[ Page 9751 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Clean Environment Enforcement Act (Bill M202). Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 9751

Spill Prevention and Reporting Act (Bill M203). Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 9751

Pulp Pollution Prevention Act (Bill M204). Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 9752

Personal Property Security Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 26).

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 9752

Oral Questions

Payment to former NDP employee. Mr. Rabbitt –– 9752

Recriminalization of abortion. Ms. Marzari –– 9753

Mr. Sihota

Provincial sales tax and GST. Mr. Bruce –– 9753

Recriminalization of abortion. Mr. Sihota –– 9754

Location of interior cancer clinic. Mr. Clark –– 9754

Ministerial Statement

Komagata Maru. Hon. Mr. Dirks –– 9754

Mr. Sihota

Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 4). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Smith) –– 9755

Mr. Sihota

Third reading

Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 20). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier)

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 9755

Mr. Clark –– 9755

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 9755

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

(Hon. Mr. Dueck)

On vote 59: minister's office –– 9756

Hon. Mr. Dueck

Ms. Smallwood

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Mowat

Mr. Rose

Hon. Mr. Smith

Mr. Barnes

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon we have the director of business and community relations for the district of Surrey, Mr. Rick Johnson. Along with him, he has a guest visiting us from Surrey's sister city of Koto-Ku, Japan: Mr. Yoji Tanaka. I would ask the House to please make them both welcome.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have Dermot Foley and Stuart Hertzog of the Citizens' Action Network. They represent an organization that works on waste reduction and citizen participation. I ask the House to join me in making them welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, as Premier and first member for Richmond, and on behalf of the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen), I'm very proud to introduce to you today another group of grade 7 students and several adults from Garden City Elementary School in my constituency of beautiful, sunny Richmond. I would ask the House to join me in extending them a big welcome.

Also, it's a very great pleasure for me to introduce to the House today Dr. Ronald David and his wife Faye from Orlando, Florida, accompanied by Dr. David's parents, George and Nel David from Miami. Also travelling with the David family are Dr. Warner Webb and his wife Caroline from Jacksonville, Florida. Dr. David and Dr. Webb have been attending the American Pediatric Surgical Association's twenty-first annual meeting held this past weekend in Vancouver, which was attended by over 500 doctors from all around the world. I would ask the House to please join me in extending to our American visitors a very warm and hearty British Columbia welcome.

MR. CRANDALL: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are two constituents of mine from far-away Columbia River. I would appreciate it if the House would welcome Pat Soles and Ewald Huebert.

Introduction of Bills

CLEAN ENVIRONMENT ENFORCEMENT ACT

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled Clean Environment Enforcement Act.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, management and enforcement of existing environmental laws in B.C. have been abysmal. Charges under the Waste Management Act have rarely been laid for the habitual violation of permit specifications, and nearly every pulp mill in B.C. continues to routinely violate its permits with impunity.

This bill renames the Waste Management Act, calling it the Clean Environment Enforcement Act. It provides for effective monitoring of pollution and toxic spills. It plugs the loopholes in the Waste Management Act by more broadly defining what is considered to be environmental damage, calling harmful wastes "hazardous wastes" instead of "special wastes" and imposing a duty on officials to ensure that the monitoring of permits is reasonably related to permit compliance, treatment of discharges and the determination of environmental effects.

Consistent monitoring of permits is also required, as well as public availability of monitoring data, no longer allowing provincial officials to grant approvals or variances to polluters. Where an industry is unable to meet its permit specifications, it must apply for an amendment to its permit or face prosecution, subjecting all air effluent and refuse permits to a public review process every three years or before a permit is renewed. On the principle that the polluter pays, permit-holders will be required to pay the true cost of administration and enforcement of their permits, and permit fees will be based on a reverse sliding scale, so that higher discharges will result in significantly higher fees.

Bill M202 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, just as a point of clarification, the comments made at first reading of a bill should be of a brief explanatory nature and not editorial comment and practically reading the entire bill on this me-too piece of legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Recent changes to practices which allow statements at first reading and introduction of bills have allowed some tolerance in this matter. I could refer you to page 32 of MacMinn's second edition, "Introduction of Bills." If all members would like to read it, there will be a small test tomorrow at two.

SPILL PREVENTION AND REPORTING ACT

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled Spill Prevention and Reporting Act.

MR. CASHORE: There is currently no effective requirement under the Waste Management Act that spills of polluting substances be reported.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I had not realized that the member had two bills to introduce. I'll just take the opportunity to read this short paragraph from our practice recommendations:

"Until the adoption of practice recommendation No –– 5 in 1985, no statement or speech of any kind was permitted on introduction of a bill. A member is now permitted a two-minute statement on introduction to explain the purpose of the bill. The explanatory statement must not be used for the purpose of

[ Page 9752 ]

making a partisan speech, raising matters of privilege or points of order, nor should it be used as a vehicle to criticize another member. If a member strays from the intent and purpose of the two-minute explanation permitted by this practice recommendation, he will be brought to order by the Chair."

Having given the member that advice, I will ask the member to proceed. I trust he hasn't a prepared statement which will in fact be in violation of our standing orders. Would the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam please proceed.

MR. CASHORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To put my bill in context, it is in contrast to the present legislation. While letters informing of a requirement to report spills are attached to some permits issued by the ministry, this requirement is of questionable legal validity. Because spills are frequently not reported, the evidence has washed away and polluters are not charged.

This spill prevention and reporting bill clearly defines spills, sets forth to whom spills are to be reported and requires that steps be immediately taken to lessen environmental damage. In addition, this act requires that the ministry maintain a publicly available and up-to-date record of spills and prosecutions relating to spills.

Bill M203 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PULP POLLUTION PREVENTION ACT

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled Pulp Pollution Prevention Act.

MR. CASHORE: This bill amends section 8 of the Waste Management Act to require that permits granted to pulp mills limit chlorinated organic discharges. These chlorinated discharges include dioxins and furans as well as many other harmful substances that have contributed substantially to pollution of B.C. rivers and coastal waters.

Over the past year commercial crab, oyster, clam and shrimp fisheries have been closed in eight B.C. coastal areas because of pulp mill pollution. High levels of pulp mill toxins have also been documented in fish caught near Prince George, Quesnel, Kamloops and Castlegar. This bill proposes a permit limit of 1.5 kilograms AOX, which is attainable by 1992 if the pulp industry moves quickly to install the best available technology.

This standard is expected to virtually eliminate dioxins and furans. A new limit of 0.1 kilograms AOX by the year 2002 gives the pulp industry ten years to develop production methods that virtually eliminate all organochlorines. The B.C. pulp industry has been producing record levels of pulp over the last several years and has record profit levels. Pulp mills can no longer pollute with impunity and must now meet the highest environmental standards possible.

Bill M204 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: Having read from the parliamentary practices of this House, I would just like to remind the member that on his second bill the statement was in order, but he slipped again on the third one in terms of that. Perhaps as a guidance to all members, it would just assist the Chair if these matters were prepared before the matter came to the House.

PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITY

AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Personal Property Security Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This bill amends the Personal Property Security Act, a statute that was enacted in the previous session but which remains unproclaimed. The Personal Property Security Act is a thorough and comprehensive reform of personal property security law in B.C. This bill further refines the Personal Property Security Act to ensure that it provides British Columbians with a modern and comprehensive framework for securing credit.

The PPSA was the result of many years of discussion with a wide range of groups. The implementation of this statute was deliberately delayed so that further consultations could take place. These consultations resulted in a number of refinements and corrections contained in this bill.

[2:15]

I believe the amendments contained in this bill reflect this government's commitment to encouraging and strengthening the financial industry in this province. The PPSA is one of the finest statutes of its kind in the world. I commend this bill for the consideration of the House and urge its passage.

Bill 26 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

PAYMENT TO FORMER NDP EMPLOYEE

MR. RABBITT: To the Minister of Finance. Could the minister confirm that the full cost of the Jim Hayes settlement is not $89,000, as reported, but may actually reach $125,000? Would the minister inform the House as to the total amount of public money involved in this secretly negotiated agreement?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm today that the settlement was in the $125, 000 range; nor can I deny it. I think the issue will have to be examined by the appropriate staff members; obviously I will have to discuss it with them. I would also

[ Page 9753 ]

like the opportunity to discuss it with the Leader of the Opposition, whom I notice isn't here that often. So it may be difficult for me to arrange that discussion. In any event, I will have to have discussions, and I will bring the matter back to the House when I have the information.

RECRIMINALIZATION OF ABORTION

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, on May 7 the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs (Hon. Mrs. Gran) advised this House that she hadn't made any recommendations to the federal Minister of Justice regarding the new abortion bill, which is going into third reading tomorrow in Ottawa. The final decision will be made tomorrow. Will the Premier advise this House of any actions he has taken or any communications he has had regarding returning what should be a personal and private issue to the Criminal Code?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I'm getting a little fed up with the opposition continually asking this side, on whatever the issue, to do what the NDP MPs in Ottawa ought to be doing. Time and time again, we hear: what is the government doing about some issue in Ottawa? I too am concerned about what is or isn't happening in Ottawa. One of the things that isn't happening is thorough and complete representation by the NDP MPs. I haven't heard from one NDP MP in the whole of the four years that I've been the Premier of this province. If that member wants to work with me to make sure that the NDP MPs in Ottawa do their job, I'd be pleased to try and help.

MS. MARZARI: For the Premier's information, our members in Ottawa have been on record time and time again, raising this issue and bringing to the attention of the House the fact that the recriminalization of abortion is about the worst thing that could happen to women in this country. Our critic for women in Ottawa has put forward....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must ask the member to ask a question.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Premier, in case you didn't hear me the first time, what actions have you taken or what communications have you had with the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister regarding the recriminalization of abortion? It does have an impact on us here in B.C. Every woman wants to know: what have you said? You had a lot to say two years ago. What have you said lately?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the clarification. Now it's apparently not so much a matter of the NDP MPs in Ottawa not doing something. It's a confirmation that they are totally ineffective.

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Premier. Members of the federal NDP caucus have made their position clear on this bill. Why are you not prepared to make your position clear on this bill?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, there's one thing that pleases me tremendously about the line of questioning we're hearing from the NDP today. I understand question period is for urgent matters affecting the province and to which the provincial government can react. Obviously the only questions they have to ask are with respect to matters that might be dealt with by their socialist counterparts in Ottawa. So the province must be in fantastic shape.

MR. SIHOTA: I am sure the Premier is not saying that this is not an urgent and important matter for women in Canada. The Premier has talked about a number of federal matters, be it the GST, Meech Lake or interest rates. Why are you not prepared to state your opinion with respect to this federal legislation?

PROVINCIAL SALES TAX AND GST

MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Finance. I have had several calls from residents in the constituency of Alberni. An article that appeared in the Alberni Valley Times was brought to my attention which causes me great concern.

In this article, the Leader of the Opposition — I am sorry he is not here to hear this, but I've waited for him to be here; he's never here — has written that it is our government's intention to piggyback our sales tax on the GST.

We know this is not the case. Mr. Minister, can you advise this House whether this misrepresentation of the facts has occurred elsewhere throughout the province, and what you intend to do to set the record straight?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat, I was astounded to see in print the false allegations surrounding this issue made by the Leader of the Opposition when he visited that community. It's disturbing to me because it clearly is not true. It clearly was addressed during the budget speech.

There is absolutely no reason for the Leader of the Opposition to be misinformed on this subject. I find it most unfortunate and irresponsible that a duly elected person should be travelling the province at public expense, deliberately misleading the public he is alleged to be serving.

As for the member's question as to whether this misrepresentation has been spread throughout the province, I will endeavour to ascertain the facts. I have, in the meantime, prepared a letter that I will send to the Alberni Valley Times to set the record straight. I trust that in the interests of clarity and truth, the hon. member from Port Alberni might do the same.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have a supplementary question?

[ Page 9754 ]

MR. BRUCE: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Minister, I would like to know: will you ask the Leader of the Opposition to retract this statement, which is clearly false?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order in this forum.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I will obviously have difficulty communicating with a chair that's always empty. But I can assure the member that I will communicate through the mail, in the naive hope that the Leader of the Opposition, if he can't hear the spoken word, might at least be able to read the written word.

RECRIMINALIZATION OF ABORTION

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Premier. He has talked about the GST and a number of other federal matters. My question is simply this: do you not think that the right of women to have access to abortion is as important a matter to comment and state opinion on as the GST?

HON. MIL VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we deal rationally with all of the issues, and we certainly recognize the importance of all of the issues. We deal with them fairly and honestly. We don't, as was mentioned a little earlier, deal with issues one way on the hustings — as we've heard the Leader of the Opposition did at several places in the province — and another way in the House. We deal with these issues fairly and honestly all the time. Frankly, I detest dishonesty, and I hope and trust that a correction will be made by the Leader of the Opposition about the issue raised by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce).

We recognize as well that members elected federally have a responsibility to deal with certain issues. We certainly do not seek their involvement in issues of a provincial nature, and we don't expect to be involved in federal issues. I guess this is one of the advantages of Social Credit — we don't have to bow to some group in Ottawa that's calling the shots.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Leader of the Opposition is very clear: he defends the rights of women to have access to these legal services. The question to the Premier is: fairly and honestly put, Mr. Premier, rationally state your opinion of the federal legislation on abortion.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to take up all the time in question period going over the issue again and again. I will agree with the member opposite, if that's what he's saying — and I hope it is, because sometimes I have my doubts about these things when they come from the socialist opposition — that all people are entitled to their opinion. Yes, I agree that the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to his opinion, as all members here are entitled to their opinion.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, the people of this province are certainly entitled to hear the opinion of the Premier on this important matter. As a matter of policy, Mr. Premier, do you think that this matter of abortion should be covered by the provisions of the Criminal Code?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I was asked in a recent interview in Kelowna whether in fact, come an election call, the issue of leadership or of personalities might come into question. I answered: "No doubt it will." I undoubtedly will be criticized for too much leadership, and the Leader of the Opposition will be criticized for no leadership. That's a fact, and I believe it.

In answer to the question from the member, let me say that there is one thing about this Premier: the people of the province know where he stands because he's not a fence-sitter like the Leader of the Opposition, who tries to be on all sides and sits on the fence. The fence is getting so uncomfortable that he's never in the House anymore. We don't see him in the House anymore. He's getting splinters from his fence-sitting, and he's probably consulting his doctor.

