing us with Africa. That will make interesting reading back home. As far as I was concerned, you were very close to losing most of your credibility, but perhaps we can get down to some specific items from here on.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'll take that as a compliment, coming from the source.

The minister says that he's not subsidizing business. The point that I have made to you is that we need a fresh, new look at the economic strategy of this province. What you're doing is subsidizing businesses that pay low wages. You're giving $3 an hour to a business so that it can employ a person and only have to pay $3 an hour. Once that subsidy ends, often that person is again unemployed.

My argument to you, sir, is that there is a need to deal with equities in the job market. There is a need to deal with the issues of minimum wage and opportunities for women. Again, I'll go back to the areas of who is poor, opportunities for handicapped, opportunities for visible minorities, opportunities for our native people — and real changes, not just stopgap tinkering.

What we need is an increase in the minimum wage. What we need is wage equity. What we need is employment equity. The reality that most of the people who make up the poor in this country face is that there are no opportunities for them to live in dignity within the employment market. The majority of people on welfare are there because they don't have an opportunity in the employment market. What you are providing is a $3-an-hour job for them. What chance do they have? How can they make ends meet? I'm sorry that the minister did not understand those fundamental differences between our approach and the approach of his government.

Let me talk a little bit about what it really means to live on income assistance, what it means for the families that your government says they care so much about. This is a budget for the month of July for a single parent with a 14-year-old son. I don't know if the minister has teen-age kids, but anybody that has to feed a teen-age boy knows, even if you are middle-income, that it's a real job to keep food in the house. This single parent is in a co-op and pays $148 a month rent; hydro, $41; telephone, $16; cable, $15; her car loan, $100; car insurance, $50; BCMP, $55; house insurance, $15; gas, $80; entertainment, $100 -this is for videos and camping; food expenses, $170; and nothing for savings. That adds up to $790. She is working. Her salary is $397.76; tips are $160.24; family allowance is $22; self-employed earnings, $200. Her income for that month is $790.

Another one. This person is on a GAIN payment of $882; family allowance, $65; child support, when she gets it, $50. The maximum a month is $997. This woman has two dependents. Her expenses are: rent, $345, in subsidized co-op housing; hydro, $93; phone, $15; food, $500 — she puts a note in here that the food she buys is basic, not much meat but fresh produce and unprocessed food to try to make ends meet; bus fare, $20; clothes, $40; vitamins, $50; entertainment, $40, which includes cable for her kids; kids' classes, $20. The bus fare, incidentally, is for doctor appointments and kids' classes. The clothes just deal with the necessities that she buys mostly at the second-hand store. The clothing allowance is averaged over a year, and her kids' classes are also averaged over a year and include swimming lessons and some sports. This woman makes use of the school lunch program at $40 a month, which gives her hot lunches and a snack at the school.

This woman smokes cigarettes at a cost of $60. She puts on her note here that the $60 goes to tobacco because for a stop-smoking program it would cost her $100. Her child care is $10, because mostly she trades with friends for child-care expenses. The total cost there is $1,283. I'm not sure how this woman makes ends meet, because her maximum income is $997. She says this does not include household appliances, carpet shampoo, furniture, bedding, towels, pots and pans, etc. These things are replaced second-hand or are given by friends. There are no holidays or trips. The child tax credit pays for unpaid bills and large purchases. She says: "If I was working, I would be paying much more for transportation, clothes and child care. When I was working I paid for these things at $9 an hour, a full-time job, and earned $1,040 a month."

That's what the options in this province are for those groups that I identified: single women with

[ Page 8717 ]

families; disproportionately, women in general; handicapped people; native people; seniors.

