[ Page 9971 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Carmanah Pacific Park Act (Bill 28). Hon. Mr. Richmond

Introduction and first reading –– 9971

Oral Questions

Resignation of Social Services minister. Mr. Clark –– 9972

Truckers' dispute. Mr. Lovick –– 9973

Bowron Lake timber blowdown. Mr. Vant –– 9973

Truckers' dispute. Mr. Lovick –– 9973

Native land claims. Mr. G. Hanson –– 9973

College of New Caledonia. Mrs. Boone –– 9974

Ministerial Statement

Sechelt land title system. Hon. Mr. Smith –– 9974

Mr. G. Hanson

Tabling Documents –– 9975

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

(Hon. Mr. Jacobsen)

On vote 59: minister's office –– 9975

Ms. Cull

Ms. A. Hagen

Ms. Marzari

Hon. Mr. Messmer

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Rose

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Lovick

Presenting Reports –– 9999

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are several members of the motorcycling fraternity who were kind enough to come over for the second year in a row and introduce some of the members of the House to motorcycling, giving them an insight into what makes them tick and how they work. Rather than name anyone in particular, on your behalf and on behalf of all the members in the House, I would like to make them most welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House today a number of very distinguished members of the Sechelt Indian band council. I would ask the House to please join me in extending a warm welcome to Chief Thomas Paul; Councillor Gary Seschuk; Councillor Theresa Jeffries; Councillor Benedict Pierre; Mr. Gordon Anderson, the band financial administrator; and Mr. Graham Allan, band solicitor. These honoured guests are in attendance today to help commemorate a historic occasion that my colleague the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) will introduce presently. Please welcome them.

MR. G. HANSON: From this side of the House, we would also like to extend our warm welcome to the Sechelt council. I hope your deliberations with the government are productive.

I'd also like to point out that in the gallery are Bill Wilson, chairman of the First Nations Congress; Sophie Pierre from the Kootenay nation in Cranbrook; and Katherine Tenise, executive director of the First Nations Congress. Would the House give them a warm welcome as well.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It's indeed a pleasure to rise today and introduce a number of people, who are in the House and in the precincts, from the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture. They are here today to meet with several different MLAs and ministers. Mr. Jack Brown, the president of the federation, is leading the delegation along with several directors from Vancouver Island and mainland British Columbia. Would this assembly please make them welcome.

MR. BARLEE: On behalf of the members from this side of the House, we would also like to welcome those members of the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture who are in the House and in Victoria.

MR. CASHORE: In the gallery today are Prof. Theo Schiller and his colleague Suzanne Wieneke of the University of Marburg in West Germany. They are here pursuing studies in policy styles in Canadian provinces. Would the House join me in making them welcome.

MR. DE JONG: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are four friends of ours. They are Dick and Betty Vink — Mr. Vink is also serving on the Social Credit executive — and Henry and Alice Groothof, who are relatives of ours. I would ask the House to give them all a cordial welcome.

HON. J. JANSEN: In the House today from the wonderful community of Chilliwack again are 36 grade 9 students from Timothy Christian School. Among those students is my son Darren. Would you please make them welcome.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are visiting with us Howard Jampolsky, president of the University of Victoria Alma Mater Society, and George Pringle, a student member of the University of Victoria senate. Would all members please welcome these two distinguished visitors.

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, today in your gallery we have a guest from Salzburg, Austria, whose name is Brian Perszyk. He is visiting Canada and will be joined this weekend by his wife Elfrike and son Lorenz. Would the House please join me in bidding them welcome.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I also have some guests in the House this afternoon. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming Mrs. Madeleine Cranston from my riding of North Saanich and the Islands and also her two guests, visitors from Hamilton, Ontario, Margaret McNamara and Marian Reding.

MS. MARZARI: The Ideal Mini School is here today, and among the students are Chris Vance, Chris Hannis, Leah Libin, John Bentley, Malcolm Thompson, Mathew Levenson, Minna Schendlinger and Larry Wolfson, their teacher. I ask the House to welcome them?

HON. J. JANSEN: We have in the gallery some representatives of the senior citizens' organizations in British Columbia. They made a presentation today to the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy: Mr. Ross Hunter, who is vice-president of the Council of Senior Citizens' Organizations of British Columbia; Ms. Josephine Arland, president of the B.C. Old Age Pensioners' Organization; and Ms. Tina Hanover, president of the Senior Citizens' Association of British Columbia. Would you please make those people welcome.

Introduction of Bills

CARMANAH PACIFIC PARK ACT

Hon Mr. Richmond presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Carmanah Pacific Park Act.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, Bill 28 creates a 3,600-hectare class A park over the lower

[ Page 9972 ]

portion of the Carmanah Valley on the west coast of Vancouver Island. It also establishes the Carmanah Valley forest management area over the remainder of the drainage, including its tributary, August Creek. The Carmanah Valley Forest Management Advisory Committee is created to advise the Minister of Forests on all matters pertaining to the integrated management of forest resources within the management area.

The bill provides a balanced resolution to a difficult and highly contentious public issue regarding the protection of a superlative growth of old Sitka spruce trees. The ecological integrity of the spruce grove is maintained, while at the same time, forestry jobs and economic stability in nearby communities are supported through careful logging in the remainder of the drainage.

Bill 28 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

RESIGNATION OF
SOCIAL SERVICES MINISTER

MR. CLARK: A question for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the minister had great difficulty explaining how the former Minister of Health was not informed of the comptroller-general's report until yesterday, even though the contents of that report ultimately precipitated his resignation.

Can the minister inform the House if, in the course of that investigation, officials from his ministry interviewed the former minister?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CLARK: I want to read a quote from the comptroller-general's report: "Mr. Dubas has stated that he had offered to pay all hotel bills for the minister and his wife on this trip, and the minister has stated that he was under the impression that Mr. Dubas had done so."

Clearly the former minister was interviewed about his and his deputy's expense irregularities, and clearly the minister knew that he and his deputy were under investigation. How is it that your government fired Mr. Dubas as a result of the investigation, yet failed to inform the former minister of the details of the report? Does the minister think this is fair?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, the question of staff relations and decisions regarding the performance of staff has traditionally been held in confidence. It's not something that in the normal course of events gets public discussion.

That difficulty, of course, is exacerbated when we deal with public servants, who in one sense are reportable to all the citizens, not merely to their elected superiors of the moment. So it becomes a very delicate matter for all of us to deal with.

As I said yesterday and the day before, I believe: the report that the hon. member refers to was a confidential document. Upon its receipt the appropriate authorities in government dealt with it and took some actions. Of course, those actions are a matter of public record. The consequence of those actions should, in a fair society, allow the affected party all of the options that are available to him not only in law, but also in terms of professional reputation.

In providing that affected individual with the liberties that are due him in law, it becomes incumbent upon all of us to understand the sensitivity and the potential damage that can be done to public discussion of the specifics of an allegation.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that the government received certain information. The government took action on that information, and the affected individual must, in the interests of justice, be provided every single opportunity to protect not only a personal reputation, but also legal and financial rights.

[2:15]

Therefore in my judgment, as I have said in previous answers, it is absolutely imperative that all of the members opposite who think they may have a political issue of the moment weigh carefully the impact their continued attention on this very narrowly focused issue will have on their own reputation and credibility among the citizens of this province.

MR. CLARK: The former minister was interviewed on this matter, and it is clear that he knew some time ago that there was an investigation. It would help to resolve this issue to know exactly what the former minister knew and when he knew it.

My question to the minister is simply this: does he not think it would help to resolve the matter if he tabled the comptroller-general's report in this House, as was done when the former Minister of Tourism resigned due to a similar abuse of public money?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It's truly unfortunate that these members opposite, for whatever crass personal motive they may have, refuse to accept and understand my comments. That report dealt with an individual, an employee of government. Government took actions which an employee must have the opportunity of developing and pursuing, following whatever advice he may receive from others. Therefore that report must be held in confidence until those options — not only his own, but also those of others who may have a statutory responsibility to ensure that the public right is protected, enforced and monitored effectively.... Both sides must have adequate opportunity to develop and investigate all of those matters.

To suggest today, as has been suggested in the past two days, that that confidential report be tabled now, for the sole purpose, I suspect, of allowing members of the opposition to continue to unfairly characterize players in this exercise until all of the subsequent investigations are completed.... That report dealt

[ Page 9973 ]

with the alleged performance of an employee. As a consequence of that report, the employee was dealt with. That ex-employee now has a right that we must all appreciate and protect, and it does none of us in this House any good whatsoever to attempt to....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The answer has gone far beyond the scope of the question.

TRUCKERS' DISPUTE

MR. LOVICK: A question to the Minister of Labour. The transportation of goods is being seriously disrupted, and some supermarkets are now running short of food. What steps has the minister taken to meet with the independent truckers and seek a resolution to the current dispute?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I haven't at this point been involved directly in any action. This is a dispute between the independent truckers and their employers, as I understand it. I appreciate that it's providing some difficulty in some areas, but I think we prefer to allow the parties to settle their differences and to work out their disputes. That is happening in this case, hopefully, as it happens in others. I don't think it's necessary and expected that government will interfere every time parties are trying to reach an agreement.

MR. LOVICK: A supplementary to the minister. The minister ought to be aware that his legislation, the Industrial Relations Reform Act, precludes the two parties' getting together. Would the minister not agree that he has a responsibility to ensure the public interest is protected by using his offices to get the two sides to talk?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Speaker, the member's assumptions are not correct. The legislation does not preclude the two sides from reaching an agreement. Hopefully they will reach an agreement soon. To say that they can't reach an agreement on account of the legislation within my ministry is not at all correct, and I think the member knows it.

BOWRON LAKE TIMBER BLOWDOWN

MR. VANT: I have a question to the Minister of Parks. Recently Parks ministry staff discovered a blowdown of timber in the neighbourhood of Isaac Lake in the Bowron Lake Provincial Park. This blowdown covers an area of about 700 hectares, or 1,700 acres.

My question to the Minister of Parks is: how many hectares of timber blows down throughout our provincial parks system throughout B.C.? Also, what will happen to all that prime timber now lying on the ground in the Bowron Lake Provincial Park in my constituency? It is not a laughing matter.

MR. SPEAKER: It may not be a laughing matter, but it's probably a matter best suited for written questions put on the order paper. The details involved in a question like that are not expected to be known by any minister.

TRUCKERS' DISPUTE

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Has the minister ascertained whether the truckers' dispute is indeed jeopardizing the operation of the B.C. Ferries service? Does she have any plans in place to ensure the continued operation of all B.C. ferries? Can she answer that for us?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question from the member opposite, there's no question that we've seen a significant drop in the truck traffic on our ferries, but it certainly isn't jeopardizing the service.

NATIVE LAND CLAIMS

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Native Affairs. Today's landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Canada is a clear signal to all Canadians that aboriginal rights are entrenched constitutional rights. They are real; they have not been extinguished.

Everywhere in this province economic activity is jeopardized by your government's ongoing refusal to negotiate comprehensive claims before settlements are imposed by the courts. My question is: has the minister decided to resolve this economic uncertainty, to end this government's harassment of well-established rights and to sit down at the negotiating table?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think the premise that the member makes is not correct. However, the Sparrow decision did come down this morning. I haven't had an opportunity to study the decision yet, but I have spoken with those who have read the decision a first time, at least.

It's far too early, in my mind, for me to make any comments about the decision — or the implication of the decision — handed down in the Sparrow case.

MR. G. HANSON: It's clear from a perusal of the decision that the courts are signaling.... Once again, the public, the industry, the aboriginal people and the courts are saying that the only way to deal with this matter is to negotiate. Why does your government refuse to negotiate?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I think the member's comments answer the question. This is far too important an issue, in my mind, to make any kind of a decision based on "a perusal of the decision." As I said in answer to the first question, it's a decision....

MR. G. HANSON: It's obvious.

[ Page 9974 ]

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: The member thinks it's obvious. I would suggest to you that it's an important issue in British Columbia. If this decision is going to have wider-ranging implications, then they should be looked at carefully and careful and thoughtful decisions be made rather than those based on someone making a perusal of that decision four or five hours after a decision has come down.

COLLEGE OF NEW CALEDONIA

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Minister of Advanced Education. The College of New Caledonia will have a serious budget shortfall that will limit the number of university spaces in the transfer programs. Applications for these programs have already increased by 17 percent. What steps has the minister taken to ensure these additional students will not be turned away?

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of AT&T.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Has a certain ring to it, doesn't it?

The member is not only having trouble reading the question, but the member is also having trouble understanding the financial analysis that's been presented to the college. I'm quite sure that the budget we presented to them — I spoke to the acting president this morning — is going to be adequate to serve their needs. If it isn't, I am sure that the college council will relay that information to me.

MRS. BOONE: All of the information I have says that there is going to be a million-dollar shortfall there and that British Columbia places tenth in the country for university enrolment. Does the minister not agree that university programs should be growing, not cut off? Will he ensure that the necessary funds are there to ensure that students have seats?

MR. SPEAKER: It's a very broad question.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Considering, of course, that the member wasn't here for my estimates.... If the member would attend the House regularly, she would know that from....

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We'll look for the member's ten-day declaration sheet, too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Had the member attended the estimates, she would know that the budget for this ministry has increased 13½ percent. It's the largest increase in Canada for a ministry of post-secondary education. After meeting with my colleagues, I can say with some justification that without question we have the best access program in Canada. We will be enrolling a greater percentage of students than ever.

I can't accept at all what the member is saying. The allegations contained in the member's question are quite incorrect. This is a superb post-secondary....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member is wrong.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: One at a time. Come to the estimates next year, and we will discuss it again.

The member's premise, needless to say, Mr. Speaker, is incorrect.

Ministerial Statement

SECHELT LAND TITLE SYSTEM

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may make a brief statement to the House.

Following the introduction by the hon. Prever at the beginning of question period, I am pleased to advise the House today that the executive council and the Sechelt band have completed the last formal step to enable the Sechelt band to register land titles in the land title system in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, this move clears the way for the Sechelt people to enter into the economic mainstream of the province of British Columbia specifically and certainly in terms of our land titles system. Formerly we had constitutional constraints which made that very much impossible. Because registered titles are guaranteed by the province of British Columbia, lenders and others will be more inclined to finance development on native lands and to lend money on the security of those registered interests. Traditionally this has been a very serious impediment to land development aspirations of native peoples across the province of British Columbia.

