[ Page 9895 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 39). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 9895

Forest Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 35). Hon. Mr. Richmond

Introduction and first reading –– 9895

Tabling Documents –– 9896

Oral Questions

Abortion services. Ms. Marzari –– 9896

Travel expenses. Mr. Clark –– 9896

Alleged abuses of medical system. Mr. Perry –– 9897

Teaching excellence awards program. Mr. Peterson –– 9897

Chilcotin forest industry. Mr. Zirnhelt –– 9897

Presenting Petitions –– 9898

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

(Hon. Mr. Dueck)

On vote 59: minister's office –– 9898

Ms. Smallwood

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Rabbitt

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Ms. Marzari

Ms. Cull

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we have in the House two gentlemen from down under — from the Commonwealth of Australia. These two gentlemen are meeting with Ron Willems of our ministry to learn more about our income assistance division. They have been taken on a tour of one of our income assistance offices to see how everything is run and to perhaps take some information back to their respective offices.

With us today is Mr. Brian Wraith, national manager, field services. He is one of the three deputy level officers assisting a secretary and the executive management of the department. He is directly responsible for service delivery operations. He recently oversaw the development and implementation of the department's devolved area office network. Mr. Wraith has been head of the department's administrations in the states of Victoria, Western Australia and Northern Territory.

Mr. John Powlay is the manager of the southeast area, which encompasses some of the southern metropolitan offices of Sydney and coastal Wollongong in New South Wales. Would this House please make them welcome.

I would like to make one more introduction. I see in the gallery today Dr. John Anderson and some of his colleagues. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. PERRY: I'm rising to introduce a number of physicians in the public gallery who have attended a study session here in Victoria this morning, followed by an address by some members of the Legislature and a question session in front of the Legislature.

I'll spare the House the time it would take to introduce all of these people, and simply introduce Dr. John Anderson, president of the B.C. Medical Association, and Dr. John McCaw, president of the Victoria Medical Society, on behalf of doctors who are here today all the way from Oak Bay to Comox. Will the House please make them welcome.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker and colleagues, in the galleries today are two special guests of mine, Dr. and Mrs. Ed Hauptmann — Ed is president of the Association of Professional Engineers of B.C. — and Mr. and Mrs. Harry Gray. Mr. Gray is the managing director of the association. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, it's not often that students from Surge Narrows Elementary have an opportunity to attend the Legislature. While it may be a little unusual I'd like to read into the record the names of a number of students, teachers and parents who are here with us this afternoon. They are Eileen O'Reilly, George Mann, Gary Gagnon, Gail Johnson, Jim Chaichin, Aaron Bruce, Marci Flager, Howie Brown, Jenny Stoppard and Marney Sewell. I'd ask all members of the House to make these people very welcome.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to offer a special welcome to a very special friend of mine and of the province of British Columbia. Fr. Nunzio Defoe is in the precincts. Would the House make him especially welcome.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery is a good friend of mine and fellow Rotarian from the Langley Central Rotary Club. Would the House please join me in welcoming Dr. Peter Stockdill.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a member of your class, the class of '75. Would the House please welcome Howard Lloyd.

MR. SPEAKER: An ever-diminishing group.

MR. BARNES: In the galleries are about 70 students from Britannia Secondary School in the riding of Vancouver Centre. I'd like the House to welcome these students, along with Mr. Walker, one of the teachers, Mr. Gordon-Hansen — not this one — Mr. Terry Lanning and Mr. Ed MacAulay. On behalf of the Leader of the Opposition and myself, I'd like the House to join us in making them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

TAXATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This bill contains a number of amendments to a number of taxation statutes, including the Mining Tax Act, the Motor Fuel Tax Act, the Property Purchase Tax Act, the Social Service Tax Act and the Tobacco Tax Act.

These amendments contain many of what we bean-counters call housekeeping adjustments and a few other initiatives which we can get into during second reading and committee stages.

Bill 39 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.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. Mr. Richmond presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Forest Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the Forest Amendment Act, 1990, is Bill 35. It amends the Forest Act to make spiking of timber an offence. It addresses the concerns of many workers in our forest industry that their health and even their lives are endangered by the actions of a few individuals who hope to save

[ Page 9896 ]

a few trees with such actions. The bill makes it an offence to spike timber, including all trees, whether living or dead, standing or fallen.

Bill 35 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. Fraser tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Solicitor-General for the period ending March 31, 1989.

Oral Questions

ABORTION SERVICES

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier. Today in the federal House an abortion bill was passed which basically and tragically removes choice from women. In this province the Canadian federation of women physicians, B.C. branch, has expressed concern that doctors will be withdrawing their services from abortion because of fear of intimidation and harassment. I'm asking you, Mr. Premier, what position will you take now that this bill has gone through, now that women and their doctors might be deemed criminal, to ensure that abortion services will be made available with our hospitals, in every hospital equally, across this province?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised at the question. Obviously we all know that there are various views on this bill, which is why it was so close in the House, I guess. All political parties had varying views on it. The vote was almost even. So you can well appreciate it was very split.

I'm surprised at the member's question. Is she expecting something other than the law to be the law? If we don't like the law, then obviously you can work towards changing it through your Members of Parliament. You may have a difficult time doing that, because most of them are NDP, and they don't respond very well. But certainly that opportunity is available to everyone.

MS. MARZARI: The Premier did not understand my question, Mr. Speaker. What is the Premier going to do with hospital boards in this province? Abortion services might well be cut back. How are you going to make them available according to the law of this land across this province?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, again there is no problem, of course, in that we all have to abide with the law. As far as how they deal with these situations, that's been a decision for the hospitals. The Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen) has dealt with hospitals, and I intend to keep it that way. This is for the Minister of Health, and he can work with these local boards.

TRAVEL EXPENSES

MR. CLARK: A question to the Minister of Finance. He's had a day to think about this, and I wonder if he could answer this question. Does the government have a policy with respect to private companies that supply equipment or services to the government paying for the expenses of cabinet ministers and deputies on official government travel?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The fact of the matter is that we've had a system in place to monitor many expenditures as it affects officials of government. It has been in place for many years, and it has had many refinements over the years, not the least of which is the process by which members can examine expenditures in Public Accounts. I know the members opposite are well familiar with that system, availing themselves of it at every opportunity. So quite clearly there's a system in place, and quite clearly it works effectively.

[2:15]

MR. CLARK: I'd like to quote the comptroller-general's report that the minister received a few days ago. Mr. Dubas and his wife availed themselves of the many meals provided by Siemens and other host organizations. He has claimed full-day meal allowances for the entire 17 days he was on travel status. The question is: did the Minister of Health and his wife avail themselves of the many meals provided by Siemens and other host organizations?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: As I mentioned yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the report is a confidential document — confidential in the interests of the employee or ex-employee and in the interests of preserving the integrity of the justice system, so that natural justice can be followed if individuals named have a desire to further their position and explain and develop their position through the long-established judicial process.

It is for that reason — and it has been a longstanding, valid reason — that the integrity of the system be protected, and that reports dealing with those matters that might well be the subject of subsequent options of those individuals named should be held in confidence until that matter is resolved.

The member is fully aware of the process, and I trust he knows full well that further discussion on the issue as it relates to the ex-employee would be inappropriate at this point in time, as I said yesterday. I developed that theme at length yesterday, and I thought that the member opposite clearly understood it. It is obvious from his question today that he doesn't, and that's unfortunate.

In my judgment, Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't be playing political games with the reputation of individuals. They should have every option that the system allows them to ensure that their interests are protected to the maximum. We should not be using this House or these opportunities to destroy the system.

[ Page 9897 ]

A second question was put, if I understood it, which related to the role of the minister. In that respect, I will refer any such questions to the minister. I want to make it very clear to the hon. member that this side of the House will not disclose the details of that report as it relates to the employee until that person has developed the options that might be available to him or that he may choose to develop in the fullness of time.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister doesn't have the option to direct questions. The Chair is the only one with the option to direct the question. A question cannot be directed to the minister about an issue that took place during the time the minister was involved in a previous portfolio.

MR. CLARK: I have a question to the Minister of Finance. I'd like to remind the minister that the use or abuse of public money is the public's business. These kinds of things ought rightly to be discussed in this House. Does the government have a policy with respect to entertainment expenses of ministers and their deputies while on government business — say, for example, theatre tickets?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: As I mentioned in my previous answer, there is a policy. It has been developed over the years. Members of both sides of the House have contributed to its formulation, and it is longstanding and acknowledged. The hon. member knows the answer to the question before he puts it.

MR. CLARK: Will the minister confirm that neither Mr. Dubas nor his wife paid for tickets to the matinee performance of Les Misérables in London, England; rather, they were obtained from the agent-general of British Columbia?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I have said repeatedly that I will not discuss the contents of a confidential document until the individual named in that document has had every opportunity to deal with the data. That opportunity is one which, of necessity, requires time to be explored and examined. I am unable to speed that process up, but in my judgment it is critically important that all of us on both sides of the House understand that individuals who are so affected must have the right and protection of the law. I think that to suggest otherwise, hon. member, is totally inappropriate.

The fact is that I cannot and should not discuss publicly the contents of that confidential document at this point in time; and I will not.

ALLEGED ABUSES OF MEDICAL SYSTEM

MR. PERRY: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. When the minister met with editors and reporters from the Vancouver Sun last month, he spoke about doctors and patients abusing the medical system, citing the case of a woman whom he claimed had her blood pressure checked by her doctor every day. The Minister of Finance also said there was nothing wrong with that woman; she was just lonely. Has the minister reported this situation to the joint government-BCMA patterns-of-practice committee for investigation?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I can advise the hon. member that the BCMA is familiar with the situation and aware of the allegation.

MR. PERRY: Supplementary. The minister is well aware that he has been challenged to substantiate his assertion and that it would be his responsibility as a public official responsible for public funds to bring forward any allegation to that committee, which accepts questions from any competent observer in the province. Has the minister fulfilled his responsibility, Mr. Speaker?

TEACHING EXCELLENCE AWARDS PROGRAM

MR. PETERSON: To the Minister of Education. I have a question about the teaching excellence awards program announced by his ministry on April 24, in direct response to the Royal Commission on Education. I understand that the B.C. Teachers' Federation has refused to join with the ministry in celebrating excellence in teaching. Could the minister please explain why the BCTF has refused to participate?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The Sullivan royal commission recommended that we take steps to enhance the teaching profession and recognize the commitment of some of the professionals in the teaching profession. We developed a plan to recognize 100 to 110 teachers for their excellence — at least one in each district, and in increasing numbers in some of the larger districts. That was discussed at a special committee of representatives involving superintendents, principals, the BCTF, school trustees and others at the Education Advisory Council. These people basically agreed that there should be something done to recognize excellence in teaching, as excellence is acknowledged and recognized in any profession.

However, because some of those people said that it would be better if the BCTF were involved in the process, somehow or other, the BCTF has translated that into saying all of the people at the meeting were against the presentation of these awards. Yet I have every indication that they recognized it as — and I think it should be — an opportunity to recognize excellence in teaching, as determined at the district level. As to why the B.C. Teachers' Federation refuses to recognize them, I don't really know, other than that they're working on the common denominator. Their attitude seems to be that the only way you can recognize excellence in teaching is everyone or nobody.

CHILCOTIN FOREST INDUSTRY

MR. ZIRNHELT: I have a question for the Minister of Native Affairs. Yesterday the Minister of Forests

[ Page 9898 ]

(Hon. Mr. Richmond) told this House that his ministry struck a committee to work with a very few militant native Indians, as he calls them, who are responsible for these protests. Since the Chilcotin chiefs know nothing about such an initiative, could the minister please advise this House who is on this committee and what it has done to this point?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I think probably it would be wiser to ask the question of the Minister of Forests.

MR. ZIRNHELT: A supplementary to the Minister of Native Affairs. Events during this last weekend make it clear that the people of the Cariboo know the only way to resolve the threats of blockades and so on is to get down to negotiations on native land claims. Now that the native people of the Chilcotin have agreed to hold off on these blockades, will the minister advise the House whether he and his cabinet colleagues have decided to get their heads out of the sand and their butts to the table?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: First of all, I want to recognize that we do believe the situation is a serious one; however, the position the cabinet members take at the table— whether it be in relationship to their heads or their butts — is something we will deal with and is one for which we don't particularly need any advice from the member for Cariboo.

Presenting Petitions

MR. PERRY: I rise to present a petition that was handed to me a few moments ago on the steps of the Legislature, which is signed by about 350 British Columbia physicians and surgeons and states the following: "We, the undersigned, demand that the current fee dispute between the government of British Columbia and the British Columbia Medical Association be referred to neutral binding arbitration as provided under the Canada Health Act."

Although the sentiments are genuine, I am uncertain as to the correctness of the petition's form, and I therefore request leave to submit it to the Clerks for a ruling.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

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

MS. SMALLWOOD: I asked several questions of the minister, and I more or less assumed that he would have some kind of statement in opening today on the questions I asked of him, although I see he is busy, perhaps on business other than his estimates.

A question to the minister: have you been able to provide some of the information I requested of you at the end of last session?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Surrey Guildford-Whalley continues.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm disappointed that the minister hasn't got some answers for me, but I'll go on to another topic while, I hope, he digs up some information concerning children in care in this province.

What I wanted to talk about today and hopefully get some answers on is the infant development program that has just closed down in the riding of the member for Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale (Mr. Reid). This program provides support for some 150 to 190 families with infants needing assistance from the province. For some time there were negotiations between the Health Sciences Association and the umbrella group that was providing this program for the ministry. There was a strike situation, and I was reluctant to get involved until all avenues had been exhausted. But it would seem that the decision has been made today to lay off the workers and close down the program altogether.

[2:30]

I'd like to read into the record a letter I just had faxed to me from one of the parents, and I think the minister will agree with me that it is very touching and reflective of the work that this program provides. The letter is written by Elaine Diamond, who says that she is writing to express her concerns about the infant development workers' strike.

"Nolen Diamond was born August 24, 1988, at 24 weeks' gestation, and weighed one pound 13 ounces. The second day the doctors told my husband and I that it was doubtful that he would make it through the night, due to the high level of potassium in his system. We had him baptized that night and only left his side when it was requested by the doctors.