[11:15]

Here's another one. A single parent with three kids of ages three, six and 11. Her income assistance: shelter allowance is $525; support is $435; child support, which is not regular, is $100; family allowance is $98. The total there is $1,158. Her rent is $471 — that's co-op housing, and as I read this, I wonder, since she's getting subsidized housing at $471, if that means that welfare keeps part of that shelter allowance? I've got to ask that question. Even in the previous budgets, where we see that these people have managed to obtain affordable housing, they are not representative of the poor in the housing market. The rent for this woman is $471; the shelter was $525. So that means Social Services keeps a portion of the shelter allowance; she doesn't get the whole amount. Hydro is $75; cable is $13; phone is $20. That's probably where she picks up the rest for her shelter, with her Hydro. Her laundry and soap is $30, non-prescription drugs are $10; sundries are $50; transportation, $30. One-night entertainment for mom — she says child care, $15 — actually amounts to $10, an additional $10 for that night. The clothing is $70 for four kids; most is second-hand except for the shoes for the children. Food is $425. The total is $1,114 a month. Incidentally, this particular family, this family that has the mother and three children, has been diagnosed as being malnourished.

Another budget. This is a single mother. She has two children, six and 12. Her income is $1,042; her rent is $450; phone is $21; Hydro, $45; food is $350 clothes are $50; transportation and gas is $30; insurance is $50; maintenance is $50; vitamins are $20 entertainment, $30; sundries, $20. A total of $1,116. Her expenditures exceed the amount of money that she gets. This woman had to quit her job to support her children, as one of her children has cancer. That's the reality of supporting a family in this province.

One final budget. The income is $704. This woman does piecework; she gets $107 a month. The total is $811. Her rent is $147 because it is subsidized; the market rent in her unit is $471. Hydro is $36; medical is $35; telephone, $20; dental is $105; food is $208; her loan payment is $68; her clothing is $40; her transportation, $40; entertainment, $40. The total is $811. This particular woman has one child.

These are not exceptions, Mr. Minister. This is the reality of a history of Social Credit, the reality that this government refuses to deal with with the fundamental principles of justice; the reality brought about by a ministry that throws money.... I did not say put more money into the system, because I think we have to look at your priorities. I believe that before we look at how that money is spent, given the record of this government.... We'll talk about some of those other details later on in the estimates. How can all that taxpayers' money, $1.6 billion, be being spent when we're seeing a constant group in this province, throughout the last 30 years, living in poverty? What the ministry says is that for these people this government cannot afford justice, cannot afford equity, because it will become a welfare magnet. We can't afford to be fair to families; we can't afford, as a province, to begin to deal with poverty because of what will happen if we deal in a just and honourable way.

I have argued that the minister needs to deal with an employment strategy. There is legislation that the minister can encourage through his government that will begin to deal with some of the people who are the working poor, that can begin to deal with the reality that many people on welfare face should they move off welfare. The minister answers with simplistic rhetoric and refuses to recognize the reality as we have read out here in the budgets.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't think there was a specific question there, but I must clear up a few things that are totally in error.

One, the member started out saying we're providing $3-an-hour jobs. She couldn't be further from the truth. We are providing incentives to people to go to work for an employer where we will pay half the salary, up to $3.50 an hour — that's our half, provided the employer is paying $7 an hour. We will pay up to $3.50 an hour if the employer pays beyond that, and many of them do; they are paying $8, $9 or $10 an hour, and they have to or they couldn't attract people to work.

In the Vancouver Sun yesterday, July 18 — current news — there was a good article by Gordon Hamilton about employers not being able to get people to go to work at $10 an hour. I mean, read it. Two thousand jobs are going begging in Vancouver because employers can't get people to go to work at $10 an hour.

If the employer can show us where he can use someone off welfare and is not replacing another employee, we will pay up to $3.50 an hour.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are they lining up?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The people are not lining up at all; that's what I'm telling you. They can't get people to go to work at $10 an hour.

For that member to say that we're putting people to work for $3 an hour is totally false. I had to clear that up.

The member quotes an awful lot of examples of single-parent families. In the first one, one parent and one child, where the mother is making $790 a month, she's entitled to partial support; she's entitled to a top-up, because at our rates a single parent with one child gets $837 a month.

You mentioned the one parent, two children, where the rate is $997 but her budget is beyond that. How does she make out? I don't know the answer to that. Perhaps she has a support payment from a spouse who has long since departed. That brings up another program we have brought in: the enforced maintenance program, which not only will ensure that that single mother receives the maintenance payment due her from her errant spouse that the court has ordered but also ensures her security when

[ Page 8718 ]

she does get a job and gets back into the workforce; that maintenance payment will be there. So if she gets a low-paying job at $1,100 or $1,200 a month and her support payment is $400 a month, she will get it, and she will be able to make it on her own because we have ensured that she will get the court order that was provided to her.

