[ Page 10001 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

University of Northern British Columbia Act (Bill 40). Hon. Mr. Strachan

Introduction and first reading –– 10001

Ministerial Statement

Parks Day. Hon. Mr. Messmer –– 10001

Mr. Williams

Private Members' Statements

Dairy Month. Mr. De Jong –– 10002

Mr. Lovick

Homelessness. Mr. Barnes –– 10004

Hon. Mr. Jacobsen

Institutional reform - a new Senate for Canada. Mr. Mercier –– 10006

Mr. Rose

Concerns of owners of manufactured homes. Mr. Blencoe –– 10008

Hon. Mr. Jacobsen

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

(Hon. Mr. Jacobsen)

On vote 59: minister's office –– 10010

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Serwa

Mrs. Boone

Hon. Mr. Smith

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Clark

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Please join me today in welcoming a good friend and supporter from Kamloops, a realtor from that city. Mr. Ken Endean is here with his wife Donna and son Brad. On behalf of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) and myself, I'd ask you to join us in welcoming them.

MR. SERWA: Joining us today in the members' gallery is an artist from Victoria. Della Paranich moved to the west coast from Edmonton in 1970 and to Victoria in 1975. Her art is traditional and realistic, predominantly using the water-colour medium. The artworks display meaning, beauty, wholeness, balance, harmony and the oneness in art and in life. Numerous private and corporate collections have been enhanced with the addition of her works, which have a strong west coast theme. Would the House please join me in welcoming Della Paranich and her sister Pat Stuparek from Ottawa.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a former member of this Legislative Assembly. Stanley Carnell was a charter member of the Peace River Social Credit League since 1951. He represented the South Peace River constituency in this Legislature for three terms, from 1956 to 1966. Mr. Carnell passed away on December 29, 1989, in Sidney, B.C., at the age of 87. He is survived by his wife Kitty.

Typical of many who settled in the Peace, Stanley was a man of varied interests and talents. He moved to the Peace country from Saskatchewan in 1930, established a homestead west of Dawson Creek in the Bessborough area, had a trapline in the Pine Pass area in the thirties and was a radio operator at the Commotion Creek drilling site, the first oil well drilled in the Peace region. He became particularly well known from 1948 to 1955, when he was editor of the Dawson Creek Star. He was an active member of his community. He served on the board of directors of the Pouce Coupe Community Hospital, the executive of the Dawson Creek Chamber of Commerce and was a charter member and past president of the Dawson Creek Amateur Radio Club. He was also past president of the Dawson Creek Pipe Band. Mr. Carnell contributed a great deal to the South Peace area and to the province of British Columbia. I ask the House to pay tribute to a fine gentlemen.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If it is the wish of the House, the Chair will see that the appropriate message goes to the members of the family.

Introduction of Bills

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN
BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

Hon. Mr. Strachan presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled University of Northern British Columbia Act.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I'd like to say that this is indeed a most significant moment for the northern half of British Columbia and for our province. Acknowledgement for this bill and for its introduction, and for progress over the last three years, must clearly go to the Interior University Society for the work they've done and also to the implementation planning group, who really fashioned the bill as we see it now.

The bill is unique. It uses a lot of language, as it should, from the B.C. University Act, but it is also a genesis piece of legislation in that it sets out specific governance requirements for the University of Northern British Columbia and recognizes that there must be regional representation on the board of governors from the three community college areas and the Cariboo Regional District, as well as the aboriginal community. That's specified in the legislation. The legislation also recommends that there be a preferential funding formula, and that's contained and specified in the act.

As I said, this is a very significant day for the community I represent and the community that many of us in this Legislative Assembly represent. I look forward to discussion and debate on the bill as it passes quickly, I'm sure, through second reading and committee stage.

Bill 40 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.

Ministerial Statement

PARKS DAY

HON. MR. MESSMER: I rise today to advise the House that our government has proclaimed Saturday, June 9, as Parks Day. This is the first-ever nationwide celebration of our parks. I'm proud to say that B.C. has taken the lead in organizing this event. As you are aware, B.C. has the finest parks in Canada. I hope many of you will visit your parks on Saturday, June 9.

We have many special events planned in parks in every part of the province. In Cultus Lake Park in the Fraser Valley we're holding a garbage-free picnic. In Saltery Bay Park on the Sunshine Coast there will be a special ceremony to officially open the new facilities for disabled visitors.

I understand the Minister of Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Parker) will be joined by Jerry the Moose, our official mascot, at another ceremony at Lakelse Lake Park near Terrace. At the Kettle River recreation area near Rock Creek in my constituency, local school-

[ Page 10002 ]

children and the local Lions Club will plant trees, pull knapweed and do tree-thinning. I will be attending the celebration at Sun-Oka Beach Park in the Okanagan. At that time, I will have the honour to announce the winner of our contest to name one of the newest parks, on Kalamalka Lake. We have invited local schoolchildren to name the park and to write essays on why parks are important to them.

There are Parks Day activities in all the parks throughout the province. I invite all British Columbians to attend the celebration near you, and I invite each one of you to think about our parks and how important our parks are to the people of British Columbia.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm so pleased to respond to the thoughtful, in-depth presentation by the Minister of Parks. It's wonderful that the government is showing this kind of leadership. That's leadership!

I just wonder, when Jerry the Moose is up there with the Minister of Crown Lands, whether anybody will notice the minister among those ungulates.

HON. MR. PARKER: That's the nicest thing he's ever said to me.

MR. WILLIAMS: Just about.

But I'd just like to note that indeed we should reflect on our parks. So little has happened in this era of Social Credit in terms of expanding our parks. Just remember when all the great growth took place in our parks system — a doubling between 1972 and 1975. You may chortle, but people think that's important.