"He's our miracle baby. The following five months were like a roller-coaster of emotions, never knowing what was going to happen next — two steps forward and five steps back. Nolen is now 21 months old — corrected age of 17 months in developmental stage — and weighs 24 pounds.

"After arriving home with him almost eight pounds in January 1989, it was a very difficult adjustment for the whole family. Nolen also has a brother aged 14 years and a sister almost four.

"After Nolen's being looked after by top specialists and nurses in the special-care nursery at Children's for five months, it was a concern whether we could handle a baby that had been through so much. Then the infant development worker called me to say that she was coming to see Nolen. We were relieved to know that we would get assistance at home for some of his problems. Marianne Moseley came to the house to assess Nolen's development so far and tell us what the program could do for Nolen.

[ Page 9899 ]

"Nolen would go stiff when picked up. He'd arch his back, so we could hardly handle him. This apparently is quite typical of a baby that has spent such a long time in an incubator on his back, because of the amount of equipment that was attached to him.

"It has been over a year that the infant development program has been an asset to the growth and development of our miracle son. Without the dedication of Marianne and parent support for us, we would still be struggling. This program has to continue. It's very important to Nolen's growth."

She goes on to talk about her daughter and says that had this program been in place when her daughter was born, they wouldn't have had to suffer trying to bring her up. The daughter has mild cerebral palsy.

The fact is that because of the way this ministry has support programs like this set up, at arm's length, these programs are very vulnerable. My understanding is that we now have about 190 families completely without this very support. I would like the minister to comment on what plans have been made to make certain that there will be support in our catchment region for families with developmentally delayed children.

HON. MR. DUECK: You raise, of course, a very sad story. Any time children are involved, especially sick children, it touches everyone on both sides of the House.

I have to tell you, though, that we contract services of those kinds of societies, as we did in this case. There was a labour problem. We don't get involved in a labour dispute. It's strictly between the employee and the employer, the same as it would be if our employees went on strike.

However, we have in the contract a 30-days' notice clause. We did offer increased remuneration to these people. We did offer an increase, but apparently it was not acceptable. Therefore they have indicated that they will close this service, if they have not already done so.

But we will provide alternate care. We will not see those people out on a limb, without service. We will provide services to compensate, or to replace, the services that we lose if we lose them

MS. SMALLWOOD: The program has been shut down; the employees have been laid off. I want to be able to aid these parents in some way. They're feeling very frightened. Many of them have to deal with considerable problems with their children and need this kind of ongoing, daily support. So I'd like to be able to advise those parents as to whom they can approach to take advantage of the commitment you've just made.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, the information I have is that the contract expires June 30. If I'm wrong, I haven't got that information as yet. However, I can assure the member that we will make every effort to provide alternative services for those people.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman, I realize that the Premier has been absent for a while, but this is a very serious issue that 190 parents and children are interested in. I think the Premier calling the vote before the minister has an opportunity to answer is in the poorest possible taste.

I would like to again stress the fact that this program has been shut down, whether the contract runs out at the end of the month or not. They have laid off the employees, and these families want answers now.

If you are unable to give us a local person, the families will be contacting your office for some answers, Mr. Minister, and I'm hoping that with this notice, you'll be a little better prepared to help them deal with the needs of their children.

I'll go on from here to talk a little bit more about some of the questions that I raised with the minister at the end of last session. This is with regard to children in the care of the ministry. I asked yesterday whether you could provide information with regard to the number of foster homes that a child in care can expect to live in, the number of social workers that that child can expect to interface with during their stay with the ministry and basic questions with regard to the quality of life that the kids in care can expect.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley was critical of my calling for the vote on this particular topic. Frankly, I have the minister sitting behind me so I wasn't able to see whether he was getting up or not to answer the question. I'd just like to speak to this for a moment.

It seems to me that we're here to do the people's business. If it's wrong to try and move on the people's business, then I've missed something somewhere. I thought perhaps we might attempt to move through all these debates in order that other things might be attended to as well. If you don't believe that, then obviously, like the Leader of the Opposition, you're never here. I'm always here unless I'm called away on something very urgent. I'm not going around the province politicking at the people's expense. So any remarks about my not having been here, I would refer you back to the records and you'll see that I miss very, very few days.

I believe in the process enough that I'm not like the Leader of the Opposition, traveling around the province, politicking, attending lunches and teas at the people's expense.

Thank you for that opportunity which you have given me just now. And furthermore, in speaking to these estimates.... I have been in the Ministry of Social Services for a time, and I came in at a very difficult time. I came in immediately after the NDP had occupied the ministry between '72 and '75, and I'll tell you there's nothing in my life that I can recall which was more challenging than following the NDP after their mismanagement of social services in this province.

[ Page 9900 ]

It was the greatest disaster that ever was. People were feeling terribly insecure, because they saw money falling off the back of a truck. They were attempting to hand it out every which way; it didn't matter.

Just prior to my becoming Minister of Social Services In 1975, I was the mayor in Surrey, I can remember how there used to be young people traveling through, stopping at every welfare office all the way through — from when they crossed into B.C. until they left it again. It was a freebie at the people's expense.

But most importantly, good programs — such as were subsequently introduced by me when I was minister and which have subsequently been introduced by following Social Credit ministers — were being denied people because of the horrendous waste during the NDP years. Good programs — like the infant development program that you make reference to and that was introduced by Social Credit, and many other good social programs introduced by Social Credit — could not be available during those NDP years, because of the horrendous, shameful, criminal waste that was happening during those years.

We will remind the people time and time again....

MR. WILLIAMS: Point of order. The reference to criminality is not acceptable, Mr. Chairman. You might rule on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am sure the Premier would withdraw that reference.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I agree, and I withdraw that.

But, Mr. Minister, I commend you and your hardworking staff. You have an excellent ministry, and they have a very difficult task in working with very difficult problems. I commend the ministry for the work it's doing, and I stand here only to encourage you to continue the good job of managing on behalf of the people of the province the social services programs for those in need. As long as they're managed well — such as Social Credit has consistently done — I am sure that we will see these programs available for many more years to come.

Mr. Chairman, I did not want this to be partisan. I didn't want to get up and talk of the great job Social Credit has done and the terrible experience during the NDP years. I didn't want to say that. But when the member for Whalley-Guildford stands up and says, "Oh, the Premier is back, and he hasn't been here much, " I take exception to that.

Because I am sitting directly across from where once every 10 days or 12 or 15 days, I forget what, there is a chair filled by the leader of the Opposition, so I am constantly being reminded of his absence in this House. I am here to see it, and for this member to try and throw it onto me.... Her leader's absence, of which I am sure she is very much ashamed.... I am sure that you leave here every day and you are much ashamed of that. To try and deflect it by throwing it on the Premier is terribly unfair, and I would ask that this member withdraw that comment. Failing that, she should consider a resignation.

[2:45]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I am so glad to hear the Premier's contributions. I would like to share a little bit more about this government's record and in particular this Premier's participation in the issue of social services.

I would like to remind the House of a couple of quotes. The Premier said, when he was talking about women on welfare, that if we can somehow get them to know Jesus Christ — if we can help them to get involved in religion, in worshipping — then they will be much happier and their problems will be resolved much quicker.

The Premier on another occasion said that if one of these single mothers on welfare finds herself pregnant with an unwanted child, she could find relief by going to any one of our freestanding churches and ridding herself of her un-Christian feelings of depression. "More things are wrought by prayer than the NDP could dream of." That's the contribution that you bring to the system of support and assistance to children and families in this province.

You talk about the comparison between the years of Social Credit and the years of NDP in this particular area. Well, I'd like you to check the numbers, Mr. Premier, because there are more people on welfare by population now than there were during the NDP government in '72-75. You've got a lot to account for with your mean-spirited, narrow view. Calling the question, when we are trying to deal with the needs of children and families in this province, is not appropriate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please debate through the Chair, hon. member.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If the Premier would like to respond, I'll give him that opportunity. Come on.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I didn't know that we would draw comments into this debate that might have been made at various meetings. Yes, the comment you made reference to was made, but perhaps not quite as you say it, because you tend to take things out of context, which we have become accustomed to with the NDP. There tends to be a degree of dishonesty in some of these statements when they're taken out of context. We know about that, and we won't quarrel with that point.

But yes, you're quite right that I do not fear going to — as was the case in the event of which you quote — a Christian prayer breakfast meeting. I don't have too much trouble with that, because I frankly don't believe that it's fair to discriminate against any particular group or any particular people, whether they are a large part or a small part of the population, and whether they're powerful or weak in numbers.

[ Page 9901 ]

I think it's fair that we treat them equitably, and that we address all groups without fear or favour, and I have done so consistently.

You, hon. member and others in the NDP group, somehow have this idea that when anyone addresses a Christian group, this is in some way offensive, antisocial or anti what we ought to be doing, and that this is a bad reflection on the individual or on this particular party, which happens to believe that we must duly and fairly recognize all groups and religions.

You take exception — I know the hon. member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley in particular has mentioned this a lot of times, but she's not alone on the NDP side — to anything Christian. If it's Christian, you tend to somehow label it, and this is what you've done again. You're consistently doing this, and I think that's totally unfair. Frankly, I despise that attitude.

No, I'm not.... I want to finish. You want me to sit down, but I'd like to finish.

I'd like to repeat that this ministry is not only in the business of providing welfare to people. Certainly there are those in our society who need the help. I don't think we should worry so much about the numbers as getting the help to where it is deserved and needed. If the ministry— as they've certainly done from time to time — reviews the programs in order to see if there might be those who are not deserving and ought to be out working or looking for employment.... If they have a process of sorting this through in order to make sure that the help goes mostly — and more if need be and can be — to those who are deserving, that's healthy; that's good. That's accountability, and that's what keeps your programs intact, Mr. Minister.

That's what says to British Columbians that they're dealing with the whole Social Services program, including welfare, in a responsible manner. Therefore we can feel secure with this ministry, this minister and this government, and that's good.

I reiterate that there's more to Social Services than welfare. There are many wonderful social programs being provided through this ministry. Mr. Chairman, I'm proud of those programs. I think a part of the Ministry of Social Services is also to reach out to groups and people and to determine — perhaps through this reaching-out process — what the needs are, or how we might assist, because we're trying to make the community, the province and society in general a better place, in that we care for people.

Again, I take exception to you singling out a statement out of context, given to a Christian group and therefore discriminating indirectly — as I've heard so often — against these Christian groups.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Once again the Premier doesn't seem to be on topic. The issue is not the group he was approaching, but a matter of a remedy to poverty in this province and whether or not, as the Premier would indicate, prayer is the way out. I would suggest that your Ministry of Social Services has— and indeed you as the first minister of the province have — a direct responsibility to the families that we're talking about here. I would remind the Premier again that it was your calling of the question, when we are trying to get some answers to the provision of programs in this province, that created this exchange in the first place.

I'd like to also remind the Premier — when he talks about quotes out of context — of a couple of other quotes where the minister referred to the good programs that your government is providing at a time last year when your Ministry of Social Services cut back $50 to women on welfare and single parents. Your comments were that this is a challenge or an opportunity for those families.

At another time you said.... This was to do with the $50 welfare cut. Again, this was at a prayer meeting. You might like to take that out of context if you like. You said that they could turn to Christ, and that was for free. You further said — this is to do with single welfare moms and your strengthening-the-family program — that this is as much a part of strengthening families as anything else that we have done. If your view of providing support and assistance to families, in particular single mothers, is to cut welfare as an encouragement to get back to work, as you say, then I would suggest to you, sir, that your policies — if indeed they are reflected in your government — are wrong-minded and cruel.

I'd like to go on to the Minister of Social Services and ask him if he does have the numbers I requested of him at the end of last session.

HON. MR. DUECK: There's been so much ground covered, I'm not quite sure where we left off and where we should start.

You mentioned that the income assistance roll has increased. I have to tell you that it has dramatically decreased, at least the figures I have from 1985 to 1990. I will just get this into the record if you don't mind: single men, a decrease of 31.2 percent; single women, 13.2 percent; couples, 39.6 percent; two-parent families, 45.8 percent; and one-parent families, 1.7 percent. That is the decrease in income assistance clients.

You also mentioned foster parents, how often children moved, and how many are placed with foster parents or in care of the provincial government. Since you were involved in this type of work, it should be no news to you, but I will put it on the record: the primary purpose and the objective of the ministry is and always has been, I understand — even in the years the opposition was in power — to return foster children to their own families as soon as reasonably possible.

Most foster children in our care experience only one foster home. I want this very clear for the record. In 1989-90, 97 percent of all children discharged from care had experienced only one foster placement. Of these children, 71 percent had been in care for less than one year.

Policy provides that every child in our care must have an approved life plan; in other words, a plan of what we expect to happen, the time for placement

[ Page 9902 ]

and where the child will be placed. These children tend to remain in care and require life-skills training as well as community supports to reach independence. That is our objective. We believe in this. We want to be sure that this happens. It's not always perfect, and I think I've mentioned it in many other areas, but it is certainly our objective and we are very conscientious about it.

Even though the population of children in the province is increasing, the number of children in care is dropping. I want you to understand that. This is the first time these trends have diverged in over 25 years. We may not be doing everything correctly, and I am the first one to admit that, but certainly you must say it is going in the right direction.

Since 1972, the child-in-care population has decreased 40 percent. More importantly, it has decreased relative to the provincial child population. In 1972, some 10,274 children were in care; by 1990 the number had declined to 6,224. Furthermore, children now remain in care for shorter periods of time; 71.2 percent are returned home within nine months. I think that is good; not necessarily for the government, but for those families and children. Really, that's our objective; not to find fault with the system and run with a piece of paper and say: "Oh gosh, goody. I just found some bad news." That's what bothers me. It's not the care....

[3:00]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That's the only way she operates.

HON. MR. DUECK: I'm not saying it personally. I don't mean this personally at all, but very often when the people on that side have a bad news story, they come and say with glee: "I found something. It's bad; please listen." Terrible. Here's some good news. Now shouldn't we all be happy? Should you not be getting up and saying: "Thank God we are looking after people"?

HON. MR. BRUMMET No, that would be prayer. She's against that.

HON. MR. DUECK: No. Be serious now.