I guess we could all quote example after example of what people are getting on income assistance. But I go back to StatsCan again. They say the basic needs for one parent and two children is $11,950 — say $12,000 — a year. Again, rates in British Columbia for that same family provide for $13,210, so the basic needs are met. That doesn't include medical, dental and other allowances. Plus there is an opportunity under our enhanced-earnings exemption for that parent to enhance that income and boost it up to $18,138 by working just a very few hours a week at a very part-time job.

I should inform the member that the budget for the whole ministry is $1.6 billion. But the GAIN budget — which we are talking about at the moment — is $939,300,000. We apportion that out to everyone who requires income assistance: those who will be on income assistance, through no fault of their own, for the rest of their lives and those who are on temporary income assistance who are anxious to get back into the workforce.

Believe it or not, Madam Member, by far the largest percentage of people on income assistance don't want to be there. They want to get back into the workforce. That is why we have put into place the programs that we have for many millions of dollars — $26 million last year — to get people back into the workforce. It's a demand-driven budget. The GAIN budget is demand driven. We must respond to whatever the case is.

I say again, I think we pursue the spending of this budget with great diligence to make sure that we're putting it in the right place, that we're getting value for the dollar for the taxpayer — for this $939.3 million. I'd be interested to know, if you think, as you have said, that we are spending this money in the wrong place — this $939 million — where you would cut the budget, and where you would spend it. You said you wouldn't increase it. I'd be interested in hearing which group you are going to cut and which group you are going to give more money to. I'll wait to hear that. I'm sure that the groups out there would be interested in knowing which one is going to be cut and which one is going to receive more.

MRS. GRAN: I've been sitting here listening to the debate on the minister's estimates. I can't help but stand up and make a few comments. In the two and a half years that I've served in this House, I've listened to the NDP talk about social programs, in particular, which I have a special interest in. I've wondered what the difference is in our philosophies, because I often find myself in agreement with some of the things that they say.

The bottom line in the difference in our philosophy is that there is no obvious philosophical view on the NDP side of the House that has anything to do with individual responsibility The constant call for more government intervention in people's lives and more government intervention in curing all of the ills that people are afflicted with has simply taken the place of human kindness in our society.

People who go door to door collecting money, even children, for charitable organizations will tell you that at the door people say things to them like: "Look, I pay enough in taxes. I don't need to put out any more money." Quite frankly, I think the philosophy that is currently espoused by the members on the NDP side of the House is old-fashioned and out of date. It no longer applies. I believe that the people, not just in British Columbia but the people in Canada, have a bigger heart than in any country in this world. They expect in return for people to practise individual responsibility.

The member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) went through some of the expenses that people incur while they are receiving social assistance. One of them that stood out in my mind was cigarettes. I ask that member: do you really believe that the taxpayers of this province feel that they need to pay for someone's cigarettes? I was a working single parent myself. One of the first things that I did was quit smoking, because I could no longer afford to smoke. When I had to make the choice between nutrition for my children or transportation money and cigarettes, there was no choice. Do you know what that comes down to? It comes down to individual responsibility.

[11:30]

When you take that individual responsibility away from a society, you end up with a society that we currently have today that simply demands more and more money. The member for Surrey-Guildford Whalley said it herself: "More money won't solve the problem." The way we deal with it needs to be dealt with ' and individual responsibility is the only answer.

I want to talk about a program that I was involved with in Langley: our Christmas hamper program. For seven years I've been involved in it, and for three of them I ran it. What I noticed was that the workers that came forward were particularly women who had been on social assistance, and they were grateful for that help. They were making it on their own, they were extremely grateful and wanted to give something back.