I notice that the minister is going to work on the naming of a park at Kalamalka Lake. Is it the naming of the park at Cosens Bay, Mr. Minister?

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, I see. That's another one. Okay.

I'd just like to note that the biggest expenditure ever in terms of acquisition of parkland in British Columbia took place in '72-75 with the acquisition of the waterfront of the Coldstream Ranch on Kalamalka Lake, one of the most beautiful parks in British Columbia. Most people don't know that.

I'd like to know though, since the Minister of Crown Lands is going to have Jerry the Moose with him up there in Skeena, why the Minister of Parks couldn't have Medic Mouse, the righteous rodent, with him in the Okanagan. For those who don't know, Medic Mouse, the righteous rodent, is the official copyright mascot of the British Columbia ambulance service. So I urge you to take Medic Mouse along with you, because in many ways this cabinet and this government are little more than cartoon characters when it gets down to real issues.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Yale-Lillooet asks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the members of the House for this indulgence. We have with us today 32 students, who are really enjoying their visit to Victoria and watching the parliamentary process unfold before their eyes. They are from Vermilion Forks Elementary, which is in the beautiful little town of Princeton. I would ask you to give these students and their teacher, Mr. Lowe, a very warm welcome.

[10:15]

Private Members' Statements

DAIRY MONTH

MR. DE JONG: Today being the first day of June, I thought it would be appropriate to speak on a subject that I'm very familiar with and that undoubtedly is of interest to government and certainly to the people of British Columbia.

For many years, the month of June has been designated as Dairy Month. The reason for choosing June was that it used to be the peak production month of the year in the dairy industry. The purpose of it, obviously, was and still is to make people aware of the importance of the industry for both the producer and the consumer. The purpose has not changed. The importance and the success is still as crucial to both the producer and the consumer as the day it was proclaimed.

A clip from an agriculture magazine was faxed to me the other day by my secretary from the local office. It had a little riddle on it: why does a milk stool have only three legs instead of four? The answer is quite simple: the cow has the udder.

In my statement this morning, I basically want to talk about some of the changes that have occurred in the industry, mainly in the production area, and how these changes have affected the consumer.

Personally, I learned to milk cows by hand when I was seven years old. This was back in Holland, where milking machines were practically non-existent until the early fifties.

The picture drawn in the minds of many city folks, here as well as elsewhere, would be the nice, tidy, little red barn, surrounded by trees for shelter and shade and a lush-looking pasture surrounding the farm buildings with a herd of cows, either peacefully grazing or lying down chewing their cud. The farmer's lifestyle was often compared with such scenery as being a life of independence and tranquillity. It was even assumed by many that the occupation was also without pressures of work or social involvement in community or associations.

Well, the pictures drawn over the years may have reflected such situations, Mr. Speaker, but reality has proven and is proving much more strongly now that such is not the case. People in the dairy industry are certainly involved in industry development and progress and anything connected with the industry, but they also have taken a very active part through-

[ Page 10003 ]

out the years in the community, in charitable organizations and many other things important to the total community.

Dairy farming has always had its excitements. No two days are alike for the farmer, even though the basic chores may be the same each day. The unexpected ills which can take a cow's life, such as milk fever, grass tetany or bloat resulting from wet clover or alfalfa keep the farmer on the alert 24 hours a day. A matter of a couple of hours can make the difference between a live cow and a dead one. It is for this and many other reasons essential to a successful operation that it is important to have the whole family involved so that there is always someone to take charge when required.

Having touched briefly on dairy farming generally and how it was 40 years ago — and some of these things still exist — I want to comment on some of the changes in the operations and techniques of today compared to the past, recognizing that the basics are still the same: to produce milk and related dairy products for human consumption.

Bulk storage tanks and pipeline milking were introduced in the early sixties mainly to meet quality standards introduced by the Departments of Agriculture and Health. These were introduced to safeguard the consumer from potential harmful effects resulting from milk not meeting specific standard criteria. The installation of this equipment required considerable financial investment, which forced many small producers out of business. In the early fifties there were in excess of 3,500 dairy producers in this province. Today there are approximately 1,200 serving a much larger population and producing a much greater variety of products to satisfy consumer demands.

These changes have affected producers and processors as well, and research and development of new products should not be minimized but rather appreciated by all of us, because the cost involved will continue to be that of the producers and processors collectively and because the people involved in the industry believe the product to be a near-perfect food for the human body. However, the initiatives of the industry have placed a heavy demand on producers and processors. In particular, these demands have been largely financial commitments, along with being able to cope and self-educate in modern cost-of-production estimates, together with computerization of operations. In an attempt to survive, and for the dairyman to keep pace with the increasing cost of operation and the need to maximize production from each individual animal, computerized feeding systems have become essential. Who would have ever thought of each cow being equipped with an activator in order to gain access to its daily ration of grain, concentrates and minerals.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, the hon. member's time has expired under standing orders.

Just before we proceed, the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MS. SMALLWOOD: On behalf of the member for Prince George and myself, I'd like to welcome three people coming for the B.C. Real Estate Association convention here in Victoria. My brother-in-law, Vince Smallwood, is here with two friends, Mike Padelec and Barry Miller. I'd like the whole House to make these gentlemen welcome.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, I am filling in today for our agriculture critic, who is unavoidably elsewhere, and I offer his apologies to the member opposite. I know he would like to have responded to the statements.

Mr. Speaker, there has been some controversy recently about statements in the House, and whether they are being abused, insofar as statements are not meant to be contentious and controversial and politically too partisan.

It's very refreshing, in some respects of course, to listen to a statement from my friend the hon. member opposite that clearly is not controversial. In fact, the title given to the statement is "June Is Dairy Month." When I looked at that statement in Orders of the Day, I thought: however will one respond, because that's not debatable? It either is or it isn't Dairy Month. Happily, however, what the member did with that was simply draw our attention to the importance of the industry and the changes to the industry. I think all of us appreciate hearing that, especially given the hon. member opposite's firsthand experience in the industry.