The impact of the decrease, in my opinion, is due to the services that are provided by Social Services — no question about it. We have many dedicated, conscientious people who don't just work for the Ministry of Social Services because they think it is a great place to work — they probably do; they probably don't — but because they feel a certain commitment, a certain urge to work with people in distress and with children.

When I travel around the province and talk to some of these people, I am always amazed at the commitment that they have, the work that they do and how they care for people in distress.

MR. G. HANSON: I would like to shift the topic back to housing. I want to make a few comments and specific recommendations, because I gather there has been some reference to lands that could be of assistance in my own community here in Victoria.

There's something obscene, really, about a housing crisis situation in a city — taking James Bay, for example, which is in crisis itself, and where the 0.2 percent vacancy rate is the lowest in the city — and having large tracts of parking lots under provincial jurisdiction in the precinct that have been sitting dormant for years.

As he is responsible for housing, I would like to know what the minister has done in consultation with the Provincial Secretary — who I understand would be responsible for the precinct — about some of those areas which are presently just acres and acres of parking lots in the Legislative precinct in James Bay. What has he suggested to his colleagues regarding making some of that available for mixed-use housing?

The situation we're having.... Let me use James Bay as an example. Two full classrooms of children have been lost in the last two years in James Bay. What is occurring is a conversion situation where seniors are moving in. Developers are creating expensive seniors' condominiums and so on, and the families that provide the life in the community, the vigour and overall health of a neighbourhood, are gradually diminishing. So it must be stopped.

It is apparent to anyone going up Menzies and along Michigan or Superior that there are tracts of provincial land. The city has asked to work in consultation with the province to have mixed uses of those properties.

Currently there are parking agreements for government employees, and so on. I have discussed that with union officials who said they would be quite willing to work that situation out amicably, because they recognize it is totally unacceptable for people not to have a place to live, and to have hundreds of vehicles sitting on precious land in neighbourhoods that could be utilized and developed properly for families, mixed uses for seniors, co-op housing and so on in James Bay.

In a draft policy for the city issued April 17, 1990 - "James Bay 1990" - there is a series of objectives around housing. I would like to read them to the minister:

"To provide a variety of good-quality housing at various costs to meet the needs of existing and future residents; to conserve an established family housing area within the neighbourhood; to maintain family housing levels at or greater than the 1986 levels; to encourage relocation of older housing from redevelopment sites to appropriate infill areas, where practicable, to sustain the existing family housing stock; to support public and private housing initiatives for housing the elderly, handicapped, disadvantaged and needy; to encourage a population mix which reinforces the use of existing public facilities such as schools, parks and utility services; to encourage residents to improve deteriorating homes; to encourage a visual harmony of form and scale between new apartment buildings and adjacent single-family-style units; to encourage high design standards for new residential developments; to permit small-lot infill development for single-family and duplex units

[ Page 9903 ]

where appropriate, pursuant to the rezoning process; to seek to establish incentives or cost-sharing programs for restoration, rehabilitation and revitalization of heritage clusters, including streetscapes — for example, private front-yard areas, fencing, boulevard landscaping and street lighting; and to permit bed-and-breakfast establishments as home occupations or, alternatively, as transient occupation development pursuant to the rezoning process and according to established city policy."

I think the objectives outlined here, in consultation with the community.... The community has its own James Bay–authored plan that they're trying to develop for the kind of community that they want to develop there. The province holds so much of this land. To have the greatest crisis in an area where the province is a dominant landlord.... The federal government is a major player, but they're a major player along the foreshore, deep-sea-port, industrial zoned land and so on, around Ogden Point.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: Yes, they have other properties as well.

But the time has come. Those properties have been sitting there for 15 years. If you're not going to do it, we're going to do it. But you might as well get things started, because we intend to do it. We intend to have a mix.

Clearly the province has interests in terms of Victoria as the seat of government. There may be allocations required for growth for administrative purposes; but at the same time, there's no reason why there couldn't be plans in place for a mix of things, to make it a vital.... We don't want everyone commuting out of an office. Perhaps there could be some residences located right in government buildings There's no reason why housing couldn't be an inherent part of government development, as a way of offsetting costs and so on.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the minister that this crisis we have is no more apparent than in the neighbourhood of James Bay, where the province particularly now has these large tracts that are used as parking lots. The government employees involved that have parking and so on have indicated they would be more than willing to work out some mutually agreeable solution to allow for housing to be created. I'm not talking about the $350,000 or $450,000 condominium; I'm talking about affordable mixed housing for families that can provide a vigorous, healthy community.

Again I say a mix; I'm referring to age mixes and income mixes. Allow the province to protect its own interest in terms of guaranteeing future needs for public service and public activity. But properly zoned. Those tracts provide a tremendous opportunity to zone with some creativity, to have the kind of housing that could insulate this community from the troughs and peaks of housing chaos we've experienced here. Young families, single parents, middle-income earners, pensioners, and so on, are really in crisis, and the only way, as the minister has pointed out in this House.... We must have supply; we must have more stock.

The province has those lands. They've been stored and protected for a time, and the time is right.

I'd like to ask the minister if he would consider working with the city. The city has asked to work with the province on this, and has had no response. I checked on that today. They have made initiatives, and requested.... Whether they're dealing with the Provincial Secretary in the precincts or with the minister responsible for housing.... I would like to ask, on behalf of the people within my constituency who are desperate for housing: would the minister consider opening up a planning process, in consultation with the city, to make some of those hectares of land available for mixed housing? Not expensive, top-of-the-line condominiums — we've got enough of that happening on its own. The leadership that's required is to put in place zoning regulations and funding, and working with the federal government — CMHC and so on, co-op housing — to provide a beautiful, enhanced neighbourhood, to meet the objectives that I outlined from this planning report.

Would the minister respond?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, that is the first positive, constructive report I've heard from that side since my estimates started. I agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying. I'm only too willing to work with the city. I've never heard from them. Where that information is I don't know.

That aside — I don't want to be negative on this — that is the approach that I've asked for, and that's the approach I've been talking about. Let's do it together, all of us, wherever we can. Good points you made, and I think it's absolutely valid. And we are working on that. As a matter of fact, I've been in this ministry — what? — four months, five months, and that's exactly the tack I've been taking. Why have we got these vacant lands? I've written a letter to every Crown corporation, to schools if they've got vacant lands, to churches. I met with some clergy the other day, and they are identifying some church property they may have that's excess.

AN HON. MEMBER: Christian?

HON. MR. DUECK: Various churches. It's an interministry organization or committee.

We're even looking at SkyTrain stations, where we perhaps could get the air rights and build units above that. We're thinking about Crown land and BCBC land. We have a bit of a problem with some of them, because they're very protective of what they own, but I think in these times, we're insisting that they release them.

I've got authority from cabinet to go and identify these lands, then see if we can come to some resolution on how we can use them. So I cannot argue with the comments you made. As a matter of fact, I am most pleased. It's not going to happen overnight, but what you're saying is true: it should have perhaps been done a year earlier or the process started a year

[ Page 9904 ]

earlier. The crisis wasn't as great as it is now, although we started with a lot of these programs then. But we're just coming now into a situation where some of these things are happening.

Yes, I agree with you; I can't find fault with it. I will get back to the city and say: "By all means, we will cooperate with you." If we can work on a joint project, by all means.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could inform the committee if he is aware of the SOS Children's Village in Richmond and their request for endorsement in principle of their program to provide homes for disadvantaged youngsters above the age of two, up to adolescence— an area where there seems to be a great need. I raise this question because I'd like to hear, first of all, what the minister's policy would be on that particular society's program for this age group.

[3:15]

Also, could the minister answer some of the questions raised yesterday by the member for Surrey Guildford-Whalley with respect to the foster care numbers? How many homes are there? How many foster parents are there? What tracking system is in place concerning the length of time that these youngsters spend at each foster home? In other words, over the lifetime of any particular youngster, how many times does that youngster shift from one foster home to another? This profile seems to be missing when we discuss the available services and try to assess the effectiveness of the foster care program.

I think the critic was also asking for an assessment of the effectiveness of the government's $1.8 million campaign to elicit more registrations by foster parents in the foster care program, to make more homes available. It is a considerable amount of money for an advertising campaign to encourage people to participate in a program.

How successful is the program? What are the numbers? I understand that there are something like 3,000 foster homes. Is that current? One of the ads suggested that the situation was critical and urgent, indicating that far more foster homes were required. How many more are required? Are we talking about 20 percent more, 30 percent more, 100 percent more? If there are 3,000, do we need 6,000? What's happening to those youngsters who should be in foster homes, if the homes aren't available? How are they surviving?

The question that I think the critic was asking yesterday was that we need a report on the status of the foster care system. How is it working? Is it meeting the expectations of the government?

That being considered, how is the government rationalizing its refusal to endorse in principle the SOS Children's Village program, which states that its objective is to provide homes for youngsters who are difficult to place, those who are generally regarded as unadoptable, who are physically disadvantaged in various ways — mentally, psychologically? Their parents have abandoned them. They're very difficult to place, and many families will not accept these youngsters.

They are talking about a category of very young people that are difficult for the ministry to find homes for. They want to provide this service, as I understand it, for about 100 such individuals. Certainly this is a very small number — 100 people in terms of the 3,000-plus spaces needed.

If he is able to, I would like the minister to respond to that so that we can get a sense of what the foster care situation is like before proceeding with some of the other questions I would like to raise with respect to the government's decision in principle not to support the request of the SOS Children's Village.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, we've had contact with the SOS Society since the early eighties, I believe — '82 or something like that. At this time I should introduce Leslie Arnold, who is the superintendent of the family and child service. She visited the one in Nova Scotia, and I have to tell you that the reports that came back are that they are certainly very much involved with children and that they do the very best they can for children in that circumstance. However, our philosophy of providing homes for children in the most natural family setting as possible.... It is against our philosophy. The SOS Children's Village is not providing that; it is really an orphanage.

If we can provide a home setting, it is certainly the ideal way to go, and I have to say in that respect that we cannot agree with their philosophy at all. We are committed to planning for children on an individual basis, not to maybe putting them in a big group just with a woman supervisor for every five or six children. We want a family setting, as close to a natural family unit as is possible, and we believe that children have the right to a permanent family home.

Every effort is made to return a child in care to his family or extended family whenever possible. Adopted placements in individual family homes located in the child's own community are preferable. The SOS would perhaps be one facility. It could be miles away, or in another town or city, and I don't think that's appropriate. So we've gone away from the model of an orphanage, if I can use that term, and provided instead a natural setting as close to a family unit as possible. This is why we have not gone in that direction, and I'm still not convinced that we should change.

I don't think too many people would argue with our approach. I could be wrong, and we're certainly not opposed to what they're trying to do. I believe that particular concept could perhaps work very well in certain countries — for example, Mexico, or some of those places where children really are not looked after. I think that would be a very valid concept to use in that situation, but in this province, where we have sufficient foster homes, I cannot agree with your concept that perhaps it would be a good way to have our children looked after.

We currently have 2,580 children in foster homes. We have roughly 3,000 foster homes, so we have a

[ Page 9905 ]

surplus. The reason we have a surplus and have advertised consistently is to have foster parents in the community where the need is. If we haven't got a surplus, that is not possible. For example, if we have a child who comes from my area, we don't want to send that child to, let's say, Chilliwack, Surrey or Penticton. We'd like children to be in their own community for a short time and, because the statistics I just quoted show that most of them are back with their family within one year, not to leave that school, that community and their friends; not to sever those relationships. I think that is good. I think we're on the right track. It's worked well.

I've visited foster homes and foster parents at various functions, and I'm impressed with what they do. The surplus, of course, is for that very reason. We need more homes so we can have a selection of them to meet specific needs. Not all are suited. For example, we may have foster homes that are willing to take in children with special needs; and maybe we have foster homes that do not wish to have a child with special needs. So we have to have that surplus, and that's the reason to keep on advertising: to get more foster homes and more people willing to serve in that capacity.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the response of the minister on this question. I am still not sure, though, if I've got the full picture with respect to the health of the foster care system, because I was asking as well about the extent of movement, for instance, from one foster home to another. There is the impression that youngsters find themselves shifted from one foster home to another. Do you care to respond on that? How real is that? In other words, what's the length of stay on average of a youngster in a foster home? And how many times is a particular youngster likely to find himself in a different setting?

HON. MR. DUECK: I just went through that a few minutes ago. It's all in the Blues: percentages, numbers, the whole thing.

MR. BARNES: If he did.... I don't wish to quarrel with you, but I certainly didn't hear you say, for instance, that a youngster might find himself, say, in a period of five years having lived in five, six or seven different foster homes. I didn't hear numbers such as those.

Would you care to repeat them? I apologize for not having heard them

HON. MR. DUECK: I said, I believe — and we can look it up in the Blues tomorrow — that most foster children experience only one foster home. I also said that in 1989-90, 97 percent of children who were in a foster placement at time of discharge from care had experienced only one foster home. Ninety-seven percent — I can't be much more specific.

MR. BARNES: How long a period of time?

HON. MR. DUECK: Well, again.... Where have I got those figures? I think I mentioned that too.

Of the 6,238 children discharged during the fiscal year, 3,987 — 63 percent — were in care for six months or less. So that even narrows it down more. I think I mentioned all those figures just a few minutes ago.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I think the difficulty some of the members have on this side with those numbers in particular is that they don't reflect the people we have to deal with. We may be dealing through our constituency office— and certainly are — with people who have particular problems with the system. However, to have confidence in those numbers, we have to better understand how you come to those numbers.

I would like to refer you back to some earlier comments about the system in Ontario where by legislation there is an automatic reporting-out of the children in care, and I would ask you whether you would consider that as an option.

MR. RABBITT: I know it is rather difficult for the minister to keep on a tack when various members throughout the House are asking questions of different parts of his vast ministry. But I've got a subject which I feel I have to canvass with the minister, since he's relatively new in the role, and I want to bring him up to date on what I consider are a couple of important small items in my riding.

I have in my riding three facilities which are non-profit organizations that work very closely with handicapped people. Of course, in the small communities of Merritt, Hope and Princeton, these facilities are very successful and are doing a very good job. I wanted to let the minister know that they were in a good state of health. They appreciate the support the ministry has given over the years, but I wish to pin the minister down here and make sure we're going to have that continued support in the next fiscal year.