[2:30]

LOCATION OF INTERIOR CANCER CLINIC

MR. CLARK: A question to the Minister of Health, speaking of fence-sitting. Last Wednesday the Minister of Health announced that the decision to locate the interior cancer clinic in Kelowna was final. He said he could understand the disappointment in Kamloops, but a decision was made. Can he inform the House why he made this announcement when the Cancer Control Agency is reviewing its decision today to locate that clinic in Kelowna, and when people in Kamloops who have put a lot of work and effort into a brief were assured they would get an impartial hearing?

HON. J. JANSEN: Let me correct the member for Vancouver East first of all. We made the announcement some months ago. What I reaffirmed in Kelowna was that the decision for having a cancer clinic located in Kelowna was still on the books and hadn't changed. I also indicated to Kamloops that we were considering the information from the Kamloops task force, and I am waiting for a report from the Cancer Control Agency of British Columbia. Until we have that, I am not prepared to make any further statements on the matter.

Ministerial Statement

KOMAGATA MARU

HON. MR. DIRKS: I rise to make a ministerial statement.

This evening in Vancouver the province will join with the government of Canada, the city of Vancouver and members of the Indo-Canadian community at the unveiling of a commemorative plaque. This

[ Page 9755 ]

plaque will be a reminder to future generations of the lessons to be learned from the Komagata Maru incident of 1914.

At that time, a shipload of aspiring immigrants to Canada from the Indian subcontinent was turned away from our shores. That decision may have been technically correct in the eyes of the courts of the day. However, it is not a decision which history and Canadians of today can regard with comfort. The reaction of Canadian society to the Komagata Maru in 1914 was, I believe, largely founded on uncertainty and fear. Today we take pride in being a multicultural society and recognize the strengths that newcomers have brought to our province.

Last Friday a number of members of this House joined in the first public viewing of an educational videotape on that incident. I believe that all of us who were there were impressed with the sincerity and deep feelings held in the community regarding this piece of our common history.

It is important to remember the past. The past reminds us that social intolerance is something we need to collectively guard against. It reminds us of the need to work individually and as a society toward the goal of an environment where all British Columbians live together in harmony.

This is a day with special meaning to all Indo-Canadians and all British Columbians, regardless of their origin, as we rededicate ourselves to that goal.

MR. SIHOTA: I think we all understand why the government is making the statement that it is today. I wish that I could simply congratulate the government for the statement, without having to make reference to events that have transpired in this House, and particularly the events of last year, when we witnessed an unnecessary outburst from the Premier of this province with respect to a request for funding for the plaque, and a subsequent series of comments from the former Provincial Secretary. Those statements, Mr. Speaker, have left the Indo-Canadian community unsettled and, in many quarters, offended. The scar left by those actions will heal inevitably over time, but they will not be healed exclusively by one statement made in the Legislature

Mr. Speaker, we've come a long way as a society since 1914, and we've learned a lot since then about tolerance. One would hope that this government has learned from their unfortunate handling of the matter last year.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call committee stage on Bill 4.

PROVINCIAL COURT AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 4; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. SIHOTA: We, of course, adjourned this debate on Thursday, and I wanted to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues, particularly the learned first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) for his comments and the contribution to that debate. We have no further comments to make on this legislation and wish it speedy passage. We would hope that this will now pave the way for new appointments to the Provincial Court — as I said in my opening statements — which will hopefully see more women and members of the native community form a part of our provincial bench.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 4, Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 20.

SOCIAL SERVICE TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

MR. SPEAKER: Government House Leader, do you have someone to carry the bill?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I will take notes for the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), and I hereby move second reading of Bill 20.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, any questions I have on this bill we'll deal with in committee stage.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, I now close debate and move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 20, Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1990, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

[ Page 9756 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

On vote 59: minister's office, $331,553.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure today to present the expenditure plan for the Ministry of Social Services and Housing.

To guide this work, we have established three strategic priorities for the year ahead: first, to foster independence and initiative; second, to strengthen our partnership; and third, to provide quality service.

For 1990-91, my ministry's total budget allocation has increased to $1.7 billion. This will enable the ministry to fulfil its mission of helping British Columbians in times of need and assisting them to regain or achieve self-sufficiency.

In recent years the healthy B.C. economy has attracted many new residents — a net gain, as a matter of fact, of over 60,000 last year. The resulting pressure on housing has been extreme. Within the framework of the $1 billion provincial housing action plan, my ministry has vigorously pursued its goal of ensuring an adequate supply of rental and social housing. I'm proud of our record, Mr. Chairman, and want to assure the people of the province that despite the federal government's announcement of a 15 percent cutback in funds for social housing, we will continue to negotiate our fair share allocation of quality social housing to serve the housing needs of low-income British Columbians.

The rapidly increasing population has also put pressure on emergency accommodation. This budget will allow us to open new hostels and dramatically increase the total number of hostel beds.

This government places a very high value on families. The budget for services for families and children is increasing this year by 16 percent. Additional residential care resources will be developed so that children and families can receive services in their home communities. In this and all program areas the ministry is strongly committed to equitable access to our services throughout B.C.

In keeping with our commitment to quality service, we have become a member of the Child Welfare League of America. The league is an internationally acknowledged organization in the child welfare field. I am confident that our membership will stimulate innovation and keep us focused on providing quality services. We will, in turn, contribute much to the league, since we have many innovative programs that other provinces and states can learn from.

For women and children who are victims of domestic violence and abuse, and for those in need of short-term emergency shelters, funding has been increased this year by 25 percent. This significant funding increase will lead to the creation of new facilities, expansion of several existing facilities and an overall increase of 160 bed spaces.

In partnership with the native community in Vancouver and the federal government, the ministry will establish a transition house in the Vancouver area to serve native women and children.

For several years now we have been discussing with native communities how their needs for our services can best be met. As a result, the ministry opened B.C.'s first native family and children's services office in Vancouver earlier this spring. We will continue to work in partnership with native communities to foster child care and other initiatives that are sensitive and appropriate to the culture, values and circumstances of native British Columbians.

In 1981 the government made a commitment to move people with mental handicaps from institutions into the community. Throughout North America, British Columbia is regarded as a leader in community living for people with mental handicaps.

[2:45]

Interjections.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, can I continue, or should I wait until they're finished?

Consultation with parents, advocacy groups and service providers has been essential to the success of this process. For their help, I wish to say thank you.

Our budget will enable us to continue this highly successful process. This year's budget also provides funds to initiate a health care monitoring system to ensure that persons with mental handicaps....

MR. WILLIAMS: Point of order. It's clear that the minister is reading a set piece, which is not in the rules of the House. Could the minister possibly give a speech from the heart on this subject?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order, hon. member. The minister continues, please.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, I would say that every word is from my heart. It's a very sensitive issue when we talk about families and children, and if someone likes to make light of it....

This year's budget also provides funds to initiate a health care monitoring system to ensure that persons with mental handicaps can live in the community and will be receiving the highest quality of health care.

My ministry's income assistance function is another area in which progressive and sensitive programs are showing positive results, We now offer income assistance recipients the most extensive array ever of employment initiatives, incentive programs and support services.

We project that this year approximately 7,800 income assistance recipients will receive training and work experience through the Employment Plus program. Over 40,000 will receive assistance to find and keep a job.

Let me acknowledge here the many private and public sector employers who, in partnership with the ministry, provide numerous training and work experiences each year for so many of our income assistance clients. Our many employment initiatives and an active provincial economy account for a decrease in income assistance caseloads since 1987 of 15 percent - 7 percent in this last year alone.

[ Page 9757 ]

This year's budget also provides for rate increases to help rising costs. Those seniors whose income levels and rental costs make them eligible for shelter cost assistance under the SAFER program saw significant enhancement to this program last year, and monthly payments to them have nearly doubled. The SAFER program will be further improved this year, and rent ceilings will be raised as well.

Let me spend a few minutes talking about people instead of dollars. The Ministry of Social Services and Housing is a large and complex organization with offices all over British Columbia. In offices large and small, urban and rural, this ministry's many employees serve with skill, energy, dedication and distinction to attain the goals and fulfil the mission of the ministry. I'm very aware that their work is often difficult and often stressful, and our staff are indeed special people. I want them to know their work is valued and their contributions are recognized. To them all we also wish to say thank you.

This year's budget provides for a significant increase in our staff complement. For example, in the vital area of child protection, staff will be increased by 35 full-time-equivalent positions. The equivalent of 52 positions has been added to allow us to increase our coverage when staff are on vacation or ill or are receiving training. Additional staff will be added to work with mentally handicapped persons who live in community placements and to staff the at-home program which was announced last year for severely disabled children.

In addition to our own ministry employees, there are also many people who provide services to our client population through contractual arrangements with the ministry. I cannot overstate how important the thousands of such service providers are to the delivery of social services in all parts of British Columbia. To ensure they can meet rising costs and maintain high standards, the ministry has received an increase of $23.17 million in this year's budget allocation.

In closing, I want to acknowledge the invaluable contribution made each year to the mission of this ministry by our many partners in service. I want to especially thank the foster parents, who not only provide care for children but also work together through their local associations and the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations to provide training and support for all foster parents.

Thanks also to the B.C. Association of Social Workers and to the B.C. Association for Community Living for their advice, perspective and constructive criticism. The Downtown Eastside Residents' Association deserves thanks for its efforts in the areas of housing, the downtown deposit program and other projects. We work very well with them.

Also the Provincial Advisory Committee on Services for the Mentally Handicapped is to be thanked for its invaluable service to government regarding all aspects of issues related to services for persons with mental handicaps. There are also others too numerous to mention that will work with us in the upcoming year.

I must say that in the short time I've been in this ministry, I am truly grateful and always amazed at the dedication the people who work in the many areas of this ministry give to the job they're responsible for. I have to say that they give everything back to the community, not just because of the paycheque but also because they believe in what they're doing and in the cause they're working for.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, earlier the member for Vancouver East raised a point of order concerning the reading of a speech in the House — reading directly from a prepared text. If I understood the Chairman correctly, he indicated that it was not a point of order, when in fact it is. In my understanding, one is not allowed to read directly from notes. It's understood, as a matter of practice, that people can refer to copious notes. That is very different from reading a prepared text.

It has increasingly become a habit for ministers of the Crown to read directly from a prepared text; in no way could that be considered to be referring to copious notes. It's a practice that I think helps to bring this House down and assists in avoiding the spontaneity of debate that we really want to go back to in this House. I would urge you, Mr. Chairman, to insist that the rules of this House be obeyed. When we're required to obey them, as was evidenced today in the introduction of bills, I think ministers of the Crown should also be required to follow them.

HON. MR. VEITCH: On the same point of order, it's a longstanding tradition in this House that members are allowed to refer to copious notes, and I don't believe there's any rule on how copious those notes can be. I suggest that it is not a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank both the member for North Island and the acting government House Leader for their comments in this regard. I note, as the member for North Island noted, that this point was raised not too long ago. At that time we referred to Sir Erskine May for some background on this, and there was quite a dissertation by him. I haven't been able to turn it up at this moment, but I will turn it up for the edification of everyone sometime this afternoon. It seems to me that he stated that it was difficult for the Chair to rule on this — copious notes as opposed to a written speech — and that in many parliaments it was an accepted practice to have copious notes.

I do know what the member is saying. I certainly hear what he is saying: if one person is going to be asked to follow the rules, everybody should be asked to follow the rules.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, may I make just one additional comment on that point. We are hearing speeches prepared by public servants; we are not hearing the words and comments of the minister. That's the essential point. We should be hearing from the minister in these cases, not from people employed by him or her.

[ Page 9758 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Here is what Sir Erskine May has to say about the rule against reading speeches. It is "relaxed in the case of opening speeches, whenever there is special reason for precision...as in the case of important ministerial statements, especially on foreign affairs, or matters which involve agreements with outside bodies, or highly technical bills. Even at a later stage of a debate, prepared statements on such subjects are read without objection being taken, though they should not constitute an entire speech."

MR. WILLIAMS: I think Sir Erskine sums it up: the answer is "none of the above." I'm not doing this as a point of order, but under the estimates. It was reassuring that we had two deputies here to see that the minister read the speech the way they wrote it. For that, welcome, gentlemen; thank you for attending.

MS. SMALLWOOD: As soon as the traffic clears, I would be glad to take my place.

I would like to welcome the staff to the estimates I would like to welcome the minister, because these are his very first estimates in this ministry. Regretfully I would like to add that while I was given a whole hour and a half notice that the ministry's estimates were coming up, nevertheless the minister will see that I don't have a prepared speech. I certainly have lots of issues that I would like to talk to the minister about.

I would like to start off by making some general statements about the ministry and about the impact of social services generally in this province. I have stated some of these concerns before in previous estimates, but I think — given the fact that we have a new minister now — that it's worthwhile restating them in the hope that the minister will make some comments, and in the hope that it will also help to frame some of the very serious thinking that I am sure the minister is doing, given the fact that this is a new area for him.

First of all, when dealing with Social Services and the fact that this is perhaps one of the biggest bureaucracies in government, the fact that you are dealing with the third-largest amount of money for a ministry in the provincial budget, and because of the impact your decisions have on people who rely on the services and the cheques that your ministry provides.... I would like to say that I cannot for a moment separate the decisions and policies set down by your ministry from general overall economic policy in this province. If the ministry's priority is, as you say, to "enable people, " it would seem to me that any decisions you make with regard to that pool of unemployed must fit into an economic strategy for the province and must deal with those economic realities.

I will talk a little bit about those specifics later on, when I would like to go through a point-by-point question on your business plan for the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. That in itself, I believe, serves to fortify my perspective in that you chose to call this plan "a business plan."

[3:00]

If indeed we are talking about a group of people that are either low-skilled, suffering under some sort of disability or are, in increasing numbers, women in this province who rely on the support of your ministry, I would think that you would have to start from the basis that it is your job to help those people in any way possible to become full participating citizens of this province.

But I haven't seen that in the last couple of years that I have been involved with this ministry. What I have seen is policies that are punitive and which are directed, as your previous minister has said, to ensuring a short-term reliance on welfare; policies which are creating and enhancing that welfare cycle in this province and which are doing nothing to assist people to get back into the workforce in a meaningful fashion.

The strategies that you talked about in your opening statement, which referred to your "employment initiatives or incentives program, " are nothing short of a furtherance of your government's low wage strategy. All it does is enhance the ability of employers to pay low wages while subsidized at taxpayers' expense. There are no strings attached and no requirement for training or long-term employment. So we are seeing increasing numbers of people going into those programs, having their wages subsidized, and when that subsidy ends, the employer lays them off and looks for someone else to employ, thus perpetuating that cycle. The people who are holding those jobs have nothing at the end of their short-term employment.