I might note, Mr. Speaker, that we're all very pleased with the performance of the member opposite when he chaired the task force that looked into the milk-producing industry in this province. The task force, you will recall, made the right decision despite the predilections and preferences of the Premier of the province who, as we know, is philosophically opposed to supply management, marketing boards and quota systems. Happily, the member opposite and his colleagues on the task force made the right decision not to opt out of that marketing and that quota system scheme. So I commend the member opposite for that.

There is no question that agriculture is an important, vital and significant industry in this province. I am not entirely convinced, after listening in this chamber for the past three years to the debates about agricultural estimates, that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) is entirely aware of that. It seems to me that the proportion of the budget devoted to agriculture has been consistently going down.

However, the fact is that the member opposite is entirely ingenuous and honest in his statements about the importance. He also draws our attention to the changes in the industry. It is not in any way a simple, small-scale one. Rather, it's capital-intensive. A lot of high-tech equipment is now required and involved.

[ Page 10004 ]

It's also worth noting that the life of the farmer is not — contrary to all those romantic images most of us grew up with — in any way easy or enviable for most of us. It is a 24-hour-a-day job. The responsibility is there. We owe it to those people, it seems to me, to provide them with an adequate standard of living. Certainly, without them, our province's economy would be missing an extremely important component part.

I might just end my few remarks here by reviewing or rediscovering a tradition in this chamber that I began some time ago: namely, to introduce a little verse.

It seems appropriate that I share with you the chorus of that well-known Canadian song that Murray McLaughlin did when he tried to pay tribute to the farmer. What he talked about, you'll recall, was the farmer out there on the tractor in that sweltering heat, the dust, the fumes, the diesel and everything. The chorus of the song was:

Thanks for the meal.
Here's a song that is real,
From a kid from the city to you.

It seems to me appropriate, and I would offer that same thanks to the farmer in this month of June, which is Dairy Month.

MR. DE JONG: Mr. Speaker, I don't think I'm able to sing the second stanza of that particular song. However, I appreciate the member's comments.

I would just like to state, though, that the purpose of the task force last year was to investigate the two options with the dairy industry: to either opt out of the national system or to stay within the national system, as was the final decision. I take offence at the member's drawing the Premier in on one side of the issue, because it was very clear at the outset of the task force and when we got our mandate that our mandate was for two purposes.

To continue on my statement, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to emphasize again where the industry has gone. The basic aim of the producers and processors is to place first-quality products on the tables of the people of British Columbia. The sanitation requirements, which I haven't touched on yet, on farms each day and in the transport of the product as well as at the processing plant are indeed very stringent throughout the entire process. This has proven to be the key to the success of the industry and the safeguard for the consumer.

In conclusion, no other province in Canada or, for that matter, the state of Washington can claim the quality controls applied in British Columbia on all dairy products. The industry is committed to maintaining the highest standard for quality products. The dairy industry is proud of its achievements, and I know that this government and the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) are equally proud of their achievements as well.

HOMELESSNESS

MR. BARNES: I want to talk about something in our society that troubles me greatly and that as elected people we do not give much attention to. The subject is homelessness. Lest the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services and of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Jacobsen) get defensive— I don't see him over there, but I hope he's going to be responding — I start by saying there are no easy answers. But I would be much happier if we could sometime, as legislators, discuss in a non-confrontational way how to reduce the numbers of homeless on our streets.

[10:30]

British Columbia and Canada are, relative to the rest of the world, very wealthy. To me, and I'm sure many members opposite, it is an affront when we hear things such as that over the last two years about 20 homeless people have been found dead on Victoria's streets. This was in the Times-Colonist on November 8, 1989. Homelessness is on the rise, Mr. Speaker. The 1991 census will try to measure it for the first time.

I think homelessness is much more than simply the presence or absence of shelter. Some definitions of homelessness in Canada that I've seen run something like this: "the absence of a continuing or permanent home over which individuals and families have personal control and which provides the essential needs of shelter, privacy and security at affordable cost, together with the needed access to social, economic and cultural public services." This was in a piece by Arthur Fallick in PIBC News, January-February 1988: "Homelessness in Canada." That seems to me to be too broad. Including both homelessness and lack of housing means, by this definition, one-quarter of Vancouverites could be called homeless.

Perhaps we could start by agreeing that the causes are complex and that they all need to be tackled. They cut across ministry structures. There is no one in government who has a broad enough mandate to look at all of the aspects. Here are some of the causes I identify: unemployment, underemployment, unemployability, poverty — you're on the streets if you can't pay the rent, Mr. Speaker — lack of affordable housing, breakdown of the traditional family structure, and inadequacies and inequities of social welfare.

Both ministers in the last few days have freely conceded that our support is not perfect. Lack of broad community support for the deinstitutionalized, urban renewal, the eviction of tenants, and pulling down affordable housing to put up something else are all causes of homelessness. All of these things are the way of the world, however. We cannot stop what some call progress, but I do think that collectively we could do much more to take care of the casualties from these progressive trends.

Government cannot do it all, Mr. Speaker. But why shouldn't government be more open to backing community ideas? Where do families go who need somewhere to stay in the medium to long term? I

[ Page 10005 ]

don't mean shelters for a few nights, although we need more of those as well; I mean places where they can be safe, form friendships and start over. There is nowhere that I know of such as that in Vancouver.

There is, however, one place in Victoria — the Casa Maria suites — in Fernwood. There are 19 families in that housing co-op. They have been putting in extra money for over four years so that local homeless people and refugees can stay for free. People stay for three months to a year and are helped with getting re-established in the community. Earlier this year the group bought the house next door to expand its activities. Soon there will be three Casa Maria suites in Victoria.