But there was another thing that I noticed. I noticed a dependency on social assistance that frightens me. It doesn't just frighten me; it frightens a lot of people in this society. I remember a young man of 19 years from a family of five children, and they had been on social assistance for all of his life. He came to see me because he wanted his own Christmas hamper. He still lived at home, but because he was 19, he had a right to his own Christmas hamper. That's the kind of thing that constant giving without any responsibility breeds. It breeds people who have no understanding of their own responsibilities. The members have to start thinking about that in the

[ Page 8719 ]

NDP. We're not serving people well to simply hand them money, to hand them help, without expecting them to have some responsibility. That's the total difference between the philosophy on the Social Credit side and the NDP side of the House.

I want to talk a bit about women, because women with children, in the main, are the recipients of social assistance, and it's often talked about. I've talked about it myself. But I want to ask the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley a question: should we legislate that men be responsible?

MS. SMALLWOOD: Yes.

MRS. GRAN: The member for Surrey-Guildford Whalley says yes, we should legislate that men be responsible. Well, I want to see a copy of that kind of legislation.

MR. WILLIAMS: We brought it in.

MRS. GRAN: We've got legislation that says that men should pay their fair share in child support, but we don't have legislation that really works, because you cannot force people to do what they don't want to do. If a man decides that he doesn't want to pay his support to a woman, he simply vanishes or he works at a job where he receives cash and on and on I'm saying that you cannot legislate people to be responsible, but you certainly have to give them the opportunity to be responsible.

I see the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger) here, and I want to talk about a statement that that member made that's been bothering me ever since she made it in this House. She called the Social Credit government the biggest child-abusers in this province. I am very offended by that remark, because she is saying that the people of this province are child abusers. We are the government voted in by the people of this province and we represent them. By saying that we are child abusers, the member is accusing this entire province of being child abusers Madam Member, I believe that you should apologize to the people of this province.

While I'm on my feet, I want to compliment the minister on the job that he's done. He has run that ministry better than most ministers in any party — including the NDP — without overruns and with respect. He has the support, by the way, of a lot of people in the field out there.

So I would suggest that in the continuing debate on the minister's estimates, you put forward your ideas. I heard the minister ask the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley how much money she thought we should pay out, and I'd like to hear that member now answer that question. How much money should we pay out in social assistance?

MS. MARZARI: I enter this debate as the critic on status of women, and I find that the minister and the member for Langley have raised some interesting points. .

The minister has carefully shopped for a poverty line, and he is trying to tell us — this is the first time this statement has ever been made in this House — that our welfare system actually meets the poverty line. The minister carefully selects the Statistics Canada poverty line as the one which his ministry is abiding by, when he says that the real costs — by the Statistics Canada definition of running a family of two children — is around $11,000 or $800 a month.

I would suggest to the minister that there are many faults with the Statistics Canada poverty line, and that he might want to look closer to home at the Canadian Council on Social Development that has tried to break down its poverty line across the country, and at the SPARC poverty line — Social Planning and Research Council of B.C. — which actually does a market-basket approach and looks at the real costs of living in British Columbia today.

By the SPARC poverty line, the minister well knows that our welfare rates range between 20 percent and 60 percent below subsistence levels. Speaking as a critic for women, I can see that we are dealing with many families. In fact my colleague the second member for Nanaimo quoted from a report put out by the Canadian Council on Social Development not so long ago which said that 20 percent of our children are, in fact, living in poverty, that we are the only province in this country where the poverty gap is widening rather than narrowing, and that we have a very serious problem of poverty in our midst — something which the minister has overlooked.

To answer my colleague from Langley for a few moments and the minister, I should say that four budgets of single-parent families which my colleague from Surrey-Guildford-Whalley has just handed me, two with two children and two with one child, are all headed by women. I have four budgets in front of me. Those budgets range between $747 a month and $1,078 a month. This is below the poverty line by anybody's definition. Even Stats Canada could not deny that fact.

The minister has asked where we would cut. The member for Langley has reiterated that question. Where would we cut? What would we look at? Should we legislate men's responsibility? Anybody looking at these budgets and understanding what women are living on with their children has to admit to themselves and the rest of the community that this is not responsible. It is not responsible for government to allow families to be raised with these kinds of budgets, these kinds of incomes, this kind of poverty.