I want to talk about a couple of different aspects with regard to your ministry — the income side, with GAIN and other income programs for handicapped and seniors. I also want to talk separately about services.

I might emphasize that the more I am involved with helping people throughout this province interface with your ministry, the more I come to realize that your ministry is suffering greatly under the legacy left by the previous government in the restraint era. What we are seeing in this province is a legacy left by a government that cut all community programs, all support programs and all programs that helped with prevention, were low in cost, and would have ensured that the province did not have to pay the phenomenal amount of money that they are now paying.

I talked in the previous estimates about other jurisdictions. I compared other jurisdictions, not only in North America but in England as well, where they have chosen to put their money in prevention and support, and have by that decision prevented the kind of crisis intervention that we see now in this province.

Last year I talked about that crisis intervention — the fact that this particular ministry seems solely focused on crisis management and is no longer involved in support to the degree that it once was. I see in the last little while that the ministry itself is coming to learn that they have to reinitiate some of those programs that were put in place in the '72-75

[ Page 9759 ]

era that one of the other members referred to, because not only are they more humane, they are cost effective. It's cheaper to prevent than trying to deal with those kids and those families later on.

In reality, I think that a lot has happened in the last year. When we looked at those cost factors and the direction that the ministry was taking, I think it is becoming increasingly obvious.... I hope that in the next short while, if not in the estimates, we'll begin to demonstrate that your ministry, Mr. Minister, is no longer even living up to its statutory requirements. I don't know whether the minister understands that; quite frankly I'm not sure the minister's even paying any attention.

But the reality in this province is that while this ministry has vacated the field of prevention and support, it is rapidly moving into an area of breaking its own laws. I think that you will see in the next while a decision as to whether this ministry is going to live up to its responsibilities or indeed change the laws. I suggest that there's nothing to indicate that this ministry will live up to its responsibilities, so I predict that in the next short while we will see the ministry change its mandate and in particular its responsibility to the children under its care, and we'll talk a little bit more about that as the estimates go on — hopefully tomorrow.

I'd like to start off by asking the minister if he has with him the 1990-1991 business plan and whether he would be prepared to answer some questions with regards to that.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, we're starting off with a real bang, where we are negative right from the beginning. I want to make it very clear that I'm not going to go down that slippery road and start answering negative questions.

We have done more this last year...brought down the caseload by 7 percent again with our programs for independence. If I heard correctly, saying that we do nothing for employment.... We do nothing but put people to work, sharing the employers' wages up to $7 an hour. To say that they get out on the street when they are finished with their job and are left high and dry — it's absolutely not true. All you have to do is go and ask some of these employers. Just check with them.

I was at a meeting not too long ago, and there were 35 or 40 employers who had employed people under the Employment Plus program, where we paid 50 percent and the employer paid 50 percent up to $7 an hour. I went from table to table asking how the program was working, and there wasn't one negative remark from all the employers who were there. They said that this program worked well and that in that particular area 41 percent of the people on this program stayed with that employer as a permanent employee. How can you stand there and find fault with that?

We have a tourism program where people who perhaps haven't had employment in the past are helped to get training and information. We have programs such as forestry...tourism, the same way.

When we talk about incentives for people that are not able to find jobs, more has been done in the last few years than ever before. The caseload is way down. We are heading in the right direction. You say we're not. So I suppose you and I have a different story to tell.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I think I'm more encouraged about these estimates, as the seconds click by.... The minister said he's proud of his program. He said the reason that he's proud of his program is that he went and talked to some 40 businessmen who were involved in the program, and they said it was great. Well, you should check with the people relying on that program to feed their kids, because that's what it's all about. It's not about subsidizing employers.

You said that 41 percent of all of the people that had obtained jobs in that program were still with those employers. I'd say that was a failing record. I'd say that if it was the school system, you'd have to repeat this year.

On top of that, you say there's not a bad word to be said by those employers. Well, if you guaranteed me that I had to pay less than the minimum wage in this province, subsidized by taxpayers' dollars, then I'd be pretty happy too. What you're saying is that the government, with taxpayers' dollars, is subsidizing wages up to $7 an hour. You're paying 50 percent of that $7. That means the employer, to hire those people, is paying $3.50 an hour. That is what this program is doing. It is not offering those clients anything. It is directed at the chamber of commerce, at employers in this province, rather than dealing with the real needs of the people that rely on your system.

I would direct the minister to look at the previous year's estimates, where the minister then responsible talked about who was on welfare. He talked about the increasing number of women with children that are on welfare. Those make up, I understand, the majority of people on welfare at this time. An increasing number of men over the age of 50 have become technologically redundant. I would say to you that your programs do nothing to address the needs of either of those two groups, and that emphasizes the need for this ministry to clarify its role. I believe that it is a component of the economic strategy of this province, and I believe that everything you do and say points to the fact that you are more interested in the business lobby than you are in serving those people. It serves the business lobby well to have that pool of vulnerable labour that is prepared to work at the kinds of jobs you're talking about with that incentive program.

In your business plan you talk about the realities that this ministry will have to face. You talk about the pressure the GST will bring on the ministry. You talk about the expected 40 percent increase in cost to the ministry because of the GST. But you neglect to deal with the fact that the GST will also bring costs to people that rely on income assistance. So I'd like to ask the minister whether or not he has considered that, and whether the people reliant on GAIN can expect to see an increase in their GAIN cheques to

[ Page 9760 ]

cover off that — the same increase you are lobbying your cabinet colleagues for to cover off your costs.

[3:15]

HON. MR. DUECK: I haven't got the details, but I understand that low-income people are going to get a refund from the GST once it's in place. But be that as it may, we are reviewing GAIN and we are reviewing SAFER every year, and there will again be an increase in those areas.

I was a bit surprised when you said that not one word from those employers.... I only spoke of the employers I met at that particular time. I've met all kinds of people around the province, including people that found work by getting this experience and having a résumé; they finally work at a place. Some of them have never worked. I've got all kinds of letters from people saying that was the best thing that ever happened; that they finally got into the workforce; they learned how to work; they got experience. And that's what it's all about. I grant you that these people aren't getting big pay, but it's not a matter of getting them off the welfare rolls and providing an income that you'd perhaps get if you were in the workforce permanently.

Just to give you an example of the percentage change from 1985, let's go back a few years. You were referring to last year and the year before; you were lumping in many years, and I will do the same. For single men on the income assistance roll, 1985 to 1990, there is a decrease of 31.2 percent; for single women, '85 to '90, there was a 13.2 percent decrease, and that's with an increased population; for couples, '85 to '89, there was a 39.6 percent decrease, with an increase in population.

How can you be negative on every point? There are some positives, you know. Income assistance was never meant as a payroll; it was meant to get people into jobs. With these programs we're trying to get people from the welfare roll into paying jobs, and many of them do.

For two-parent families, 1985 to 1990, there is a decrease of 45.8 percent; for one-parent families, 1985 to 1990, there is a decrease of 1.7 percent. That's where the least is. You are correct on that point. The single parents, mostly single women, have the toughest time. It's unfortunate. We are trying to do what we can to help them.

I have to tell you in general terms that this last year has been actually quite a good year in getting people off the income assistance roll and back into the workforce. We have evidence of that over and over again. I can pick out sad stories as well as you can. I'm sure you are going to bring up all kinds of sad stories. Of course it bothers me to hear some of these situations, especially when children are involved. You'll do it, but I can give you a lot of positive stories too. As we move along, we'll probably get into that more as we go.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I want to quote from the minister's own document. This is the environmental assessment chapter of your business plan. The minis-

ter looks a little perplexed. Perhaps you could spend a little bit of time this evening reading your own business plan, and you wouldn't be quite as perplexed. This particular item is under "Employment, " and it is assessing the overall situation in the province as it impacts your caseload. It says:

"As we move through the nineties, the automated office may emerge to the detriment of employment for women. The net effect of social and economic change may be the relative feminization of low-income living. The increased numbers of elderly widows, the erosion of available employment opportunities and the potential increase in number of single parents, chiefly women, has profound implications for the size and composition of the ministry's caseload.

"The economic transformation, together with increased competition from entry-level workers with greater education, may create additional barriers to independence for ministry clients."

This is your own document, and I want to hear specifics. What is your plan? What are you doing about it?

HON. MR. DUECK: We have, as I mentioned a couple of times, various programs in place. That is what we're following through on. You're talking about what may happen in the future. It's true, automation does have the effect you just mentioned. But you know, we're speaking of the estimates of last year and what we have for the future in this coming year. I know if you want to look back, you can give me some sad stories, and I'll give you some good stories. We can go on with that for a while if you wish.

For example, I'll read you this:

"Hello, my name is...." I won't mention the name. "I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for providing me with social assistance. It has allowed me to attend a 12-week computer-assisted upgrading and pre-employment training course called Youth Employment Skills. I had been out of school for three years and really had no future, but with the help from your social assistance, I have a chance for a great future. I am almost ready to write my grade-12 equivalency and have acquired many job-finding skills as well as job-keeping skills."

Another one. I think I should take the time to read them just for the record. This is from another individual:

"Just a short note to congratulate you and your ministry on this excellent program. Our law firm has had the good fortune to become involved, and we have received prompt and courteous assistance from — and again the name — "in your department in Nanaimo. The employee we hired has thus far shown herself to have excellent potential." I would like you to listen; this is very important. "Clearly, industry in general, our law firm in particular, and those people you are trying to assist are very well served indeed by such a program. Should you require any testimonials such as those I have seen produced on local television stations, we would be only too glad to produce them."

This is someone who found employment through one of these job-creating programs. Sure, you think it's funny, but it works. You want to bring up one

[ Page 9761 ]

side. I could go on and on. Do you want to take some more time?

Single parent. Despite the fact that this single mother has been out of the workforce for ten years, she has obtained a well-paying position as a financial planning assistant through the completion of the job action program. With the help of ongoing support throughout her EOP employment contract, she has recovered so completely from severely abusive relationships that she now gives lectures on employment management to job action program participants. It's just another positive story.

Mentally handicapped. Until this mentally handicapped man was referred to the program position, he had never had full-time regular employment and had been in receipt of income assistance for the majority of his adult life. This is the first time he has had an opportunity to prove himself with a supportive employer. He has surpassed everyone's expectations to such an extent that his original contract as a janitorial worker has been extended to training in the cabinet-making field. That's success. That was through this program.

Another one: as a result of learning disabilities, this 21-year-old man has completed only a grade-8 education and has spent several years on income assistance. Through this particular program he has obtained well-paying employment in a nursery and has developed a streamlining system in the workplace. His employer is greatly impressed with the quality of work.

Another one I just met on the street the other day told me that he has now gone into his own business after being in the Employment Plus program where we paid 50 percent and the employer paid 50 percent. He is now in competition with the employer who hired him for $7 an hour. That's good stuff.

We can pick things apart, and I suppose that's what estimates are all about, but when I go through the province and talk to people who have been helped through the program — whether it's the environment program, the youth program or the Employment Plus program, where we pay a certain portion of the wages — they all tell me that it's working well and that they're satisfied with the program.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I am amazed, actually, every time I find myself in this House struggling to remember what the real world is all about, because once you have sat here and listened to a minister such as yourself talk about how great things are, you begin to think: "God, do I live in the same world?"

Given your responsibility and the situation as I know it in this province, where we still have food banks and children going to school hungry and an increasing number of people — who for no other reason than that they are women — having to rely on subsistence income from your ministry, I find it very difficult to comprehend how you look at the world.

Very clearly you do not live in the real world that these people live in, nor have you experienced the reality of raising a family on a restricted income.

HON. MR. DUECK: Oh yes, I have.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Well, I beg to differ with the minister. Until such time as you are a single parent having no option but to live on welfare.... All you have to do is look at the numbers across this province to realize that almost two-thirds of every single-parent family headed by a woman lives on welfare, because they can't support their kids any other way.

That is a reality brought about by this government's policies, and for you to talk in glowing, rosy terms about how great the world is and how great your ministry is doing, it just points out again and again that you are out of touch. If you insist, sir, that you understand and that you are not out of touch, then I would suggest, by that last little rosy speech that you gave, that you don't care — because it's one or the other.

I want to talk about the SPARC report. We'll talk about poverty and about the impact of living under your government's policy and about the fact that you, sir, are administering that kind of hardship in this province.

In your opening statement you talked about your role as it relates to social housing and your responsibilities for creating a certain number of new housing opportunities for families on low incomes. Before I actually get into the SPARC report, I again want to quote from your own document. I have to say that the last time I asked for specifics and for you to comment on your document, I wasn't too happy with the answers. They were not specific. Again, either you don't understand or you know that the answer is not going to be politically expedient for you, because you're not doing what you should be doing.

Let's talk about the housing aspect of this report. You talk about the erosion of the value of SAFER benefits and GAIN shelter allowances because of the housing market. Then you have the audacity to get up in this House and talk about the increases that have been brought about under your administration to SAFER in particular. I ask you whether those increases did anything to compensate for the erosion of the programs by the marketplace.

[3:30]

I want to talk about this document, where you talk about your housing programs. If you have your copy of the business plan, Mr. Minister, I refer you to page 38, where it talks about major program housing and the objectives of your housing program: "The objectives are to help British Columbians meet market-determined prices for their living accommodations." We're not talking about affordable housing here. We're talking about the marketplace and your unquestioning commitment to the marketplace, without any consideration for the people who have to face that marketplace.

You go back again to increasing the supply of affordable rental housing. "Affordable" means the lower 25 percent of the market for the region. Again the market is the determinant here, not how much people can afford to pay. Last year the SPARC report talked about the cost of living as it related to GAIN

[ Page 9762 ]

and how difficult it was for people on GAIN and other restricted incomes to make it in that marketplace. What do we have here but a business plan that ties affordable housing to the marketplace and stresses that affordable rental housing means 25 percent of the market for the region? Do you know what that means in real terms, Mr. Minister? It means that when CMHC financing comes off an apartment block and the people who own that apartment block do a market survey — your lead, I expect — they can go ahead and increase the rent to the market amount. So much for affordable housing.