A lot of people are involved in that effort. Mayor Gretchen Brewin and the Victoria city council, the Sisters of St. Ann and just plain folks all helped to raise the down payment. Pledges were taken to cover the mortgage. Those who have no resources at all can stay for free. The B.C. Housing Management Commission gave a 2 percent mortgage, and the group got the house. This probably is not a very exciting story to some, but it shows what can happen in a community where there is collective cooperation to help people.

The place needs renovation. The local Home Builders' Association heard about it and offered to donate materials and labour to get it into shape. Students at Camosun College have volunteered their labour. B.C. Hydro's PowerSmart program is going to help with insulation and glazing. There is a lot of community energy going into that house.

Here was a group that saw a need and started to act. We need more places like Casa Maria across the province and, in fact, across the country. Casa Maria will not eliminate homelessness on its own, but there is a lesson in this. The homeless, volunteers, the private sector and government working together can get surprising results.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister will respond in the same spirit in which I've made comments.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before the minister responds, the second member for Richmond would like leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure for me to introduce, on behalf of the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston), a group of students and their teachers from the Fraser Valley Christian High School in Surrey. It's an excellent school, and our four children attended it. I'd just like to have the House welcome the students and teachers who are with us this morning.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: It's my pleasure to respond to the statement made by the member. It is a subject that all of us are concerned about. It is not something that anyone would take lightly, and it's not an easy problem to deal with, as was said.

However, first of all I want to make it clear that we are certainly aware of the problem, and I think we have acted decisively in trying to deal with it. The Ministry of Social Services and Housing has two main roles regarding housing: first, through programs designed to assist those who are temporarily homeless; and second, through the planning and development of permanent and special housing, in partnership with the federal government.

There are three types of emergency services to help people who need emergency accommodation: hostels, emergency shelters or transition homes, and hotels and motels. I'd like to comment on each of them.

For homeless single persons and couples who cannot find or afford their own accommodation — this is to do with hostels — throughout the province there are 24 facilities, with 558 beds available per night, operated by community societies. In 1989-90 the budget for that was $2.9 million; in 1990-91 the budget is $3.2 million. There are improvements coming. Approximately 60 new beds per night and 13 new facilities are planned for 1990-91 to meet the increasing demand.

In addition, in Victoria a new replacement facility is being built that will add 12 new beds to the existing available beds. This hostel is being developed in conjunction with other service agencies to ensure that the full needs of the hard-to-house are met, and will include emergency housing for families as well.

On the matter of transition houses in service, these are primarily for women and dependent children in crisis, primarily due to family violence. Provincially there are 44 emergency shelters — transition houses — plus 12 safe homes with over 438 beds per night operated by community societies. In '89-90, the budget for that was $6,346,522 and an additional $1.4 million has been received for the '90-91 budget to develop over 100 new beds in 12 new and 13 existing emergency shelters for safe homes.

Regardless of what facilities we may have, there is always the possibility that there may not be beds available at a certain time. On these occasions, we have made available other resources. In that situation, we use temporary facilities or accommodations in hotels and motels to meet that emergency demand.

Secondly, I'd like to comment on planning and development of permanent and special housing, and in particular on the downtown east side. Providing affordable housing for the residents of Vancouver's downtown east side has been a great priority for the province since the non-profit housing program began in 1986. This program has had a significant beneficial impact for hard-to-house older singles in particular. We have worked very closely with the Downtown Eastside Residents' Association — DERA — in identifying the housing needs of citizens residing in this area.

The Tellier Towers project, which opened in early 1989, has been applauded by all concerned as an example of excellent non-profit housing for the hard-to-house older singles. Since 1986 a total of 974 units

[ Page 10006 ]

have been approved for development in the downtown area east of Burrard Street. Of these, 627 units are strictly within the downtown east side area, with the remainder being farther south.

In conclusion, I want to say that with the network of emergency resources and our backup plan in place, no person seeking emergency shelter need go without a roof over their head for the night. To meet the increasing demand, more than 160 new beds are being added to the existing supply of emergency housing.

The continued development of non-profit housing projects in the downtown east side area remains high as a priority for this government. In addition, the Ministry of Social Services and Housing and the city of Vancouver have just approved funding for a housing information and relocation service for the downtown east side residents. DERA will be contracted to provide that service.

While it is indeed unfortunate that families and individuals are faced with homelessness, we are well prepared, and as already announced, we are doing even more this year to provide emergency shelter for the homeless.

MR. BARNES: I want to thank the minister for a very comprehensive statement in response, as far as government programs are concerned. He did, however, emphasize emergency shelter to the point that I think it is perhaps one of our problems. I'm suggesting that we need as much emergency shelter as possible. There's no question there are people who need temporary places to stay, including the hostels. My point is that we should be more flexible and more imaginative in trying to get people into environments and communities where they can have a sense of stability, be with families and be able to pay the rent and still manage a quality life.

The minister has said something that his predecessor said the other day: "No one need go homeless as long as they have this public policy in place that there is always a place for them to stay." I think that is something that should be publicized, especially in my constituency of Vancouver Centre, because I can assure the minister that not everyone is fully apprised of this public policy. They're still sleeping in vacant roofed parking lots, under shelters and in abandoned buildings. There are people squatting in any number of places throughout the lower mainland because they are not aware that the government has a policy that will assure them a place to stay. But I think the whole message this morning is that there are a lot of people with a lot of ideas in the community who can come up with innovative and unique ways of helping people have a proper place to stay.