B.C. is the first Canadian Torrens jurisdiction to provide a constitutionally sound registration scheme for native lands that is under provincial legislation. It means autonomy for the band in connection with real estate transactions, in that they no longer need federal approval or assistance. It means as well security of title for both the band and for those people with whom they do business.

[2:30]

Land title will be governed by provincial law and adopted by the band, rather than current federal law which is paramount in the area of Indians and land reserved for Indians. The Sechelt were the catalyst in this process of achieving the legislative changes necessary to make registration of Indian land possible. They were persuasive for their cause, and they were realistic and pragmatic in their approach. The band and the provincial government developed a creative solution for the Sechelt and for other Indian

[ Page 9975 ]

bands who will in the future opt into the scheme that has been developed here.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, we recognize today the first constitutionally acceptable provincial title registration scheme for Indian lands. It represents an achievement for the Sechelt people, because it gives them the opportunity to enter the economic and business mainstream of the province in a way that they have not previously been able to do.

It illustrates what can be achieved when native and non-native government leaders work together to strip away legal barriers and turn an aspiration into a reality. It leads the way for other native bands, without compromising other aspirations or claims they may have, and it provides a provincial guarantee of Indian title and eliminates all existing doubt on matters of proof of ownership and title security issues which were previously associated with native lands as administered under the Indian Act.

MR. G. HANSON: We compliment and applaud the Sechelt band in pursuing self-government initiatives with the provincial government. We fully endorse and support that. But we know that the band council also supports us in our contention that British Columbia will only achieve its economic, social and moral potential if the province takes its rightful place at the bargaining table and negotiates fair and comprehensive land claims for the aboriginal people of Canada.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The response to a ministerial statement must be within the framework of the statement.

MR. G. HANSON: It is, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, it isn't. So far you have strayed well beyond it. Having given you that caution, I will allow you to continue.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about rights that belong to aboriginal people that have not been extinguished, that are inherent rights to self-government. For too long, British Columbia has pursued a course of litigation, of denial, of hiding their head in the sand as court decision after court decision comes down saying that the only way to address the land question in British Columbia is to join the federal government and aboriginal people — Sechelt, Kwakiutl, Tsimshian, Nisga'a — and sit down and work out a comprehensive land claims negotiation where various subjects would be on the table. Until that occurs, British Columbia will never achieve its economic and social potential.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled the financial statements for the B.C. Steamship Company (1975) Ltd. for the year ending December 31, 1989, in accordance with section 65 of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Before we go to Committee of Supply, I would just remind the House that the Select Standing Committee on Health asks leave to sit today at 3 p.m., and the Select Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations asks leave of the House to sit at 4 p.m., both meetings in the Douglas Fir committee room.

Leave granted.

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

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

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

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Ms. Cull) wants to continue her line of questioning, and I'll relinquish the floor to her.

MS. CULL: Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude with some of the things I was discussing earlier this morning. I want to follow up on the last comment the minister made to me and also some of the comments made immediately afterwards by the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) that the issues I was raising should more properly be addressed in the estimates of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Throughout this debate about housing issues, a number of items have come up: the need to control demolitions, the need to manage Crown land more effectively to provide housing, the need for rent stabilization, the need for protection of children and families against discrimination by landlords and the need for more support to municipal governments for planning, services, infrastructure and dealing with regional growth problems. That's what we're talking about here.

We're talking about growth problems that are being experienced primarily by the greater Vancouver and the greater Victoria areas. The point that I'm trying to make is that these issues are all interrelated with housing. Yes, these issues do fall under other ministries, and I will be raising those when we come to that minister's estimates.

I think one of the essential problems we have in dealing with the housing crisis now and the housing crisis that we had in the mid-seventies is that these items have not been integrated. They are being dealt with in isolation by separate ministries and by separate branches. There isn't an overall approach or a comprehensive housing policy.

Throughout the time that I talked about this issue and asked questions of this minister and the former

[ Page 9976 ]

minister on a comprehensive housing policy, I have yet to hear that we actually have such a thing.

So in concluding my remarks on the housing issue, I want to say that I think the reason that we've come full circle since 1976, that the vacancy rates and the affordability problems are the same now as they were then, and that we're facing exactly the same set of problems as we did then.... If we could go back in history, I think we would find other cycles in the housing market that had the same kinds of statistics; if we could look into the future, I'm sure we will see another time like this where we will again be calling the situation a housing crisis. I think the reason that this is happening to us time and time again is that we haven't addressed these issues in a coordinated and comprehensive fashion.

We don't know where we're going. We don't have the objectives or the targets. With this ministry and the policies it has put forward, we really don't know what you're trying to address in terms of solving the housing problems.

So I hope that the committee, which the former minister mentioned a number of times, continues to do its work. Perhaps the staff and the ministries on this committee, who are very competent and able people, will be able to persuade the ministers — and I use the word in plural because a number of ministers have to be persuaded — to come together and put forward a comprehensive housing policy that addresses all of these issues — not just a rental supply program or development incentive grants, but the comprehensive issue of housing and growth management that needs to be addressed in this province.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the question that the member has asked. I'm very pleased to inform her that, despite the fact that she may not be aware of it, we do have a comprehensive housing program in British Columbia; it's very comprehensive, as a matter of fact.

The issues that you talk about — servicing, which is clearly within Municipal Affairs; Crown lands, which would belong to Crown Lands as a responsibility — are issues that we all agree belong to different ministries, but are related to the issue of housing. There's no question about that.

I could point back to the meetings that we talked about a little this morning. When we met with the mayors of the lower mainland to talk about the housing needs there, those meetings were attended not only by the Minister of Social Services and Housing and myself as the Minister of Consumer Services, but Municipal Affairs and other ministries that have an involvement in the process. They were at those meetings for input and for their discussion to make it a comprehensive policy.

You can appreciate that I cannot, as Minister of Social Services and Housing, decide the policy that affects other ministries. That's something that comes under those ministries. But we are working together to deal with whatever roadblocks or difficulties there may be in getting more and more affordable housing and rental accommodation onto the market. It is comprehensive. It does involve other ministries; it's not done in isolation, as you suggest. It is, in fact, a very well-coordinated effort.

MS. CULL: Just one final question then. If the minister could make available to me a statement of the housing policy, I would really like to see it. It would encourage me very much to see that there was such a statement which integrates all of these issues I've been talking about and shows that the various ministries are taking coordinated action. I'm sure you don't have that with you today, but I would very much appreciate it if you would make a commitment to making such a document available to me.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Could I just say that what proves the point, I guess, that I'm making is.... Just to let you know who attended those meetings: they were for the sole purpose of discussing issues of housing. Obviously when other ministries attended, they attended to participate in and coordinate that effort.

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to address two issues today in some brief questions to the new Minister of Social Services and Housing. I think one of them is particularly appropriate, because visiting in the precincts today are representatives of the old age pensioners' organization. I understand that they have been briefing the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy. It's interesting that these groups are continuing to brief this government while we are still awaiting their response to the task force on older people — "Toward a Better Age" — and also the appointment of the Seniors' Advisory Council, which is under the aegis of the minister's colleague the Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen).

The specific question I want to ask in respect of seniors' issues has to do with the recent announcement of some further moves to increase the level of rent that will be eligible for SAFER funding. I think that both the minister and I would agree that the increased rents that are eligible for SAFER are a graphic illustration of the absolutely fearsome escalation of rents in many of our communities. When we are looking at rents being subsidized at well over $500 a month, when a year ago they were in the $300 range, we have, just in this program, an indication of what our renters are facing. Of course, seniors are fixed-income renters, so the impact on their income is very significant.

One issue that continues to trouble me around the government's management of the SAFER program is how information gets out to seniors. The minister will respond that there's been a considerable increase in the number of older people taking advantage of this program, and I would certainly acknowledge that there has finally been an increase and some changes — which took ten years to get some action on by this government. But in my riding and in calls to my office, I still run into people who are not aware of the SAFER program and how to access it. The issue of information to seniors continues to be a major problem.

[ Page 9977 ]

Would the minister please advise the House what he intends to do to make sure that every senior in the province is aware of this program, so that if he or she is eligible, that person may take advantage of it?

[2:45]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: To begin with your first comments, we did meet with a group of seniors. I might add that we had a very good meeting. Those people are very appreciative of the efforts government is making on their behalf to provide accommodations. They understand the circumstances and the limitations and that things take time. It was a very good meeting.

The SAFER program is highly successful. The amounts have increased rather dramatically. On July 1, 1990 — this year — the rent ceiling will be raised to $520 from $450 for a single person, and from $475 to $575 — a $100 increase — for couples. That is a substantial increase. We know that it's required. There has certainly been an increase in rents; there's no question about that. We think this program is doing a great deal to assist those people who have to rent their accommodation.

The question is: what are we doing to make sure people know about it? We are doing everything we can in SAFER advertising. If I may just look at the list of things we have, we have a supply of SAFER brochures at many different places: pharmacies, health units, Second Mile Society, DERA, senior citizens' councils, seniors' organizations and the minister's constituency office. The SAFER brochures are sent to all government MLAs to be distributed. A complete supply of information is also sent to all government agents' offices. The government can certainly never be accused of not trying to make the information available, but that is not to say that every person may know about it. We are certainly making our best effort to make that information available, because we want the people who need and deserve this program to take advantage of it.

MS. A. HAGEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could I ask the minister if there's going to be any electronic media advertising, any TV or radio advertising, on this matter?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: No, that is not the plan at this particular time. Could I just give some numbers for '89-90? There were 9,130 cases that received SAFER assistance. In '90-91 there are 10,910 — a substantial increase. The cost has gone from $10.43 million to $17.7 million — a very, very dramatic increase in costs. All of us must certainly recognize that the government is doing a great job in providing this support system to the public.

MS. A. HAGEN: It's interesting, Mr. Chairman, that the government will use its news update for information about programs not yet before this House, but won't use that medium to let seniors know about programs they are entitled to. I think it's really reprehensible that we're still looking at print media and whether people go into social services offices, MLA's or government agent offices in order for people to know.

Mr. Chairman, the government's action in promoting this program, which is an important program in terms of seniors' economic security, continues to be totally inadequate. The minister has just outlined those inadequacies.

I want to move to another matter of importance to this ministry, which I raised during the estimates of the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology (Hon. Mr. Strachan), in respect to programs that particularly affect women. I'd like to refer the minister to a recent report of the task force on programs for social assistance recipients — with the acronym SARs often used to refer to that group of people. This report is one that has federal and provincial implications, and it is indeed a very significant report in respect to women who are poor — because women on social assistance are poor — having an opportunity to participate fully in the economic life of our province. This report is a part of a four-corners discussion which involves the federal Ministry of Employment and the provincial Ministry of Social Services and Housing, Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology and Ministry of Education.

In this particular report, there are some very significant recommendations coming out of their analysis of the problems that women face in getting the kind of training, the adequate training, the length of training and the support they need to move into the economy of the province at wages that enable them to support themselves and their families with some dignity and in some realistic relationship to the cost of living.

Recognizing that this is a federal and a provincial document, I want to just highlight some of the issues that relate specifically to this minister and his responsibilities. The report notes that there are many barriers that prevent women and other social assistance recipients from participating fully in training and preparation for jobs. These include the lack of financial support for training-related expenditures: child care, transportation and clothing. They include restrictive eligibility in that very often women are not able to participate in these programs, because the time is too short or there isn't a background of bridge training and upgrading. As well, many people fear that the jobs they will have are jobs that will not be adequate for them when considering the loss of some of the benefits they have as social service recipients.

The minister, for example, noted yesterday that they were subsidizing jobs to $7 an hour for private employers to employ such people. But $7 an hour does not provide families with an income that enables them to pay the rent and feed and clothe their children. It's totally impossible for people who have families to function with that level of income, so the kind of resources that enable people to move into jobs that are adequate for a reasonable income are not a part of the present arrangements for training.

[ Page 9978 ]

The Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology made at the end of his estimates some vague commitment to looking at some of these issues in the broad sector of training for women. I would like to know what action this minister plans to take in respect to the very serious barriers outlined in this report that prevent women and other SARs from gaining the kind of training they need for the kind of jobs they need to participate in our society. I would like to know what this minister plans to do about this report and the recommendations that it has brought forward.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Thank you very much for the question. If I can just go back to the matter of SAFER, there seemed to still be some concern on the part of the member that people were not adequately Informed about the availability of the program. In addition to the items I listed, I would just like to mention that it was also in the community papers, daily papers, ethnic papers and also, I think, a stuffer in the B.C. Hydro bills, which I think most people in the province get. There certainly has been an effort to make people aware of the program.

We provided employment and training for more than 14,000 women in the first ten months of the '89-90 fiscal year. We have placed an emphasis on women in our employment and training programs. In fact, we provide about 70 percent more employment and training places for women than we do for men, because we recognize that there is a need there.

For women who were on income assistance and then became employed, we will provide one year of full medical coverage, up to $90 per month in transportation allowance and pay day care surcharges. Those are some of the things that make it difficult for people to enter the workforce after having been on social assistance.

MS. A. HAGEN: Is this minister prepared to make a commitment to review and act on the recommendations of the task force on employment and training for social assistance recipients?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I can only make half of that commitment at this point. I would not usually say that I would review and then act without knowing what I'll find when I review. But I will make you the commitment that I will review and then make a judgment after I've seen the contents of the report.

MS. A. HAGEN: This, I think, bears out one of the problems that we have with this set of estimates. We have a 24-hour-old minister who is not cognizant of one of the most significant reports that have been done about this issue. We are therefore not able to carry out our responsibilities because the minister is not able to give us answers. I would like to advise the minister that we will be following up on his partial commitment. There is the expectation on this side of the House that with this very detailed work that has been done and the very extensive work that looks at the reality of what women face in trying to get the kind of training that they need to be economically self-sufficient and therefore socially self-sufficient, it is time for this government to act. Four years into a mandate, and we still haven't seen that kind of action, and we will be pursuing that matter with this minister.