What that has meant in my riding is that people living on pensions and on GAIN who were paying $500 a month as a family for a two-bedroom apartment had their rent increased $750. There's your marketplace; there's our affordable housing. I want you to tell me how you can turn that around and make it rosy. You say you know how to live on a restricted income; you've had to do that. I'd like you to explain to those people who are on GAIN, pensions or fixed incomes how they can compete in a marketplace that increases their rent 100 percent. How can they do that? That's the real world out there, and I can't wait to hear how you can put a rosy tint on that one.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, I don't appreciate people on that side of the House making statements that I have never done this or never done that, when I've only known the individuals by being across the floor from them. So they don't have any clue as to what I know or don't know, or how I've lived or haven't lived. I want to tell the member that I have been in situations.... When we were first married we did not have money, and I have lived on a very sparse income for some time. As a matter of fact, I was unemployed for a while.

So things change, and that's no credit to me. I was fortunate and things have changed. In no way am I going to tell that member — trying to put words in my mouth — that I'm going to stand up here and say: "So what? People on income assistance live well." Of course not. I think it is a very sad story when we listen to people who have a hard time with food and shelter. That's why we have programs. That's why we look at income assistance yearly. That's why we look at SAFER and say: "Shall we move it up? How many points? How much more can we give this year?" I have to live within a budget as well, and it's not that I go out there and say, "Gee, I'd like to give these people $800 a month." I have to live within a budget, like everyone, and if the opposition was on this side they would do exactly the same.

With the budget that I have, I do everything I can. Yes, we are reviewing GAIN; yes, we are reviewing shelter allowance for this year again; yes, we are reviewing SAFER. As a matter of fact, I have an announcement to make in a very few days on the SAFER increase, and I hope that before my estimates are up I will be able to make that announcement.

When we talk about housing, let it be very clear — and let it be on the record — that we have over 60, 000 subsidized housing units in British Columbia at this time.

Another statement was made by the member, saying that two-thirds of the single parents — or the single moms — were on income assistance. Not true. About 50 percent are on income assistance. The rest are independent, providing for themselves.

We provide every year — we are talking about social housing now — the maximum that we can receive under the program from the federal government, which since 1986 has been 18,086 units a year. They just announced a month ago that they are going to cut us back by 15 percent. I was to be in Ottawa on Monday and Tuesday at a ministers' conference where we would look at the formula again to increase our allocation — at least make it more equitable and more fair — only to find out that the conference was cancelled at the last minute because some province couldn't agree to the formula, when the senior people had worked out a formula that was equitable and fair to all the provinces.

I would like to take you back in history a little bit — and this was before my time — when the Regina accord was first agreed upon and we knew that we were getting shortchanged on the housing allocation. Because the provinces could not agree, we said we would go along with the Regina accord, provided it would be looked at in 12 months' time and then would be changed to adequately reflect the different provinces and the true equitable share at that time. Well, that's four years ago; we're going into the fifth year. I've been back there a couple of times, and generally there is one province at least that I am aware of that vetoes it, and we just can't seem to get that extra allotment that I think we deserve. That would give us quite a few — maybe 50 — more units a year.

It is a good program. It is a program where the federal government shares 70 percent and we share 30 percent with a subsidy. I still hope to increase that; and if we can, we will at least alleviate a few more of these problems.

The rental supply program was never meant for low income. That program was meant for the middle to lower income, but not social assistance or the working poor. It was going to take the pressure off those housing units that are now being used by the middle-of-the-road who are moving into the low-income housing market because there is such a scarcity of housing. I say to you again — and I will repeat it over and over again — that it is supply that will change it.

I've got an allotment from cabinet: $80 million in the rental supply program. As fast as municipalities can zone it, as fast as developers can put those things on foundations, they've got the full green light to go ahead and produce this housing stock. In total it would be 8,000 units.

I have to tell you that I don't think ever in the history of this province has there been so much allocated to housing as we have done this last year. I know it isn't enough. We had a net immigration of over 60,000 people. You can't produce housing for

[ Page 9763 ]

60, 000 extra people, and a natural increase in the population, in one year; it takes a long time before we get these on the market. We've had a lot of problems getting social housing zoned. A lot of communities have vetoed it. A lot of aldermen and mayors have turned down proposals. It has been a difficult time.

I'm not going to stand here and say that someone on income assistance is doing well and that they should get by and be very happy they've got that. What I'm telling you is that we review it annually, and I am doing everything I can to provide at least interim assistance so that they can get back into the workforce. That is our goal — not to provide an income to stay on income assistance all their lives. It is to get them through this period of time, and many of them do. They are on income assistance on a temporary basis. They get back into the workforce, and that's what gives them dignity and purpose in life.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we continue, hon. members, the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain has asked leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce to the House today a number of students from Mackenzie Elementary School in Vancouver who are visiting the precincts today and are now sitting in the House with their teacher, Mr. Jack Schonewille. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we continue, I would like to remind those members who are participating in this debate this afternoon that it is customary that the debate go forward through the Chair. The Chair has been ignored almost completely in the last little while. It makes for better debate when it proceeds through the Chair, as opposed to directly opposite from member to member.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Chairman, I stand up to comment on some of the statements the minister has made. He comments that he himself was unemployed for a period of time, that he knows what it's like to live in poverty or close to it, and that he has come through tough times.

I think that's a mythology that many people like to talk about: when they were poor; when they had to pull it together; when their parents lived through the Depression and things were rough, but they pulled it together and managed to live on almost nothing or eat tulip bulbs, as has been suggested by one member of this House. We have to dispel the mythology of the poor-but-pure family struggling to make ends meet and ultimately coming out into a shining vision of the future where all is well.

HON. MR. DUECK: I didn't say that.

MS. MARZARI: You suggested though, Mr. Minister, that you could have some sympathy with the plight of a family that lives in poverty. You gave a few happy endings by reading some of the letters you had received over the last few months. You suggested at the end of your statement that people are on welfare for a very short period of time, and then they're off and well into the mainstream ready to do their bit, having pulled it all together and pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, so to speak, and life is rosy once again.

In fact, the world we really live in — the real world.... My colleague the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) has spoken on this a number of times in this House. The facts for women in poverty are very different from the picture you outlined for this House. The facts of life for a woman in poverty have to do with hopelessness, real despair, raising children with not enough food on the table and feeling pushed around perhaps by a spouse who has left on a moment's notice or who has divorced the family.

One way or another, women who are living with children in poverty do not have a rosy light at the end of the tunnel to look forward to. They haven't had it in the past, they don't have it at present and with existing policies, procedures and training programs in place, they will not have it in the future. They have nothing to look forward to.

[3:45]

The average woman who is divorced or separated with children in our community stands to lose 47 percent of her income. The average male who leaves a family situation very often — in fact, the statistics show this — stands to increase his living income when he leaves. It's simply a fact of life, and it has been borne out by the Canadian statistics that we have and can share with you, if you haven't read them yourselves.

Your government's answer to this situation, after many years, is to come in with a Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, which we will deal with in future estimates. It basically tells women that they can claim from their husbands, have their husbands pay into a central depot and receive their living allowance as stipulated by the court.

We know that program is failing badly, and that very few people have actually benefited. We will deal with this program with the Attorney-General, who set up this program, which is a good program in concept, but in practice has turned into a major albatross around the neck of your government because of poor management, long waiting-lists and administrative incompetence. Women are simply not receiving the money the court awarded them, and men are simply not paying.

We're talking about women who find themselves in poverty. Their choice is a difficult one. They can go into a workforce that puts them, generally speaking, about 40 percent below any job performed by a male colleague. We put them into a workforce which is very competitive, and if they are not skilled or have made their choice to be at home with children during

[ Page 9764 ]

their early or late twenties, they find themselves in a competitive workforce which simply cannot accommodate them. When they are accommodated, it is very often at less than minimum wage.

Very often they're accommodated in jobs which they don't declare the money from. Very often they find themselves in the position of being a housecleaner, nanny or domestic where they are very vulnerable to being even poorer than they would be in jobs where they had decent employment standards legislation backing them up or where, if they declared their income, they could be in the mainstream of the labour force.

What I'm painting a picture of, Mr. Chairman, is a population of women in our province and across the country; but in our province especially, because according to Statistics Canada it is showing up the worst of any province in this country in terms of female poverty and in terms of the children who must bear the costs of being poor.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

The SPARC report, which is published annually in British Columbia, is a constant reference for us and a constant goad to our consciences about what this poverty looks like. The SPARC report doesn't have a very human face, because it doesn't take us through individual scenarios and cases of women making choices on a day-to-day basis about whether or not their kids get an apple in their lunch or new shoes once every season for school. We don't see those heart-rending, gut-curdling stories in the SPARC report.

What we do see, however, are numbers which, if given any thought at all, should make us all think about what we do to keep people poor; not only putting these families through the rigmarole of losing their status, self-respect and integrity by dragging them through the welfare system, but then forcing them to live on an amount of money which they simply cannot live on.

We put them in the terrible position of having to lie very often about what they're actually earning. We put them in the position of having to go out and earn bucks on the black market, to do those jobs as domestics, to do those jobs as baby-sitters, because they cannot afford to live on what welfare grants them. In doing this, we basically perpetuate the whole cycle of devalued women's work. We create the cycle and the downward spiral with our welfare rates and our procedures.

The SPARC report, this year and every year, puts together a market basket of what it actually costs to live in our community: transportation, food, clothing and housing. It then measures our welfare rates against that basic poverty line.

In the fourth example, where they talk about a single mother with a 16-year-old son and a 14-year-old daughter, the maximum GAIN allowance, with the family allowance added, is $1,040.66. The actual cost for that family is $1,698.45. Those are basic, very conservative, minimal costs, assuming that the mother or the family is buying its food at the cheapest possible prices and looking for every sale.

The shortfall between that family's needs and what they get is 63 percent; an incredible shortfall between what a family needs and what it gets. That 63 percent has to be measured not just in terms of numbers; it has to be measured in terms of daily decisions that the mother has to make about how to make it through to the end of the month.

A couple with a six-month-old infant and a five year-old daughter: their maximum GAIN allowance is $1,105; their costs are $1,844. The shortfall there, between their integrity and what they get, is 67 percent.

Mr. Chairman, numbers like these are abominable. They are not tolerable in a civilized community. We simply can't go on in terms of the human wastage — the number of children and women who are living in poverty. We are wasting our human capital and the abilities of our people and citizens by giving them 66 percent less than they actually need to live on. We cannot continue to adjust our political priorities around a number like 66 percent less than what is actually required for subsistence.

So I would ask the minister... No, I won't ask; I'll speak on for a few minutes, because there are solutions.

I guess I would ask questions about whether or not the minister is aware of some of those solutions. Obviously there are political decisions to be made. Obviously, on a day-to-day basis, you live within your budget. I assume that when sitting in your cabinet, you fight for more budget — as everyone does in your cabinet — to get more into your program. But I have to ask you and your cabinet why. How can you tolerate living with numbers such as the ones I've just outlined, knowing that there are women and families living at 66 percent less than what they absolutely need to survive? We're talking about absolute needs.

Is it because these women don't come storming over to Victoria once a week to say: "We're dying"? A recent health study in Quebec published a health report a few weeks ago that suggested that poor women die sooner. A study that we've known about for two or three years now and that has created a furor in Ottawa around child poverty found that poor children die because they are poor.

The complex situations that make up poverty and the hopelessness and the despair don't have a rosy ending. Children and women die with greater regularity. It is not a rare event either.

We are wasting our resources by not funding the families — the women and their children — to a level where they can find some self-respect. They don't just need money; they need housing; they need transportation if they are living rurally.

We don't need fancy demonstration projects to show how a family with integrated social services can come together and make a better deal of it. We probably could use a few projects, but these families need money. Poverty is lack of money for these women and their children.

[ Page 9765 ]

I am talking about a coordinated effort by your ministry to first of all put pressure on the Attorney-General to upgrade the quality of the family maintenance service so that women on welfare: (a) are not pushed into the family maintenance program; rather that they do it voluntarily; (b) that women on welfare are not forced into training programs but rather are given quality opportunities for decent training when they choose or find the time to go back into training; (c) a special program for women and families to build equity in co-op housing, special units of co-op housing set aside for women in poverty and their children; (d) transportation allowance for people on welfare, most notably for women and their children who very often live in rural isolation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, under standing orders your time has expired.

MR. SIHOTA: I am enjoying these fine words by the member for Vancouver-Point Grey and I think we should hear more of what she has to say on this very important issue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the member for Vancouver-Point Grey I would just like to point out that the questions should be addressed through the Chair.

MS. MARZARI: We need a transportation allowance, or some mechanism by which people who happen to be on welfare or are living below a certain income line have proper access to decent transportation services, without stigmatizing them, without special cards that they have to carry or wear. Last, and most important, we need a review of GAIN, not just to see what political pressure is being applied this week but a serious review in consultation and in active partnership with groups such as FAPG, Federated Anti-Poverty Groups, and ELP, End Legislated Poverty, and the Victoria women's group, Women For Economic Survival — including also representatives perhaps from the National Anti-Poverty Organization, NAPO.

SPARC, the Social Planning and Research Council of B.C., obviously has to be involved. A number of people in this province have put 20 to 30 years of their lives into either living in poverty or into having been with it and trying to study it or work in the system that tries to alleviate poverty. These people have to be conferred with.

I'm talking about drawing an accepted line for British Columbia. Are you prepared to draw a poverty line for British Columbia, to accept the SPARC line, or to look at Senator Crow's line from 1968 or the National Council of Welfare line or the Canadian Council on Social Development's line?

[4:00]

Each one of these poverty lines serves a purpose, Mr. Minister, and that purpose is to show the gap between what we offer our people who live in poverty and what they need. Those lines haven't been drawn in thin air; they've been drawn on the basis of what people actually need to live on in our country.

Are you, Mr. Minister, prepared to draw a line about what it takes to live on in this province, as opposed to going from month to month trying to bump up the welfare rates a bit here and there? I'm talking about a consistent policy and about establishing a priority.

My second question to you is: are you prepared to fight for that line? It's not good enough simply to say yes, people who are poor will draw a line. We have to fight for that line — not just in cabinet, Mr. Minister, but with the federal government. If there's one thing that has happened in the last few months with the federal budget that has affected people on poverty, it was the federal government's action to cap the Canada Assistance Plan for British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. We are one of the three that have been singled out by our federal government to be punished. Why? Because we gave too much to the poor? I hardly think so.

Mr. Minister, that's my second question to you. After you've answered whether or not you're ready to draw a line, I have to ask: are you ready to take on the federal government publicly, in a visible way, and fight for the retention of the Canada Assistance Plan — which was really our only hook, the only thing we had in this country that guaranteed 50-cent dollars when we set out to fight poverty? It was the white horse on which we could charge into the battle against poverty, and we have lost the ability to innovate or create new programs under the Canada Assistance Plan.