[10:45]

If the government would take an example from the project that has happened here in this community, I think we would be on the right track. I don't want to suggest that there is an absolute solution, but surely the Casa Maria home and the project undertaken by those people who live in the co-op there is the kind of thing in the right spirit that everyone would like to see happen more. Why not just say it's an open invitation to the public: "You've got ideas to help us deal with this problem. It's as much yours as it is the government's." When we start doing that, I think we will see the elimination of this problem, because there are always ways to deal with the situation as long as people know that they can get a little help.

I want to conclude by saying that I realize there are a lot of attitudes in the community with respect to the homeless. Some people feel it is not the government's responsibility, that it's the individual's responsibility, and that if people are homeless, they are homeless by choice. I don't think that's absolutely correct. I think that some people have no choice at all.

INSTITUTIONAL REFORM — A
NEW SENATE FOR CANADA

MR. MERCIER: Constitutionally speaking, we in B.C. are in a high stakes game, and in the days ahead we dare not blink. There is room for our modest demands at the negotiating table over the next days. The need for fundamental and comprehensive reform of the Senate is crucial if Canada is to survive the changes and face the challenges in the next hundred years.

As the Premier forcefully argued last Monday night, a strong Canada demands institutional and economic structures that can accommodate the interests of each of its constituent provinces; a framework that will give B.C. taxpayers greater ability to ensure that their tax dollars are managed in their best interests with real accountability to secure their quality of life. After all, isn't that why we exist as a nation: to allow each of us as individuals to maximize our potential for the betterment of each province and region of Canada?

Senate reform and having a Senate uniquely Canadian is fundamental to our ability to function as a democratic nation where each province is accorded an equal voice in the federal government in the institutions that chart the course for our prosperity. As the Premier said: "Senate reform is our number one priority."

I was elated to hear him say further that henceforth our government will insist on achieving an economic institutional framework where the west has the clout it needs and deserves. British Columbians are right to expect that members of this assembly will do everything in their power to fight for constitutional arrangements that will guarantee B.C.'s ability to participate in Canada as a full and equal partner.

Most citizens of this province want Senate reform because they know it's a prerequisite for achieving basic fairness. It's not an easy issue. Certainly the whole question of the Senate was not resolved back in 1867. For all the time put into this issue by the Fathers of Confederation, they obviously still didn't get it right, and central Canada has avoided serious discussion of the subject since.

Far from ensuring effective regional representation for the west, the Senate as it was structured

[ Page 10007 ]

actually gave central Canada more power and control over our institutions and economy. Indeed the Senate as it exists today, filled with patronage appointments, is not and can never be an effective democratic entity~ People should have a fair right to vote on who governs them-but the Senate is appointed, not elected. Because the Senate is not elected, it is correctly viewed as a body that has little legitimacy in its capacity to alter or influence the legislative process. Hence, it is redundant and ineffective in its present form.

The Senate as it exists today is a charade that has been exposed as a frustration to nation-building. But think what it would mean to British Columbia and other western provinces if the Senate had real power and, more importantly, if British Columbia had real power to counterbalance decisions made in the House of Commons.

All you have to do is look at section 91 of the Constitution to see how important to B.C. a reformed Senate would be. Look at the powers of parliament that are now controlled essentially by Quebec and Ontario, which hold 60 percent of the seats in the House of Commons. Everything from the regulation of trade and commerce, our financial system, patents, copyrights, fisheries, shipping, criminal law — just to name a few — are controlled by two provinces because we do not have an elected and effective Senate that can fairly represent our province.

Similarly, the borrowing of money on public credit, public debt and property and taxation systems are also controlled by central Canada by virtue of its predominance in the House of Commons. Some of those strategic powers should be in the hands of an elected Senate.

Mr. Speaker, that's why I put a motion on the order paper to deal with the way in which our financial system might be modified to give every province a suitable degree of economic control over its own jurisdiction. Institutional reform would alter control of the Bank of Canada to gain B.C. a fair share of influence over monetary policies. Both the Premier and the Minister of Finance have argued that whatever the outcome of the current constitutional talks might be, it is imperative that we construct new economic arrangements that will treat all provinces fairly and equitably. Senate reform is an important step in this direction. Without it, power will remain perpetually concentrated on all fronts in central Canada; by extension, the western provinces will remain politically and economically handicapped, constitutionally isolated and fiscally whipsawed by the powers that be. We are poorer as a result: poorer economically as individuals, poorer as a democracy, and poorer as a nation. We need only look at the GST to see that. If we had a Senate that gave our province a genuine ability to influence government policy, we could have killed the GST.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to see this House unanimously endorse our resolution opposing the GST. I can only assume that everyone who was here that day supported the motion because they believed that we should have some sort of mechanism for defending our tax base. A reformed Senate would help. But what recourse do we have now? Virtually none; not without an upper chamber that can duly protect our interests. The Premier was bang-on when he said that the key to addressing these sorts of concerns is to fundamentally improve the central decision-making machinery in Ottawa on an equitable basis. That's what Senate reform is all about. For us, that's what nation-building requires. It's about ensuring equality of opportunity for all Canadians, economically and politically.

Abolishing the Senate is no answer. I would hope the members opposite would agree with me on that point. Mr. Speaker, I truly hope that we can expect a united front as we fight for Senate reform, not only because it is right for British Columbia but because it is right for Canada.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, the member's time has expired.

MR. ROSE: I realize that this idea has been put forward with great sincerity, but it's very difficult to treat nonsense with equal sincerity. My big concern is that a lot of this is merely claptrap. I can't believe that what is going to turn the Meech Lake accord one way or the other is an agreement on a Senate. I just can't believe it. I just don't understand what it would do for anybody.

Quebec has 24 Senators today; so has Ontario; Prince Edward Island has four; B.C. has six. Does Prince Edward Island with its four have any more clout than B.C., proportionally? Nonsense! How can that make a difference to our country? The western Premiers are going to be satisfied with all the other things in the Meech Lake accord, which you and I voted for? That's the roadblock — Senate reform? Why?