[3:30]

It sometimes becomes a little bit of a problem when the bureaucracy is trying to centralize and organize and sometimes makes changes within the organization that may be beneficial on a bottom line, but certainly the application within the riding itself finds that it's not a workable item.

With regards to the three facilities, I wanted to ask the minister if he would have continued support for those operations in Merritt, Hope and Princeton.

The other question I would like to extend to the minister — and get some clarification if possible — concerns two of these facilities, which have projects where handicapped people are able to come and work throughout the day. One workshop creates woodwork products, and the other workshop is what we call "the little mini-chef."

The ministry has indicated that the handicapped people working in these workshops are going to have to be paid minimum wage. I think there is a glitch in the system, because if this is the case, then I am going to suggest to you that you're going to have to address

[ Page 9906 ]

the funding that goes to each of these organizations so it can be passed on. In the small communities such as the three I have mentioned — and the two in particular — it's not possible for them to continue to go out and raise additional funds.

Those are the two items I would like the minister to address. Then I'll let him move on to other items in his estimates.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, on that first question of support, I can tell you that you will continue to have support from this ministry — from all the people and myself personally.

The other one, the minimum wage: there was a challenge. I don't think it has been resolved yet. We have a concern, of course. It remains to be seen whether, in fact, that challenge will succeed or whether we will have a law that will determine that these individuals must be paid the minimum wage.

I have no qualms with minimum wage, but the whole concept was to give them some therapeutic opportunities, and at the same time they got all the other necessities of life. Maybe the whole thing has to shift and change. We'll have to face that when the time comes. We may have to budget for that. I haven't got an answer for you, because it's not yet law, and it's being challenged.

MR. BARNES: I believe the critic was hoping that the minister might want to respond to her question just before the previous speaker was up. I'll yield the floor if you wanted to address her question.

HON. MR. DUECK: Was that the Ontario question? A comparison with Ontario? Again, I think I went through that yesterday; I think it's on the record. I think I quoted why we couldn't compare with Ontario.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: I'll let the member ask the question again.

MS. SMALLWOOD: We'll go back to the question about the funding per child. That was the one you answered yesterday. The question I asked today was: in comparison with the Ontario legislation where, by statute, they are required to report on the status of children in care, the number of visits and the progress of their plans....

While the minister has said that foster children in the system provided by this province experience only one home, it's very difficult for us on this side to be comfortable with those figures, given the reality as we hear it from foster parents and professionals in the field.

So that people in the province can have confidence in your figures, I'm asking if you had considered the Ontario legislation as an option for B.C.

HON. MR. DUECK: As was stated, we haven't got that legislation, but it allows the superintendent of family and child services to do, in fact, exactly that. They have it in legislation, whereas we in British Columbia monitor the services provided to families and children through our inspections and standards unit and review individual cases. Also, proactive audits of all files in district offices are completed on an annual basis. British Columbia has seven individuals in the inspections and standards unit to review 6,224 children in care.

A monthly computer printout is provided to our district offices stating what the plan in place is for every child. In other words, each individual child is on a computer printout. The policy requires the plan be reviewed by both the supervisor and the manager.

We've looked at the Ontario model. We're well aware of it, and it could be that in the future we'll have to go in that direction. It may have some merits. Currently we have not got that in place.

In 1981 we established the inspections and standards unit, which I just spoke about. That has been in place ever since. I think that, by and large, our record — especially with Leslie Arnold as superintendent of family and child services — is actually very good. When the Child Welfare League of America came out, we spent a lot of time with them, and they spent a lot of time with Leslie Arnold. They were most impressed with what we do in the area of family and children's services.

Again, we want to learn. If anyone has a better mousetrap, we'd like to have it. We're looking at it closely. It could be that in the future we might even change our policy to that of Ontario.

MR. BARNES: I wanted to get back briefly to the SOS Children's Village to determine if the minister was saying that in his ministry's view, the SOS Society as a movement creates orphanages — or that it is an orphanage — and this is the sole reason why you have not approved their request for endorsation in principle. It's simply because you believe....

I think in one of the quotes they received when they applied to the Gaming Commission for the right to run a casino game to raise funds to promote their program, they were rejected because apparently the ministry's policy is that they are an orphanage and that such programs are a retrograde step with respect to the government's policies for the care of children. Is that the reason their application has been rejected — the fact that they are an orphanage? Could you perhaps also say what an orphanage is, as opposed to what they say? Because they are differing with the view that they are an orphanage. I think we're talking about definitions. I just want to at least satisfy myself that if we're talking about an orphanage, we define what an orphanage is.

HON. MR. DUECK: Maybe the word is used loosely. I think of an orphanage as where there are many children looked after by certain people in one area. Using that model, then it's not acceptable. We believe that perhaps 100 children in one place like that is not unlike an orphanage, perhaps in another country. We feel that every child has the right to be

[ Page 9907 ]

close to other children in their placement when they're in the care of the government; that is, with either a foster parent or, if they're very disturbed people, perhaps for a period of time in a group home.

Again, with this model that the SOS has, they are not really too interested in having those children, once they're there, move back to a family setting or to their own families. They want to keep those children until they come of age. I find that somewhat unacceptable, because we certainly believe.... We have evidence that most children do go back to either their natural family, their adoptive family or at least their community. The member opposite must certainly agree that the involvement of a natural family is not possible when you move children to one centre. All the models we've seen, read about and heard about so far are generally located out of town, and there is generally one complex for a fairly large region. To me, that isolates those children from the community. They're driven to school and taken back.

There are two points I want to make very clear: they are separated, and their environment is not the same as for a child who is adopted or in a foster home. Most children in a foster home become quite attached to the foster parents, and the foster parents to the child, so the relationship is quite healthy. That is our goal and our aim.

The SOS concept.... I'm surprised that the member would bring this up, because I didn't think any of us really agreed with that concept. I think we all agree they should be in a family unit.

I hope I've made myself clear. That's where we stand at this point in time, and I certainly believe we're correct.

MR. BARNES: Just to answer your last comment first, it may be a surprise to you that I brought the matter up, but the matter was raised to me as a member of the Legislature. On those grounds alone, in light of the fact that there are many youngsters who are displaced and unadoptable for various reasons— due to handicaps or no one being willing to accept them — and the reality of the situation with respect to young people in society today, I raised the matter. It's not that I am opposed to it or for it. The point is that it's a matter to be discussed. If we can become more enlightened about the resources available and about people's motives with respect to providing services, I think we'll all be better off.

I don't know if the minister has had an opportunity to meet with these people. Many times? I have certainly met with some of the principals of the one in Richmond, which is of course the only chapter here in British Columbia. I was impressed with their sincerity, their motivation, their dedication and their desire to provide a service for youngsters who have so far been unadoptable by others. In other words, they are saying that there is a need for certain youngsters in society.

I'm not an expert on how they operate, but from what I've seen, they take exception to the designation, for instance, of being called an orphanage, because they say they are anything but an orphanage.

We can split hairs over what an orphanage is, but I could share with you that in their submission to the Gaming Commission — when they tried to make their case for qualifying as a non-profit society, as a charity, and not experiencing discrimination because they couldn't get a permit to operate a casino — they stated that an orphanage is "an institution for the care of orphans or other abandoned children." They went on to talk about what an institution is:

[3:45]

"A corporate body organized to perform some particular function, often in education, research or charity. (Euphemistically, we are familiar with the word as it relates to a mental hospital, a prison or some other place of confinement, often forgetting that "institution" also refers to the family, the school, the church, etc.) "

They go on to state the case as follows:

"Now let us follow it with a question. Are children in the care of an SOS Children's Village living in an orphanage — a confining institution? The answer is: decidedly not! Ironically, SOS founder Dr. Gmeiner established the children's villages to counteract the negative model of the pre-1950s orphanages, where dormitories, dining halls, segregation by age and sex were the norm. All too often they were staffed by stem, impersonal and oft-times brutal masters or matrons. Education was not emphasized. Many were, indeed, institutions of the most negative connotation. Even in those where some kindness might be found, children had little or no opportunity to experience the social womb of the family, nor were many given any vocational opportunities or support to prepare them for a productive adult life. When they left the orphanage, they had no home, no family to return to.

"How different the life of an SOS Village child! SOS provides the children with a bridge to the larger community, the world in which they must live and in which they are encouraged to participate fully. As adults, many former SOS children retain the ties with their SOS families in the same way as children of typical families do."

They go on to talk about their commitment to the individual, to the individual's needs, to integrating them into the community and the school system in as normal a way as possible. They also talk about the adults there who provide that role model. You have visited with them, but when you say that they're going to alienate youngsters and hang on to them, I wonder if that is an accurate characterization of what they are doing.

It is true that they are asking for youngsters who are young enough and impressionable enough that they can save them from the trauma of going from one foster home to another. In other words, they are trying to help those youngsters at an early age to avoid the trauma of being abandoned due to lack of interest and continuity in later years. I would ask that at the very least you would want to ensure that we're not losing a resource, where there really is a vacuum. Surely there are groups of youngsters who could benefit from such a program.

You need a diverse approach to providing services for children; it's not all one thing or the other. I am sure that your ministry recognizes that these select

[ Page 9908 ]

numbers of youngsters being asked for may have a place in this facility, where they couldn't fit anywhere else.

I'm not saying that the SOS program is going to be successful or not, because I don't know. But I feel that it is our duty, in light of the problems that families are having today — the abandonment of children and the neglect — and where there is an organization prepared to provide assistance in a very consistent, meaningful way for a group of youngsters that they themselves say are failing to be placed anywhere else in the system.... In other words, this is after they have been turned down just about everywhere else. They want to provide a service, so why wouldn't they be given an opportunity to do so?

The only thing I can say is that if there's no place for the Children's Village in British Columbia, then the minister should certainly be prepared to stand in the Legislature and say that he has an absolutely ironclad system that leaves no stone unturned, that no youngster is being abandoned or neglected, whether able or disabled or whatever the need may be, and that we have no need for this program.

I am impressed that there may be a need — small though it may be — to at least give them the benefit of the doubt and the chance to answer those questions in a public forum. If they are saying that they're not an orphanage but a modern, up-to-date, sensitive group of people who will provide needs just the same as this ministry is trying to provide, then why should we stereotype them as an orphanage? Let's make sure that we are not categorizing them improperly or unfairly. That's really the issue I'm raising, because we don't want that to happen.

The bottom line is what the best thing for the youngsters is. They claim that what they're doing is good for the youngsters. I probably don't know any more than you do about what would happen, because the facility's never been in place. But we want to be sure that before we say, "No, thumbs down, " it's not just a prejudicial attitude of "you're an orphanage, so you're out." They themselves are saying that they denounce orphanages as they used to be, and that they are different today. Why not be sure that we're not closing the door on a good program?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, I want to say very emphatically that we don't shut our eyes to anything. We have certainly investigated this thoroughly on many occasions. I don't know how many times I have met with them. I think I know that program quite well.

It does not fit our model. They are villages; they are separated from the rest of the population. As a matter of fact, some of them bring teachers in to teach rather than have the children go to school. They do not wish for the child to be put back in the family setting after nine months. Once they get children, they prefer to keep them until they are old enough to leave. Philosophically that is not our goal.

We believe — and the statistics show this — that most of the children go back to their own home, the adoptive home or whatever. We also believe that with support systems every child can be adopted. We have assistance programs of various kinds. Recently we announced the adoption assistance program, wherein if they are special-needs children and they are not adoptable.... We believe that every child is adoptable into a natural setting. What we think of as a family unit may be different than some other people. Whether it's a single mom or whatever, it's still a family unit rather than a village up on a hill where there are perhaps five to a cottage, and maybe ten or 15 cottages, with a house mother in every cottage and perhaps one male supervisor.

I have nothing against those people. I think they're doing a fantastic job, and they're very sincere. But I do not believe that they meet the role and the model we have set out. With the assisted adoption program, we will pay a family to look after a special-needs child who cannot be adopted. In other words, let's say somebody wants to adopt a special-needs child; you know very well that it's going to cost a lot of money. We say, "Okay, fine; if you adopt this child, we will assist you in certain ways, " and they do. There are still cases where an individual's behaviour is such that they must go into a group home.

I should mention that we also have the at-home program, which was started last year about this time or a bit earlier. It is very successful. I have to give credit to the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood), who brought this to our attention, although we had given much thought to it before. We have approximately 450 children in that program now. It's very costly, but it's probably less costly than the hospital — although the unfortunate thing is that every time we free up a hospital bed, it gets filled too. In that sense, perhaps it's a dual cost.

It's certainly a better life for that individual, and we find that it's had tremendous acceptance in the families that have had one of their children — who can now be at home — in care in a hospital. The annual cost per child is roughly $8,500, so if we equate that to a hospital bed, it's still a lot less. We've had tremendous results with it, and we're still taking applications. We believe that there are perhaps 1,500 children in the province who require that type of assistance. In the budget this year we have $14.7 million for it.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I wanted to go back to the minister around the business of reporting. While I appreciated his comments with regard to looking at the Ontario system, I'm struck by some of the information provided in the Globe and Mail article.

Back in 1984 legislation actually came in that required the ongoing monitoring we were talking about. Part of the reason was the issue of public confidence in the system — people knowing that their tax dollars were going to the care they wanted it to go to; that the children in care were getting the quality service they deserved; and indeed, that there was a real need for some public scrutiny, as the system was too closed.

[ Page 9909 ]

In this document that the Globe and Mail is writing on, they were talking about the wards of the Crown. It says an average of three homes and three different social workers in a five-year period for children in care; that they moved an average of seven times in five years; and that in the 1989 review of 1,361 children's files, they found 473 violations of the mandatory 90-day review by social workers. It goes on to talk about the fact that they found 542 violations of the 90-day mandatory review plan by the social workers' supervisors — and violations were recorded only when the work was over a month late.

Several different items were identified as needing review and to confirm that the checks had been done. Many of the areas you talked about are covered by your policy now, but not by any legislation. It's merely a matter of policy with the ministry that there be plans in place and that the plans be reviewed.

Many of the children in foster homes are not receiving visits from social workers every 90 days — as required, again, by the Ontario law. In 1989 the unit found 304 violations of the requirement that annual medical and dental examinations be recorded. These are all areas that basically talk about the standards and quality of care provided by the province and taxpayers of British Columbia.