So, Mr. Minister, are you prepared to draw a poverty line? And then are you prepared to fight for that line?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, I will be addressing the Chair. I have to apologize for getting involved in the debate and forgetting that the Chair is there to be spoken to.

To begin with, I would again just like to correct a statement. I do not appreciate a statement being made and then built on when I have corrected it once. It was built on from something that I perhaps said or that someone thought I said: that there was a good ending to the story, but that that is not how it often ends up with a lot of people. I only made that statement because the other member mentioned that I probably don't know what it's like. Only on that basis did I say yes, I did. I didn't in any way indicate that because I had lived that way, everyone should come out of a situation and have a good ending to their story. I didn't even think about it. I wish that you would not take a statement, add to it and then, for the record, make it something that I said or that you perhaps thought I said. It's not true. I did not make that statement; I want to make that very clear.

Mention was made, Mr. Chairman, about the family maintenance program, although it's not in my ministry. We certainly have clients that we refer to that program. I want to correct the statement that it is not successful. I want to emphatically tell you that it

[ Page 9766 ]

is very successful. I'm very happy that we are finally getting to the point where people can't walk away from a family situation and say: "I now leave that life behind me. Somehow the government, from here on in, will look after the family." We're saying no. If you get married, if you raise a family or produce children, you are responsible.

I'm very much in favour of the program. It is tremendously successful, and every month it's improving. So I don't buy the argument that the family maintenance program is not doing what it ought to do. It is very successful, and I'm very happy that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) is going in that direction.

Our basic GAIN budget — I'm not going to get into that and argue with you about whether it should be more. Of course it should be more. When I go to budget time, I fight like mad for my ministry and for the people we serve through this ministry. I've worked very hard, and I've made my voice known — very loud and clear — for extra money, because I know it's never enough.

I want to tell you that my basic GAIN budget this year is $902 million; that's not a small amount. The caseload is decreasing, yet the budget is increasing. We are spending a lot of money in that area. You can perhaps criticize and say that it's not enough. I might even agree with you. Perhaps I would, because it's not simple to live on a fixed income of that kind. But I want to tell you again that the purpose of the GAIN program and the shelter allowance.... SAFER is another area where we're helping seniors who are not able to help themselves in the area of shelter. The GAIN program is strictly to get people off the welfare rolls and back into employment.

Talking about GAIN and the shelter allowance, I mentioned that we are reviewing that program. Mr. Chairman, the statement was made that they don't want me just to review it. My gosh, whenever we do something, we review what we've done in the past and what we're going to do in the future. I think I've gone on record right after my opening remarks that we are reviewing the shelter allowance, the GAIN for independence programs and SAFER programs, and hopefully I'll be able to make an announcement in that area soon.

You also mentioned special housing for single moms. Would you believe that we have? For example — this is in French, and I'm not that good in French.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: That's the one. They have three very successful projects now. We haven't got enough of them, but it certainly is the direction in which I think this ministry wants to go, and I'm extremely pleased that we were able to do that. I've visited these homes and talked to the people residing there. Many of them have, in fact, found employment since that time, moved out and created a life independent of the social housing part of the program. So not all is gloom and doom. We have some success stories.

Again I want to say that with all the programs we have, we are attempting to get people away from income assistance, because when they are on it — I hear this again and again — I hear that they are not feeling their self-worth, are somewhat depressed and feel that they haven't accomplished what they should in their life. Therefore the idea is to get them back into the mainstream, into the workforce, and wherever possible we are doing it. We also recognize that there may be many who will not be able to do that, and we have to help them the best we can. Unfortunately, the budget is set at the beginning of the year. I have to work within that budget, and that's exactly what I'm doing.

Transportation. We certainly provide transportation in many forms — bus passes and other things. We provide transportation for people who need to go to work in the interim period. In the particular program that the individual is enrolled in, we have a clothing allowance, transportation — all kinds of things to help wherever possible. You can criticize it as being not enough, but we do provide.

Will I go on record on the Canada Assistance Plan? My goodness, have you listened to the radio or watched TV? Have you listened to the Attorney-General? We're suing the federal government, for goodness' sake! What more can we do? It was at my insistence; I brought it forward in cabinet. We're saying that it's contrary to the agreement we signed many years ago. They're supposed to give a year's notice. They can't make any changes or amendments. It has to be done in a proper way, and that's why we sued them.

I sent a letter to the other provinces. Manitoba, Ontario and the native community have joined us in this lawsuit. It's now before the B.C. appeal court, and I hope we're successful. I think it's a rotten shame that they did that to us, because it's not just a provincial responsibility; it's also a federal responsibility. The biggest majority of these people have moved out from Ontario. They come here, and a lot of them end up on our income assistance rolls. Therefore they have a responsibility, and I will press — as I've done in the past again and again — and will say: "You people have to live up to your agreement, which was signed many years ago, which says that not only must you give 12 months' notice, but you cannot make an amendment unless there's an agreement."

MR. MOWAT: I am pleased to speak in the debate of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. I have been sitting here now for almost two hours listening to the opposition talk about the lack of programs in that ministry.

First of all, I want to welcome the minister to this new portfolio. I think he brings with him a great deal of experience from the Ministry of Health, because programs are often interrelated between the two ministries. Particularly, many of our people who have been injured or have a health problem are leaving institutions and returning to the community to start a new lifestyle. They're trying to find employment or

[ Page 9767 ]

continue their education, to move into the community and try to get back to the lifestyle that they had prior to their injury or disability.

I want to just briefly say that I certainly don't share the gloom and doom that the two members who have spoken so far in this debate do. I know we've touched briefly on the problems of where we've been, where we've come from and how tough it must have been. Some of us have made it through.

I have not spoken on this subject before in the Legislature, but I've been there, and I was brought up in a time when there were no social programs and no chances for persons to achieve anything in the way of assistance. I was involved very strongly between '72 and '75 in a committee to bring forward different programs and suggestions to the government. We brought forward 12 recommendations, and sadly none of these programs was implemented during that government.

MR. REE: What government was that?

MR. MOWAT: That was the government between '72 and '75.

We touched briefly on employment. Recently I read a report of one agency that had placed 261 persons, and the majority of them were from the ranks of the disabled. They were also from people on social services. The majority of these placements were well over the minimum wage, and the placements were all varied fields and all varied disabilities. I want to say that the minister's employment program — through that ministry and with a very dedicated staff — is truly working.

[4:15]

1 am looking forward to hearing in the estimates the final results of the in-home support program that this government put in last year to assist disabled children who live at home with their parents or who live in institutions and want to return home to live with their parents. I know the government funded it last year in the amount of $14.9 million. This is an outstanding program; it's a program that many of us had worked on for years to bring in, and it certainly has been appreciated by many families who have been supporting at great cost a very seriously disabled child at home. Many of the children now are returned to their homes from institutions because of the effects of this program.

I was at the presentation — and I know the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) is not listening — when this government made the announcement.

Unfortunately, because of grandstanding by that member, the publicity that should have been given to the program — and not to the politics — was not widely spread throughout British Columbia. Many of the agencies that are working with parents who have children in institutions or children at home with costly medical expenses have not been aware of the program.

I want to touch briefly on housing — because the opposition have spoken about housing — and on the fact that the SAFER program has been very effective and that it's being reviewed.

Interjection.

MR. MOWAT: The second member for Victoria says we haven't done anything in housing for two years. He doesn't realize that we are now on a program of 8,000 affordable housing units and that also this year we will have 2,000 special social-needs housing units.

Interjection.

MR. MOWAT: The second member for Vancouver has shown up.

I want to talk about some special-needs housing that you don't see anywhere else in Canada or in North America. We have one called Creekview in False Creek. It has taken six seriously disabled, respirator-dependent quadriplegics and placed them into the community. This was unheard of four years ago; now it's taking place.

We also are doing a new project with the cooperation of the ministry called Noble House on West 6th Avenue in Vancouver-Little Mountain. In that project — it's a 21-unit apartment project — all the units in the complex will be of a barrier-free design, accessible to people with mobility problems. Some of the people leaving institutions — in some cases these people have been living there for 35 years — will be moving into Noble House.

I could go on to point out what they are doing in the Coast Foundation and other specialized housing. But I'll be speaking later in this debate to support the minister's estimates — and particularly what this minister has brought forward to us as a caucus — the innovative programs that he will be speaking about. I am pleased that the ministry has received an increase in its budget to do some more programs, and I just wanted to take a moment to stop the gloom and doom that was coming from the opposition and commend the minister — and particularly the staff of the ministry — for the programs they are bringing in at the grass-roots level. Many of our citizens in British Columbia are receiving benefits because of their programs.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Leave to make an introduction, Mr. Chairman.

Leave granted.

MR. ZIRNHELT: It gives me pleasure to introduce some grade 7 students and their accompanying teacher and a parent from Strathnaver Secondary School in the very north end of our riding. Please welcome Greg Siemens, a teacher, along with Betty Hatfield and students Karry, Tory, Bryan, Tara Lynn and Cindy, and make them welcome to the precincts.

MR. ROSE: I have a couple of questions to ask. But before that is an observation.

[ Page 9768 ]

The minister said, telling us about this court case having to do with changing the Canada Assistance Plan without any particular reference or warning.... I wonder if the minister would agree that it probably came about through the premiers calling for a cut in federal spending, so he thought that would be an appropriate place to cut.

He wouldn't agree with that, according to the House Leader of the government — the temporary House Leader, the part-time House Leader of the government.

The other question I'd like to ask is about the relationship between GAIN and other federal moneys coming to people who are 65 and older. What happens to the GAIN cheques if there happens to be an inflationary increase of the old-age supplement or any Canada Pension Plan disability payments, as they are tied to inflation? What happens to the GAIN payments when there is an increase in the federal contribution to them?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, I think the member is aware that it is deducted; the GAIN goes down. If there are other sources of income, it's regarded as income, and it goes down.

I also want to answer the question of whether the federal government made this change because of the Premier's statement. No, it was made for Canada, not just for British Columbia, so it was a universal thing when CAP was reduced. So I would say that it definitely has nothing to do with the statement anyone made.

They decided they were going to cut — where I think cuts should not be made — in an area that is very sensitive. I'm very disappointed that they have done that. However, Ontario joined in. Manitoba is not even part and parcel of it, because they were not in that category. They have joined us, and so has the native community joined us in the lawsuit. I don't think it has anything to do with any statement made by anyone. But I think the federal government is not too sensitive to the needs of some Canadians, especially those in need of assistance.

MR. ROSE: I don't want to leave this GAIN bit for a moment, because I heard the minister say in what was actually a heart-rending expression of his deepest feelings something having to do with those unfortunates who have to be recipients of GAIN. I know you would like to improve their character and their enterprise by cutting them back — and maybe that will motivate them — such as the Minister of Social Services did last year by cutting single women by about $50. Of course, having to subtract that stimulates them and motivates them to work harder.

The minister said there is never enough money; he'd like to see it higher. A very simple way would be to just let it pass through — not because they get a raise from Ottawa, but that they get a cut from the province. Just let it pass through. If you really feel that there isn't enough money.... The bums on welfare idea has pretty well been exploded as a myth, when you've got the unemployment rates that we have in Canada.

I once phoned our social welfare office and said: "How many unemployed employables have you got around here?" The results were very minimal, and those were better times than they are now. What's wrong with the idea of just letting this pass through?

The problem of housing for the elderly, since we've got no control over demolitions.... When we had Expo, we had all the problems associated with the revamping of these hotels to take advantage of the bonanza, and people being sent out on the street. There are all kinds of people being released from Riverview without adequate means. They forget to take their pills, and they end up as derelicts. It's a very serious problem.

This isn't directly related — maybe it is — to the question. When you have a situation of extremely high rents like we have now and definite housing shortages because of many things — in-migration, demolition, the high cost of housing, no rental accommodation and all that kind of stuff — then it seems to me that the kindest and most humane thing to do for these people, who are certainly not driving any Cadillacs.... I've never seen anybody on welfare driving a Cadillac. Why not let it go through? What would be the cost to the treasury if you let it go through? Would it be something we couldn't handle? After all, we're good at throwing money around and throwing money at things.

MR. REE: Maybe you are.

MR. ROSE: Oh, no. You've demonstrated pretty good talent for it yourselves. You haven't forgotten about the Coquihalla, have you? Do you know that we spent $1 billion on SkyTrain to carry 1 percent extra passengers?

There's all kinds of money for certain things. It's all a matter of priorities. I don't want to be distracted by the former Solicitor-General, who is enjoying luxuriating in the back bench over there, heckling poor, nervous newcomers like me and trying to put me off my food — if not my thoughts. But I would like the minister to address himself to this very serious question.

Get out of the way; lead, follow or get out of the way. I'm suggesting that what you should do on the federal stuff is to get out of the way and just let them pass through.

HON. MR. DUECK: That can be done, or an increase in GAIN.... Whichever way you want to look at it, it spells more money. We don't deduct; we just don't pay as much. We have a level for seniors, and we top it up. It's not that you deduct; you top it up to a certain level. That's what we do. So we'd rather talk in terms of topping up less because they are at a certain level, and if they have income we top it up to that particular level — a supplement to that level that has been established.

Again, I'm not going to argue that point, because I accept what you're saying. We could do that. We

[ Page 9769 ]

could also pay more in GAIN. The purpose of the whole exercise is that we have a certain amount of money which we allocate as evenly as possible to all concerned, we say that no one over a certain age should have less income than that particular amount, and we top up to that level through the GAIN for Seniors supplement.

MR. ROSE: I really don't want to harass the minister or wring more out of it than is in it.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Are you suggesting that I should be harassing him?

MR. BARNES: Harass him, yes.

MR. ROSE: Okay, I'll harass him for you.

The minister is a decent man and a highly principled one, but really, when we're talking about cutting GAIN, not allowing it to pass through or topping up; we're just playing with words. That's all we're doing.

The point is that the extra money allocated by the federal government for inflation factors in the old age supplement — and also other federal payments — if not passed through, is depriving them of the money, whether you want to call it topping it up....

The problem for most people is that the top is too low. It's not just a question of whether you get that money back. I think it's really — I was going to say it's a form of theft, but perhaps that's a little bit too strong.

MR. BARNES: It's a good term.

MR. ROSE: I wouldn't want to say that. But it really deprives a lot of people who probably have the least defences of any segment of society.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I want to follow up on this issue that the previous speaker introduced, and I want the minister to very clearly indicate to this House.