Why do we need a bicameral system in this country? It's an American system. Preston Manning would like to have it. Maybe the government is concerned about the Reform Party, because the Reform Party is even more right-wing than the Socreds. That's what you want.

Look, "senate" comes from the same word-group as "senior" and "senile." We talk about a triple-E.... I said it was elderly, expensive and expendable. Today I feel it's a triple-O Senate; obese, obsolete and offal - I don't spell "awful" very well.

This party would rather have an elected Senate than the collection of old has-beens and bagmen and never-wases that are in the current Senate. If we have a choice between elected or appointed, we go for the elected; let's make that clear.

Equal. B.C. now has six; Ontario has got 24; Quebec has got 24. Do you really think that Quebec is going to give up 24 Senators so we can be equal? The best we'll ever get perhaps is 20 for Ontario, 20 for Quebec, and 20 for the west. That's all we'll ever get out of this. And what difference will it make?

So elected we'll get; equal we won't. Now effective - what on earth does effective mean? What's it going to do? Do you want it like the American Senate? Do

[ Page 10008 ]

you want it so it can amend bills and initiate bills that are going to be laws? I know it can initiate bills now, but very few people pay much attention to them. Send things back to the Commons and make them amend them again — is that what you want? I don't think you want an effective Senate. You don't want that upper chamber to dominate the present House of Commons any more than they do now, unless it's for the GST. You're hoping somehow that all those Liberals in the Senate are going to save you from the GST; that all those Liberals are going to save you from the guys that you voted for. That's all it means.

We've been through it dozens of times. Why don't we have a B.C. senate, so that the people in Dawson Creek and Fort St. John and Peace River who are overbalanced by all us who live down in lower Vancouver Island and Vancouver have more clout? Would you go for that? I suggested some names last time I spoke on this subject. We could have Senator Charlie Giordano, Senator Valerie McRobbie. What about Senator Don Phillips, and people like that?

No, Mr. Speaker, if we have to have a Senate — and we don't agree that we necessarily do have to have a senate; we disagree with it and we have disagreed with it in terms of our party and its platform over these many years — we prefer it to be elected.

If we're going to have a Senate, we would prefer to have equal representation, but we'll never get it. B.C. is not going to get the same number of senators as Ontario. You're dreaming in technicolor. You'll never get that.

But effective — that's really what worries me. Are you going to have it like the American Senate, where you send back bills and you amend bills? Do you know what happens now? If the Senate amends a bill, it goes back to the Commons, the Commons overrules it, and the Senate's dead. That's the way it should be.

MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, it was quite appropriate that the House Leader on our side slipped me a quote from Benjamin Disraeli, who said: "Finality is not the language of politics."

I know the former speaker is older, and I know he's stuck in the past; and I know as a party they're so narrow-minded and negative. Nothing is possible in their minds.

What we're talking about is possible, and that's why I'm so happy that the former speaker did agree that an elected Senate would be a step forward. In fact, I'm sure that Senator Rose would have a nice ring to it, and that would probably assure opposition support for reform.

So speaking of vision and looking ahead at what things are possible, I would like to repeat that I truly hope that we can expect a united front as we fight for Senate reform, not only because it's right for British Columbia, but because it is right for Canada.

[11:00]

Canada will be as strong as the sum of the strength of each of its parts. Abolishing the Senate is a cop-out. It would be foolish, especially for B.C., but that's all we hear from the opposition: "Abolish, abolish, abolish." Negative, negative, negative.

Let's not get rid of the Senate. Instead, let's make it work. Let's reform the Senate and make it work like it was intended to. The Premier of Quebec this past Monday clearly stated that the current Senate is shameful and recognized the need to move on to fundamental reform as a matter of urgent priority.

Our Premier and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) have pressed hard on this issue over the past months. Both the Premier and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) have also articulated the need to take advantage of the opportunity that is provided by the current constitutional discussions.

Together with Senate reform, we should be looking at the specific ways we might reconstitute our financial and economic arrangements in keeping with our regional interests as British Columbians.

In our search for constitutional reform, we have to see some movement from all the players involved. The basic Meech Lake terms do allow some room to negotiate.

I'd like to note for the House that my grandparents were born and raised in Quebec. I can tell you there are more similarities than differences between Quebeckers and the rest of Canada.

There are many good reasons why Quebec must support Senate reform, which can guarantee equitable division of some strategic powers. Through Senate reform, we can strengthen our institutional structures to better prepare our country to withstand external pressures and to compete economically in the world.

It's ironic that we've been so busy nation-building for the past umpteen years that we haven't paid attention to the constitutional structures that could do the most to enable our country to flourish, united. The Senate, as defined in 1867, was essentially a sound idea, an embryo not yet properly developed.

CONCERNS OF OWNERS OF
MANUFACTURED HOMES

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, for nearly 70,000 British Columbia families a manufactured home is the housing of choice. About a thousand families every year find that buying a manufactured home is an affordable and attractive alternative to renting an apartment or owning a house.

It is our contention on this side of the Legislature — and I hope the government's — that manufactured homes are a very legitimate and helpful response to the housing problem.

But this Legislature has done little to affirm that belief. We have done little to ensure stability and fairness for a sizeable group of British Columbians. For all of the talks and discussions over the last three years, there has been no real attempt to deal with the serious problems faced by the owners of manufactured homes.

The owners face all the pain of federal high interest rates that all homeowners face. But they have, also, all the uncertainty of unlimited rental

[ Page 10009 ]

increases that all tenants face, including the possibility that their park will close altogether and there'll be no land to put their $40,000 asset on. The owners of the manufactured home seek some fairness and balance in their relations with the park owners.