[4:00]

I don't really think, despite the fact that the ministry says that children only stay an average of nine months and that there's only one foster family involved in that stay, that the people of the province can credibly accept those numbers. I think we have to take a look at Ontario as an example. Quite frankly, I find it very hard to believe that Ontario is that much different than British Columbia as far as providing services goes. And with the kinds of things that we have seen happen, with the demonstration of social workers and financial aid workers not too long ago here in this province, talking about the tremendous caseload and their inability to provide the services they want to provide, I don't feel particularly confident that the system is very much different. I wonder, if we had legal requirements for this kind of review and reporting, whether we wouldn't find the same thing going on here in British Columbia.

So while the minister says it's his policy to have a plan, that there are those visits, I wonder how often those kids in care see a social worker. I wonder how often the foster parents are provided the kind of support they need. And I wonder very much about the stability that is offered by the system to those children, stability that is very important in any young person's life. I think that some of your staff know of examples — examples that I have asked for information on — where foster children have been in five and more foster homes in a very short period of time. I wonder if the minister would comment on that. I see that his staff is providing him with some information. Perhaps he has more to put in.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess I have some sympathy for the Minister of Social Services, because I believe his efforts to provide the good news are futile with respect to that member. The member  is a cynic, and therefore, when she has just asked the minister what....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, I suggest you speak to the subject at hand.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, you pre-empted my point of order; you're ahead of me. I was going to ask you to bring that member to order, because I think the word "cynic" attributed to my hon. colleague is unparliamentary, and the minister should withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order?

MR. REID: No, I ask leave to make an introduction, Mr. Chairman. I've been trying to make it for a long time, but the member just sat down.

Leave granted.

MR. REID: We have in the precincts today a representation group from the Living Word Christian Academy in Cloverdale, and I know that the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley would be anxious to recognize this group and join with me and the rest of the members in the House in welcoming them to Victoria and hoping that their visit to our precincts is productive. Would the House make them specially welcome.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, I would just like to say that the word "cynic" may not be unparliamentary; however, I would urge the members to refrain from using it.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I guess if "cynic" has become an unparliamentary term, then it may be fairly difficult to express an impression of views. Am I being asked to withdraw the word?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I have not asked you to withdraw. However, I would ask you to speak to the vote, hon. minister.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, with due respect, it's customary in this House that if a member finds an expression unparliamentary, the member who made the offensive remark is asked if he would please withdraw. I think that's appropriate. The minister should withdraw, because I find it offensive.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have previously stated that it's not an unparliamentary use of language. I have asked the minister or any member to refrain from using it, and I would ask the Minister of Education to proceed on the vote before us.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, if it offends the member, I'll withdraw the term "cynic." I have used it because I felt that the member had some difficulty accepting good news rather than focusing

[ Page 9910 ]

on bad news, and I guess I tried to be more concise in my terms rather than explain the difficulty.

I think it's important to note that the minister has said, when asked the question about adoption and how many of the children have been in more than one home or different foster homes.... The minister answered the question several times. The member said: "I find it difficult to believe the statistics." I was going to point out the analogy that, yes, I was a junior secondary school principal and had 600 pupils, and during the course of a week perhaps 25 of them would be sent to the office because of some misbehaviour in the school. I could have assumed from that that because those were the pupils I was seeing in the office, students were like that. But I also had a little bit of skill with arithmetic, so I could tell myself that 575 of the 600 were not being sent to the office. That's what I was trying to suggest: that the member, in using the examples of the difficult cases, might well remember that it's the complaints that come rather than the situation that is fine.

The member, I believe, asked the minister: "How many times does the social worker see each situation?" If everything is going well for the family and for the child, should the social worker be dropping around every week anyway, or should the social worker concentrate on the situations that require his or her attention?

I would just like to support the minister in putting out some of the positive story of the good things that do happen so that we don't focus all our attention on the aberrations that come to our attention as complaints.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, it's been a while since I got on my feet, and now I've forgotten — we're discussing my estimates, are we not?

Back to the Ontario model. It's interesting to note that Ontario has four individuals to monitor 9,967 children. We have seven to monitor and review 6,224. So in that respect we actually have more people monitoring.

The other point I'd like to make, which I think is very important: we are increasing our number of FTEs, because we feel there is a need. I think it was mentioned that they are overworked. Agreed — we need more people. We were able to get another 119 FTEs this year, which I'm very pleased about because we had some problems last year in certain areas. Of course, when you go to the budgeting process, when you ask for FTEs, when you ask for money, you never get enough. I'm not pointing at anyone, but you never get enough. You always want more and need more. I think I can very conscientiously go and say we haven't got enough.

Back to the Ontario model. I don't want to close my eyes to anything that's better — surely not. It must be remembered that the courts play a key role in our system, whereas the decisions affecting children who come into our care...and the superintendent of family and child services is very closely scrutinized on a case-by-case basis by the courts.

Our system may not be perfect, and maybe we can learn from other systems. We are aware of that system, and we are looking at it. The ministry is examining the confidentiality, for example, and public accountability practices and laws of not just that jurisdiction but of any jurisdiction that would have something to offer that is perhaps better, and maybe not even costly; it may be less costly. So I have no argument whatsoever with that. I think that's a good comment. We're aware of it, and we're looking at it.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm tempted to respond to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), but the reality is that he spends most of his time in this House with a furrowed brow, and his contribution to the debate was not particularly constructive and is not worth spending very much time on.

I would, however, like to thank the minister for his thoughtfulness in dealing with these suggestions, because I believe quite sincerely that many people who are interested, in particular, in the welfare of children in this province are very interested in looking at other jurisdictions and at the quality of care that is delivered.

I don't want anyone to misconstrue what I am saying. I think the professionals in the field — people who are working for the ministry — are doing an incredible job under very difficult circumstances. Foster parents do yeomen's work. As a parent myself, I am always struck, when I have the opportunity of speaking to foster parents, by the impossible task they are faced with. So anything that we can do here in this province as taxpayers or as politicians to shed any light on what is happening and come to grips with the system can only help. I'm sure they would welcome that as well.

You talk about the department here in British Columbia that has seven people to monitor children in care. I'd like to ask some specific questions.

What is it that mandates whether or not an audit is to be carried out? Could you give us a definition of what an audit is, what is contained in an audit, and then how a decision is made to carry out that audit?

[4:15]

HON. MR. DUECK: I'm not only supposed to have every answer; I'm supposed to be an administrator too. It would take me a little time to find out exactly how they do an audit, after having spent four or five months in the ministry. But I can get some notes here very soon.

Mr. Chairman, we conduct audits in areas of finances, in the case practice of that particular individual in child-in-care planning. These audits are all done. We do a file review, a selection of 25 percent of all files. A printout is provided to the auditor, and files are randomly selected. So these are the various ways that audits are done, I am told. I have never personally been aware of an audit, and I have not personally conducted an audit, but this is the information I receive from very reliable people who have been in this business for some time.

[ Page 9911 ]

Can I go back just a little bit about foster parents? I was struck when you said they set themselves an impossible task. Just this year we have begun a new initiative to honour foster parents. Ten foster parents will be honoured by a Lieutenant-Governor's award, a reception with the Lieutenant-Governor and a dinner thereafter. I think it's appropriate that these people.... They were chosen by their groups and by the communities, and then they were brought forward and a final short-list was made. I'm looking forward to it. It's going to happen at the end of June, I believe. I think it's just one way to tell these foster parents: "Thank you. You deserve a hand from us." It's nothing big or elaborate, but at least it's an award from the Lieutenant-Governor saying they've done an excellent job.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm again tempted to get off on the issue of awards for foster parents. Maybe we'll deal with that a little later on. But I do want to understand more clearly the process of review.

Now if I heard you correctly, you said that the files are selected at random. I am wondering if you can tell me how many audits are done in a year, and if you can clarify what would initiate an audit — or is that just an ongoing process of review?

HON. MR. DUECK: It is my understanding: 30-plus in a year.

MS. SMALLWOOD: So you have over 2,500 children in care, but there are 30 audits done in a year. Is that right?

Can you explain why you would do those 30? What would the reason be that you would conduct that audit?

HON. MR. DUECK: These are not reviews; these are actual audits — 30-plus audits — that are done, and they are 25 percent of all files. In other words, we go through files, and we choose 25 percent of them. That's what it means, does it not? Printout is provided to the auditor, and files are randomly selected. That's how they arrive at the 30-plus.

But I don't want the member to misunderstand — that no reviews are done. This is an actual audit on finances and various other areas — specifically a regular audit, which is more than just a review or a check or a visit. Sometimes they are requested by staff, and sometimes they are randomly selected by area. But last year was 30-plus— perhaps 32, Mr. Chairman.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I wonder if the minister could explain what exactly is entailed in an audit. Is it just a matter of looking at the books?

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

MS. SMALLWOOD: Yes, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister.

If the minister could explain — through you, Mr. Chairman — what exactly is entailed in an audit. Is it just purely the accounting of money, or is it services provided as well?

HON. MR. DUECK: We will give you that information. I've got it....

I really don't know. I'm going to get that information. Better still, if you want to meet with Leslie Arnold some time and go into detail — for your information — we would be only too glad to do that too.

I can get it for you, but I am not in the administration. I am not an auditor, and I don't think I am expected to know exactly the steps taken. But I will have it for you in a few minutes; or better still I will give you what I've got here, and you can meet with the superintendent at your pleasure and go into detail. You could have had that information for any time in the past year or whenever.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm not trying to catch the minister out. The ministry is a very complex ministry. There's an awful lot that one needs to know, and I don't imagine that even working full-time in the ministry for a year you could hope to understand it in total.

That's part of the problem; that's part of what we're trying to grapple with here. We're looking for levers; we're looking for ways of understanding the accountability that is in the system. It's not a matter of being an administrator to understand the auditing process or the review process, but instead — like Ontario — of trying to get a handle on what's really going on. Indeed, all the systems are in place. To be able to have an accurate accounting of what's going on out there is very difficult.

Over the year and a half that I have been responsible for Social Services, I have asked time and again for statistics, and they have not been forthcoming. Sometimes what I'll do is go through my file with the previous minister — and I'm glad he's in the House — and look at the specifics that I asked of him. We'll try again with you, Mr. Minister, and we'll see if we get a little better cooperation.

I don't want to put this on a partisan level either. I don't think I have said that more than once in this House, because, quite frankly, I don't think that a partisan level is something negative. I happen to like and believe in partisan politics. However, I want to stress that professionals — people that are involved in social planning in this province — also express the same frustration that I express in trying to get the information necessary for that social-planning exercise — to really understand what's going on and to contribute.

The minister talks about trying to make the system better. Well, unless you have all the information, you can't contribute in a meaningful way. I'm sure you would agree with that.

On the issue of audit and review, the minister says audits are different from reviews. Perhaps you can

[ Page 9912 ]

indicate to this House what the process of review is and what your findings in those reviews have been.

MS. PULLINGER: May I have leave of the House to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MS. PULLINGER: It's with a great deal of pleasure that I introduce to the Legislature June and Bob White, who are sitting in the members' gallery today. These people are from Duncan. They are friends, supporters and good party members who are going to help us win the next election. Will the House help me make them welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK: Audit process. I've got some information for the member who asked the question. Offices are notified. There is a random selection of offices and of file types. They select 25 percent of all file types with a minimum of three files per worker per type. Each office would have a number of file types. They look at 1,800 intake forms, discuss community issues with the staff and set out responses from district offices to correct issues.

Audit looks at issues of compliance with policy and looks to ensure that an appropriate plan is in place and at adherence to legislation. Response is reviewed by senior committee to determine policy needs, training needs, staff performance, etc.

District office audits are positive. There's a good response from staff about audit process. I think our system is really not that different from Ontario's. We do what Ontario does, except theirs is legislated and ours is by a different method. Also, I think — if I'm correct — Ontario does everything with non-profit societies. It's all done by societies. Obviously it's arm's-length government. By legislation they look at societies, while we operate with district offices and our own people.

So there is a difference in the total makeup of the delivery of services, but I think I made it very clear that we look at anything that's better. If the Ontario model does appear better in our opinion, we will look at it very closely and perhaps adopt it.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The task — like every other task, it would seem — in the ministry is an onerous one. Not only are the reviews and audits dealing specifically with children in care, but they are dealing with the whole system. Indeed, the whole system needs to have that kind of quality control, but it's a huge job for seven people.

You indicated that some of the audits are instigated by workers or by the regional offices. I can only assume that there are occasions that the audits are instigated when there's a problem or a significant question about the provision of service or about an employee. I'm wondering how many of those 30 audits have been instigated around a concern for an employee's conduct and indeed, if the audit is the tool that investigates that kind of problem. If not, could the minister indicate what the tool is?

HON. MR. DUECK: Our goal is to audit all district offices, so it isn't by complaint and that some don't get audited. We do that review for all of them. Auditors are not the only group of staff monitoring worker case review. In other words, there are many more. Don't isolate seven who now do all the reviews and look after the whole operation of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing.

We do as many as we can with the auditors available. We have a full report done. Reviews by supervisors and managers also take place. I think our system is about as good as can be expected. As a matter of fact, I think the supervisory methods in place are very good, not only by district supervisors, but by the audits. We actually find that when we do the audit, the operations are in very good shape. I think the credit is due to our staff and the supervisor of family and child services.

[4:30]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I asked specifically about review of an employee's conduct, and whether or not the audit is a tool for reviewing that if there has been a problem with the delivery of service or an employee's conduct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 59 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Cute!

Mr. Chairman, I guess I would ask for a little bit of leniency here, in that I have asked the minister a question. The minister is consulting his staff. In the interest of doing the people's business, I would like to give the minister that opportunity. If that becomes a problem, then perhaps I too can try pressure — to pressure the minister a little bit more — if that's the wish of the Chair.

HON. MR. DUECK: The employees would be supervised by the regional director or the supervisor in that particular area. So it's not all done by the superintendent of family and child service; there's also a responsibility on the regional director. In other words, the system in place is one where a certain individual has responsibility for a certain number of people. Surely that is the way to go, rather than have everything done from Victoria. So that is in place, and it's working well.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Can the minister indicate the number of people...? First of all, a couple of questions about regular staff turnover. What is the turnover rate for front-line workers who are social workers and financial aid workers?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, I am told that it's 6 percent for social workers.