MS. MARZARI: In keeping with women in training and employment, a question arises which has come up in this House before. It has to do with unlicensed child care spaces being created on the backs of welfare mothers. The system works this way. We only have about 25,000 licensed child care spaces in this province, and these licensed spaces are within group centres holding up to 25 children or in family homes licensed for up to five children in each home. Many of the group centres and licensed family homes really can afford to work without having to receive or take in subsidized parents. Because there are only 25,000 licensed spaces available, a good number of those spaces are filled by full-paying parents.

[3:00]

HON. MR. VEITCH: Are you just about finished now?

MS. MARZARI: No, I'm not just about finished, Mr. Minister. I'm just warming up to a question here. I'm glad you've come in to join in, because you might also be educated by this question.

Therefore many of our licensed spaces are filled with full-paying parents. Unlicensed spaces are proliferating in this province. It's not something I feel comfortable with. A lot of parents don't feel comfortable. In fact, many of the people involved with the child care field do not feel comfortable with the number of unlicensed spaces that exist. We all know that the mom down the street, the grandmother around the corner or the nice lady across the street might be taking in kids to make a little money, and it might be happening on an undeclared basis. A lot of people actually have those arrangements. But we know that when we subsidize those arrangements and we as a province actually say to parents, "here are your coupons; here is your subsidy; go out and find yourself an unlicensed space," I don't think we're doing anybody a favour there.

We carry this whole scenario one step further. A few years ago the provincial government starting flirting with the idea of training mothers on welfare to take in children or to do baby-sitting. I'd like to think that I was partly responsible for killing that proposal, and I called it the nail-their-other-foot-to-the-floor program. Welfare mothers were forced into a short two- to ten-hour training program and pushed back into their own homes in unlicensed spaces, without support, to take in up to five children at absolute minimum wage. Then when they collected their money at the end of the month, these mothers still on welfare would find that the money they had earned would be deducted from their welfare.

[ Page 9979 ]

I thought I had killed this program by suggesting to the federal government that it was unfair. Now in the last year I discover that in fact this form of forced "workfare" is happening in our cities and our province. Women on welfare are being encouraged to take minimal training programs of as little as ten hours. Then they are being put into their own homes to mind two to five children for eight to 12 hours a day for about $270 a month. The mother gets to keep $100 plus 25 percent of $170. They're allowed to keep $142 a month. If she's getting family maintenance under the FMA program, $100 of that will be deducted.

So what we've got, basically, are a number of welfare mothers in this province working their buns off by working with children in their own homes for $42 a month. I call that slavery. I call that the worst that we can provide to mothers on welfare and to women in our province.

The questions I have to put to you are the following: are you prepared, Mr. Minister, to write a letter and state in public that no welfare mother is going to be forced off welfare if she does not accept this slave labour and this so-called training? Are you prepared to change the GAIN regulations so that women who might decide, out of desperation, to do this work will be able to keep all the money they make? And are you prepared to develop the needed amount of licensed child care spaces with trained workers at decent wages?

If we could go back to where we started with child care — a two-year training program — we could develop a bank of good workers who are prepared to devote their professional years to child care. With decent training and decent wages, that's possible. If we cared, we could give welfare mothers the kind of money they need to raise their children with some health and security.

But what we've done is the worst of all possible worlds. We've created a wage-slave class of women on welfare, and I don't see any way of getting out of it unless you, Mr. Minister, take a stand. Would you be good enough to make those commitments to this House?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: First of all, let me say that I don't disagree with the importance of day care and the need for it, and that day care be of good quality. That's not the issue.

But there is one point that I have some problem with in the conclusions that the member comes to. The suggestion seems to be that unless it's something that government is involved in subsidizing, it won't be good and it won't be reliable. I think there are many good things that happen in society. In fact, some of the best things that happen in society are where government is not involved in at all and is separated from it, and where people do it because they want to do it. And when they want to do it, they generally do a good and conscientious job of it.

You suggest that I write a letter to condemn and put an end to what you call a slave-labour type of situation. I won't write such a letter, and the reason I wouldn't is because I don't believe that exists at the present time. As a matter of fact, the information I have is that when these ladies who are receiving welfare assistance go into providing this day care service, they are not pushed into it; they choose to do it. I'm surprised that in the early part of your comment you said that you did everything you could to kill that. If it's a free choice of people and if people choose to go into it, why should you or anyone else try to prevent them from doing so?

HON. MR. MESSMER: I would like to ask the minister what cooperation he is receiving in the housing industry in his housing initiative as far as municipalities are concerned. I have heard much said over the last week in regard to our social housing program within the province, and today I heard from the Oak Bay–Gordon Head member (Ms. Cull) that she would like to go back a few years as to what has happened in housing.

I would like to take you on a little trip back, because housing, and especially social housing, has been a problem in British Columbia for many years. I can remember — going back to the fifties — being in the industry. At that particular time interest rates rose to 6 percent, and the monthly rent went from $55 to $85 a month. In the early fifties that was seen as a catastrophe. As a matter of fact, housing contractors were thinking of going out of the business because the federal government had raised the rate so high that no one could afford to buy a new home.

The actual responsibility for housing and the cost of housing lies more with municipalities, regional districts and the private sector than it does with the provincial government. The reason I say that is that it is a case of supply and demand. The municipalities and the regional districts actually control the amount of housing that can take place in any particular year or number of years.

As you know, Mr. Minister, having been the mayor of a community, it is strictly the infrastructure there which allows the private sector people to go in and either be able to supply the demand that is there today or not to supply that demand.

It is also a known fact in the industry that if you wish to reduce the inflation within a province or country, all you have to do is raise the interest rate on housing within Canada, and immediately the inflation period starts to come down because people are out of work. As you are aware, the construction industry employs many people within the province on a daily basis, and consequently it's a fast factor in order to stop inflationary periods.

So we went into the sixties, and during that time Central Mortgage and Housing and the province went together on certain types of deals, which at one particular time provided 20-year guarantees to the developer if he would put up his money and supply a place for social housing or low-cost housing — whatever name you wish to put with it — in British Columbia. That particular deal was good and certainly helped to supply and fill the needs of the day, but of course comes back to haunt us because the 20-year period is now up.

[ Page 9980 ]

The people who built those units had a contract with the federal government, and after 20 years we are now allowed to raise the rates. Of course what is happening there is that in the rising economy the owner of the property is entitled to raise the rates, which increases the burden against those people who have been living there for many years.

In the seventies and eighties we had some great programs to relieve the low-cost housing situation. Unfortunately, some of those programs were good and others were bad. Others were bad because they left certain communities with slum-type residences with not enough money for upkeep, and consequently they became a burden on society. While there may have been a place to sleep every night, in some cases they were not the types of places that you would like to raise your family. Consequently, in many communities in British Columbia we have that type of situation. We talk about the high cost of rental within certain communities in British Columbia at the same time that we are paying $1,000 plus in Vancouver.

A year or so ago we also heard about Logan Lake. I went there and looked at those particular houses — probably some of the nicest houses you'd ever want to see, ranging in size from about 1,200 to 1,400 square feet. Those houses could be purchased for $50,000, and that was less than two years ago. So, really, we're into a regionalized situation within British Columbia; we're talking about the high cost of housing in the Vancouver and the greater Victoria area. It's caused simply because of the numbers of people who are living within the community. You do not have additional land in order to subdivide to build rental units either for those who can afford it or those who cannot afford it.

Mr. Minister, I congratulate you for the effort that you're putting into trying to solve the housing situation within British Columbia. But I also believe that while you are working very hard on it, without the cooperation of the municipalities and the regional districts we will keep fighting this with a very limited amount of success. It's up to the municipalities and the regional districts to develop more property and invite the private sector to come in to build the housing that is needed. And the only way that rents in British Columbia will come down is when you have an oversupply of housing in a particular area.

MRS. BOONE: I would like to ask the minister some questions regarding the whole process of granting of subsidies for day care. Over the past few months I have received numerous complaints and concerns expressed by individuals in private day care centres who are having a great deal of difficulty receiving funding from the ministry for those people who are on social services and who will receive a subsidy. In fact, at one point there was a waiting-period of a month to two months before a mother could even get an appointment to see if she could apply for a subsidy. And then, once that happens, you are looking at another 30 to 60 days sometimes for that to be processed.

Can the minister please tell me what is happening to alleviate this problem? I understand it's created because of a lack of staff at the local level to handle this. I can tell you that it's creating some severe hardships for those women who are entrepreneurs, out there trying to earn a living and keep their bills paid while they are waiting for that funding to come in.

[3:15]

In one case a person took a child in and then found afterwards that no application had been made and that she was now behind three months and is receiving absolutely nothing for taking care of this child.

The difficult part is that many of the private day care centres are refusing to take welfare recipients into their centres because they can't afford to have that long wait. That's not in the best interests of the children. It's far better to have children in licensed day care centres with people who are trained, and it is certainly not helping those mothers who are out there struggling, trying to make a living and create a decent home life for their families when they can't even get adequate child care for them. Can the minister please tell me what is happening with that whole program now.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: To the member for Prince George, I was going to say that based on the information she was providing, yes, I would be very concerned if that kind of a delay was taking place and people had to wait that long. That I would find hard to accept and would certainly want to look into it.

The staff have given me some material on this, and it is site-specific and concerns Prince George. It says:

"Action has been taken by the Ministry of Social Services and Housing staff in Prince George that is expected to remedy problems encountered by persons wishing to apply for day care subsidies and by caregivers in receiving timely payments from the ministry.

"Day care services have been centralized in the job service office to increase visibility and access to the program. The number of staff assigned has been more than doubled. As soon as someone phones for an appointment with the ministry staff about day care, an information and forms package is mailed out to them within two days now. Emergency day care requests are being seen within two days of first contact. Caregivers now have the approval to submit monthly billings after the 15th of the current month.

"In Prince George, waiting-time for an appointment has been cut in half. On a provincial level the ministry is actively reviewing the program to remedy delays in payment to our caregivers."

So we recognize that we have had problems, but we think we have gone a long ways towards correcting them, and we are still reviewing them.

MRS. BOONE: I'm glad to see that the minister has taken some action, because, as I said, it's over the

[ Page 9981 ]

past couple of months. It's rather disconcerting when you have people phoning you, saying that they haven't received payment for 60 days on children in their care.

You say that the waiting-period has been cut in half. People are saying they're waiting one and sometimes two months for an appointment. Does that mean that there's still a month's wait for an appointment to see if they qualify for subsidies?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: No, that's not what was intended by my comments. I guess it's always dangerous to talk in terms such as "cut in half, " because that all depends on where you start from. No, the staff inform me that we're talking about a time-frame of a couple of days.

MRS. BOONE: One of the difficulties that I think came about — and my staff has been working with the people on this whole effort — is that many employees did not feel adequately informed to handle this whole situation. We have a tremendous turnover of staff there. People felt that they couldn't handle those things, so somehow these people got shunted off and put off further and further down the line. Has there in fact been an increase in staff at that level so that people have the ability and the time to sit down and learn the rules and regulations, and can take care of their clients?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yes, there has. I mentioned that the staff has been doubled, but then that's a little bit like when we said something was cut in half; it depends where you start from. Unfortunately, I don't have the numbers available right now to tell you about the numbers in Prince George specifically, but the staff certainly have been increased there.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I won't take long with this. That's what they all say.

The other day I was pursuing an item having to do with what happens when we have a citizen on old age pension and the supplement, as well as GAIN, and there's an inflation increase recognized by the federal government in those cheques, and what happens to the GAIN at that point. It was pointed out by the minister that GAIN is reduced by the amount of the increase. I don't understand why that's the case. It seems like confiscation to me. It almost appears as if inflation didn't happen in British Columbia, because that's exactly how the ministry is operating in this way.

I object to this because I feel that if these people get GAIN, it means they have no other income. They're among the most vulnerable citizens and the least able to fight for themselves.

Since you're a brand-new minister in this field, you might be interested in a comparison with the Manitoba experience. Now I'm not saying this was brought in by those wicked, wild-eyed socialists. Anyway, it's being carried on by those wicked, wild-eyed Conservatives.

It's called the 55-Plus. We don't have any equivalent program, to my knowledge. But I do know that Manitoba appears to have recognized that there are many people who have reached the age of 59 who are unemployed and can't get another job, or they were in resource jobs or low-skilled jobs.

I'll just outline the program. If you do not receive an old age pension or any other security benefits — unemployment insurance or whatever — then you are entitled to apply under the 55-Plus program. Under the 55-Plus program, a single person gets $744 a month. If you compare that with the welfare rates for a single person in British Columbia, regardless of age it's $468 a month.

Now we're always beating our chests and proudly boasting that we have a wonderful province, the budget's balanced and everything else. I hope it hasn't been balanced by taking money away from the people who perhaps need it the most. If you're 55 or more but not 65, $744 a month for a single person in Manitoba. A person living in Winnipeg or Brandon or Dauphin certainly doesn't face the rents we do in the lower mainland. The Minister of Parks (Hon. Mr. Messmer) has said that rents and housing prices vary widely throughout our province; but the rates for welfare and housing don't. I know about housing allowances; I'm aware of all that stuff. But $744 in Manitoba for somebody between 55 and 59, and in B.C. it's $468. If you're married in Manitoba and part of this program, it's $1,206 per month — a married person living at home and perhaps even with a family. I'm not clear about that, but I think it's with a family. Two people in B.C.: $787; in other words, $500 less. With three people it's $924. In the 60-64 age bracket, we have $518 for one person and $837 for two people. Compared with the $1,206, it's still well below — about a third below.

I hope your deputy is briefing you on some of the other benefits that might be applied for in British Columbia. On the surface of it, it looks as if our people are underfunded compared with a province that is certainly not considered a "have" province. If they can do it, and it's their priority to do it, then I think we could.

I'll just go over those people who do receive OAS and GIS — old age security plus the supplement. They are among the people who are entitled to GAIN in this province. A Manitoba single is entitled to get an extra benefit of $111.60; if married, $119.90 maximum. In B.C. it's $49.30 and $60.25 for two people who are cohabiting. B.C. guaranteed income for age 65 with spouse is $1,327.54, and for a single is $820. This is over 65. 1 don't know the cap in Manitoba.