It seems to me, as I listened to that exchange, that the issue is not money, but rather a policy of this government to pay only a certain amount. I'd like the minister to reply to me on the record, and I will give him that opportunity. The minister says: "I would dearly love to give these people more money. I lobby for more money all of the time." Yet when the member for Coquitlam-Moody asked you why you did not give them benefit of the increased money that was coming from the federal government, you said that you made a decision — not to take away from them, but to not give them any more money.

[4:30]

So the issue is that limit. It is not your policy to increase the amount, or you would have given those people the benefit of that federal money coming There was a direct cost-saving to the province by not giving those recipients the benefit of the money that came from the federal government.

So the issue is not the money. It's not, as you would have the House or the people of the province believe, that you're a big-hearted guy who wants more money for these people. It is a cold policy decision that people on GAIN or the supplement for seniors or handicapped cannot make more than this certain amount. It would not have cost the province anything extra if you had just given them the increase that was coming from the feds. Instead, you made a calculated decision to save the province that money. Is that not correct?

HON. MR. DUECK: I find it really interesting. It's "not the money, " but ending with a statement "to save the province that money." So what are we talking about? Again it's a play on words.

I'm telling you there is a program in place, and that program — for example, the supplement — is topping up to a certain level. We can raise that level; of course we can. Perhaps we will be. We're looking at GAIN again; we're looking at SAFER, which will help the seniors — if we're talking about seniors.

Someone just now slipped me a letter written by a senior, saying that his rent went up last month or the month before, and had it not been for SAFER he would have been in real trouble. He's as happy as all get out. We're helping people wherever we can, but there is a limit as to how much we can help.

I'm just telling you that the policy of this government at the current time is that level, and we will supplement it up to that level. Now whether you like that or not, or whether you say it's not good enough — I accept that. I take that on notice, and we'll see as time goes on whether we can make those changes.

I have asked for more money, of course. Every ministry wants more money for its particular programs. When it comes to children and families, sure, it is more than asking for maybe a bridge or a highway. It's much closer to an emotional thing. I feel very strongly that people should be helped when they are in trouble. But for me to make changes other than what I have in the budget, I just can't do it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the member, I should reiterate that the comments and questions should be made through the Chair.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I find the smokescreen really fascinating and somewhat humorous, because the reality is — no matter how much you say you would dearly like to give these people more, and you don't have any more money to give, and all of that — it wouldn't have cost you anything to allow that money to come through. Instead, you made a cold and calculated decision to withhold the money — the province's share — and basically benefit from taxpayers' money that was supposed to go to the poor in this province.

I want to go a little bit further on that thought, because.... The minister's not happy, but those are the facts. No emotionalism, we're dealing with the facts here. The minister is trying to wrap himself in a rosy blanket of goodwill and fatherly love. But the

[ Page 9770 ]

reality is that for these people it has nothing to do with whether they are deserving or not; it has nothing to do with emotionalism. The bottom-line facts are that people are not able to make it to the end of the month on their welfare cheques. They have got to go to food banks, and some of those food banks are at risk. It is under this government's leadership, under your policies, that people have been forced to line up for food. That is your legacy; that is your decision. Your saying you have no more money to give is pretty thin when you look at the fact that you made a cold and calculated decision to withhold money that was supposed to go to those people.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The reality in this province is that we have a group of people who, because they are handicapped or disabled, because they are women, because they are visible minorities or natives, because they are men over 50 who become technologically redundant, not because they are undeserving, not because they are welfare bums — your government has perpetuated that idea in the past — suffer a disproportionate chance of being poor. You are doing nothing more than making decisions about their livelihood, decisions to put a cap on the amount of money they can live on and making punitive decisions that affect their daily lives. That's the reality. All those well-meaning platitudes don't matter; the reality of the policies of this government has created the lives that those people have to live each day.

In this country and in this province, as many of us can attest, in the last five years for the first time we are seeing women and children lining up at food banks for food, something I'm sure none of us ever expected to see. We are beginning to see homeless people, people living on the streets and in the parks. Do you not accept any responsibility for this at all? Do you not see that your government's policies have directly influenced these people's lives? Do you not understand that there are things that you can and morally must do? Do you not accept any responsibility, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. SMITH: I would like to direct a question to the minister with respect to the policy regarding availability of individuals for work where we have a situation, particularly on farms.... In some areas in British Columbia we have difficulty getting employees to participate in harvesting or planting. I raise that question for the minister because I have had that request come to me directly from constituents who have asked me what the policy is. Rather than trouble you with a letter — as their MLA I would then respond to them — I would like to take this opportunity in the House. I think it might be of some interest to other members if we could simply have a relatively brief statement as to what the policy is.

I ask the question for a couple of reasons. For the record, I do indeed want to know what the policy is so that I can respond to my constituents. But also I think it's important that any mythology that might be associated with that policy be put to rest. There have been statements made over the months about what that policy is and what it is not, and what it may or may not force people to do or not to do. It would be helpful to me as an MLA if I could find out what the policy is, so that I could let my constituents in the agriculture business who have asked me those questions know.

I know that the second member for Langley (Mr. Peterson) has also indicated in his comments in the House today, which won't be in Hansard, that he has had similar questions directed to his constituency office. It would be helpful if we could get that information and then relay it in a dispassionate way to our constituents.

HON. MIL DUECK: Mr. Chairman, we certainly expect employables to seek employment at all times. The whole purpose of the program is to get them back into the mainstream so that they find employment and have self-worth rather than live off income assistance. It has worked very well. Right here in Victoria this spring, when it came to picking daffodils and tulips, we referred — I haven't got the information here at the moment — quite a number of people. A good number of them did go to work; certainly that's what the purpose is. Others just decided that they would rather go off income assistance and not seek work. But most of them did find it rewarding and did go to work. Some found work elsewhere.

The same thing applied in the Okanagan at fruitpicking time, where employables are asked to seek employment. Whenever they are in a region where there are certain harvests — I'm speaking about farms in particular now — they will seek that employment to help out the agriculture industry and to gain experience and find employment. It has worked very well, and I can get the particulars on the two that I've become aware of in the six months I've been in this ministry.

The Attorney-General asked what he could tell his constituents. So often we find people requesting help, and they can't find it. Get in touch with our office, and we will certainly refer people to them. In most cases they are only too happy to go.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I found that exchange very interesting. Obviously the Attorney-General felt that the minister was being somewhat threatened and felt the need to intervene and throw up one of those government smokescreens that says that if people really want to work, there's work out there.

Maybe the minister would do well to sit and listen to or look at some of the studies the ministry itself has done on who is on welfare. Who would the minister have go to work out in the fields — the single mothers with their kids? Should they go out? You see, there isn't any day care. Should they go out into the fields and pick? It's really difficult to pay the rent with the amount of money you make from farm labour. It's not covered by the Labour Code; therefore they don't even have to pay the minimum wage.

[ Page 9771 ]

I wish that this government — in particular, the member who just asked that question — would wake up and realize what it is like to live in this province on the subsistence amount that people get on GAIN. It's an absolute smokescreen. If people are supposed to deduce from questions like that that there are people on welfare who could be out in the fields, I'd love the minister to tell us which of those single mothers with kids, which of those handicapped people, it is. I'd love the minister to tell us what those kids should be doing while the mom is out there.

[4:45]

The reality is that your government has abandoned these people so that you can advocate on behalf of industry. As the minister said, his employment programs are really well received by employers because they only have to pay $3.50 an hour. I'm sure that the farm industry is lobbying you, and you have a choice. Who are you going to stand up for? The industry that is not covered by the Labour Code — an industry that certainly would employ some of those little kids in the field, working with the pesticides and other hazardous substances with absolutely no protection, thanks to your government? Is that what you're advocating?

We'd like to get back to some of the issues that we were raising.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Through the Chair, please, hon. member.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I want to go back to the issue of welfare and the limits on welfare: the artificial limits created by this government; the artificial and arbitrary limits placed on people who are wholly reliant on welfare; those limits that have no rationale and absolutely no equity; those limits that the government — you, Mr. Minister — have set in place by your policy; those limits that keep people at 60 percent of the poverty line. It goes back, Mr. Minister, not to your caring, well-meaning, fatherly attitude but to a calculated policy that deals with those people's lives. It says that the reason for our policy is to get people off GAIN, and therefore we will make it as miserable as possible for those people so that they don't look on it as a way to support their families.

It goes back to my opening comments about looking at the whole picture. If those people on welfare are disproportionately women, then you have to ask: what's wrong with our economy that women are disproportionately poor? Therefore what can we do as a government to change those realities so that women, by the fact that they are female, don't end up on welfare? That's all — not making it as difficult and as punitive and as damned miserable as possible with your policies that restrict welfare payments to those families so that women and children have to line up for food.

It's going to be pretty difficult for you, Mr. Minister, if you are honest, to hold your head up in this ministry. I wouldn't change places with you and your government for anything.

1 want to talk about who's poor and what the realities of your government's policies have created for this province. Twelve percent of all families in British Columbia are poor. Thirty-four percent of families headed by a young person, a person under the age of 24, are poor. Of families headed by women, 40 percent are poor; 34 percent of all unattached individuals; 53 percent of females over the age of 65.

Because of your inaction and because of your punitive policies, these people have to live at subsistence levels. They are in a situation in the marketplace.... Remember that marketplace that your low-income housing is tied to? When they have to live in the marketplace in British Columbia and deal with those rent increases, huge amounts of their welfare cheques are being consumed by a landlord.

There are things you can do that would alleviate the pressure on those families and allow them to live with a little more dignity; allow them, if necessary, to get back into the workforce. But I would say perhaps we could look at not necessarily getting back into the workforce, because I would take it back to you, Mr. Minister, when you talk about the role of families and the value of having a parent at home, whether a father or a mother, and the fact that without any community support, without any day care that people can feel confident about and that is licensed and regulated, that we can be assured that there are spaces out there where the standards are agreed upon and governed by the province.... These people have a right to be able to feed their children in such a rich province as ours.

There are things you can do that will not cost the province money. We just talked about one of those things: passing on the benefits given to you by the federal government, which were meant to alleviate poverty. You have, as I said, decided to accrue savings to the province rather than to alleviate that poverty. There are things you can do with the policies around GAIN that will help these people directly. New Democrats are committed to doing that. You can give welfare cheques as a flat rate, rather than giving them in two groups, under support and shelter. You can give them a flat rate and allow the welfare recipients to go out and negotiate their own housing agreements so that it doesn't go directly into the landlord's pocket. As a matter of policy, you could allow people on welfare to live cooperatively, where perhaps two mothers with children might decide to share a house. But no, under your punitive method of support for families, you say they can't do that or you're going to ding 'em. They cannot spend less than the housing shelter, or you're going to take that away from them. If they manage to find a house — and I don't know where they're going to do that nowadays — that is slightly less than the amount allocated to them for shelter, it's the policy of your ministry to deduct that from their cheque. You can't tell me that you care and you'd like to do more for these people, because your policies hurt families. They hurt the people who are least able to protect themselves.

I'd like the minister to answer that one. He's not doing too well in answering the questions so far.

[ Page 9772 ]

Maybe you can tell me — since you're such a caring guy — what you're going to do about those families. That's not going to cost this government a penny, but it sure will help those families. Are you prepared to give welfare a flat rate and allow people to negotiate their housing arrangements?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank the member for debating through the Chair.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, I find it extremely interesting how they can point a finger at me and say that I'm such a caring guy but I don't care, and make personal attacks. How can a member on the opposite side say what my personality is, whether I care or don't care, what I do in my private life, how I treat my family, how I treat my neighbours, or how I treat the people I get involved with? I think it's absolutely unacceptable for a person on that side of the House to personally attack a minister of the Crown and say that he doesn't care. That's not what we're here for. We're talking about issues and policy. I find it unacceptable for them to attack me personally. I can also attack members personally and say that an individual is very bitter; I don't know why or what the background is, but a very bitter person. But I don't think that's proper. I don't think that's why we're here. We want to talk policy, and we want to talk about how we can help those people who need help.

The flat-rate policy, for example, that the member spoke of is not acceptable because CAP does not recognize a cost-sharing arrangement. Again, if the member did any type of homework, she would have known that. We cannot do that because we would lose our 50-cent dollars. That's a good reason.

The other point that keeps coming up again and again is that it would give more but it wouldn't cost any more. If we're going to talk money, of course it will cost more, because it will bring up the level. There will be many more coming on the income assistance roll. Of course it's going to cost more. I don't want to talk dollars and cents when we're talking about poor people, because it's hard enough for them as it is. Don't attack me again that I'm talking sympathetically but I'm not, because the member hasn't got a clue whether I'm sympathetic towards poor people, ill people or anyone in need. So don't talk like that. You're a bitter person, and you'd better go home and study that for a while. But I would like to read some statistics that we have. I'm reading it, which I think is quite acceptable, in case you have an argument about this.

Statistics Canada reports that the incidence of low-income families in B.C. has fallen from 14.7 percent in 1985 to 13.2 percent in 1986, 13 percent in 1987 and 10.1 percent in 1988. Over the same period.... I wish the member would listen, Mr. Chairman, because they asked some specific questions.

MS. MARZARI: We can do two things at a time.

HON. MR. DUECK: I'm sorry. I didn't know. Some people can't listen and talk at the same time. The member tells me she is listening, so I accept it as fact.

Statistics Canada reports also a similar trend for unattached individuals in British Columbia. The incidence of low income among unattached individuals in British Columbia has fallen from 36.3 in 1985 to 32.9 in 1986, 31.2 in 1987 and 30.6 percent in 1988. Over the same period, the incidence of low income among unattached individuals in Canada fell from 36.9 to 33.1. We've done better than the average in Canada.

Further to that, over the past five years — and this is an interesting statistic — in British Columbia, the number of children who are living in families who require income assistance has declined by 12,000, a reduction of 14 percent. What I'm trying to say is perhaps not acceptable, but I would like to see everyone being able to make it in life on their own. This is why we have programs to help those people who can't help themselves.

[5:00]

Our main objective — I guess we'll have to go back to what I said earlier — is for the government to have programs and initiatives to assist those people on income assistance to find employment. The government insists that people on welfare should find employment that is suitable, where they can become independent. Our goal is to do exactly that.

For the record I'd like to go through some of the programs we have in place now, because apparently it's not sinking in; they're not listening. The SAR agreement: B.C. was the first province to enter into a federal-provincial agreement for social assistance recipients in 1986. This agreement currently provides a total of $56 million. Of course, half of that is paid by the province.