MS. SMALLWOOD: For financial aid workers?

HON. MR. DUECK: About 10 percent.

[ Page 9913 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to ask a specific question about the number of people in those two categories that have been fired by the ministry in the past year.

HON. MR. DUECK: I didn't get that question.

MS. SMALLWOOD: My first question was on the turnover of social workers and financial aid workers. My follow-up question was: of that percentage, how many staff in those two areas have been fired or let go by the ministry?

HON. MR. DUECK: I haven't got that information, but we can certainly get it for you.

MS. SMALLWOOD: What I'm specifically interested in, Mr. Chairman, is the number of child welfare workers that have been fired in the ministry in, say, the past year, or the average over a longer period of time, just to get a handle on how often that does happen.

I want to continue to explore this area, and will do so as the estimates continue. But I know there are other members that want to ask the minister some questions as well. If the minister will make that commitment to provide information about the number of workers let go, then I'm prepared to let one of my other colleagues take the floor.

HON. MR. DUECK: I believe I answered that question by saying that that information will be forthcoming.

MS. MARZARI: I rise today to try to piece together a program around child sex abuse. I also rise on the day care issue, which looms large in our province. In fact, day care is an increasing need in our province. I also rise to talk about women and the fact that they are regularly, almost on an epidemic level, abused in our community — physically, by assaulting husbands or boyfriends or strangers.

I also want to talk right now, for a very few minutes, about the SOS Children's Village concept. In doing this, I'm trying to frame an overall theme for this attempt of mine to bring to your attention these various issues. The theme around which I want to bind these various seemingly disparate topics together is basically the theme of the fact that we have aspirations for our children and for ourselves in our community. We shoot for the stars, and we want the best for our kids and we want the best for ourselves and we want the best for women. We want to see unified programs. We want to see appropriate tracks between programs, and appropriate coordination and follow-up. We want to see professionals properly involved with our kids, and when there are women in trouble. We want to see places for kids to be and for women to go when the home does not seem safe.

We have very strong and well-thought-through aspirations, and I am sure that at the aspirational level there might not be a lot of difference, if we actually sat down to talk between sides in this House

However, where we seem to fall down is in the actual operating norms — the day-to-day business of running our services. What seems to happen is that planning, communication and the financing break down. When we get involved with complicated financial formulas between federal, provincial and municipal governments and non-profit agencies, very often we just don't seem to get what we are paying for. The ideas that we have at the aspirational level just don't seem to pan out when you get down to the normative day-to-day business of trying to deal with kids in trouble, women in trouble and communities in trouble.

First, let me say that I think it might be worthwhile for the minister to pay attention to some of the things that my colleague for Vancouver Centre was talking about a few minutes ago. We cannot constantly go around saying— around the SOS village.... The minister said that we really believe that we want the kids to go home. We really believe that the home is the best place for the kids we take care of. We really believe that there are 500 children who are adoptable right now, and we want to give them the security of finding a home if they don't have one now.

From the material that I've seen and the evidence that has come forward over the last number of years, it strikes me that many children have gone through six, ten, maybe even 15 foster home placements. We hear about them through the newspapers when it's too late, or we hear about them in our communities and constituencies when we hear about difficulties with kids who are acting out.

We often find that home is not necessarily the best place for these kids if the home is an abusive one, and we now know enough about many homes. If we are talking about one in four kids being sexually abused, we can only assume that there's at least that many who are being emotionally abused, and we are talking about 77 percent of abuse cases occurring within the child's home. We're not talking about one or two random problems here and there in the community. We are talking about a pretty substantial problem.

For that reason alone, I would suggest that the minister take a closer look at perhaps developing, at least on a demonstration basis, the idea of the SOS Children's Village in British Columbia and perhaps maintaining it at a very small level — perhaps three to six cottages — and monitoring it to see if it might provide a better model or an equivalent model to the foster care situation that we offer now, which I cannot complain about. But I am suggesting that it might be in the minister's interest to look at a small community setting for a few children who might otherwise be shunted between foster homes.

That having been said, let me go on to the larger picture of child sexual abuse. A few weeks ago I gave a statement in the House trying to pull together four months of research that I've done over the spring around child sex abuse, and I came up with many of the numbers I was quoting earlier. There are amazing epidemic proportions in our society, and in a newspa-

[ Page 9914 ]

per article just two days ago in the Province, Americans too are talking about the statistics of one in three children being sexually abused before the age of 18 in the United States.

When we are dealing with numbers of that magnitude, we are not dealing with random problems that can be effectively dealt with by a couple of social workers planted here and there in our communities. We are dealing with the need for a large-scale assault on the problem itself and on the root causes of that problem. We are talking about the need for in intensity of effort, research and treatment that, we can only begin to think about here in this chamber.

I suggested in my statement that we needed a railroad track that runs between ministries and connects the Ministry of Social Services, the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General and the Ministry of Health. It would basically bind those ministries together with the agencies that they contract with or the deputy ministers and the systems that they develop.

AN HON. MEMBER: They have a track, but there is no engine on it.

MS. MARZARI: The minister — well, I gave my statement — did talk about various services and ideas that had come to him, but those ideas were in fact engines with no track. The engines and the track do not jibe, and they do not coincide with each other, so we have some trouble with our metaphor, just as the ministries have trouble developing the larger concept.

I suggested in my statement that the Ministry of Social Services and Housing might be the logical ministry with which to vest the business of child sexual abuse, the Attorney-General should be responsible for women and violence, and the Ministry of Health should be responsible for women in violence, and the Ministry of Health should be given the ultimate responsibility for elder abuse. That seems to be the system that could best deal with the three elements of violence in our community. But as I said before, the track between them must be carefully built.

If we are to say that your ministry, Mr. Minister, is going to deal with child sex abuse, your problem then becomes: how do you build the machine, how do you build the track, how do you build the individual units on that track to make sure...? In fact, for every case disclosed in this province, when a child is abused or remembers that he or she has been abused, how do you develop the system that's going to make sure that the child is properly heard, properly treated and properly taken through court, if that is the route to go?

You've made some suggestions. I think you alluded to the interministerial committee that's presently looking at this very problem, and you suggested that you would be building perhaps or funding a program, possibly in Vancouver or other programs throughout the province.

[4:45]

I'll put my questions together, so that perhaps you can answer them together. They are as follows. To what extent does your budget reflect the building — in human terms; not bricks and mortar — of these new coordinated systems to deal with child abuse in our province? How much money do you actually see being set aside by your ministry to plug into the IMCC report which is coming to you? How are you, in turn, plugging into the women's ministry on this issue — if you are?

Fourth and perhaps most important: before you can build anything, whether it be an engine or a track to link you to other ministries, you first have to have the information at your disposal. In all my researches and dealings with friends, colleagues and professionals who have helped me pull together my material, I have found a number of federal statistics on child abuse in the country. I have yet to find anything in your ministry, Mr. Minister, which basically outlines the magnitude of the problem as we face it in British Columbia. How are we to determine what machine needs to be built and what track needs to be laid if we don't really know how many kids are in trouble or whether we're dealing with one in four children before the age of 18 or one in seven children before the age of 9?

We don't know. We have left it almost as an afterthought. We'll build transition houses, because we know mothers are being hurt. We'll take children into care, because we know they're in trouble. What numbers do we have to work with, Mr. Minister? Are we to assume that the number of children in care in this province is basically the number of children that have been sexually abused? Because I know that you don't take a child into care until something very serious has happened in the home. Is this a number that we can go on? Do you feel reasonably confident that you have the numbers at your disposal with which you can build a track and a system, or are we just putting in new programs because the media and the courts are drawing our attention to it?

Those are my questions then. What relationships do you have with other ministries to build the track? How much money are you putting into it? And most important, what's our database now for British Columbia?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. DUECK: In the precincts today are a number of people from the Fraser Valley Adventist Academy in Aldergrove. On behalf of yourself, as first member for Central Fraser Valley, and myself, I would like this House to please make them welcome.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think I would have to give a little background on what we are doing today and what we are planning for the future. When we talk about budgets — and, of course, so much of this is always dependent on budgets and the dollars you have available — for programs strictly for children in

[ Page 9915 ]

care, there is $107.95 million. That's related only to children in care. For family support prevention-type programs, which are in place to prevent some of these things from happening, it's $52.69 million, not including salaries.

I should also mention what we do currently in the Ministry of Social Services and Housing in the area of children at risk. Of all children assessed for problems, I understand that 22 percent were there because of sexual abuse.

The Ministry of Social Services' role in cases of sexual abuse of children is to investigate the circumstances of the particular case and to ensure that protection services are provided for children in need of protection. Our main goal, of course, is that the child is protected.

The ministry funds non-profit agencies that provide victim services through the community projects funding program. As well, services to victims are available through the Ministry of Attorney-General — and that is the other thing that you perhaps want to follow up on later.

Furthermore, an interministry committee has been set up — I think you touched on that. The protocol for it is an interministry child abuse handbook that we printed some time back. Continuing that process, we worked through the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy, and then instructed them to have coordination between various ministries. I think I've named them before: Attorney-General, Education, Health, Solicitor-General and us; I believe that is all.

They will be meeting again. They've come to a resolution on the direction they wish to go in, and we will jointly fund it. We have offered $1 million for this service, and the interministry contribution will be just over $3 million. So there's $3 million for start-up of this interministry program.

The Interministerial Children's Committee has been established locally and regionally to coordinate planning for children with special needs — in other words, children in that situation. So I think that more than ever before we are doing it on an interministry basis rather than by saying. "This is my area; that's yours. Don't touch my turf and I won't touch yours." There is more coordination in government than there has ever been before, because I truly believe it is the only way you can actually address some of those problems. It cannot be done in isolation, and that's the direction we're going in.

You touched again on the SOS Children's Village. I think I've said just about everything I can say. We haven't closed our eyes to it. But I think the points I raised are quite valid. If we take the attitude that no child is unadoptable, then our model is certainly superior to that one. That's not to say that we may not try in the future. We have actually asked the SOS Society whether they would like to start a group home, and they do not wish to do that. They want the village concept. Thus far we have not come to a place and time where we think that is the model we want to pursue.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I would like to make a few comments on the issue of child abuse in this province. I am sure the minister wants to continue, but.... First of all, I think there are some things that we can look at right now without a lot of studies and investigation of the ministry's response. One of those things is plain and simply the fact that under the Family and Child Service Act you have the power to apprehend a child whose welfare is threatened. Yet under the act there is no provision for service; there is no mandated service for the child.

Basically you are looking at an issue of identifying a child who is at risk and apprehending them — but I'm emphasizing that there is no mandate to provide service for that child or for their family. Moreover — and this goes back to the issue we were talking about earlier — the act does not mandate a review of the cases concerning those children. So without a requirement to deal with the abuse, without a mandate to monitor the care given to those children, one has to ask about quality of life and, indeed, whether the ministry is a partner in continuing abuse in this society.

I know that those are very harsh words, but given that a large number of abusers were themselves abused as children.... I refer the minister, again, to some studies that were done back east where they identified one in four of alleged sex offenders in Canada as being under the age of 18, and almost half of that group were only 14 years of age themselves. This directly falls under the influence of the ministry, the work that the ministry can do to be a more compassionate, caring agency in dealing with the needs of those who have been abused and their families, trying to help them back to good health, and to make a real attempt at ending that cycle of abuse by dealing with the problem before those children themselves become abusers.

Last year during the estimates I brought to the minister's attention a situation where a young man who was at that point a ward of the state was in the House of Concord on a sex offence charge and was there over and above his stay because there was nowhere else for him to go. He could not go back home, his parents could not handle him, and no foster homes were available to him. It's very difficult to find care for a sex offender in this society.

There are some things that the ministry can be doing if indeed the political will is there. I'd like the minister to comment a bit, over and above the issue of a book, a protocol, and over and above the concern about money. It comes back to the issue of equity in service, whether service is accessible around the province and indeed if there are any programs around the province to deal with this very serious problem.

Finally, I want to punctuate my concern by emphasizing that I hope it doesn't take a Mount Cashel here in this province to finally get someone independent who can advocate on behalf of these children. At this point in time there is no one inside or outside the system who has the responsibility, as I have advocated in the past, of acting as an independent advo-

[ Page 9916 ]

cate for these children. They do not have a voice in the system.

[5:00]

HON. MR. DUECK: I find the last statement the member made — that no one has the authority or the responsibility — somewhat disturbing, when we have one of the best superintendents of family and child services in all of Canada, who has the responsibility under the act to deal with these cases. It is a different model than in Ontario. Don't shake your head. The superintendent has that authority. For you to stand there and say that the thing is going amok and nobody cares about these children — that's a bunch of nonsense, and you know it. The system is run well and efficiently, and we do care about the children — very much so. We also care about not perpetuating the sexual abuse from children growing up and being abusers because they were abused.

It is a very serious issue, and we are doing a lot about it; I just mentioned some of the things. And you know it. You've been around long enough to know what the system is all about. Mr. Chairman, she has been the critic for some time, and she is well aware of the systems in place. She's well aware of how the offices work. She's well aware of the responsibility that the superintendent of family and child services has to offer and is responsible for.

Also, to mention that there's no authority after they leave the ministry is a bunch of hogwash. Again, under the GAIN act there are provisions for these services, and they must be maintained. So it's there. It may not be the same model as in Ontario, but by golly, Ontario hasn't got the total answer to all the problems either. I've watched Ontario make some pretty bad goofs.

We can learn from many jurisdictions, and we're quite happy to learn. We're quite happy to look at what other jurisdictions have, which we can in turn copy. But don't stand there and say that we're doing nothing. Mr. Chairman, I don't want the member to stand there and say that our services are falling apart, that we're not offering protection and counselling for children and that we're not offering all kinds of services through the Ministry of Health. They are there, we certainly believe they should be, and we're very much concerned about that.

We are certainly concerned about the protection of children; that is the main goal we have. If there is a report that a child has some problems and the evidence is there, we must protect that child. But we do offer services beyond that. As a matter of fact, we are expanding on them every year and trying to refine the service.