If you look at those two sets of figures, it appears our people are decidedly disadvantaged. It would help if you would stop confiscating the GAIN money every time they get an inflation increase. It's either you or the landlords trying to take these increases. I'd rather, perhaps, give it to the poor landlord.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: First of all, I guess it's a matter of how you see the GAIN program when you start talking about confiscating the money. As I

[ Page 9982 ]

understand, the whole principle is that there is a set amount provided for people as a fund for them to live on. That amount is decided, and when they receive additional funding from whatever source, then the province does not add that to the amount that's being paid or allow that to be added to it, because it is a set amount to begin with. That's what the person is required to have according to the numbers that are used as his cost of living for the month. If he receives that some other way, then it's considered that it's not necessary for the province to pay the portion he receives. If he doesn't receive it, then the province brings it up to that level. Or if he receives nothing, the government provides all of the amount.

I think your question was a discrepancy in an age group between 55 and 59. 1 guess there is a difference between us and that other province you specified.

MR. ROSE: I suppose my concerns rest on two basic premises. One is if GAIN is fixed at a specific amount.... I'm told that it may be adjusted quarterly. I'd like that confirmed; I don't know that for sure. Whatever it is, if it doesn't move with inflation, that fixed amount — that total maximum — it means that B.C. does not recognize the inflation factors that are recognized by the federal government in both their programs — OAS and GIS. That's one point.

The other point is that we have no programs. How can we justify not having programs at least as generous as Manitoba for those people who find themselves out of a job, unable to get another one, too old to be retrained at 55? We're running into the same thing in this province as other provinces are. It's endemic really, because it has to do with the new technology and the fact that our resource industries are becoming that much more efficient and more capital- and machine-intensive rather than labour-intensive. So you're just casting people out in the cold or asking them to live on about two-thirds of the amount they would receive if they were living in a have-not province.

[3:30]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I suppose there are a lot of, numbers that perhaps would enter into that discussion. I'm just thinking that there may be a difference between the percentage of senior citizens in that class in Manitoba and the percentage in British Columbia So when you're looking at the cost to the province, I'm not sure your numbers can really support that. There is a difference in that particular category.

MR. ROSE: I meant 55 to 59.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yes, and I'm conceding to you that there appears to be a difference in that category between 55 and 59 or 60.

MR. ROSE: I know you're a brand-new minister, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, but your predecessor is sitting right over there doing his best to look like George Bernard Shaw.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Heaven forbid I should ever look like him.

MR. ROSE: He was a socialist too, you know — a Fabian socialist.

Last year, during the brief and pleasant round of estimates that we had, the former Minister of Social Services and Housing — or whatever we called it then — conceded that the 55-to-59 age group was a growing problem in British Columbia. So you've had a year. You haven't even had 24 hours, Mr. Minister, but the government has had a year. I want to know what's been done about that group that was conceded to be a problem a year ago. What did they do — all move to Manitoba? You say that people are moving to Manitoba from British Columbia after they're age 65. I think the movement is the other way, and I don't blame them. Have you been in Winnipeg in the winter?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I have — me and the brass monkeys.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm disappointed that the minister can't find an answer to that question. I know it's a tough one, but the fact of the matter is that during last year's estimates the Minister of Social Services at that time outlined who the people on income assistance were, and he specifically singled out males over the age of 50 — it might have been 55 — who have become technologically redundant and are a growing group at risk in this province. It was fine to identify them, but the big question is: what are you going to do about it?

I have some questions for the minister, and what I'd like to do is just more or less put them on the record in the hope that the staff can produce the answers before the day is over. We have another member that wants to put some questions on the record, so if the minister would take note.... I don't expect him to have the answers at his fingertips, but perhaps his staff could get the answers for us.

Yesterday, with the previous Minister of Social Services, I asked some questions about staffing, and the minister came back with some of the answers. I'd like to elaborate on those questions and reinforce some of them. I want to know the overall turnover in staff, particularly front-line workers — social workers and FAWs — and clerical workers. I'd like to know the breakdown by region for staff turnover in those three areas in the last year. I'd like the staff to let us know the number when they report back on staff turnover. I'm asking about social workers, groups 1 and 2.

Finally, the minister said that in this past year the length of stay has diminished for many foster children in care, and a certain percentage of those children returned to their homes within nine months — and there was only one foster placement during that period of time. Perhaps the staff could provide figures with regard to the other 29 percent of children in care. I'd like to know how many foster situations those children may find themselves in in

[ Page 9983 ]

their stay with the ministry. While we have asked the ministry specifically with regard to foster care, I would include in that group those in homes, motels, receiving homes and emergency placement homes.

With regard to the other group — the group that is in the care of the ministry for the shorter period of time — I'd like to know what services are available to those children in the way of receiving homes, homes that are specifically designed for children with a short-term stay.

I will leave those questions, and we'll continue with that later on in the day.

MR. SIHOTA: I'd like to canvass day care and child care and some of the programs offered by the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. I do that because I know that in my riding there has been a significant increase in the number of single-parent families with children living in certain sectors of my riding. For example, in the western communities in the past year we've seen a 29 percent increase in single parents who rely on subsidies from the Ministry of Social Services and Housing with respect to day care operations. Generally speaking, my riding consists largely of suburbs of Victoria, and we've seen a tremendous increase in the number of families moving to the area. These days, where people need to have two incomes to make ends meet, there is a growing need to make sure there are adequate services and provisions made for day care and child care in the western communities and in Esquimalt.

I have had the opportunity to meet regularly with the day care operators in my riding and canvass from them, from time to time, their feelings about how the system is working. At the same time, I get regular feedback from my constituents through letters and phone calls expressing some of their frustrations with respect to day care and child care operations in my area. I don't intend to read on the record all of the letters that I get — there are so many of them — but I do want to take some of the themes that emerge from those letters and ask the minister some questions, particularly questions as they relate to operators and to parents.

The Ministry of Social Services and Housing, it is my understanding, provides a subsidy for parents with one child to the extent of $250 per month for children who are under three, and $15 a day for over three. In both those cases, the subsidy is provided for 20 days. The operators in my riding remind me that quite often they provide day care operations for more than 20 days in a month, and in fact they are not being paid for those services, which is certainly unfair to those operators who are strapped in terms of both resources and finances. Could the minister tell me, given the increases in this year's budget, whether any provision is being made to increase that subsidy so that it reflects payment equal to the actual number of days the service is provided as opposed to the 20 days in question?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'll provide that information to the member. I don't have it here right at this very moment, but we will have it in a few minutes. If you want to ask another question, go ahead.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to thank the minister for that, and I will give him the courtesy of time to reply to that very important question.

I want to ask the minister another question relating to subsidies and a matter of policy while he's trying to get that information. Would the minister not agree that it might be far better, in terms of providing the service, if the government were to simply pay a set fee for the services, plus X number of spaces — for example, $400 a month for 100 spaces? As a matter of policy, would it not be better to proceed that way than the way you have been proceeding?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Admittedly, there are some difficulties with being new. It takes a lot of discussion on this side. I think we missed a good part of the last question. However, I do have the information for your first question, so we're just one question behind. Maybe you could repeat the second one.

The answer to the first question is that there has been no announcement at this time, but there is money in the budget to look at increasing that rate. I am expecting to make an announcement shortly on that.

MR. SIHOTA: I appreciate the minister's difficulties in being new to his job. I want to say that I also want to make it clear that from my point of view it's not just the rate that should be increased. I think the rate should be increased, and I look forward to the minister's announcement in that regard, now that he has made it clear that there will be an increase in the rate. But I also want to make it clear that the rate should not only increase but the number of days covered should equal the number of days that service is provided for.

Will the minister confirm that the changes that his ministry is contemplating will address both those problems — i.e., an increase in rates, which would deal with my second question; and, secondly, an increase in the number of days so that you aren't artificially tied to 20 days?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: You know, we're getting dangerously close to making the announcement, aren't we? No, I can't agree or deny. That's future policy. I guess we'll just have to persevere and wait for the announcement.

MR. SIHOTA: It saddens me to think that on an issue like this one would delay making an announcement for reasons of political opportunism, when there are operators out there who are in need of the money and clarification as to the policy. I would invite the minister to let the world know today what his budget provides for. You have an increase in your budget. This is a very important issue in society. Quite frankly, I'm somewhat angered that you're going to just wait and allow these operators to

[ Page 9984 ]

continue under the status quo until you make your announcement.

All I can say to you, Mr. Minister — and I respect the fact that you're new to your portfolio — is that I would hope that announcement will be made as soon as these estimates end, so that people know where they stand.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We can announce it in five minutes.

MR. SIHOTA: Look, if the minister says they can make the announcement in five minutes, there's no reason why you can't make that announcement now. So don't come in here and try to play....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: That's right. You just want to base it on your own political timing, and it's got nothing to do with the needs that are out there. Somehow you relish the ability to play those games.

[3:45]

MR. RABBITT: A point of order. It's very basic. We found throughout this session that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew gets raving on these lunatic fringe ideas of his, when we're supposed to be talking about matters before the House. I would ask the Chair to call him to order, and let's talk about the issues that are before the House, not about some raving issues that he's mesmerizing himself with.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is talking about an issue that is directly concerned with the vote, so I can't help but suggest that your point of order is not in order.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly don't consider day care matters to be lunatic fringe ideas, as the Social Credit member across the floor does. I want to continue with my question to the minister around day care.

The minister knows that spaces are provided by operators, and so much space is allocated per facility for children. The mathematics of that usually works out quite well, if you've got full-time children coming. But when you've got part-time children coming, parents — I know from my riding — who work part time either have to find another child from another family to cover the full five days of service or have to pay the full five days because of the way the system is set up.

Could the minister advise the House whether any steps are being taken by his ministry to address this matter of part-time children and provide some flexibility to the operators to accommodate part-time needs without offending the rather rigid rules that you've got right now? In other words, are you prepared to inject some level of flexibility into the rules? And if so, what level of flexibility are you prepared to put in?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: To the last question, the rules for governing day care, as the member I think would know, are in place though the care facilities licensing act. That's under the Ministry of Health, so it's not something that this ministry could change or interfere with.

The other thing that I'd like to comment on is the suggestion that the announcement on changes in rates for day care is simply withheld for — I think the member said — political opportunity. It's held until the policy is decided and the decision is made; it has nothing to do with politics at all.

MR. SIHOTA: That's an interesting explanation. Given the fact the minister has deferred that matter — appropriately I would say — to the Ministry of Health, could he tell the House what representations his ministry is prepared to make to the Ministry of Health on this very important matter? Families that are covered by subsidies from his ministry face this problem every day, particularly those people who are trying to improve their financial lot and get off social assistance but have this part-time problem and are hit with this extra potential cost. What representations have you made to the Ministry of Health to inject some flexibility into those criteria?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: This ministry has a member on that committee. That member is aware of all the concerns and the needs as determined by this ministry, and makes representations to the committee.

MR. SIHOTA: That's a less than satisfactory answer. I think I would have preferred to hear the minister say, "Yes, we recognize this as a critical problem; and yes, we are taking every step possible to lobby the Ministry of Health to get them to inject a level of flexibility."

It may well be that I have misinterpreted the minister's response, but am I correct in saying that your ministry is lobbying the other ministry with the type of vigour that I would like to see? Or is your posture somewhat less than that?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: All I can do is provide the answers. I cannot guarantee that the member will be happy with those answers. That's not really my purpose. My purpose here is to tell the truth, to explain the situation as it is. Whether the member is happy about it is another issue.

I would hope that the member would be happy, because I think we're doing a great job. We're providing the information, and as I said, we have a representative on the committee who has input, who recognizes the concerns that this ministry has with the delivery of day care services throughout the province and who makes representations. So that's all I can tell the member about that particular issue.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister has a responsibility to be an advocate for day care and make sure that every

[ Page 9985 ]

step that can be taken is being taken to deal with the realities faced by families in British Columbia.

I want to ask the minister another question, and again this is an important question. There are many people out there who would like to establish a day care operation and have the intellectual ability to do it and have the licensing and all that stuff. But there are some difficulties in terms of getting capital to get an operation established. In my riding, for example, we have a tremendous demand for services and an inadequate number of facilities to provide those services. Bankers, on the other hand, are not particularly eager to lend money to people who are establishing day care operations, because it's a non-traditional form of enterprise, if I can put it that way.

What provision has been made in this year's budget to provide for grants for capital acquisitions or improvements with respect to day care operations, to make sure that private operators can enter the field?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, so that the member will be happy with the answer, he'll forgive me if I read it, to make sure that we get in everything.

Funds were established to preserve existing day care spaces and to help create additional spaces. Lottery funds were made available to non-profit day care societies on a matching basis for capital costs of creating new day care spaces. At March 6, 1990, $473,870 from lottery funds has helped preserve or create 686 spaces. In September 1989 the Ministry of Social Services and Housing implemented the startup grants program, to help non-profit societies to furnish and equip new day care facilities. From September 1989 to March 1990, $45,430 in grants has helped create 159 spaces. The ministry's emergency relocation grants program, at March 1990, has helped preserve 1,971 spaces, with $346,895 in grants. In addition, $1.7 million has been allocated by the ministry for non-profit societies to recruit, train and support informal day care providers, and to assist parents in the selection of informal day care arrangements. This is also an issue that is being dealt with through the women's ministry.

MR. SIHOTA: That, of course, dealt with the non-profit sector. I was dealing with the other sector. But fair enough; I accept that response from the minister.

In terms of other assistance that I think the government could provide to those in the sector that I was speaking about.... It involves work with other ministries. Many of the operators that I've talked to in my riding talk about the need for supplies and materials and that kind of stuff. As you can imagine, when you're dealing with young children, a lot of that kind of equipment is needed. They want to be allowed to participate in some of the bulk buying that goes on with the school boards. It seems to me a very logical idea. What representations has the ministry made to the Ministry of Education to ensure that bulk buying opportunities are made available to these operators, to acquire what they need to look after children?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'm not aware that there has been any contact made in that regard. But it's not a bad suggestion. We will take a look at it. Maybe there are some benefits for day cares through that process.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm glad the minister sees the merit in that idea. I was going to say that maybe next year when we're in estimates we'd have a progress report, but then I realized that next year we'll have a New Democrat government and we won't have to worry.