Where do we add? Where do we cut? I suggested this in my throne speech debate: these statistics just further convince me that it actually costs our society, our Social Services ministry and our taxpayers to keep women in this kind of poverty. It costs us to do it. It's not a question of saving money by not giving it to mothers with children on welfare. Where do we save? We are actually spending money to keep women — this is perverse and quite bizarre — on welfare and in subservient positions. It's quite remarkable.

[ Page 8720 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: It's like legislated pregnancy.

MS. MARZARI: It's like legislated poverty.

Here's another budget. This is just one of many that we could come up with. If we accept the statistics — which it is becoming easier and easier to accept — that one in four children in our country is abused at some point in their life, that those children very often grow up to be abusers themselves, that in fact we create not only a poverty cycle but a cycle of sexual and emotional abuse.... Let's look at the actual costs to society of keeping an abusive parent at large on the streets. Let's make that abusive parent a father, since that seems to be 95 percent of the abuse in our community. What are the costs of keeping that man at large and not legislating against him?

Let's look at the police calls to the home when the woman is first being beaten in the home. Police are called sometimes, and when they are called, I would guess — I'm venturing here — that if you broke that down to an hour call with the paperwork afterwards, it would cost the community perhaps $200. Let's say that it's one call a year.

Let's say that one night this abusive father, for example, is thrown into jail. The costs of staying in jail for a night, by the time you break down the unit cost.... I've put $600, because that's perhaps what it costs to keep a guy in with the wardens, the amortization on the actual building and keeping the bars strong.

Let's talk about the court costs. I've been very conservative here. Bringing in an abusive father to court, whether on a driving charge or a drunk charge or whatever, because alcoholism and abuse sometimes go together, as we know from the literature.... I'm putting $1,500 here for that court appearance or the court costs around a complaint against him. I think that's very low.

Let's talk about a transition house: ten days in a transition house for that woman who has been beaten. That's $400, because I think our per diems, the real costs, are probably close to $40 a night.

What about the family counselling, if this woman and her children are lucky enough to get family counselling? I know that your ministry won't do it in the transition house, but say she goes to the community and gets some family counselling from the Salvation Army or from a church group that gets funded by you under your family strengthening program. Let's say that family counselling costs about $500.

Let's look at the health costs of keeping that guy on the street. I'd say over the year the costs of going to the doctor, getting drugs, dealing with the need for special pills, perhaps the woman is depressed.... Society is paying perhaps $1,000 for special health needs because the woman and her children are abused.

Case conferencing between all the ministries when they get together to worry about this family together — one case conference conservative estimate: $500. Hospitals costs for an abused child — perhaps a broken arm, a broken leg, a broken rib cage, brain damage, assessments, x-rays — $1,000. I'm not counting ICBC here, because we're assuming that those costs pay for themselves; but a drunken, abusive father could well run us into some money there. Let's not even count that. We're looking at $5,700 in the course of one year. Divided by 12, we're looking at potentially $475 a month just to keep an abusive, alcoholic father, parent, on the street, in the community.

Mr. Minister, you said: "Where do we cut back?" I say we cut back that $475 a month by properly enforcing responsibility, by properly dealing with the problems of child sexual abuse in our community. I haven't even for a moment talked about the hundred thousand dollars a year it takes to keep someone in jail. I haven't for a moment talked about the costs of those children growing up without treatment. This is cheap, when they get treatment. I haven't talked about the costs of what happens when a kid grows up, dealing with memories that might flash back at any time in their lives, when things go wrong and they end up in jail. I haven't talked about the statistics on the number of kids who end up in containment facilities that keep them hidden away from society, perhaps simply because they have been sexually abused.

Keeping an abusive, drunken, alcoholic parent on the street costs as much as twice the food bills for any one of these families. It costs as much as half — more than half — the average family income for a single mother with two children. Look at those numbers. Think about those numbers. That's what we're talking about when we say it costs this government to keep women down, to keep them poor.