I went over Employment Plus just a little while ago. In the last two years the ministry has built a huge training partnership with private firms — $12 million in contracts. Through Employment Plus, there are 5,500 former recipients who have been placed in new home-job-training positions since April 1989.

Under another area in Employment Plus, the ministry is providing training for 2,500 former recipients in the tourism, forestry and environment management sectors and in education. This all helps people to get employed, because that's what it's all about: to get them back into the workforce. The total expenditure, for example, is quite significant in all these areas.

We have the enhanced earnings exemption which people can earn over and above. We have that additional 25 percent for one year after they become employed to get them through the period of getting accustomed to new employment.

We have bridging programs to help them, when they get employed, with baby-sitting, day care and transportation. Medical bills will be paid for a period of time after they get into the workforce, just to see them through that period.

[ Page 9773 ]

There was also mention that there's no day care available. We have roughly 16,000 day care places per month. As a matter of fact, that's been revised. Total day-care spaces for January 1990 would be over 25, 000, but subsidized is roughly 16,000 per month — not enough, again, but it's quite a number. When the member mentioned there is no day care available, I find 16,000 is a fair-sized number. I find it irrelevant to say there is no day care available and that this government does nothing. As a matter of fact, they make no sense at all. They aren't even speaking the truth. They're absolutely off the wall. You can go on, and I can answer the questions again and again, but I'm sorry, we're just spinning our wheels and not making any headway at all.

MR. BARNES: I certainly think we are making great progress, and I want to commend the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley, who on such short notice has been able to hone in in such a precise fashion on the essence of what this minister's responsibilities are. There couldn't be a more opportune time for us to have this minister before us, because we have seen the devastating consequences of a policy for people rigidly imposed and, as has been discussed earlier, with decisions being made arbitrarily and not having been designed realistically based on people's ability to live in dignity in this province when they don't have sufficient income to participate successfully as consumers of the goods, services and the facilities that we all like to enjoy in our free and democratic society.

I want to ask the minister to perhaps canvass some of the policies of the social assistance package available to the individual. I have raised this before, but because you say you divide the social assistance available for living allowance and shelter...

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: No, but that is the policy.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Yes. In other words, there is a maximum that could be available and if, for instance, a person is receiving $500 — just for the sake of simplicity — and 250 of those dollars are available for shelter, and that person can't find a shelter facility within that range, then of course they have to take the difference from the rest of their allowance. Therein lies a serious flaw in the system.

As the member for Surrey, the critic, was pointing out, I really think that under the Canada Assistance Plan you could, if you wished, make a decision to provide adequate allowances for shelter. Surely it is not your objective to have people end up with insufficient dollars to purchase the necessary food and other requirements because that policy is based on so much of the assistance for living allowance and so much to pay rent.

Too often people are paying practically all their income in rent. It's a general rule and generally accepted that people — even those making $20, 000 or more — shouldn't pay more than 25 percent of their income for rent or mortgages or whatever; in other words, for shelter. I think we have really turned our backs on this. We talk about the poverty line, about studies that have been done right across the country and regionally, based on the cost of living, and we come up with figures pretty close to what is necessary for a person to live in dignity.

I don't know the numbers today, but probably 150,000 or so people are on welfare. Whatever that number is, I am sure that most of them are finding that unless they are in subsidized housing under the B.C. Housing Management Commission or one of those facilities, they are having to pay far more than what we know is the maximum they should pay — the 25 to 30 percent.

Some of them are paying 50 percent; some 75 percent. In fact, some are paying the whole amount that you are making available, because they want to live in decent accommodation. They may have to share that facility with someone else and obviously share the cost.

Of course, they have the opportunity to have the extra earnings allowance which you provide, but it is restrictive. That is something else I have said in the past that I would like to see the government reconsider. There is something paranoic about your extra earnings allowance. Philosophically, it is a very cautious policy. It attempts to help those people in need, because you know they are going to have a shortfall, and you want to encourage them to get back in the workplace, to seek employment. So in a sense, the intention appears to be good, but then you are cautious and afraid that you'd better not let them earn too much, because they may become comfortable and start to be satisfied. So you cut them off, and it starts to work in reverse. You could clarify this, but as I understand it, they can earn up to $100 as the extra earnings allowance. Beyond that, they start kicking back. It cuts off of the amount they would be allowed under the assistance program.

Why not take the bold step forward and consider that there is a poverty level that we would all like to see the people on social assistance reach? I realize that there's the argument that the taxpayers can't pay every dollar needed to bring people up to the poverty level.

But you should first — on principle, if nothing else — stand up and say: "Yes, we would like to see people on social assistance have that minimum because we know that it is a figure, a level, arrived at professionally." The people involved in the research on cost of living — the resource, the price of goods and services — are saying there is an absolute minimum below which no one can fall and live in dignity in our society.

To do anything less than that is to accept that poverty is with us forever; that there is no goodwill.... There is no indication in your general approach to this program and to your ministry that you're concerned about overcoming poverty. We should be talking honestly, recognizing first of all —

[ Page 9774 ]

as you have said; I agree, you have said as much, and the ministers before you have said — that the program is not intended to be totally sufficient. But at the same time, I have never heard a minister on that side of the House, including the former minister, say: "It is our desire to make it as sufficient as possible, to try and reach that level of sufficiency, that point below which we don't want any of our citizens to fall."

This is why, when I raised this debate, I realized that this subject about poverty lines.... Everybody starts running for cover because they think they're going to end up having to subsidize the person on social assistance 100 percent of what they need in order to reach the poverty line.

But I think you could have more faith in human nature, more confidence in people's desire to do the right thing. We all pay taxes; everybody has to pay taxes. But no one knows when they're going to be up or down in the volatility of the economy and the workplace. With technological change, situations vary from fiscal year to fiscal year, from day to day. So who knows who's going to be on welfare at any point in time? Why not have a policy that reflects a genuine commitment to human potential? In other words, the policy should at least look like it intends to try and help people who want to help themselves.

The extra allowance policy is really shortsighted. It's lacking in the kind of encouragement that I'm talking about, although I think that, as I said, your Intention is to give the appearance of encouraging people, but not too much. You don't want them to be too comfortable.

What I would like to see is some kind of social contract arranged with every person so they could reach the poverty level and still be on welfare. Then you could start negotiating with the private sector to help people to earn those extra dollars. They shouldn't be penalized — you and I know that the market simply is not there to employ everyone. This is an act of faith.

If you found it to be abused, or that people were taking advantage of it, beyond a reasonable number of people who are going to take advantage of any system, then I would say: until that happens you should try it. It's never been tried.

We had the CIP a few years ago, the community involvement program for disabled persons. The government decided that in order to save the 50 percent that it was sharing on a monthly basis — which was only $50 in the first place, for these handicapped people — it wouldn't offer that program which was half-paid by the feds. There was an example of shortsightedness in terms of a fiscal policy that could have helped people help themselves.

[5:15]

Would you take note of the two points that I'm making. Shelter allowances should be sufficient to pay for the shelter, because if they don't, your policy becomes counterproductive. It makes you cut off the left hand to save the right hand. You have to take the part of the money you were going to use for food to pay for your rent. That person is in a bit of a catch-22.

You're perpetuating the problem by doing that, and there is nothing that I've heard that indicates you've got a strategy in place to improve the situation.

We talk about the elimination of poverty a lot, Mr. Chairman. And for good reason, because the symptoms that make up a poverty situation are devastating. It's not something that I can describe in every individual situation. But certainly if we have some of these people, for instance, who are spending considerable time in the lineup at the food bank — youngsters who are not getting fed until they get to school, and they have to be fed at the school because their families can't afford to give them.... Apparently there's a sufficient number of youngsters like this to concern us. These youngsters can't perform as well as they should. We should be concerned about that. We shouldn't take the view that it's the responsibility of the parents, and take a punitive attitude against the parents and condemn them — and the youngsters are still hungry.

So I think we're going to have to recognize that for various reasons not every family is able to live up to its responsibilities — some reasons being self-made and some out of their control or beyond their ability to control.

I think we are going to have to improve on our roles and responsibilities as politicians, as legislators. Believe me, there is a great need for that kind of demonstrated trust and people doing better for themselves by us trusting them a little more and giving them a little better break instead of condemning them. There are many examples of what happens when people — young people particularly — feel that no one cares about them, no one really in government or anyone in positions of authority cares enough to recognize their needs, to take them seriously, and to give them a chance to function to the best of their ability.

These are difficult topics really when we get into human behaviour and we get into the abilities of people to function in society, especially in a complex one such as ours. In a free society where people are left to self-determination to deal with most of their concerns, we say: "We don't interfere; the state has to have a hands-off approach, an arm's-length approach; it's not our place to legislate or control peoples' lives."

I'm not talking about that. What I'm saying is that we have a responsibility to provide policies that give people an opportunity in a highly competitive society where we know that those in power and those with power are using leverage to get favour. We know that in the final analysis it is the strong and those who have the connections and the means who are able to influence public policy and get the concessions, and we know those who are least able to defend themselves usually have to pay.

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

MS. MARZARI: It's always wonderful to hear a colleague speak about standards and values in Social

[ Page 9775 ]

Services and Housing, and I'd like my colleague to be able to continue his speech.

MR. BARNES: Well, I tell you, Mr. Chairman, I sure appreciate that confidence that I've just received from my colleague from Point Grey.

The beauty of this situation is that I don't have to attack the government; the government knows what I'm talking about. What we're really saying is that the government can do better, and I have said this a great many times over the years to a number of the ministers.

I still maintain that the public is looking for something extra from the people that they put in power. I'm not just talking about the economics in terms of the elusiveness of the dollars and cents. We all know that there's never enough money to go around, but let's make sure that there is equity and that there's fairness and equal opportunity with respect to the dollars that are available, with respect to the opportunities that we make available to the public in general.

Mr. Chairman, in terms of people's ability to live on the social assistance program that's available, we should start to consider who the poor people are, who the hungry people are, who the people in the food banks are, who the people are who are finding themselves displaced time in and time out as a result of high land values and exploitation in the field of housing, especially those homes where people are paying the minimum amount of rent. There are homes being sold and demolished and converted to condominiums and people with the asking price are coming in and buying them and we find communities being transformed. More and more people are being displaced.

On top of all that, there is the high pressure of commercialism, the selling of more exciting and colourful lifestyles by those who would like to take a bit more money from people who are already on very tight budgets and we put extra stress on those people who are in the marginal categories as far as their ability to live in dignity and raise their families. What ultimately happens is stress on families, family breakup, neglect of offspring, confusion as far as the direction that young people are able to go, where they are going to take themselves, how are they going to survive.

I don't have the statistics, but I don't think anyone in the Legislature would doubt that many young people today are drifters on the streets. Certainly in the greater Vancouver area they are sleeping wherever they can; they are making do the best way they can; they are generally at risk; and I think it's quite accurate to say that many of them have a rather jaded outlook, as far as their futures are concerned, and they have fallen prey to all manner of social problems, from alcohol or drugs to street prostitution, and to just general mental depression. More and more teenagers, we're finding, are committing suicide. Large numbers of youngsters are finding themselves before the courts.

The member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) was speaking just last week about the case of the youngsters who knew of the brutal slaying of one of their peers and were afraid to come forward, for various reasons. I don't suggest that I know what those reasons were, but I would suggest, Mr. Minister — and certainly to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), who was participating in that debate — that if you had the opportunity to talk to those people in the age range of 13 to 16, and did some serious listening to what they are trying to tell you about how they feel, why they really weren't coming forward, I think you'd learn something — something that we don't seem to have the means of doing in our society. We still tell youngsters: "You're a child until you grow up, and when you grow up you're on your own." But we don't help them in that process; to look forward to growing up and participating. We sort of leave them. They're just drifting. They're being entertained by whoever is willing to come up with a program and put it on television. We're going to pay for that. We are paying for that.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

This question that was asked in the Province — they asked a bunch of questions about this case of the young fellow who was slain, Shawn Tirone, 12 years of age. They say some 50 youngsters knew of his murder, yet none of them found it within themselves to talk to their parents or talk to the school or talk to the police. I'm not saying that we should condemn the youngsters. I think there is a reason why. There were six questions asked in the Province on May 18 under "Opinion: Speak No Evil." It says:

"Why would so many children keep such a macabre secret? Should parents and teachers have seen signals? Should police have been able to get the information from the children? Are today's young people desensitized to violence? Do they live in fear? Who, if anyone, is to blame — parents, teachers, kids, police?"

They don't say anything about politicians or about the commercial people who are selling all kinds of ideas beyond the means of most of us to even comprehend.

I guess we should ask the kids; they're the ones who know. I'm sure every one of those 50 kids could give their own reasons why they personally were not able to come forward. I think what they say might be very enlightening for us. I don't know how many of them are from single-parent families or how many of them have both parents who work. I don't know if any of them are neglected or are living in foster homes. I don't know who they are. But there are 50 young people who knew for weeks — perhaps months — of something as tragic as this and didn't come forward.

The question we should be asking, Mr. Minister of Social Services, is: what should we be asking ourselves if this is happening? Are we expecting something from these people? We should be asking: why should they come forward? With crime on the increase in this....

[ Page 9776 ]

We're selling lottery tickets like there is no tomorrow. We're encouraging people to get rich quick. We're doing everything we can to make them believe in myths and dreams which are unreal and unrealistic. Yet we're not asking the basic questions of why these values are failing. If these values aren't upheld and these young people don't have a sense of duty, responsibility or desire to come to the aid of this person who was tragically killed, then doesn't this ask us where we are going? I think we're missing something here. It doesn't really matter when we talk about how much more money the economy is generating if we have young people totally lost, their families breaking up and not staying together, and we don't want to address these things because we feel it's out of our purview and out of our ability to address. I don't feel very good about it, and I think that we're going to have to find the resolve to start addressing these concerns and dealing with them in a realistic way — as complex as they are.

I don't suggest it is something that was created overnight, but when I think about how it was the first year I sat in this Legislature almost 18 years ago.... We couldn't get lottery tickets. We used to get black-market tickets for the Irish Sweepstakes in those days. In fact, let's face it: in our desire to generate a little revenue for culture, sports, recreation, the arts and all those fine things to improve the life and quality of the people in this province, and because we didn't want to raise taxes, we were willing to bring in a limited version of the lotteries program. It was done in a very honest and above-board way, but we've gone a long way from 17 years ago to the point now where not only do we sell lotteries, but the lotteries we sell are collected and resold all over the world.