Another representation with respect to the Ministry of Education that I think is important is the matter of out-of-school programs, programs in the morning and the afternoon, to cover that time when you drop off your kids before school starts, on your way to work, and after-school programs as well. In my riding there's a significant need in that regard. Could the minister tell me what steps they are taking with the Ministry of Education to see whether school facilities can be used to provide programs both in the morning and the afternoon, to alleviate some of the burden on operators?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: That's something that has been left to the societies who provide the day care, to find the locations. I understand that there are some cases where that has been done. Sometimes there's a problem with that, in that there becomes a need for the space, and the day care has to move out. So apparently that's not altogether successful, but it has been done in some cases.

Could I just comment on one other thing. I think we must keep these discussions fair. Earlier today — I think it was just before lunch — I got criticized by the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) for trying to inject a little bit of humour into these estimates. Now I didn't inject nearly as much humour as the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) did when he started to talk about the prospects of the next election. If it's not right for me, Mr. Chairman, it's not right for him either. So would he please be serious.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, when you're 15 points down in the polls, I guess you've got to put on a brave face.

Is any provision made in this year's budget for start-up grants to assist people who want to be private day care operators — to help them provide that service in communities?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: No, that isn't available. Private day care is considered a business the same as any other business. We would not provide grants for someone wanting to start their own business in another field, so we wouldn't become involved in that. When we're talking about the grants, we're talking about the subsidized day care centres.

[ Page 9986 ]

MR. SIHOTA: I think that those who provide the service as private operators would not describe it as a business but as a service, because few of them make any profit in that regard. I think the minister understands that.

However, my question to the minister is: in terms of wage subsidies for those workers, many of whom are greatly underpaid.... I think the minister knows the federal studies that have come....

Maybe he wouldn't know, because he's new at the job, but in his general experience he may well be aware that there are a number of general studies put out at the federal level which point to the level of wages earned by those people who are employed in the day care sector. And it is remarkably low. In a rather sad way there seems to be an attitude out there that it's an extension of the maternal role, and people get baby-sitting fees for the provision of this service.

What thought has the ministry given in this year's budget to the matter of wage subsidies for those people who provide services as employees in the sector?

[4:00]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: As the member knows, the policy of the government is to subsidize the user of the day care and not do it the other way around as is suggested here.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Of course that gets right back to my first question about the rates, because I don't think this last question would be as salient if there was a commitment from the government to increase the money that's provided to the user that they can pass on to the operator to pay for the costs. So $250 per month for a set number of 20 days is inadequate, as is the $15 per day for 20 days for over three-year-olds.

We get back to that fundamental problem I outlined right at the beginning. The minister has chosen to make an announcement about increases in that rate at a later time, and I would hope that there would be some significant increases.

Another problem one of my other colleagues raised in a rather passing way — so I won't be long in pursuing it — and which is one of the common complaints that I get from operators in my riding, is that the ministry seems to be somewhat slow in making payments to the operators. Of course, the minister knows full well, if he takes the view that this is a business — to quote him from earlier on — that you can get into all sorts of cash flow problems when the ministry is not being particularly quick in responding to the matter.

I wrote to Mr. Churlish of his ministry back in November 1989 with respect to problems in the greater Victoria area, and in reply correspondence dated November 28, 1989, he said to me that the ministry was in the process of hiring two additional staff to work in the day care accounts office to deal with the backlogs being created as a consequence of the demand for the services and the tardiness with which the ministry was responding with those payments.

If he has that information, could the minister advise what steps have been taken in the greater Victoria area, whether or not additional staff has been provided and what studies subsequent to that have been undertaken by the ministry to ensure that payments are now being made promptly to those operators? Does he have any numbers to indicate how long it now takes in terms of a turnaround period to deal with it?

I see the minister has some notes, so I'll roll all the questions into one. Finally, let me ask the minister: what steps is your ministry taking to have one person in every office that operators can deal with? One of the frustrations they express is that they phone an office — let's say in Esquimalt, Langford or Vic West — and can never get through. They're looking after the children at their site. It seems to me that it might be a good idea for the ministry to consider having one person there who just looks after these day care needs. As a matter of policy, what steps are being taken in that regard?

I see the minister is being briefed on that point, so I would expect a detailed answer from him. That would conclude for today the questions I want to ask the minister, and I want to thank him in advance for being candid in replying so far.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yes, I agree. We do recognize that we have had a problem, though that problem has been dealt with. The ministry did receive some complaints last winter of day care payment cheques arriving late. A review conducted by the ministry concluded that for a time It had fallen slightly short of its target of a ten-day payment delivery period: 94 percent of all claims were processed within the ten days; 6 percent were not.

We have corrected that. We have additional staff, and the effort is being made in each office to have someone who understands and specializes in day care to make sure that these problems do not recur in this area — or in other parts of the province.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to thank the minister for his responses, because I know some of my colleagues want to enter this debate.

I guess it's really a matter of philosophy and commitment with respect to day care services in the province. Some of the answers the minister has provided have been interesting, others have been scant, and others have been, in my view, deficient. I know the minister is new, so I don't expect him to do it right now, but there should be a firm commitment on the part of this government — and any government — to make sure this problem is attended to.

I can tell you, it is a very serious problem in my riding. Many of my constituents who are single-parent families or very young families are torn over the difficulties caused by day care. They want their children to have quality services, and they worry about that. They want to have affordable services, and often the financial impediments to day care are

[ Page 9987 ]

so great that it actually suggests to people that they should stay home instead of engaging in that second occupation; yet they need the income to make ends meet. It's a very real problem in the communities that I represent and it requires some very real responses.

It bothered me no end to see that during the course of the last federal election campaign this whole matter was kicked around like a political football, and ultimately no resolution came at the federal level. It does disturb me that even at the provincial level it is not accorded the priority I think it should be, given the changing face of British Columbia.

I have made my comments and I have put them on the record, and the minister has made his. I would now like to turn it over to my colleague from Nanaimo.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I would just briefly like to comment on that last statement because I think it is important. The member who asked the question and I don't agree on the calibre of day care that is provided within the province. Unfortunately, he has left the House and is not interested in the answer. I regret that, but for the rest of you that are here, I would like to say that we disagree about the calibre of day care that is provided. We think it is good-quality day care. We think that a good job is being done to enhance and expand day care services within the province. There is certainly more money being put into that system year by year.

I want to assure everyone in the House — on this side and that side — that, for my part, I understand the importance of day care to people who go off to a job, or whatever they may be doing, and leave their children in the custody of someone else. They need the comfort of knowing that those children are properly looked after, that the people they are left with are responsible, and that there is some understanding on how those children will be looked after. The need for that is something we understand on this side of the House as well as anybody — perhaps more. That need is very important. So while we may have some differences in our views on the current system within the province, I certainly want to make it clear that our appreciation of the need for quality day care is there and we recognize its importance.

MR. LOVICK: I didn't rise to address the very important issue of day care and the services or lack of thereof being provided, thanks to the efforts of government. I would just say, however, that I am not quite as assured as the minister seems to be about the calibre of day care, given that we have the phenomenon of licensed juxtaposed with unlicensed day care And as the marketplace gets too forbidding for certain people, the temptation is to deal with unlicensed — and in some cases illegal — day care facilities, simply because they can't afford any other.

I would hope the minister and his officials are going to address that problem. I know it's one that has been brought to the attention of the ministry before, and I hope it's an ongoing commitment to ensure there is a level of service guaranteed to users of that service throughout the province and all the time. I hope the minister would agree with that and would indeed commit his ministry to pursuing precisely that agenda.

I was taken by the minister's reference a few moments ago to the fact — and I share his conclusion — that a touch of levity in this hallowed chamber is sometimes desirable. I share that perception, and I can't resist sharing with him the fact that what we are witnessing here is in some respects — and with certainly no disrespect intended to the minister or to his staff — reminiscent of an episode of "Yes, Minister," the British television show. We all know what happens there. The great theme in "Yes, Minister" is that the minister is entirely at the beck and call and advice and information of the senior bureaucrats.

Now this minister, in the unusual predicament he faces — namely, that on Wednesday he has one ministerial responsibility and on Thursday he has another responsibility and is expected to participate fully in an estimates debate — is put in the awkward position of having to rely exclusively on the bureaucrats who flank him. We know that modern government requires that, but I would wish that Hansard could somehow record the rather long and protracted hiatus between questions and answers that we have waited through in this debate. I appreciate that the minister can't be faulted; nor can his advisers. However, as we all know, that comes from an unwillingness to put aside these estimates to give the minister at least a little breathing space or an opportunity to learn something more about the operation.

What I want to do, Mr. Chairman, is focus on some particular questions. I've pulled out my estimates books — my blue books — and tried to find some information. I haven't located it, and therefore I'm going to ask for a little guidance from the minister and his colleagues.

I want first of all to draw a little attention to the area of crisis grants. Crisis grants, as the minister well knows, are that mechanism whereby we deal with people who, for all kinds of good and compelling but not necessarily predictable reasons, find themselves in the awkward position of having to get some money in order to make it to the end of the month — money above and beyond whatever their GAIN or social assistance payment may be. The question I want to pose is whether, in this budget, this set of estimates, we are looking at any significant increase in the crisis grants budget. Can the minister or his officials tell me that?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The answer to the question, Mr. Chairman, is no. We're there to meet the immediate need and any crisis that may exist, but we're not doing anything beyond that.

I also want to say that on the question of unlicensed family day care — that is, for two children or fewer — the parents select and monitor it. There are funds for training. Just because something isn't part of the government organization, let us not say that it doesn't work well and that it doesn't provide good

[ Page 9988 ]

day care. I suspect that there may be many cases when some of the greatest day care — the highest standard — is provided in exactly this kind of setting. Let it be clear for the record that I am not criticizing that way of providing the service at all.

The other comment that I want to make is that the suggestion.... Let me apologize if I am delaying the process too much by taking time to get the answers; I thought we were going along quite well. But let me also make it clear that I don't feel that I have to be protected from the people who work beside me when I'm answering questions. People who work for government have the same right to be respected for the job they do as people who work in other places in society. I think the remarks the member made tend to criticize and belittle the role they play in our society.

Interjection.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: No, Mr. Member. If you check the record, it sounds like there was some kind of great liability inherent in the fact that I have to rely upon the information of the people who sit beside me. I have every respect for them, for their opinion and for people who work for government, because I think they do a very creditable job for society.

MR. LOVICK: I can't believe, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is either so obtuse or wilfully obdurate in sticking to a prepared script that he can deliberately misrepresent the point I made.

I began by talking about levity. I emphasized very clearly indeed, Mr. Minister, in at least two statements in my brief opening comment that I had full respect for your staff. I was faulting nobody. I offered the comment in the spirit of friendliness, but if you're going to take that sanctimonious, rather silly approach, then clearly this debate is not going to be pleasant. Sadly there is no reason why it shouldn't be pleasant.

Unfortunately you also chose to misrepresent what I said about unlicensed day care. If you'd listened somewhat more closely, you'd have recognized that I made a clear distinction between unlicensed and illegal day care. I made that point very clearly. I said that the problem is that there are many individuals out there who simply cannot afford the kind of quality day care they require; therefore they are resorting to illegal day care. I asked you and your officials to look into that. Please, by all means, disagree with me, Mr. Minister; but don't, for heaven's sake, misrepresent what I'm saying. Let's establish those ground rules, surely; as a minimum, let's do that.

The area that I wanted to pursue, as I say, regarding the crisis grant allocation is why, given that it appears to be the case that more and more social assistance recipients do not have enough money at the end of the month, no consideration has been given to either (a) increasing the sum of money allocated to crisis grants; or (b) perhaps simplifying the process whereby crisis grants are allowed.

1 understand from my staff and my constituency office that a regular, perennial complaint about dealing with MSS&H is the difficulty in getting crisis grants. Individuals say that they are made to leap through hoops. They are made to go the long way around in what should be a relatively straightforward process. I'm wondering if the minister would like to comment on that.

[4:15]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yes, I would comment on that. I think the member can appreciate that there's an equal allowance given to all people receiving assistance. If you make it easy for those people who do not manage as well — for whatever reason — then, of course, I guess you begin to break down the system. If you have a crisis at the end of the month and you will automatically be given extra funding — it will be easy to do — I think that under those circumstances we could expect there may be a substantial demand upon the service.

Having said that, I appreciate there are extenuating circumstances, and that being on social assistance is not a pleasant role for individuals. My concern and my hope is that we will do all we can to get people away from that situation to where they can be employed and have the good feeling of a job and be self-supporting in the community and all the good things that go with that for each person. That's not for the dollars we save, but for the emotional comfort and satisfaction of the individual.

We recognize the hardships that are perhaps inherent in it, but you can appreciate that it's not a system we could make easy and still maintain the levels with any kind of control mechanism.

MR. LOVICK: I'm sorry my question was construed to be how we have to make it easier insofar as we loosen up the rules or something like that. I'm not talking about giving a signal to people that there's a blank cheque waiting there in the welfare office or anything like that.

What I'm suggesting is that when clear and compelling evidence has been presented, then the system ought to be straightforward — ought to be simple. I'm sure the minister didn't intend in his comment to suggest that what we have to guard against is in any way loosening the regulations because all of those welfare recipients out there are eager to exploit and rip off the system. I hope he didn't mean to imply that in his observation about making it easy.

Let me, though, give him an example of what I mean by the kind of circumstance that arises when an individual, as I say, runs out of money at the end of the month due to circumstances, in effect, beyond that individual's control. Take for example the B.C. Hydro policy of calculating the rate owed for hydro. We know that the policy is based on the notion of an equal monthly rate, and then they break it up accordingly. When Hydro discovers it has miscalculated the rate, what happens to the individual — and in this case, an individual on social assistance — is

[ Page 9989 ]

that he or she will be presented with a bill that must be paid in a very limited and short period of time.