If the member has better ideas, I will gladly take note of them. Perhaps we can even sit down sometime with that member and with our superintendent and go over some of these ideas. I would be only too willing to do that. We are not shutting our minds to new ideas, but I do not accept a member getting up and trying to make a few political gains by saying that our system isn't working, that people are not protected, that children are at risk and that no one's there to look after them and that we have no one to look after them once they reach a certain age. That is absolutely not true, and I will not accept it.

MS. MARZARI: Now that we have our adrenalin up.... Mr. Minister, I thank you for the numbers you gave me on support for children in care. I asked: "How many children" — give me a database here —"are we actually working with in this province?" Not "How many children according to your database have been abused?" You said 22 percent of the children assessed. You didn't give me a number of the actual children that are being assessed.

Assessment, you have to admit, is not an active process of doing research. It's only one component of a research program. Assessments that come through your ministry are one piece of a larger picture.

Have you got a database? Perhaps I should just leave that with you and list my questions as we go here rather than popping up and sitting down. Give me a real number and a database, if you have one.

The question that goes along with that then is: how many of these children that you might have in your database are being treated?

The third question that naturally flows from that is: what quality of treatment are they getting, and are you satisfied with it? The three-month limitation is not one that many people find satisfactory — that is, professionals in the field, mothers of the children and, obviously, the children themselves, if they could talk about whether they think they're getting good service. I'm sure they would have something to say about three months' worth of treatment.

Another thing you might want to take a look at is that the level of training for many caregivers in residential facilities is not that terrific. We are dealing with many sexually abused children who are put into residential care with caregivers not trained to deal with sexually abused children. I'm just throwing that out as something that's come to me. In fact, many children, of course, aren't receiving treatment at all, nor is their treatment consistent with the treatment their mothers and their fathers — most notably their mothers — might be receiving. Those are a few concerns.

But my question is on your database and how many kids are we actually dealing with. What's the magnitude?

I want to move along from that and to leave that question on your pad. Children are obviously related to their mothers. The link here is a pamphlet by the B.C.-Yukon transition house society: "Children Who Witness Wife Assault." This is where we link the child abuse with the abuse of women in the home. Of abused women, 87 percent reported that their children were aware of the violence in their home. Of men who abuse their wives, 53 percent also abuse their children. Of abused women, 28 percent reported they abused their children during the period they were being abused.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

[ Page 9917 ]

You cannot say these are incredible statistics. In fact, they are eminently believable. What is awful about them is the fact that it happens. This is what we try to deny. This is why we don't have a database, because to actually count it is to identify and to name the enemy. I fear if we actually do name the enemy, we will find we don't have the resources, and no amount of talking about how well we're doing building little pieces, little units and hiring a worker here and there is going to help. What we have to do is stop denying.

Boys who witness their father's violence have a ten times greater rate of wife assault than sons who don't witness violence. Battered women who witness their mothers being a victim of violence are less likely to seek help when their own husbands abuse them.

We're dealing with numbers at such a level that it makes my questions about transition house funding seem picayune — seem absolutely trivial. These are important questions, because the questions I'm going to put forward to you about transition houses have to do with a system that's in a crisis right now.

Moving away from the overall nature of the epidemic we have on our hands and moving down into the actual number of beds available for women who finally have said, "I've had enough; I'm not going to take it anymore; I'm leaving," what we have in your estimates is an indication that yes, you will be creating more beds. But what I want to know around transition houses is the actual number. It doesn't seem to be broken down here. It might be under rehabilitation and support services, but it's not absolutely clear, and I'm not quite sure what your final number is.

Transition houses in B.C. obviously want to know what's coming their way — not just individually, because you negotiate individual per diems with them. They want to know what the bigger picture is for them. Are they dealing with what they really want, which is increased counselling services for mothers that show up on their doorsteps? Are they going to be able to look forward to child care workers who will be able to work with the children who have been abused — obviously or they wouldn't be there if they hadn't been? Are we going to be able to get some trained people who understand how to work with the kids when they come into the transition house situation?

I'm asking the following questions about transition houses. What are the real dollars going in? Of those real dollars in your estimates, what's going into capital and new beds? Is there any hope that the transition houses can expect to see some counselling services for the mothers and some child care services for the kids with an eye to what these kids have lived through?

The third area that I want to canvass very briefly, with its own separate questions, is my perennial child care in British Columbia. I've just been reading my old Hansards and it seems to me that for the last three years I've said the same things. Guess what? I don't want to say them again.

We have 200,000 children — possibly more — in this province who could use decent, licensed, safe day care. We have in this province 22,000 to 25,000 spaces which are decent, licensed, safe day care. There is a shortfall. Need I subtract 25,000 from 200,000 to suggest how large that shortfall is? No, I think I've done it before.

We need spaces and in those spaces we need kids, and we need affordable spaces. We need parents who can feel safe that where they leave their kids is going to be a good quality place for their kids. We need subsidies that really reflect the true ability of parents to pay.

Somebody is listening to me right now who takes home $1,500 a month out of her pay package. Out of that comes $600 for day care. She doesn't qualify for a subsidy, and she's left with $900 a month. Her child care for her kids costs as much as her rent. When you take away her rent and her child care, she has hardly enough to buy food for two kids. Think about it. Think about it as a woman raising two kids and think about the fact that she doesn't qualify for any level of subsidy under the provisions that we've given. That means that there are thousands like her who can't afford group child care in this province, who are forced into the informal day care network. In itself it may not be bad, but it is neither guaranteed or necessarily licensed, nor do we find qualified, trained day care workers very frequently in the family care situation.

In the last year your government has made a couple of statements about day care which suggests to me that rather than moving closer to the model that would provide a choice to parents, adequate subsidies to parents and adequate operating expenses for child care, two-year training programs for child care workers, quality monitoring of all child care spaces, support to family day care homes, and community hubs so that people would feel plugged in to the provision of day care services.... Rather than bringing us closer to that model of child care, I see press releases coming out of this government that basically go in the opposite direction, that in fact don't even get on the track at all.

These press releases have come down to there being lottery money available for day care capital. Big deal! This is not a planned growth. This is not any assist to day care as they go out to apply for their lottery money. This is not what we would call "adding needed spaces to the system."

Then I see another press release that suggests that in fact there will be commercial day care provided in British Columbia, and that your ministry is now looking for ways to either lower our standards to bring in commercial day care or maybe providing direct subsidies to commercial day care givers.

If there's any single point I've tried to raise and the day care community has tried to raise in this province for the last 15 years it is that nobody wants to see franchised day care and nobody wants to see an expansion of the kind of commercial day care that absolutely has to have lowered standards in order to make a buck. Enough studies have been done in this

[ Page 9918 ]

province — even occasionally with your own money, Mr. Minister — to suggest that commercial day care on a large basis — not the ma-and-pa operations that I defend, but commercial day care on a large basis — relies upon untrained workers who burn out and who do not provide the continuity of care that children need.

[5:15]

I really hope you re-read these words in Hansard, and I will send you copies of studies that have been done across this country to show that commercial child care on a franchised or a large-scale basis really relies on untrained workers who do not regard the business of child care as their first profession, who are low-paid and who do not stay in the field. This does not bode well for our children.

These are my questions to you around child care at this point. Do you really intend to bring commercial, franchised child care into British Columbia? Two, how closely are you working with the women's ministry on this particular item? This is a question I will raise with her as well. Three, is there any plan? Have you consulted with the federal Minister of Health and Welfare, who is claiming that a new plan for child care will be brought in within two years? That is our hope to build new spaces. I would like to see what the nature of your interventions with the federal minister may be.

Those are the three basic issues around the child care issue that I have not covered in previous years, and I would like to know your response — and then on the whole range of issues I have put before you in the last few minutes.

HON. MR. DUECK: I will begin with the transition houses. The member asked what the increase would be in number of beds and also in number of dollars. Last year we spent $6.5 million — that was the budget for transition houses — and this year the amount is $8 million. We are increasing the number of beds to more than 100. There is a news release going out tomorrow morning, as a matter of fact, and this would be a good time to mention it in the House. I will read it if you like:

"Social Services and Housing Minister Peter A. Dueck and Carol Gran, Minister Responsible for Women's Programs, announced today a funding increase of $1.4 million for transition houses. Eight new facilities and additional bed increases in five existing facilities will create more than 100 new beds. These additional beds represent a 25 percent budget increase over the previous year." Last year's budget, as I mentioned, was $6.5 million; it's now $8 million — "The eight new transition houses will be developed and managed by registered non-profit societies.

"Transition houses provide temporary shelter and support for women and children in personal crisis due primarily to family violence. Community agencies are often the initial contact for women and children in trouble. We will continue to support the work...."

"There are now 44 emergency shelters and transition houses operating across the province, providing more than 440 available beds" — and that will be increased for 1991 to 542.

So that's that portion of it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: Counselling services — yes.

The next item was: how many abused children in the province? We haven't got the number here today. We can get that for you. I have it for the month of March 1990. We get it on a monthly basis, and we can certainly supply that information to you. I happen to have the March one here. Is that the last one we have? At least that's the one I have.

Sexual abuse. Protection required: out of 287, 24 were because of sexual abuse. That is 4.8 percent of the total that needed protection. That varies from month to month, and I'm sure there are some months when it is greater or less. That information is available, and I have no objection.... As a matter of fact, I'd be only too happy to give that to you.

Day care. We believe that choices are the best route to go, that people be given the opportunity to choose where they wish their children to be looked after, whether it's in a family situation — what should I say? — where there are not more than two, other than your own children, in a family home; where a mother, perhaps in a cul-de-sac, would like to look after children.... That doesn't have to be licensed. They're unlicensed, and I think that was gone through in the estimates last year. I think there was a lot of debate on that. In day care we have 16,000 children subsidized every month.

The budget for '90-91 is $45 million. New initiatives include increasing income level exemptions from $100 to $300 per month. It's been raised by $200. It seems like an awful lot, but that's true — I thought maybe I was misreading this, Mr. Chairman. Subsidy rates in all categories of care — group and family day care, in-home care — have been increased.

Family day care support is where we've put in $1.7 million — I think it was announced some months ago — for training, for setting up a registry for people in the community, who can inquire: "Have you got a list of homes? Have you got a day care facility in this community? Where can I go?" These agencies will assist in recruiting and assessing caregivers, maintaining registries, providing training, and assisting parents in making good choices on day care. There is the potential to support 5,100 unlicensed family day care givers as well as licensed family day care givers. We have grants available.

We're now very much involved with the ministry of women's issues, trying to.... At least, all Crown corporations and government offices are to establish a day care facility on their premises, in their own building. If it is a small office, perhaps they can join with another building that's close by, so that people who work in that particular facility will have a day care. They can form an agency, for example.

We will provide grants. We have $500,000 available per year — $5,000 grants — for emergency repair and relocation. In the news not too long ago, I think there was a story of a school terminating the rent of a day care facility. We have up to $5,000 available for

[ Page 9919 ]

moving expenses. There's a $10,000 matching grant for start-up. For example, if somebody wants to start up a day care centre, we will match up to $10,000 for that purpose. We have lottery funds available for building and for renovations. We have many applications, and we have paid out many dollars in that area for people to start up day care services.

Special-needs day care we have. Throughout the province 2,100 children are served in that area. The annual budget is $12.6 million. Children receive a specialized program, either in a specialized or in an integrated setting. The providers are experienced for this particular service.

If you remember, before the election the federal government announced a universal day care program that would cost a few dollars, and then backed off right after the election. We did go ahead with a $14 million budget and did it on our own, because they backed off. We did move a substantial amount, because they did not come in to play this game after they announced it. I understand they are now again.... We have been in contact with the Minister of National Health and Welfare on a number of occasions. I am not certain what the program will entail, or how the provinces will fit into this plan. I'm sure it will be a joint project; they are not going to fund the total. But even if it was shared, as they had planned the last time, we would be very happy. We were quite happy to go ahead with that.

With our day care services in Crown corporations, societies that operate independently, and also in-home day care, we provide — as you mentioned — 25,000. I will state it as you did: it's not enough. I can accept that. The Minister Responsible for Women's Programs (Hon. Mrs. Gran) is very much aware and has lobbied me very hard on this issue. She is very concerned about day care; as a matter of fact, I think it is one of her priorities. We are meeting either this week or next week to discuss this very issue of day care and how we can improve on it and how we can perhaps fit in with the federal government if they do come forward and what recommendations we would like to make to them.

So I am aware of that. I've got family who are married with children requiring day care. I am well aware of the situation a lot of families face. We will expand the way we have. In the last few years, I think we have made tremendous progress. If you look back a few years ago, there was practically nil in this province. We've come quite a distance.

We have not gone the commercial franchise route as yet. That may even be part of the federal government plan. We've gone by non-profit societies. We've gone by Crown corporations doing it for their employees.

Incidentally, we have sent messages to corporations: "Please do the same. Follow our example. Some of them have done....

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: I know what you're saying, but I'm just expanding on that. Let's expand the way we have been: gradually but surely. We're expanding in day care in many areas. Perhaps that's another area we will expand in, in the future.

MS. CULL: Mr. Chairman, I want to shift this debate back to the housing issue. I have been reading with great interest the records of the debate over the last number of days while I haven't been able to be in the House. I want to bring up a couple of issues we haven't canvassed yet.

I want to start off with a bit of history. I'm going to start with some statistics here. Vancouver: a vacancy rate of 0.2 percent. Victoria: a vacancy rate of 0.3 percent. Half the renters in greater Vancouver are spending more than 25 percent of their income on rent. Only 16 percent of families in the GVRD are able to afford a home, and 1.6 times the average family income is required to own the average family home. The last one: 58,000 people a year are moving to this province, mostly from Ontario.

Mr. Chairman, are these statistics from 1990? They sound like it, but in fact they're not. They're statistics taken from a major housing study done in 1975 for the government. The only real difference I can see in looking at these statistics of vacancy rates and affordability in Vancouver and Victoria and of in-migration is that in 1975 we were spending about 3 percent of the provincial budget on affordable housing instead of the 0.27 percent that's being spent this year.

[5:30]

I have to ask: why, after 15 years of housing policies and 15 years of this program and that program, are we still in the same place we were in 1975? During the debate in the last number of days, the minister has been saying that he's doing all kinds of things, and that the government in the past has done all kinds of things on housing. If the policies and the programs we have in place are so terrific and effective, why aren't they working? Why, after 15 years, are we still in the same place?

HON. MR. DUECK: They are working.