Here are some of the problems that we believe need addressing. There needs to be some means of reviewing rent increases and linking increases to changes in costs. There needs to be clarity that the park owner does not have the right to make unilateral changes in the pad rental agreement. There needs to be certainty that patently unreasonable clauses In the pad rental agreements simply cannot be enforced. There needs to be protection against rezoning of the park to strata. Manufactured-home owners ought not to have to vacate the park until all the municipal approvals have been obtained. It is also time to look in a meaningful way at the level of expenses allowed for moving. We should define precisely what is meant by "manufactured home" so that park owners don't fill the parks with recreation vehicles.

As legislators, we have decided that sales personnel involved in selling manufactured homes should be licensed. We decided that in 1977, but despite repeated requests and ongoing problems around manufactured-home sales, those sections are still not proclaimed. Manufactured-home owners often rent space in a park, and they should be exempt from the damage deposit provisions that tenants pay, but we have not got around to that yet. We protect tenants from having to pay key money but we do not protect manufactured-home owners from having to pay entrance fees to parks. If the system was equitable, we would do that very thing.

What is the government's position? The government reviewed the manufactured-home owners' requests in 1987. The then Minister of Labour gave the results of the review on April 22, 1988. The answer was no. Then in 1989 cabinet approved some crumbs, some changes. For example, allowable moving expenses went from $1,000 to $3,000. That's still pretty low. The cost is often over $6,000 and has gone as high as $15,000. The concerns were raised in the Legislature again last year by me, and I know the minister was approached privately by other members, and the minister agreed to set up a task force. The task force, chaired by the first member for Langley (Hon. Mrs. Gran), wrote a report which was sent to the new Minister of Labour and Consumer Services and now Social Services and Housing (Hon Mr. Jacobsen).

Unfortunately, the first member for Langley's report was incomplete. There was sharp disagreement between four members of the task force who actually live in manufactured homes and the government and park-owner representatives on the question of eviction and justifying rent increases. Instead of saying that there is consensus around these points and disagreement about others, the first member for Langley submitted a report to the minister that simply suppressed the recommendations of the people who are at risk in this situation - the 70,000 families who live in manufactured homes. Chet Crellin and the United Mobile Home Owners have taken steps to rectify the first member for Langley's omission by mailing every MLA a copy of the report that sets out squarely the position of the manufactured-home owners. Mine arrived this morning, and I hope all members will take time to read the submission by the mobile-home owners.

The mobile-home owners reject firmly any rent control regime but instead are asking for a means of ensuring that pad rental increases are related to increases in the park owner's costs. I hope that all members will give their proposals very sympathetic consideration. The question of eviction is critical.

All members will be aware of the Mill Creek Village mobile-home park in the Maillardville-Coquitlam riding. That was former Crown land. It was sold for $1.8 million in July 1989. Now the developer is flipping that once Crown land for $8.7 million. In 1981, the Minister of Municipal Affairs for the day, now the Premier, said he was "particularly concerned about providing relocation opportunities to those people facing eviction from rental parks which are being converted to another use." That was nine years ago, Mr. Speaker — a long nine years ago. How long must manufactured-home owners wait before they are able to enjoy some stability, security and basic fairness? It is our conclusion on this side of the House that mobile-home owners deserve fairness and they deserve new laws.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: In response to the member for Victoria on the mobile-home situation, I feel a bit restricted in responding on some of the issues. He did refer to the task force report that was submitted, and there are a number of recommendations within that report. A number of them are under consideration with a view to possible legislation, and of course I can't comment on those issues. He also mentioned the minority report that has recently come out, and I'm aware of that. I have a copy of it. It's difficult to deal with that type of situation. With regard to this minority report that has been prepared by Mr. Chet Crellin, president of the United Mobile Home-Owners' Association of B.C., I'm advised that it was prepared subsequent to final approval by all the members of the Mobile Home Task Force, which included Mr. Crellin. Maybe there is some misunderstanding there — I don't know that, but that's the information I have.

Nevertheless, we have the report. The report has a number of recommendations, and we are looking at those. I should perhaps comment on the merits of manufactured homes as an alternative to housing for a substantial number of people. I would agree with the member for Victoria: I think it's a form of housing that offers a good alternative. I think there is substantial potential in it. I have viewed several manufactured-home parks, and they can be done up very pleasantly. They not only create a place for people to live but they also build in a community atmosphere right within the development, That is something I think is very desirable.

[ Page 10010 ]

One of the problems in expanding the numbers of mobile homes is to find the land and get the necessary zoning for it. It's not a zoning that is easily obtained at the local level. I'm not going to comment on that, because whether or not to zone the property is the right and the responsibility of the municipalities. They have to make that decision. There has been some reluctance on the part of many municipalities to zone property.

For my part, I'm aware of some very good examples of manufactured homes. One of the things I intend to pursue is the possibility of encouraging the development of more such accommodation, and some of the best that I've seen is under the co-op plan, which not only provides affordable housing for the people living in the accommodations today but does the same for generations down the line or for the next tenants that will come in. That has been quite successful. It's something I would like see expanded upon and something I'll be looking into.

With regard to the specific issues, again, most of them I can't comment on. The Mill Creek situation was mentioned. There was an announcement of the person wanting to dispose of the property at a high sum, but that, of course, hasn't happened. From the indications that I have, it would appear that it will not happen. First of all, the land is zoned for mobile homes, and it can only be sold at an amount that would justify that use. The municipality has clearly said that they intend to maintain that as a mobile home park. I know there is an action among the residents of the park to try to acquire that among the present residents.

The other items — moving costs, deposits, fees and a number of issues like that —I'll have to defer to later. We'll discuss them during my estimates or when we bring forward whatever legislation we're planning to do.

[11:15]

MR. BLENCOE: The minister concluded his response vaguely referring to moving costs. It's unfortunate, because that is one of the major items that has to be dealt with and thus far has not been dealt with.