[11:45]

A question. One of my major themes in this session has been connections that we have to make between our ministries to start treating women as whole human beings; to start treating families as whole entities; to start understanding that there are new definitions of family life. I wanted to talk first about connections between yourself, Mr. Minister, and other ministries and functions, such as the training function. If we really want, as you say, to get women off welfare and into society as part of the economic mainstream, why is it that although your act tells you clients are entitled to two years of upgrading and training, and you are to provide that and those dollars and to seek those dollars to provide your clients with two years of upgrading and training, there is literally no money this year? This summer there is absolutely no money going towards the upgrading and training of women on welfare. Why is it that all we have right now is a wage subsidy program going on — no training or education program? Why are all rehabilitation workers at this point out there in the province simply marketing a wage subsidy program? In other words, the money is going to employers to subsidize wages up to $6 an hour, as you put it, or up to $7 an hour. You are subsidizing $3 an hour, and not one woman is being trained or upgraded. Not one woman is being helped with her literacy or college or simple job training.

[ Page 8721 ]

Why is your act, which is a last-resort act that talks about giving two years of upgrading and training, not doing that very thing? Is the minister not concerned that some woman isn't going to come through the courts and insist that the minister live up to his act?

This is a UI transfer program. This wage subsidy program simply takes women off welfare temporarily, puts them in $7 an hour jobs with a little subsidy and then slides them into UI. You slide out of your obligation. You've found your loophole on this one. It's just like you've slid out of other responsibilities too, Mr. Minister.

I'm quoting from some research done by a labour market productivity centre for the CEIC task force on training: "Of all jobs created between 1986 and the year 2000, 64 percent will require 12 years of education and training, and one-half of them will require 17 years of education." I'd like to know why we are looking towards lower levels of economic employment, wages and training in your ministry in an era when higher training, more years of training and more intensive training are absolutely required for the future of our province and for the well-being of our citizens; I mean women.

I find it fascinating that the wage subsidy program is the route we are taking, especially after we went through the PREP, and especially after we went through this Hewett Group $5 million training program, in which I gather that the only jobs truly created were the ones actually working for the Hewett Group — the 70 people. There was no accounting for that $5 million at all after the fact Why are we going that route of job subsidization and matching people to jobs, rather than doing the training programs required by your statute? We are not creating new potential jobs; we are just sliding into UI, Mr. Minister.

Perhaps you can tell me something about the so-called job training programs you don't have. Talk to me about how many long-term jobs you expect to get out of this exercise of job subsidy and perhaps how much you intend to put into job training this fall.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It's difficult to respond to someone who has the blinders on. Madam Member, that's as kind as I can be. We have come up with one additional program called Employment Plus, and you have it in your mind that's all we're doing now, and that we've scrapped everything else. That program is in addition to everything else we are doing We haven't quit providing training for people.

You made the statement — and the Blues will show it — that not one single person has gone through a training program. Last year we provided assistance to employment through training and education of 21,900 people. You stood there a few minutes ago and said none.

MS. MARZARI: This year.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: That's 1988-89: 21,900. But I want to point out to you that the Employment Plus is an addition; it's an add-on to everything else we're doing. You're saying it's our whole focus now, and that it's the focus of the ministry. What nonsense! It's an add-on to everything else we're doing.

MS. MARZARI: This year.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It happens to be an add-on this year. That doesn't mean we've scrapped the other programs we're doing. It's an add-on: 21,900 people. You should get up to date on your statistics. I increased the amount of training we would do last year from two years to three years because some courses are three years long. We've improved it. The act doesn't say two years anymore; it says three.

MS. MARZARI: So how many are taking it?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I just told you: 21,900.

MS. MARZARI: This year?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: What do you want — next year's figures?

MS. MARZARI: Yes.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Next year's figures aren't here yet. This is '88-89. At this time next year, I'll tell you what we did this year. It'll probably be up from that.

In addition to Employment Plus, education and vocational training services to assist single parents to become independent, single parents may receive assistance for the cost of educational and vocational training programs designed to prepare income assistance recipients for employment if no other sources of funding are available. They would continue to receive their regular IA benefits while participating in the training. This is as close as we can get it for you. It would indicate that about 51 percent of that number I gave you were single parents.

The ministry provides work experience opportunities through the incentive program, as well as an allowance to assist with costs related to participating in the program, such as transportation or clothing costs.