MS. CULL: They aren't working, because basically we've come nowhere in 15 years. Maybe the reason we haven't changed the housing problems in the last 15 years, and the housing problems in 1975 are the same as the problems in 1990, is that we haven't learned. There's an old saying that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and that's what's happening here. We are repeating the history of housing crises in this province because this government hasn't yet learned how to deal with the issue.

I want to talk about a number of reasons that we haven't yet touched on in this debate for why these housing policies aren't working and why we haven't moved anywhere in 15 years.

First of all, we seem to have a policy, when it comes to housing, that I call an on-off policy. When we have a housing crisis, as we did in 1976 and now— I guess the last one officially started in 1988 — we have a housing policy. We have all kinds of activities,

[ Page 9920 ]

announcements, press releases, advertising on TV, and people running around saying that there's a problem and that we're doing something about it. But in between the cycles in the housing market we don't have a housing policy; we don't really have a Housing ministry.

I guess the poor housing section of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing actually started off at one point being the Ministry of Housing and then it was passed along from one ministry to the next like some poor relation going from home to home trying to find a suitable location. I think that's one of the lessons we haven't learned — that a housing policy isn't something that you bring into play at a time of crisis. It's something that has to be there all of the time. It has to have a long-term perspective. In fact, if it were there for the long haul, perhaps the crises that we face at times of tight markets, high costs, inflation and speculation could be smoothed out somewhat.

The second issue I want to talk about a bit is that we don't yet in this province, in spite of everything I've read that the minister has said in the debate over the last number of days, have a comprehensive housing policy. I know the minister will probably answer that by saying: "Read the Blues." That's what he's been saying for the last couple of days. I just feel the blues when I read the Blues, because the housing policy we have is simply a string of programs that have been put together. I don't see the objectives stated anywhere.

What is the government trying to achieve with these housing programs? What are the targets that we're trying to achieve? Is there a target for vacancy rates? Is there a target for the number of housing units to be built? Is there a target for what is affordable housing and how many families will be housed in affordable housing? Where are the studies and the background that show that this government has sat down and thought out where it wants to go in terms of a housing policy?

The third aspect I want to talk about today is that the minister and this government seem to be more interested in bashing municipalities for their lack of support than in actually sitting down and consulting with them to find out why municipalities are having difficulty providing zoning and why it is taking a fair amount of time to get projects on the road. I want to talk a little about why consultation hasn't occurred.

Finally, I want to talk about the fact that there seems to be a failure to recognize the interrelationship of housing issues. Time and time again throughout the debates, when issues came up — Crown land, rent review, discrimination against children, planning and all of these kinds of things — the response I read in the debates was: "That's not my ministry; it's someone else's ministry. Bring that up under their estimates." The problem is that housing is not something that you can just divide up into little slices and deal with one program at a time. I think it's the failure to recognize that these issues are related that has created the problem.

That's an outline of what I want to cover. I'm not sure that I'm going to get through all this before we adjourn today, but I want to start off with the idea that we have an on-off housing policy in this province.

If we go back to 1976, there were recommendations for a comprehensive housing policy which dealt with things like production, affordability, cost, quality of housing, security of tenure, planning, community services and fairness and equality. There was quite a comprehensive outline of things that could be put into a comprehensive housing policy. The minister didn't have to steal our ideas. I know there has been a lot of debate in the last couple of days about who was stealing whose ideas, but I know that he did say some time ago that he was going to be taking a housing policy to cabinet which looked an awful lot like ours. He could have gone back 15 years and taken some ideas that people who worked for him 15 years ago — perhaps not for this minister but for this government — had come up with. The problem is that we don't do that. After the report came out 15 years ago, the housing crisis let up a bit, and we went into a recession.

We haven't recognized that between 1976 and 1990 we have had ongoing housing problems. Let's have a look at some of these. In 1986, 44 percent of renters paid 30 percent of their income for housing; 100,000 homeowners paid more than 30 percent. We have a housing problem all the time in this province for some people, for a sector of our population that never can find the affordable housing, secure tenure, decent accommodation that they can afford on the kinds of incomes they make. What happens is that we get a crisis from time to time, as the market goes through its cycles.

I think it's interesting that the minister answered some of the questions about the vacancy rates by saying: "Well, we've got 60,000 people a year moving to this province." I read into his answer that if we didn't, if the economy turned down, the vacancy rate would be solved. Sure, the problem is going to be solved, but surely that's the answer that he's suggesting to us: that we just wait, we tough it out, we go through this cycle, and then we'll discover that the vacancy rates will come back up. But that's precisely what this government did in 1976. It did nothing at the time. It didn't address the issue. And the real crunch died off the front pages of the paper for a while. Then it came back. And it's going to keep coming back, because that's the way the housing market works. We don't learn in this province that we have to address these issues all the time — consistently — so that they don't come back every five years or so.

So I want to know what's going to happen in the future. If we end up with a decrease in immigration, is the minister going to pack up his programs and go home again? Is housing going to be shunted off to some other kind of ministry somewhere? Will these things all be forgotten?

As my first question to the minister, I would like to know a little bit more about the comprehensive housing policy that the ministry does have. I don't want the repetition of the 8,000 units and the 1,800

[ Page 9921 ]

social housing units. I want to know what the objectives, the goals and the targets are that you have set for this province. I don't want the CMHC report that talks about social housing targets in the province, because surely, Mr. Chair, the minister isn't implying that the federal government is setting housing policy for us here in British Columbia. I'd like to know a little about the comprehensive housing policy. I'd also like to know about the staff that is available to develop this housing policy, the number of FTEs, and where they're doing this.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, before I go into that subject I have some information that one of the members asked for earlier. That information is now available, and I think I should put it in the record.

They asked how many people were on income assistance. In June 1975 we had 2,433,000 population; the percentage who were recipients was 10.2. The total population in June '89 was 3,055,600; the percentage of recipients was 8.6.

Some more information was asked for, and I think I should put it on the record as well at this time. How many people were dismissed during the calendar year and during the current year? In the 1989 calendar year we dismissed two social workers and three FAWs, and rejected from probation — people who were on probation — one social worker and three FAWs. In 1990 we have to date dismissed one social worker and one FAW and rejected from probation one social worker.

The member's question.... I don't know whether it's fair to mention this in the House, but that member worked on a task force with the Ministry of Social Services and Housing when she was employed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. A lot of that information comes from that task force. She also mentioned that the Housing ministry is sort of nothing — it's just sort of a tag-on. We have a B.C. Housing Management Commission that is very much alive and well. It is a huge operation.

Other than that, I am not going to make any comments whatsoever about any of the stuff that was mentioned. I have gone over it three or four times and that is sufficient.

MS. CULL: I am glad the minister raised the question of the housing committee that I sat on for a short period of time before being elected to represent the people of Oak Bay-Gordon Head. I hope the committee has been progressing since I last sat on it, because none of the information that I used in my remarks a few minutes ago came from anything that was being discussed at the committee.

I know this is a sore point with the minister. The minister has said — as was quoted in the Squamish Times and as he has also alluded to in the debate in this House — that somehow I gained a lot of information from that committee that I then passed on to the housing critic here. I find that really quite amusing — in part because the housing policy that the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) outlined very eloquently in this House was developed long before that committee was even struck.

[5:45]

The other thing I find amusing is that the minister wasn't in the House the day I made these remarks during my reply to the throne speech. Another amusing thing about these comments is that at the last meeting of that committee that I attended, there was a lot of debate about how we were going to address the issues. The really amusing thing was that we discovered we were not going to be able to address the housing issue at all, because the political direction the committee was receiving at that time was not to develop a comprehensive housing policy, was not to get on and figure out how to build housing for people to live in in this province, but was to get the issue off the front page of the Vancouver Sun before the general election.

The people in that committee are not dumb. They did a quick calculation, and at that time they figured they couldn't build housing quickly enough to take this off the front page of the Vancouver Sun and remove it as a political issue. The committee's terms of reference at that point didn't even involve building housing.

Anyway, since the minister did not answer my question about a comprehensive housing policy, staff, FTEs and targets -the kinds of things I was asking for - I have to conclude that there is no such policy. I hope this committee is continuing in its efforts. Maybe one day we will finally see one.

I want to move on to the second issue I mentioned, and that is the question of municipality-bashing. In the last eight weeks in this House, I've heard almost every member on that side of the House get up to start bashing municipalities and blaming them for not delivering the zoning, for taking too long and for not taking up the development incentive grants.

The minister has said: "I've said that 8,000 units can be built. They just have to get on and build them." I've been thinking about that for a while: why is that wrong? What's wrong with the way that's being presented?

That's like having a hungry person in a jail cell with the door locked. The keeper comes along and puts a plate of food down outside the bars and says: "Eat." The person inside the jail cell says: "I haven't got the key. I can't get out." "Well, that's not my problem. I'm providing you with the food. Why are you not getting on with it?"

I think what the minister and the members on that side of the House should be asking is: why are the municipalities not providing the zoning? Maybe we need to get to the question of what is behind the zoning, and what is behind the length of time.

I'm going to suggest two reasons that would be very easy to confirm with some consultation with the Minister of Municipal Affairs. First of all, municipalities are discovering that there's a cost to growth. Sometimes the higher the density of the growth, the more it costs the municipality. Municipalities aren't dumb. They know this money will have to come out of their taxes and will have to be subsidized by the

[ Page 9922 ]

other people who are already living in that community.

One of the things I would like to ask the minister — and I hope his staff are taking down the questions, so that when he returns he can answer — is: has he been making representations to his colleagues in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to get this kind of funding done? Has he seen the studies that were done for Mission, Colwood and Vancouver, showing that the higher-density growth is costing those municipalities more money? Is he making representation on the negotiation for police costs? I know that's not within the realm of the Housing minister, but it impacts on housing and on the provision of housing.

The other area that I think needs some looking at has to do with the planning legislation. In 1985 the government stripped the planning legislation in the Municipal Act of any flexibility it had to deal with these issues.

Interjection.

MS. CULL: No, in 1985. In 1983 they did away with regional planning, which I'll come to later. But in 1985 the Municipal Act was stripped of all kinds of flexible tools. We have now come along five years, and I think almost everybody out there in the development community and local government recognizes that there have to be some changes. Again, I think that if we're talking about housing and why municipalities are not providing the zoning, maybe we have to go to them and ask them that question. Maybe what we will hear from the municipalities — and I'm sure it's what we'll hear, because I've heard it from many municipal politicians — is that the planning legislation needs to be amended so that the kinds of housing projects that communities want — ones that can be affordable, that fit in, that don't disrupt neighbourhoods and are compatible with existing services — can in fact be built.

I'd like to know — to the minister again — what consultation he has undertaken with local governments on the housing program. Specifically, I'd like to hear about the consultation that went into the development of the rental housing supply program and the development incentive grants.

Is the minister coming back?

MR. WILLIAMS: If they're complicated questions, you have to ask him twice.

MS. CULL: Is that right? Should I just go over them again? Since the minister has left the House and doesn't seem to.... Oh, here he is, just in time.

MR. WILLIAMS: Just ask him slowly.

MS. CULL: I could spell them out. I'd like to know about consultation, Mr. Minister, that you've had with local governments about housing programs, and specifically about consultation on the rental supply program and the development incentive grant program. That's the grant that the minister was saying has had a very poor uptake. I would like to know what discussions he has had with local government about that grant.

HON. MR. DUECK: Of course we consult with all of those agencies and with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. How could you operate in housing without contact with them? As a matter of fact, we have had one individual contact municipalities on a regular basis to talk about problems, some of the zoning, some of the pitfalls we get into and some of the things they have concerns about.

I've mentioned this for three, four or five days now; I don't know how long it's been. I have no more to say. It's all in the Blues.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just like to say that repetitiveness should be avoided if at all possible.

MS. CULL: The only reason I was repeating myself was that I was waiting for the minister to seat himself. However, that's fine.

The question wasn't answered. If you have consulted with all of these local governments about the development incentive grant program, could you tell us what they have said about not taking it up?

I don't want to be repetitive, Mr. Chair, but it seems that the minister doesn't understand the question — the rental supply program and the development incentive grant. You mentioned the other day, Mr. Minister, that you were disappointed municipalities hadn't been taking up these grants to provide rental housing. If you've consulted with them about the program, could you tell us what they have said to you about why they haven't taken up the grants?

HON. MR. DUECK: We've met with the mayors of the regional district. As a matter of fact, there were more than that — most of the mayors from the Greater Vancouver Regional District, Squamish and the lower mainland on a couple of occasions — and we talked about the incentive grants. They were quite positive, but the take-up has been very disappointing. It's actually not a development incentive grant, but a municipal incentive grant that comes out of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

MS. CULL: I don't expect the minister to know this, but actually the specific grant is a development incentive grant; it's the overall program that's the municipal incentive grant program.

I'm still confused, though, about what these local governments have actually said to you. Have they indicated why they're not taking the grants? You've said you're disappointed that they haven't taken the grants, but they're enthusiastic about it. So if they're enthusiastic but they're not taking them up, where is the problem?

Are we again just offering food to somebody who can't take it because they're behind a locked door? Is that the problem? What's missing here? I think that's the kind of problem that we haven't addressed. Could the minister tell us why there is no uptake

[ Page 9923 ]

when the local governments are so enthusiastic about it?

HON. MR. DUECK: Now you also want me to know why municipalities do or don't do something. For gosh sakes, that's up to them. Ask them. You're close enough. Ask them why they didn't take up on it, why they don't want to fast-zone and fast-track.

We had the incentive grants available. We explained it to them. They were enthusiastic about it. But why they took it up or not....

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: I did not bash them about that. I said I was disappointed, and I am disappointed that they didn't take that up, because we wanted to fast-zone, we wanted to have higher density, and the uptake was quite slow. I have never bashed municipalities. I have said: "These are some of the areas where...."

She's getting some advice now, Mr. Chairman. I'll just wait till that advice has been given.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, I can be accused of many things, but I certainly don't want to be accused of what a municipality does or doesn't do. Is that understood?

MS. CULL: Mr. Chair, I asked the minister what the municipalities had said, because he said that he had consulted with them. I assumed that if he had consulted with them, they had said something to him that he was listening to, and that he might share this information with the House.

Anyway, we are getting on in time, and I'm going to 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 moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.