I could give specific examples from my own constituency, and I'm sure they're not unique to Nanaimo. I suspect they are rather commonplace. Those individuals in that situation have the evidence that the fault was entirely Hydro's and had nothing to do with the individual. They are on a tight budget and don't have any surplus to play with and are suddenly confronted with that extra bill.

They are truly in crisis. They can present the evidence of crisis. They can go to get a crisis grant. The process however that is invoked and unfolds at that point seems to be cumbersome and rather slow. Perhaps the minister could disabuse me of that notion. Is it much faster than I think it is? If it is anything like I think it is, then clearly there's considerable room for improvement. Would the minister care to comment?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: First of all, with B.C. Hydro as an example, they have an equalization plan for all their customers. We do encourage people who are receiving social assistance to use that plan so they can budget more evenly. I think you should know that in 1989 we spent $4.2 million on crisis grants. For '90-91 we're forecasting to spend $4.18 million for the crisis grants. There has been a 7 percent decline in the caseload of people receiving social assistance. The caseload is favourable. The trend is favourable. It is coming down. But the comments you make are in line with the response I gave to the question earlier. I recognize there are people who do have difficulties at times.

MR. LOVICK: I'm wondering if the minister can answer another question, turning away from the area of crisis grants now specifically to shelter allowance. Again, I'm looking at the estimates, but I don't think the figure is broken down.

Has there been any increase in the shelter allowance portion of GAIN payments in this budget? While the minister is exploring that, I can perhaps add to the question just by providing a little sense of the reason why I posed the question. I know one answer is to say that there is obviously always a demand for more. That's understandable when we're dealing with people who are in effect living below the poverty line.

The issue now is that we have for at least a year and a half been living in a buoyant and booming real estate market. Clearly the shelter costs have risen exorbitantly in many cases. If we have pegged the shelter allowance to a non-buoyant market in which there was perhaps excess supply as opposed to the absence of supply and exorbitant demand, then clearly those individuals who require shelter allowance are going to be behind the proverbial eight ball. I'm wondering if the minister could address the matter about the shelter allowance portion of assistance.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: We recognize that the shelter costs have increased, and that it is a problem. We're looking at increases in GAIN, and shelter is one of the main components that we're considering in that increase. I'm also aware that apparently fewer people are receiving the shelter allowance. That is a concern and something that I will also be looking into.

MR. LOVICK: I listened carefully to the minister's comment, and his last statement was that "fewer people are receiving the shelter allowance." I'm sorry, I misunderstand that. Would you explain that?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: What I meant to say was that fewer people have rents covered by their shelter allowance. We recognize that more people are having a problem with this, and that is a concern. That's one of the things we're looking at in the increase.

MR. LOVICK: I hope I'm not being obtuse, Mr. Chairman. I'm just wondering if that is referring to the phenomenon of homelessness — young people tenting in the family's basement, that kind of thing. Is that the sort of phenomenon we're looking at to explain "fewer people"? Again, I don't understand. It would seem that all the evidence would go the opposite way, that there would be more demand for that assistance. I'm wondering why it is less.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The point we're trying to make is that we agree — the communication is apparently not coming over very well. There are fewer people whose shelter is being covered by the GAIN allowance. That's a concern we have, and that is one of the things we have in mind when we're looking at a GAIN increase. The costs that people are incurring for their shelter is a prime concern.

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate the answer, and I certainly accept the sincerity of the answer. Clearly we all recognize that shelter for a family of three at 500 bucks a month and for a single person at $275 at the moment.... Obviously, in any city within a 40-mile radius of Vancouver with a population of more than 15,000, you wouldn't be able to do that, I suspect. So I'm pleased to hear the minister is indeed committed to pursuing that.

Another question, if I may, dealing with GAIN again, specifically in this case GAIN for handicapped persons. All of these questions, Mr. Minister, I would emphasize, come directly from the trenches, if you like — the people working in the community. I understand that there is a problem — and it seems, sadly, to be a recurring one — of delay, a rather long turnaround time for applications for the GAIN handicapped allowance. The example I have is of a young man who applied some ten weeks ago, and the local office of Social Services and Housing in Nanaimo still had not received any word from the Victoria office. I'm told that is not aberrant but is in fact becoming the trend. I'm wondering (a) if the ministry staff is

[ Page 9990 ]

aware of that and (b) what steps they're taking to deal with that serious problem.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The advice I have received is that there are in fact no delays. But admittedly, there are a number of those particular complaints that are complicated and take some time to process. We're not aware that there is any delay in the system. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be pleased to receive the information, and I'd be happy to look into that.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for that answer, and I will indeed be providing him and his officials with that information.

Another question. Can the minister confirm for me that individuals who are under 19 years of age and who, for reasons that are entirely unique to them and their circumstances, say they cannot live at home — there is an unhappy, unhealthy or perhaps abusive environment — and who do not have the option of staying at home, are routinely turned down by GAIN for social assistance? Is that the case, and is that current policy or not?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: No, that's not the policy. We have a number of young people who are in fact on GAIN at that age and younger. What happens when they apply for assistance is that we check with the families to find out if they can be provided for and if it's required that they be assisted. But if their case is such that they require assistance, they get it. However, I do think — and I think you'd agree — that that is not the place where we want to.... What we want to do for those young people is to encourage them to progress, develop and do things with their lives. But the emergency help is there for them.

MR. REID: Keep the family intact.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I hear a voice from across the way saying "keep the family intact at all costs."

MR. REID: I didn't say "at all costs."

MR. LOVICK: Okay. He says now that he didn't say "at all costs." But that reference about keeping the family intact, unfortunately, doesn't grapple with the reality that I announced a moment earlier. In some cases we're talking about street kids who can't go home because of an abusive relationship. That's the issue. We're not talking about just disagreement or the need to stretch one's wings and find one's own way or something. We're talking about a more serious problem, and I am sure the minister would agree with that.

Your staff can perhaps help with this question, Mr. Minister, because I don't expect you would have it at your fingertips. Is it not the case that the ombudsman's report last year referred to this problem of young people — presumably underage people — being repeatedly turned down by SS and H and therefore frequently ending up as street kids? Was that not reported?

[4:30]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I don't personally have the information, but I understand that it's not the case. As a matter of fact, these young adults that you're talking about are looked after.

I want to say that I am very concerned about those people in society. I can feel the hardships and difficulties some of these young people experience. The great problem we have in our society is that families have in many cases broken down and the casualties become these young people.

As has been repeated here many times today, I have only had a few hours in the ministry. But let me assure you that this is one of the areas that I will be looking at to determine what the situation is and whether there is something we can do to help. I am very concerned about the needs of those young people. They are an important part of our society, and they're in a situation that very often they could not avoid.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

MR. LOVICK: I want to pose a couple of questions to the minister regarding the rules and the regulations by which his staff and the offices operate — concerning whether the criteria are perhaps too stringent and too rigorous and too hidebound, not allowing enough latitude to the workers to respond to crises and emergencies. I will give you a couple of examples to illustrate the point.

For instance, we have the case of students — and there are a number of these in my community because Malaspina College, with an academic and a vocational division, is resident there — who are approaching the end of a training program or an academic year. Their student loans have run out and they find themselves in a crisis with two months to go in a program or some such thing. My understanding is that they have difficulty getting any assistance at all, Rather they are told that if they want assistance, they will probably have to quit school — which seems on the face of it to be a counterproductive approach to providing assistance. Perhaps that one example will suffice to give the minister a chance to respond.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: My response is that I don't believe that to be the case; but if it is, I would certainly appreciate the member's providing me with an example. Would you give me the details so that we can check that one out?

MR. LOVICK: I shall indeed give the minister the information. We certainly appreciate his receptivity and his willingness to investigate.

You realize that, given the responses to the last two questions — "Give me specific examples and I'll investigate" — I am courting the temptation to bring in a very large file and just start naming cases and

[ Page 9991 ]

funnelling huge numbers of these things to you. Who knows? I will check and that may happen. You may indeed get a number of these things brought to your personal attention.

A couple of other small points, Mr. Minister, and then I'm done. I know that a number of people want to be involved in this debate.

Is it the case that under current policy, individuals can be denied tenancy in a particular apartment or complex because they are on GAIN? Is that allowed practice? Any regulations to protect against that happening?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: We are not, in this ministry, aware that that happens or of regulations. We might come back to the question in another ministry involving some of the same people in the near future. But no, not as far as we're concerned.

I don't know whether the member was making a bit of jest with the comment about the large files, but if you have that sort of thing, then I invite you to bring those files. We obviously can't, and should not, deal with those here, but you're welcome to bring them to my office. We have the staff people there who will be happy to look through them.

MR. LOVICK: I again thank the minister for the response.

The minister made oblique reference to the fact that another ministry ought really to pick up this question about that sort of discrimination. The predicament we have — and I am sure I am telling you something of which you are already well aware — is that our current human rights legislation doesn't prohibit that kind of discrimination.

I know that we push the edges of the estimates envelope if we start talking about future policy and legislative initiatives. But I would just flag that for the minister's attention — and for his colleagues' attention — because I think it is a legitimate area. Certainly in a buoyant real estate market, it's going to be a recurring problem.

Another question, Mr. Minister. Let me just tell this story briefly and then draft a question on it. Again it's one case, but one that I think is sadly all too commonplace.

A young single parent contacted my office not very long ago. She had a significant rental increase — something like $85 a month. She approached her financial aid worker for an increase in the shelter allowance and was told that she was ineligible. Some four months later she was told by her new worker that she had indeed been eligible and had been shorted by some $85 per month.

The problem is that Social Services and Housing — and understandably, on the face of it at least — will not pay retroactively. Curiously enough, though, there is a special pain and poignancy to that case, because it is inequitable in the extreme, when you consider that if a client is overpaid by the ministry — if somebody receiving allowance happens to be overpaid — the ministry is able to collect retroactively. How can we possibly justify that glaring discrepancy in approaches? I would just like to ask the minister if he could give me an answer to that.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: It's not justifying it, but the facts are that the act does not allow for retroactive payments. Each case is judged individually. There may be some circumstances that are very special, but ordinarily, retroactivity is not allowed. It can't be done. It's unfortunate that that sort of thing would happen, but I think you can also appreciate that there are a lot of people involved in the ministry dealing with a lot of people and cases. Sometimes there will be errors made or different opinions given and so on. It is very difficult to completely avoid, although we always have to attempt to make sure that those entitled to it do receive it.

MR. LOVICK: I want to thank the minister for his answers; I appreciate that. I'm a little concerned, though, that the response in this very short space of time that the minister has had responsibility is that the act does not allow it. I would hope that the answer would be and will prove to be that the act as presently written doesn't allow it, but we will certainly look into the matter and see whether there is indeed a compelling case for changing the act. It seems to me that if the case I presented is in any way commonplace, it is sufficient ground for changing the legislation.

Beyond that, I will simply say that I appreciate the answers the minister has given to me, plus the invitation to bring some particular cases to his attention. He has my assurance that he will hear from me. Thank you, Mr. Minister.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I wondered if the minister had received answers to the questions I asked earlier.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The answer is rather lengthy. Permit me to read the information to you.

As discussed previously, of the children discharged in '89-90, 98.9 had only one placement. A further breakdown would show that of 851 children discharged, the average number of placements was 1.75. By length of time in care, children who stay longer than two years in care have an average of one placement. Children staying in care two to five years have an average of 1.48 placements. Those in care from five to nine years have an average of 2.13 placements. Those in care more than ten years have an average of 1.8 placements.

As a further breakdown, 572 children had only one placement and 63 children had 5 or more. Of those 63 children, 50 had five to nine placements, 11 had ten to 14 placements and two had 14 or more. This shows that a small number of troubled children do indeed require more than one placement.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I assume that you haven't received the other answers with regard to staffing?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Not at this time.

[ Page 9992 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to ask the minister if he will make the commitment to ensure that those answers are forthcoming.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yes, I will.

[4:45]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I would like to thank you, and I will move on to another issue. I was pleased to hear, in previous questioning, the minister say that one of the areas he was concerned about was children — in particular, teens — in this province. I too am very concerned and am trying to look for comparable jurisdictions that have used different approaches. I am not suggesting that they are models we should emulate, but I think there is a great deal to be learned from the work they have done.

For the new minister's information, I would like to tell you of a study that was done in Ontario. The reason I bring up this particular study is because in Ontario — I believe it was four or five years ago — they changed the legislation making reviews mandatory. Basically what they were doing, by recognizing the need for public review of the status of children in care, was to recognize that there were problems in the system, and that the best way to resolve those problems was to have an accurate assessment of those problems.

We talked a bit earlier about the standards branch of the ministry, the ongoing reviews, the random nature of those reviews and the fact that it is very difficult to get information from your ministry.

The information coming out of the Ontario review indicated that a lot of the statutory requirements were in violation; there wasn't ongoing visitation — or at least as regularly as mandated — by social workers to children in care. There wasn't the degree of ongoing review of the plan that was put in place. Like your ministry, it was mandated that there be a life plan for those children. In some cases there were violations as to the number of medical or dental visits that those children should have had.

I would like to encourage you, as a new minister, to look at opening up that process, instigating an ongoing review process and considering having that review process at arm's-length from the ministry. We had a rather heated exchange with the previous minister about the fact that at this point there is no one who speaks for children in this province.

The minister was quite offended by that statement and said that we have a very good person in Leslie Arnold, whose mandate is to speak for the children The point I made at that time — and continue to make — is that children need to have someone to speak for them who is not responsible to the ministry, very much like the ombudsman who is at arm's-length to government and reports to government.

We need someone whose mandate is to serve the children first and who is not compromised by a conflict of interest, in that the ministry pays their paycheque.

I'll go back to the Ontario example. In this particular report — and there have been subsequent reports written by Children in Care, a national agency — one of the things they found as they investigated the issue of child abuse is that the rate of abuse is higher. Again, I am talking about Ontario. I have absolutely no indication of what the situation is in the province. I believe that is in and of itself a problem. People don't have a clear picture of the situation in this province.

However, let me tell you about the report in Ontario. The report indicated that the rate of abuse is higher for children in care than kids in their own home. It went on to say that:

"Over half of kids abused in foster homes had not been abused in their own homes. Foster parents lack training and experience in dealing with previously abused children. Some of these kids are behaviourally disturbed. Siblings abuse is also now recognized as a serious statement."