The ministry provides job search technique training to income assistance recipients through the job action program. Preliminary statistics indicate that 1,004 single parents participated in the program.

Employment Plus, which we already talked about — we estimate that 1,227 single parents participated in Employment Plus in '88-89.

Employment supports for single parents who are employed — the ministry provides supports so they remain employed: enhanced earnings exemptions, transportation allowance, day care surcharge allowance and medical and dental coverage. We've added all of these things to assist people into the workforce or to stay in the workforce.

[ Page 8722 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't like to take the time of the House reading individual cases. I know that members opposite have done that. We have numerous success stories of people who have written to us about Employment Plus and what it's done for them. A large percentage of them stay working with the employer that they go to. I can't give you an exact percentage.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm just talking about Employment Plus. I've just covered the training. I'm going to come to Employment Plus. There are numerous success stories from the employees and from the people who were on income assistance — welfare, if you like — who have had that first job. Some of them are staying with the employer they've gone to. I don't have a percentage to give you at the moment. But so that you don't feel that it's all we're doing now, that we've taken all our eggs and gone to Employment Plus, that's not true. All the other things are still there, plus more support services than we've ever had before. Employment Plus is just an add-on. It's one more tool that we have to work with.

For the month of April '89, some 8,200 are in classroom training and 1,200 in job action programs.

MS. MARZARI: At this moment?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: That was the month of April — the latest stats I have. I don't have stats for June or July; it may be less.

I just want to cover another couple of things. The member says I conveniently use the StatsCan statistics. I don't conveniently use them; they are the statistics we happen to have. And yes, we have the SPARC report, but SPARC does not take into account outside earnings or' family maintenance that the minister exempts through the earnings exemption program. Twenty percent of our income assistance clients have additional income exempted each month and SPARC doesn't take that into account in their report; nor do they take into account the value of medical, dental, drug, crisis grants, subsidized housing and other benefits. When they set their poverty line vis-à-vis what we pay, they don't take into account a lot of these things. They continue to use CMHC shelter costs to determine shelter shortfalls, and these are higher than what most GAIN clients pay. They don't pay CMHC rates in most cases.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: CMHC is an amalgam of the mortgages of everybody in the province, including some mortgages that are $1,200, $1,400 a month and beyond. It's hardly fair to lump that into what people on income assistance would be paying.

The final thing, when we come back to training, is that we were the first province to sign a SARs agreement with Ottawa, which has assisted an awful lot of people back into the workforce.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I am intrigued by the debate, and I will comment on the interjection by the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran).

I found something quite humorous, actually. We're talking about the issue of poverty and about social services in the province. It's interesting to look again at the history of social services generally. I know that we're very close to the lunch adjournment, and I just want to add this to the morning debate, perhaps to cap it off. Up to 1536, charity in England had been dispensed by the Catholic church. In 1536 to 1539, Henry the VIII expropriated the monasteries, which forced the government for the first time in history to take a positive responsibility for public relief.

Just to close up the session, I think it's particularly fitting that the Premier of this government lives in a castle, and that the Social Services ministry of the province is advocating a return to the responsibility of the church in delivering social services: a return to charity, a return to individual responsibility. Perhaps this is the completion of the full circle.

I would argue that it is a retrograde move, and as the estimates continue, we will talk more about what your ministry does to people. The minister says that he doesn't like to take up the time of the House talking about individual cases. These cases — the real lives of people in the province — are the direct effects of the legislation and the inaction of a government that doesn't deal with real lives.

[12:00]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: As the lunch hour draws nigh, I guess there are many comments I could make about what was just said. The member says we are advocating a return to the church delivering social services. I don't ever remember anyone on this side of the House saying that. I certainly haven't, nor has anyone in my ministry.

AN. HON. MEMBER: The Premier has.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, I don't think that he ever has. I don't ever remember anyone on this side of the House saying that. That doesn't mean that churches shouldn't be involved; indeed, they should. But I don't think anyone here is advocating a return to the 1500s or whatever you were talking about, so we should try to remain relevant.

I too have many more comments to make about what has been said and not said this morning, but in view of the time, I move that the committee rise, report 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 12:01 p.m.