[5:30]

People are coming to this province because we haven't come to grips with our responsibilities to the integrity of the community, our responsibilities where the integrity of families and the institutions that are here is concerned, and our responsibilities to the people who elected us.

What I'm asking the minister, in the spirit of the dialogue that we've had here, is: could you acknowledge that the time has come for us to face the facts? The facts are that we on this side of the House have said time and time again that there is something called poverty; there's something called poor folks. They've been around for a long time. I'm sure that members on that side of the House know it as well as we on this side. The point is that they are poor, they are becoming poorer, and our policies are making even more people poor. In other words, the old adage that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer was never truer than it is today.

Are we saying that we give up, that it can't stop, that it's a trend that's inevitably on its course, that there's nothing we can do? Can we sit by and watch the food banks cry for help? We've seen an excellent example of how bad it can get when a person is hired as an executive to go out and beat the bushes, so to speak, to scare up enough money and support to keep the food bank going.... What happens when that person gets caught in some kind of political vendetta and is terminated? What happens to the food bank? The food bank doesn't survive.

It tells us how vulnerable society is. We're getting headlines in the paper saying "Please Give Money to the Food Bank, " while the government sits and says that it can't afford any more money. Do you recognize the existence of the poverty line? Do you think it means anything? Is there no recognition whatsoever that these people are starving, that they are hungry, that it is unfair? Where is the resolve to overcome this problem? Is it a problem that you recognize can be addressed and is being addressed? What constructive, aggressive programs and policies are you going to put in place to ensure that people have the hope and confidence they need, rather than this perpetuation of the despair, disillusionment and hopelessness that many of them are certainly living in?

We are going to have to address this. We're going to have to say it loud and clear. You're going to have to start stating it as a matter of political resolve. In other words, let's put up something other than rhetoric. Let's seriously begin to bring about those changes that have to be brought about — just as we are finally doing with the disposal of toxic waste; just as we're beginning to recognize that we can no longer continue to rape and exploit our natural resources without having to pay a price later; just as we're beginning to recognize that our environment is delicate and sensitive and that we are going to have to live in a more compatible way with the environment.

We're going to have to do that with each other. We're going to have to show our families that they do matter, and we're going to have to give them the resources and encourage them. Until we are doing that, I think we are being very cynical when we come up with programs such as this shelter allowance on the one side — which is, at the most, 50 percent of what it should be — forcing people to spend their food money in order to find a place to live.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. member. Under standing orders your time has expired.

MR. BARNES: This is good timing, Mr. Chairman, because I am just getting ready to wind up. I don't need any intervening speaker. I thank you for your attention. I would like to have the minister respond to some of my questions.

HON. MR. DUECK: We covered everything from the environment to.... I think we've touched on every ministry, and it's impossible for me to answer all the questions. But it was a good speech; I really enjoyed it. As a matter of fact, you went around the clock twice.

When we talk about poor people, they are difficult situations. It's difficult to talk about. It's difficult to find answers. I agree with the member for Vancouver Centre that it is difficult.

A statement the member made is that the free enterprise system acts in a laissez-faire attitude. I

[ Page 9777 ]

don't think that it relieves our responsibility in any way just because it is free enterprise or otherwise. I think that regardless of what type of system is in place we are responsible for people in the community. It's not just the provincial government; whether it is in your home, in municipal government, school trustee, hospital trustee — we are responsible.

When we talk about this unfortunate situation of the 14-year-old boy who committed this heinous crime on the 12-year-old, I agree with you. I don't think we want to point a finger at any individual or group. I think all of us are responsible. It is a sign of our society breaking down, where we are not as responsible as we should be. I'll take part of that blame as Minister of Social Services in government. More has to be done so that these situations don't occur. To have 50 kids keep a secret of that type for days and days and not feel really moved or guilty enough to go to someone and confess about this knowledge is hard to understand. I believe the responsibility is not just government, not just Social Services. It's also parents; it's also schools; it's also neighbours; it's other people you come in contact with. It's the total gamut. Everyone in society must be more responsible. I think we've moved away from that. I see many cases where society is breaking down somewhat and people are not caring for their neighbours. Shall I be my brother's keeper? I say yes, we must be our brother's keeper in many areas.

Mr. Chairman, when we talk about housing.... I just remembered that with mothers with children — where we have these entre-nous-femmes societies — we have three projects now. And we had another proposal just recently in Port Moody; it was turned down by the mayor. These are situations I run into. It's not easy. You find people who have the authority to zone or not to zone saying: "We don't want that in our community; we don't want that in this particular location." That's hard to take. I'm not pointing a finger necessarily at that individual. I find this in many communities where social housing is turned down. My own community turned down a project, and I phoned every alderman and the mayor and told them what I thought of the not-in-my-back yard attitude. We must be responsible, and that responsibility goes further than just using platitudes, as one member mentioned earlier. I don't think I'm using platitudes when I say we are responsible and must act responsibly, even when it affects our own community and our own back yard. I believe in that strongly, Mr. Chairman, and I think I practise that in my own life.

I have faith in human nature. I think the second member for Vancouver Centre said we should have faith in human nature. I have faith in human nature. I think there are some people who perhaps have lost faith in human nature, but I think we should always go back and say.... Most people, Mr. Chairman, try to be good, and given the opportunity, really do what's best for the community and poor people. Certainly I agree with that.

Talking about children, I think that was mentioned too. Over the last five years — and I think I mentioned this earlier — we have children living in family situations. Those particular cases have been reduced by 12 percent, a 14 percent reduction in that area, so we're making some headway.

Another question was asked about the shelter allowance versus GAIN and whether it should be separated. We have to separate, by mandate of the federal government.

MR. BARNES: Make it enough.

HON. MR. DUECK: That's another question.

We have to separate for CAP to work. The member also mentioned that some people spent all of their food money on shelter. I would like to know why that is so. If that is so, we will provide social housing for that individual, because that should absolutely not happen. I would like to know about cases like that so I could follow that up.

Annually the ministry, through the proper budgeting plan, reviews shelter allowances and income assistance cases, and we're doing that again this year. The ministry has proposed that the shelter allowance should be increased to at least meet the cost of the majority. In other words, housing in the last while has escalated, as we all know. The rental market has increased dramatically, so we're looking at it again so that the shelter allowance, at least in most cases, will cover the rent of those people — perhaps not 100 percent; that's just about impossible, but at least close to it. We budgeted for that. I hope to make an announcement soon.

If we paid individuals the money and let them seek the best rent, do you know what would happen? Everything would go up to that level. Being as people are, they would just escalate rent to that level, and it would not really help. So we have to have a level. That is the amount for shelter — separated — and that is the amount that is allowed to be used for shelter.

Having said that, I don't know what else. You mentioned the fact that we will always have the poor. Agreed. Our programs in the area of finding employment have been effective. They're perhaps not at the level that some people would like to see them, and perhaps not at the level that I would like to see them, but they have been effective. As a matter of fact, the majority of people on income assistance are there on a temporary basis. They come in and they go out. It's a system to assist them in that period when they fall on bad times. It's a little lift to help them in various ways. We've got all kinds of things. For example, it was mentioned that people go home and have nothing to eat. We have emergency funding. We will assist. No one should go hungry. We will assist people with transportation, with day care, with all kinds of things to get them back into the workforce.

If you say none of this is enough, it's an opinion that can be argued long and strong for many hours. I have to remind the member that that side of the House does not have the licence on caring. I think that if we weren't in this forum, we would probably agree on most issues. We all know people — perhaps

[ Page 9778 ]

neighbours, people we have come in contact with or people who were quite well off at one time and fell on hard times and now are in dire straits; I know people like that. Our hearts go out to them and we wonder how we can help them. However, the responsibility, I want to say, does not always fall on just the provincial government; it falls on everyone. We must take that as an absolute.

When you talk about children having a bad time, yes, we need counsellors; we need more assistance for these people, for the children. Incidentally, we are enhancing that program for schools. I've asked the superintendent of family and child service to look into the whole area of the incident you mentioned, because I also want to know what it is all about and why it happens. When you really look at the situation, it's easy to talk about it and not think about it deeply. But when the news item first came over the media, I know that I had some questions to ask and felt pretty sick about it. It's really a very sickening situation that this happens in our society.

[5:45]

I haven't got the answers; I don't think any of us has. But we have to inquire. We have to make an effort to try and change our society so that this does not happen. It may be a combination of things — family, teachers, not enough social workers, not enough assistance for that particular family.... I don't know the situation personally, but I want to find out, and I want to do whatever we can to correct a situation like that so it doesn't happen again.

I feel that we all have a responsibility — that includes the people on that side of the House as well as these people — and not just to bring up situations that perhaps make a bad news story, like the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), who came in waving a paper and said: "I've got some more bad news." I think it is really sad when people on that side of the House come in and say: "Oh, look. I've got some more bad news." That's not what we're here for. We want to help people, not get evidence of how much more bad news we can dig up. I certainly don't want to exploit people to that degree, and I hope that none of us in this House does that.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, maybe we can graduate now, get on to some practical decisions and do some things. If the minister really means what he says.... I think he's just confirming what he denied a little earlier when the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) said he was a caring guy, and he said: "How do you know what I am?" He gave her a rough time for talking about him personally.

I accept on face value what you just said. But at the same time, I want some action. I think it's action that we're talking about. That's what the member was talking about when she gave you examples of your decisions.

It's not good enough for us just to talk in the House about how much we care. We're talking about people's lives. We're talking about our duty to effectively bring about programs that are going to be tangibly helpful, that are going to be in evidence, that are going to be seen to be effective, and that are in fact effective.

That is really why I was hoping the minister would address my questions. He very gratuitously — and, I appreciate, even graciously —  responded to my questions in the spirit of what I was saying, but he did not address the poverty line specifically. I did not get a clear response as to whether he acknowledges that there is such a thing as a poverty line. Does he think we should be reaching it?

I did not suggest that poverty will be with us forever. What I'm saying is that poverty is here, and it has been with us forever. Do we honestly not believe that we can do something about it? If we don't, let's say so. And if we do, let's act like we are going to. That's what I meant by supporting those people by showing them some encouragement and some support for human nature and giving them the confidence and trust they need.

If a few of them cheat, we don't have to start a major police force to go out and catch a couple of people for cheating. I suggest that most people are not in there to cheat. They want to get ahead.

Mr. Chairman, in the past your government has brought in these investigators to catch people who are cheating the system. That's fine; there are always going to be cheaters. But by and large, most people are not there because they want to be there; they are there because they can't do it much better.

So why not recognize this poverty line? This is my point. When is the poverty line going to make sense? We talk about the bottom line all the time and the government's dollars and what it has money to do. What about those people? We talk about budgets. What about the budgets that we are putting these people on? There is no way they can live on those budgets, survive in dignity, look after their children and provide the minimal amenities they need in order to take care of their families.

There is something in our society we call "extracurricular activities" and "cultural excursions." These are things that people like to do, such as buying a newspaper, making a long-distance telephone call, having an ice cream cone every now and then or buying a new pair of shoes or something special just because it makes them feel good. These people can't do that.

I am saying that the poverty line is there for a reason. It isn't an extravagant line where you can go out and have a great time. It's a minimum, and most of the people on your social assistance program are at somewhere around 50 percent or 60 percent of that poverty line. They are going to be there permanently unless we have the resolve to get out of this mess.

Mr. Chairman, in winding up my remarks, I want to ask the minister just one question. He has avoided the specifics of some of the things I've been saying, but that's okay; we'll leave that as it is. I raised an issue last week on the practice of designating apartment buildings for adults only. I would like the minister, if he would, to give me his opinion about the policy of excluding people with children from adult-only facilities. I raise that because on several

[ Page 9779 ]

occasions there have been couples who have been living in these buildings for a number of years, and when the wife became pregnant and the management heard about it, they sent a letter of congratulations, wishing them well and reminding them of the policy in that particular facility of "adults only." That couple was issued an eviction notice through sending a very clear message that children were not welcome in that particular facility. Is this in keeping with the philosophy of our society and the philosophy of our concern and celebration of families? Is it something that your side of the House feels is the kind of message we want children to get?

HON. MR. DUECK: Again, we covered many subjects and I have a hard time writing them down because we go from one subject to the other and they are all very interesting and all very important.

Interjections.

HON. MR. DUECK: And all relevant, yes, no question about it.

The member is normally a very nice person and his heart is in the right place. I have no doubt about that. But you're very tall and I've got to be careful what I say.

There was mention made of sending policemen out for cheaters. I agree that most people are honourable, and we certainly don't subscribe to the notion of having a force out there checking on cheaters. Most people are honourable. However, I don't think I want my tax dollars wasted if someone is doing it deliberately. In those cases we want to know and to make sure it's corrected. But most people are fair, and I find they are very reasonable when you speak to them. So I have no problem with that.

Your last question was on seniors' or adult-only housing. I think we have to differentiate between seniors' housing and adult-only when the building was an all-purpose building. There is still such a thing as a senior complex, which is not a senior citizen home for, say, intermediate care, but a complex that was built for seniors, I have no argument with that, but I absolutely deplore any building being put up as a multipurpose building for people — and when we say people we mean people in general — and furthermore, perhaps with financing through subsidies, whether it's CMHC or even some of ours, and then what was related in that article being done: somebody being evicted because she got pregnant. I unequivocally say that I am absolutely horrified that this happens in our society. I don't know of any one of us who wasn't a child at one time, and to think that we get....

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: It's been a long time, Mr. Chairman, for the House Leader opposite and me, but we were at one time children. My father reminds me of this every once in a while, and still treats me as such. He's 91.

1 think I have to go back again. The afternoon has been spent on explaining that this government does nothing, and: why don't we have some programs in place to help the poor people? Mr. Chairman, I want to say that we have done many, many things — I went over some of them just a few minutes ago — and we're continuing to look at areas where we can improve the system to help people get off the welfare roll. That is our aim and our goal. I think we both agree on that.

We get credit, for example, from the Child Welfare League of America. They look at our programs and say: "You are so far ahead of our programs in the United States that we would like to see how we can incorporate some of these programs into our system." We get compliments from provinces across Canada, saying we have good programs. That doesn't put us at ease into thinking we can relax now — not at all. We can still improve in many areas. We're constantly looking at areas where we can improve and help people get off income assistance and back into the workforce, where they have some self-worth and dignity. That's where it's at. That's what we're trying to do.

Mr. Chairman, it's getting late in the day, and I would 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. RICHMOND: Just before adjourning, I would remind all those on Public Accounts that the select standing committee meets tomorrow at 8 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.