This particular report indicates that we have a whole area of care in this province that we don't have a real handle on. Because no one is speaking for the kids, we don't have the opportunity to hear what the kids have to say. And of the many advocacy groups in this province, it would be very difficult to find one that actually specializes in advocating on behalf of children.

I'd like to ask the minister: what is the rate of abuse — physical, sexual and neglect — in B.C. foster homes?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I can't be specific in answer to that, because I don't have the precise information. I'm not sure if I understood correctly as the member was making more of a statement — and it was fairly lengthy. But it seemed to me that there was a mention of a conflict of interest; at least I gathered that it was a conflict, because the ministry was dealing directly with these children, rather than having a third party to represent the children. My reaction, as a new minister, is that I would hope that this ministry is very carefully and deliberately and effectively representing the children of this province that are in need of care. And if that is not happening, then we need to look at what is being done, because the purpose of us being here is to provide the support, assistance and help necessary for those young people. Surely those young people should not have to be represented by someone else in order to get proper, adequate and fair treatment from this ministry. I don't think the situation is that way at all, but I'm concerned that such a suggestion was made — if that was the suggestion.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Let me just clarify the point. I don't for a moment want to undermine the commitment, the care, and the skills that the people in the field bring to their job. However, we have one of the biggest bureaucracies in this province dealing with children. It's recognized, through the ombudsman's report, that the services often involve several ministries. We have a situation where children and their families find it difficult at times to deal with that bureaucracy. It's one of the reasons we have an ombudsman in this province: for people to have

[ Page 9993 ]

someone to advocate on their behalf when they're dealing with government.

In this particular instance, the children of this province — because they don't vote, because they don't pay taxes or for whatever reason — do not have a person or an agency or an advocacy group that will speak for them, that will help them with the system and that will help them deal with injustices. The ombudsman's office has in the last couple of years repeatedly expressed the need for services to children, and advocated on behalf of them, recommending changes in the system. But they are somewhat handicapped, in that looking after children is only part of their mandate. There are, I believe, one and a half staff people.... I might be wrong on that number. But there are a small number of people in the ombudsman's office who specialize in care for children. The problems that children are facing in this province are on the increase. They are becoming more severe. If you sit down and talk to the ombudsman, or any other people who deal with children's services in this province, you will quickly come to realize that it's not the same reality that you and I faced when we were growing up. The reality that children, and in particular kids on the street and at school, are facing is now very different. We need to hear what those kids have to say, and we need someone speaking for them exclusively, without any strings attached and without having to feel responsible to a ministry of government, to a group of politicians — whether it is your government or whether in a matter of time it is our government. Their loyalty must be first and foremost to those children, and they must be assured that their position is not compromised in speaking for those children. I just want to make that very clear for the record.

MR. ROSE: On the same subject, Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I believe the bureaucrats within the ministry are as well-intentioned as I am when I go about some particular task or make some decision.

MR. LOENEN: Much better.

MR. ROSE: They might even be better. I don't know whether that's possible, but it might be possible — it might be probable.

Over the years, I've had a lot of cooperation from members of that ministry in some rather difficult and dicey cases. But I've also seen more than one incident in government, not relating to this particular ministry necessarily — although I had a case recently in which this would fit. If the shoe fits, wear it. But too often, if you don't have some independent person that's going to make a judgment outside — like the A-G or the ombudsman or some other non-political or non-governmental, non-hierarchical kind of arrangement — when you raise a complaint, with the minister let's say, it trickles right down through the bureaucracy to the guy that made the decision in the first place, or his superior. But usually it's that person.

Consequently, they're not going to say they made a mistake. Frequently there's an effort to sort of close ranks and cover tracks. I'm not just saying that this applies only in the case of children, although I think it can happen there as well.

Let's say the veterans' pension board in Ottawa, which is probably not as busy as it once was because many of the veterans are no longer alive, has an appellate body separate from the group that made the decision about the pension in the first place, and we have the advocates at the workers' compensation as well.

But I had a case recently that I dealt with — and the people across the aisle here know the case of which I speak — where I felt there was a gang-up on the part of this particular family. I thought some things having to do with the civil rights of an individual were definitely.... What's the word I want? "Biased" is the lightest word I can use.

So all I'm saying to the minister is that this idea of having a separate ombudsperson for children's rights, as called for I think by the Berger commission when Justice Berger looked into this subject, is not a novel or radical idea. I think it could apply in all kinds of other ministries.

I don't think the Ministry of Social Services and Housing is any more vulnerable than any of the others in terms of being perfect or otherwise, but I certainly would never doubt their intentions, and we don't over here.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I still have to say that I'm a little bit concerned with the thrust. It's something that will concern me for a while, and something that I'll familiarize myself with more.

MR. ROSE: Given time.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yes, given time. Well, we do the job that we're to do when we're there to do it. None of us are secure about time, I understand.

We're talking about this ministry and the people who deliver the service as if it's a political or a bureaucratic organization. There are politicians involved in this, as I am, and there are people that work for the ministry at this level and in this Legislature, and in the main offices in Victoria.

But the people that are out in the field delivering the services are professional people delivering a service. They're there for the specific purpose of looking after a human need.

I'm concerned when we start saying that there's a great need for someone to monitor that they're doing their jobs and that they may not in fact be working in the best interests of the very people they're put out there to serve. I think if that is the case, we need to be sure that people understand that that's what their purpose is: to try and deal with this social problem. It's a very serious social problem affecting a lot of very unfortunate individuals, and again, through no fault of their own.

First of all, I think the responsibility is upon the ministry to make sure that we do provide the type of

[ Page 9994 ]

service that's needed — and backed — in the best interests of the people we're there to serve. Having said that, I suppose that a case can always be made for some kind of monitoring to see that that does happen.

I know that there are systems in other provinces that have been set up to try and do this. It's something that we are looking at within the province. No decision has been made on it at this point. It's something that is being looked at and that we will continue to look at to see if it is necessary.

MR. ROSE: It wasn't my intention to cast a pall of gloom or suspicion over the organization. I think I've run into one or two cases like that in the time that I've been in politics, so I'm not saying.... It's a difficult one. But I know that in the case of which I speak — I'm not going to be any more specific than that unless you ask me to be; then I will be, because I don't want to be guilty of making wild charges without any support — the day in court became exactly that. People were forced to go to court to get a solution to their problems, and that was it. I don't think people should be forced into that situation. If we had a non-legal means of settling what is, as far as I'm concerned, a rare occurrence....

[5:00]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I want to continue along the lines of fostering in the province; again it's a matter of just trying to understand the situation better. I'm not trying in any way to cast aspersions, because as I have said to previous ministers, I've had an opportunity to meet with many foster parents around the province, and I am incredibly impressed by the group of people doing fostering in this province. I don't think for a moment that anyone in this province who has not experienced fostering can even begin to understand what these people are doing for our society and for children as a whole.

In increasing numbers, children in fostering situations are special kids. They're in a fostering situation in the first place because the province became involved in crisis intervention. We aren't having romantic visions of kids coming into fostering in significant numbers because something has happened that's temporary, and they are in and out. Instead, in increasing numbers the children in care are there because they have been abused in some fashion or because they are suffering from very difficult circumstances — which means that the people who foster in this province need to have significant support for dealing with those problems. They need to be assured that they will have all of the information about the children who are brought into their care, in order to make some basic decisions about their living conditions and about the service and care they need to organize and line up for those kids.

I wonder if the minister would provide some information for the record about the fostering situation. I know that yesterday or the day before, one of our members asked for a report on the advertising program the ministry undertook, the cost of that program and the number of foster homes recruited due to that program. I recall the number of foster homes being given. I don't recall the cost of that advertising program, so I am wondering if that could be forthcoming.

Secondly, I would like to know about the kind of training provided for those homes. I'd like the minister's view on whether foster homes are provided with information and whether there is open communication between the ministry and foster homes as to the history of the children.

Finally, when dealing with this area, I want the minister to frame his answers in relation to his statutory requirements. I'd like to ask him, specifically with regard to kids who have come into contact with the ministry, whether or not he sees the possibility of a region or an office running out, near the end of the month, of the money needed to look after children and telling foster parents that they would have to make a decision themselves. They could either keep the child and not receive funds, or the child would have to go back to the streets. How would that sit with the minister? Could he tell me whether or not he feels that that would be in violation of the ministry's statutory requirement?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Certainly it would be a concern if that situation did happen. We're not aware that it has happened. If the member has information that that is so, I would invite her to provide me with it.

Let me say that I have been around long enough now that I have come to recognize the real world. I know that children who end up in foster homes don't often end up there because of a very good cause. The situations are not pleasant, and they're not easy to deal with. I think the services provided by foster parents in British Columbia are second to none in terms of value to society and contribution to dealing with a problem that is very difficult for people to deal with.

You asked questions that require fairly lengthy answers. The first one is regarding the training and support for foster parents. This is the ministry position. The Ministry of Social Services and Housing appreciates and recognizes, first of all, the value and services provided by foster parents. The ministry works closely with the British Columbia Federation of Foster Parent Associations to develop programs, strategies and protocols to enhance support and service foster parents. Furthermore, since 1986-87 the ministry has increased by $150,000 per year the annual grant to local foster parent associations to provide orientation, training and support to their members. Major training initiatives have been completed or are underway. For example, a comprehensive training manual for foster parents' orientation will be released shortly. Funding has been provided to all ten regional foster parent councils to hire regional coordinators to provide training and other support to foster parents. Increases in foster parent training budgets will be made in 1991. In addition,

[ Page 9995 ]

funds are provided to contract resources for training purposes.

If I could go to the support for foster parents, the ministry position is as follows. Support for foster parents is a priority. The ministry has taken positive steps to strengthen support to foster parents and to deal with foster parents' concerns. Financial support has been increased substantially in each of the last three years. The ministry funded the British Columbia Federation of Foster Parent Associations to provide training and support for all British Columbia foster parents. Funding to the association in 1989 was approximately $714,236, an increase of 100 percent over the '87-88 funding levels. The 1989-90 funding included a special grant of $15,000 made in March 1990 for a two-day training session for foster parents from across British Columbia. The session was designed to introduce, inform and orient foster parents to the protocol developed by the ministry and the association on the investigation of allegations of sexual abuse in foster homes.

The association administers an insurance program for foster parents with funding provided by the ministry.

Early in the new fiscal year, the ministry will be introducing a standardized orientation program for all new foster parents. Extensive efforts by the Hon. Claude Richmond and myself when Minister of Health — this was obviously written for the previous minister — by staff and by the British Columbia Federation of Foster Parent Associations resulted in a decision in December 1989 by the federal government to exempt foster parents from paying income tax on payments received from the ministry.

The foster home recruitment campaign has been very successful: 522 new homes were recruited. A public survey indicated that 82 percent of the public has seen the TV ads, 79 percent have a favourable impression of foster parents, and 32 percent said they would consider becoming foster parents.

Finally, the standardized foster parent orientation program was developed in collaboration with the association over a period of 18 months. It has been developed in response to a need identified by ministry staff and foster parents across the province.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you give the cost of that program.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The cost of the foster campaign is $600,000 a year.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Is it the intention of the government to continue the campaign? Can we expect the same expenditure this year?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The ministry has run the campaign for two years. It is not the intention to run it again this year.

MS. SMALLWOOD: That raises another question about the policy of the ministry. If it's not the intention of the ministry to continue the campaign to recruit foster parents in such a high-profile way, is it the intent of the ministry to look for placements for children other than in foster care? Is the ministry looking at contracting to agencies that will then in turn subcontract the care of foster children?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The answer to the second part is no. The recruitment will continue at the local level. The local level has been developed to the point where we think the recruitment can be carried on from that level.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I would like to know the ministry's position on subcontracting care for foster children. Is it the ministry's policy to deal solely with the foster parents' association?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: We do purchase services, apparently. But as far as subcontracting is concerned, no.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm sorry, I would like some further clarification. When you say you "purchase services," can you explain the extent of those services you purchase? I understand from that answer that you deal with organizations other than the foster parents' association of the province.

Can you indicate whether or not you support an umbrella group taking contracts for fostering children and then looking for homes for those children — subcontracting those homes out?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: No, we don't.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I thank you for that. I have a particular concern in that area, and I will be talking to you in the next short while.

I would like to ask the minister about foster children as they reach the age of majority. I was talking with the previous minister in estimates about the comparison between cost per child for care in this province and Ontario. Various professionals in the field have told me that the difference in the cost has to do with the fact that Ontario spends more money in prevention and support and less money in crisis intervention. The comparison I have used in the past is between British Columbia and the United Kingdom, as an example.

[5:15]

There have been several studies done on children in care and the costs related to those children in care. It was quite striking to see that we had almost three times as many children in care, including kids who are incarcerated or who are in the care of other ministries. But the fact remains that that care is very expensive. The minister came back and said that he was unable to compare the two jurisdictions because in Ontario, as an example, the age of majority was

[ Page 9996 ]

different, and therefore the costs weren't as significant.

I've compared some of the programs across Canada for children who have been wards of the state at one point or another, and I looked at the kind of support that different jurisdictions provide for those children. As the minister will understand, if you have children, once the kids reach the age of majority in a natural family, they aren't all of a sudden out on their own. The kids often need the continuing support of a family. They may leave home, but they're often back at the door of mom and dad looking for support to continue their schooling or whatever they need to do. The reality here in British Columbia is that at the age of 19, children are no longer considered to be wards of the state, but are considered to be adults and therefore independent. There have been a couple of stories lately of children who have reached the age of 19, and I would like to quote a couple of different instances.

This one was reported by a B.C. foster parent. He says: "I have a boy soon to be 19 who is a compulsive thief, developmentally younger than he is chronologically, and who realistically is probably barely employable. How is he going to survive?" The second example if from an article in the Province — one child thrived in a foster home but turned 19 too soon. It says: "Some nights this particular child slept on the sidewalk outside his foster parents' home, remembering when he had food and shelter at that place."

This is a significant problem when we're dealing with the needs of children. As a parent, I certainly recognize the fact that different kids are able to do different things at different ages. So I want to know what consideration your ministry has given the age of majority, and whether or not you would take a look at transition programs where the situation dictates that there be some ongoing support or transitional skills development for those kids. Often children find themselves in foster homes with very few life skills and very little ability to make it on their own. It would seem to me that as the surrogate parent, with the ultimate responsibility being your ministry, you have some responsibility to ensure that those kids get the life-skill training that is needed so that they have a chance and can make it.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Going back to the question of comparisons between Ontario and British Columbia, it is really not possible to effectively compare, because there are so many differences, and so many differences in the way that the statistics are compiled.

There seems to be a question as to how well the system works and whether the children are getting the kind of care that they deserve. In response to that, I would just like to take a moment and read a letter that I have here from one of the people who has been in the system. Maybe that's the best way of assessing whether or not they do receive proper care in British Columbia, and whether or not it's something that they're pleased with when they have gone through the system. It's addressed to the superintendent of family and child service. The names are omitted to protect the identity, but it says:

"I am 19 years old as of November. I was attending Northwest Community College in Terrace last year and a few months this year. I withdrew because I wanted to work and go out into the world.

"Anyway, I am writing to you to thank you and all your people for taking the time to help support me and care for me since I was 17 years old. I'm sure you are aware of my family situation, but I swear I would have never been more motivated and confident if I was still in my home, like I am now from your help.

"There were a few times I have made mistakes and have had disagreements with some of my past social workers, but later I realized what you people are trying to do is help me get on my own two feet and help me become independent. I thank all of you. I am 19 now, but if I can, I will always keep in touch with my past social workers and yourself or another social worker. You do feel like my guardians from the time I was 17 to now."

It's in handwriting, and it's not easy to make out.

"You have got me dishes, silverware to help me on my own some day. You have got me art supplies to help me further my art career. You have also given me the chance to go to post-secondary schooling to further my education. I even have a bike for my transportation. I not only got material things, that help me a great deal, but I got advice, support, knowledge, confidence, motivation and more. I have become a much stronger person than I ever was, and I feel good about myself, and I feel always proud to tell other people that Social Services and Housing took care of me and were my legal guardians.

"I would just like to conclude that all that was done for me is very greatly appreciated. My two sisters are also in your care, and I know they feel safe and at home. Thank you, Leslie, for taking me as a child in care and supporting me and giving me many chances when I had made mistakes.

"I would like to tell you that I am doing well now, that I am no longer a ward in your care but a young adult on my own. I am a live-in nanny in Hazelton and selling some of my art work to people, and also taking a fashion-merchandising course through correspondence. I am also working on my psychology for the course that I have enrolled in, before my withdrawal. I plan to move down to Burnaby in about eight months and start my life with challenge. When I am down there it would be a great pleasure to meet you in person.

"Thank you, Leslie, once again, and if there is anything I could do for you or other social services, I would be more than happy to help you people in some way, like you have helped me. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to hearing from you soon."

That's an example of the response from people who have been in it. It's one thing for us to talk about it here and to use it in a political arena, but there is a person who has been through the system, has had the experience, has had the difficulty in life, and has been helped by the system. That's the proof of the whole process that we have.

This briefing note that I have here is on the Next Step program. The Surrey Community Resource Centre

[ Page 9997 ]

Society budget is approximately $80,000 annually. The Next Step program assists children in care to prepare for independence. For children in the Surrey area who are in an independent living situation, the program provides help with finding a place to live, budgeting, shopping and cooking, looking for work, and educational plans. The Next Step program has two counsellors available to help about 25 children in care at any one time.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm sure that the minister, in reading that letter, didn't want to lead the House or the people of this province to believe that there aren't any problems.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: No, I did not....

Interjections.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman, I'm finding it difficult to hear what the minister has to say, with everybody talking at one time. I'd suggest that if the minister wants to contribute something, he should do it for the record.

I also want to follow up with a question. The minister read a prepared statement about one particular program in Surrey, and he talked about that program servicing 25 kids in independent living arrangements. Neither your letter nor the statement you read into the record addressed the concerns that I was speaking specifically of. Those concerns were to do with the number of children in care in this province who are reaching the age of majority; not those in independent living — because that presents in and of itself a special problem — but those children who are in care, and the ongoing transitional support for those children, and possibly for those kids and their families to stay together and to allow the parents to support the children into their adult years and possibly to allow them to finish off their grade 12. In reality, many of the children in care, because of emotional problems and the difficulty they have had, are behind other children in their schooling. The concern has been raised by foster parents and others that when they reach the age of 19, the question becomes: who will support them? Can they continue to live in those foster situations and finish their schooling or do any number of other things that a normal family relationship would provide support for? I'd like to hear the minister's response.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, the question is: what happens to young people 19 and over? There is a program in place for that. An educational fund has been established through the public trustee and the Ministry of Attorney-General. It looks after providing educational opportunities for young people over the age of 19.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I can see that we're not going to get very far on this. The minister is not particularly sympathetic. He's looking for quick answers to get him off this turf. Whether or not the opposition continues to question him on this area, I will.

[5:30]

I believe that the foster parents themselves.... I would point to reports provided to this ministry in 1984 by the B.C. Foster Parents' association about foster children reaching the age of majority and their lobbying for the very thing I'm talking about. The fact is that there is still no program in place, to my knowledge. In addition to that, the Elizabeth Fry Society did a report this year in which they elaborated on the problem and again lobbied the ministry. So I'm very sorry that the staff was unable to provide you with an appropriate answer that would show that the ministry is at least considering these two very credible organizations' requests.

I want to ask the minister about an announcement that was made just prior to the estimates and that I think directly relates to a lot of the concerns we've been talking about around accountability, standards and ensuring that children in the care of the province are getting the care they deserve. Even after extensive questioning, I haven't seen any indication other than an attitude of "trust us" that would assure the people of this province that their tax dollars are being spent effectively and efficiently; that we're getting value for our money; and perhaps more importantly, that children in the care of the province are getting the best possible support they could get.

Around the issue of standards of delivery of service, I want to ask the minister about the announcement that we have now become members of the Child Welfare League of America. I'd like the minister to indicate what will flow from becoming a member. What can we expect to see in this province as a direct result of becoming a member of the Child Welfare League? I'm hoping that it isn't comparable to the fact that Canada is a signatory to the United Nations report on children, because we can very well see that that has not borne fruit — and we'll talk about that a little bit later, too.

Perhaps the minister would answer a couple of questions.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: We believe that we have an excellent support system in British Columbia. Nevertheless, as with all jurisdictions, it's a changing world, and we monitor what is going on. During the last six months we have looked at every jurisdiction in Canada and many in the United States to see what they are doing in various areas. It's not prudent to try to reinvent the wheel each time when monitoring what you're doing; rather, to look and see what other people are doing and how they are doing it. What they are doing might be beneficial, and it could be used within this province. So it's a continuous process. But don't let that comment be confused with the impression that the member is trying to leave that the system in British Columbia is not good. It is good, and it rates well.

As for membership in the Child Welfare League of America, membership in the league is one of the

[ Page 9998 ]

steps taken to reinforce and strengthen the ministry's commitment to quality service. As a member agency, the ministry is entitled to participate in league activities and to take advantage of the expertise of the league and its member agencies.

In the United States there is some pressure for child welfare agencies to develop larger institutions or orphanages for children in care. The ministry and the league are of the view that the needs of children in care are generally best served through placement in an individualized family environment.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Since you are now a member of the Child Welfare League of America, have you adopted their standards for practice in the field of child and youth care?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The standards that you are talking about are standards that have just been presented. We have just received them and they are being evaluated by the ministry at this time.

MS. SMALLWOOD: It's interesting that the minister says that he has just received that documentation. Unfortunately I didn't quite hear what followed from that. Part of what I did in preparation for the estimates is review previous years' estimates. This question actually came from last year's estimates, so the ministry was well aware of these standards. There had been considerable lobbying going on from the different professional groups in the province to have the province adopt these standards. I recognize the minister's just a new minister, but for the minister to say he has just received them is a little confusing. Perhaps you could clarify that.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Well, we think our standards are high. The process of developing standards is something that's been going on for a long time. Again, I reiterate that the Canadian standards have just been developed. They are being assessed at this time.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister brags about the new association and membership in the Child Welfare League of America. The standards I'm talking about are standards coming out of the league. They are standards that are recognized throughout North America. Those are the standards I was asking the ministry about — whether, since you are now talking about your membership in that league, you had decided to adopt those standards.

Let me further explain that without standards of professionalism — and you can change the word professionalism to read "quality assessment" — the care of children throughout privately contracted arrangements is questionable. Unless you have a set standard of care that you expect the children in your care will receive, how on earth can we as taxpayers or as people concerned about the care of children be confident they are receiving the quality of care they should be receiving?

I ask the minister whether there have been any significant studies on the quality of care that children receive under contract arrangements in privatized facilities in this province.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yes, there have. We have standards. The member suggests that all of this is happening without any standards. That's not true. We have standards for the service we provide in this province. The Canadian standards we're talking about were developed by eight provinces in Canada and are suited to the Canadian situation specifically. Those are the ones we are looking at and reviewing.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to ask the minister to make a set or a summary of those standards available.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'm not aware that there's any problem with that. I would think so.

MS. SMALLWOOD: There are a lot of issues around the care of children in this province. In the last little while I have been trying to learn more about the services available and what is going on in this province. I expect that process will continue for a long time, and I don't expect we'll ever have the right answer. Rather than becoming more entrenched, saying everything's great and that we're doing everything the right way, the commitment to looking is quite significant.

There was a report done by a research officer of the police and securities branch — I believe this was a federal report — for the Ministry of Solicitor-General of Canada. They were looking at missing children in Canada — kids who were runaways. Generally, what the report started to do was look at missing children, and it was realized that a good chunk of those missing kids were runaways. The report analyzes who those kids are, why they run and what we can do as a society to try to support those children in their needs. At this point there is not a whole lot being done for those kids.

I think the most revealing comment was in the summary, keeping in mind that the report was done by a police agency. As a matter of fact, one of the police agencies that conducted the report was the Surrey RCMP. There were three or four different communities across Canada, and this was one of them. It said:

"With respect to the police, an integral part of the problem is that of spreading limited resources equitably over the many areas for which they are responsible. Faced with the dwindling resources, human service networks seem to be becoming more fragmented and increasingly unable to meet their own resource commitments, let alone provide the necessary support to the community, thereby compounding the effects of social and economic conditions that significantly contribute to family breakdown and, consequently, running behaviour."

[ Page 9999 ]

I'm talking about kids who are running away from home.

I think that's an incredibly condemning statement about the social service networks in Canada. Specifically, because it was in this particular report, one of the main players was in British Columbia. I wonder what the minister thinks about that and what actions the ministry is taking to try to deal with that problem.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: We're trying to deal with it in several ways: we have facilities available; we have the Helpline for Children; we have an emergency services line that's available after hours; and we have the Reconnect program.

But having mentioned the initiatives that we might take, I think that what we're dealing with here is a problem that is not easily resolved -a problem where maybe the source is that we need to go back to the thing that we talk a lot about on this side, but that I don't hear discussed very much on that side: the initiative to strengthen and keep the family together in the first place. Once these young people are in that kind of situation, it's not easy to deal with them.

I know that the member opposite always likes to make it appear that it's only a matter of putting more money into the situation, more government spending, and the problem will somehow get resolved. That isn't the reality. The reality is that we have a serious breakdown in society~ We have children who are running away from their homes, which should be their security, their strength and their place of development before they go out into the world. They are not able to share in that because the family unit is breaking down. That has to be a concern for all of us.

If we would concentrate on trying to see what we might do as elected people, government and members of society to help strengthen families, we would contribute a lot more than simply advocating that more and more provincial money be placed into trying to deal with situations after the problem has already got away from us.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I've been waiting for that response. I was wondering, actually, whether this new and possibly temporary minister was cut from the same cloth. Indeed you are, because the reality in this province and in Canada has to do more with governments like yours and your policies.... You talk euphemistically about strengthening the family. Yet it was your government's policies and those of previous administrations that gutted every community program that existed to support and strengthen families, and to allow them to stay together.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

It is your legacy, Mr. Minister, and your government's legacy that we face today. It is your legacy that is creating the disparities in the streets that we see today. It is your legacy that is costing taxpayers an average of three times more than in other jurisdictions because you have not supported families in staying together. You find yourself in a situation of having to build more prisons and have more crisis management teams instead, as I've said before, of front-ending those low-cost dollars that talk about supporting families, allowing them to resolve their problems and stay together.

[5:45]

That's the answer - not any euphemistic value-laden statement about your view of mom, dad and two and a half kids with a cocker spaniel. Part of the remedy, Mr. Minister, in this province is waking up and dealing with the real world.

I have a number of issues, and I think it might be timely to take a look at a contract. This will take a matter of minutes, depending on the minister's response. This contract was for a community service project. I understand it to be a typical contract from the Ministry of Social Services, and it talks about the service delivery and all the rest of it.

The most interesting thing in this contract is the relationship with the ministry, the fact that the ministry expects the contractor not to speak out against the ministry at any time. This is more or less built in. They are almost political documents now and a reflection of the fact that this ministry is so paranoid and so busy looking inward and trying to keep everything safe and quiet that even the dollars they provide to community groups have that string attached. Now it's in writing, and I think that also is a symptom of the problem in the delivery of services and real support to families. It really speaks strongly for the need for advocacy in this province.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Could I just ask the member: are you talking about the confidentiality section of the arrangement, where you cannot disclose information on children? It's presented as if it's some hideous intent on the part of government to try and prevent people from having free and open dialogue, that somehow it's to cover up some perceived sin. But the fact is that you are looking at something that deals with confidentiality, which is there for the protection of children in the first place.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, by agreement, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We have a report to file.

MR. CHALMERS: I would ask leave to present a report from the Select Standing Committee on Labour, justice and Intergovernmental Relations.

Leave granted.

[ Page 10000 ]

MR. CHALMERS: I wish to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Labour, justice and Intergovernmental Relations relating to the Builders Lien Act. I move the adoption of the report as presented.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The report would be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:51 p.m.