We on this side of the House continue to develop, I believe, comprehensive housing strategies for the province. This side of the House has set the agenda for housing strategies. Next week I will be tabling private members' bills on behalf of our party that will be addressing a number of issues of concern to a majority of British Columbians. Included in one of those bills will be a bill of rights, in many respects, for the owners of manufactured homes.

It's our conclusion that this is an area of homeownership has not been given enough attention by the Legislature and by the government of the day. There are valid concerns that must be addressed. They have been waiting for many years for those concerns to be addressed.

There is a minority report. All members now have that, and I think it's well worth all members reading.

Hopefully we can see some major changes in terms of the rights of manufactured-home owners. Mr. Speaker, 70,000 British Columbian families today — and it's growing by roughly 1,000 a year —have chosen this form of ownership. It's something we must deal with. We believe that there are avenues of recourse, there are laws that can be introduced and there can be fairness in the system.

Next week I will introduce a private member's bill that I believe is a major move toward addressing the concerns of manufactured-home owners in British Columbia. I think it will be a bill of rights for manufactured-home owners, which they have been waiting for for a long time. Seventy thousand families in this province will have a degree of protection, and their rights will be extended in terms of their relationship with the park owners. I conclude my statement on those remarks.

Orders of the Day

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, I recognize the fact that the minister's advisers are not present in the House. With the new, and possibly temporary, minister, it is obvious that he is going to need his staff members. I asked a number of questions yesterday about information, and I'm hoping that the minister can report that information early on.

I also want to comment on the minister's closing remarks yesterday to do with the ministry's policy on access to information. The minister talked about confidentiality. While the staff members get their papers together — and hopefully their reports on that information, I'd like to comment that the ministry's actions, in my short time of involvement, have less to do with privacy and more to do with secrecy. The ministry seems to depend very strongly on that right to confidentiality and has completely overlooked the purpose of that legislation as I understand it: the rights of individuals to privacy. Instead, it has denied the right of clients' and others to access to information on their files. That response has been more protective of the ministry than acknowledging the rights of the client.

If the minister would like to use some of this time to report on some of that information and perhaps respond to the issue of confidentiality, that is part of the topic I'd like to deal with this morning.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The response is simply confirmation of what was said yesterday. It is not an issue of secrecy; it is a matter of privacy and confidentiality for the protection of the people involved.

[ Page 10011 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: Can I assume, then, that the minister does not have any information to provide to the House today?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: There is a lot of information in the files; there's no question about that. There is third-party information, and the sources are protected. There are reports from psychologists and psychiatrists. The province is not entitled to release those, and we have no intention of doing that.

MS. SMALLWOOD: We're off to a bad start this morning. The information that I'm asking about is statistics on staff turnover. I had several requests on the record yesterday about numbers and statistics by region. I asked about budget allocations, and I'm hoping that information will be forthcoming. I'm hoping that the minister's response isn't a matter of confidentiality.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: We do have the numbers you are requesting, if it's staff turnover information; we have them in percentages. Is that what you are requesting?

Financial assistance workers — the staff turnover there is 8.5 percent; administration is 11 percent; and line social workers, 12.5 percent. I think that varies somewhat from information you had. These figures are the number and percentage of regular employees, by classification and by region, who left the employ of the ministry between April 1, 1989, and March 31, 1990.

Interjection.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The regions vary a fair bit I don't know if just identifying the letter of the region will mean very much to you.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's a start.

AN HON. MEMBER: He wasn't recognized.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: No, we'll deal with him later.

Region A is 13 percent; B, 4.5 percent — this is for financial assistance workers, for example; region C, 5 percent; D, 5 percent; F, 8 percent; G, 11 percent; H 19 percent; J, 20 percent; K, 8 percent; and L, 1 percent.

Do you want the line social workers? For A it is 6.5 percent; B, 11.5 percent; C, 13 percent; D, 13 percent; F, 14 percent; G, 8 percent; H, 28 percent; J, 24 percent; K, 5 percent; and L, 7 percent.

That's a start, but is there anything else on this sheet that you want? Do you want the administrative staff as well?

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm glad there are other members in the House, because this is an example of how difficult it is to get an understanding of what's going on in this ministry. I asked for a breakdown by region in at least three categories: social workers, financial aid workers and clerical. First of all, for you to provide information to the House by letter of region is, in and of itself, part of the problem. When you provide information, it should be in a way that people can understand, so that they readily know what you are talking about.

For you to get up and say: "Is there any more information on this piece of paper that you'd like to have... ?" Perhaps the minister can tell us what H and J are.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: A and B are Vancouver; C is New Westminster, Coquitlam, Mission and Maple Ridge; D is Surrey, Langley, Abbotsford and Aldergrove; F is the South Okanagan and the Kootenays; G is Kamloops and Salmon Arm; H is Prince George–Williams Lake; J is the Peace River, Prince Rupert and Terrace; K is North Island; and L is the south Island.

MS. SMALLWOOD: In making a decision about how long these estimates go, it depends on how forthcoming the minister is with the information and how much time it takes to get it.

I want to ask you a few questions about the strategies the ministry has in dealing with this tremendous turnover. When we ask for turnover statistics and get very small numbers like 6 and 8 percent, it really does not reflect the real situation in this province.

In Prince George, I'm told, there are instances where staff members who have eight months' seniority end up running the office and being the regional director. It really begins to put a human face on the reality of social services in this province. The fact that people with such little experience are making major decisions about people's lives and about the care for families and children in this province is a serious problem, and I am sure the minister would agree.

I would like to understand this a little. I see both the staff members trying to advise the minister on that. I would like to understand a little bit more about what strategy you have in place to deal with this problem.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might have leave of the House for an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House this morning a group of residents from the Saanich Peninsula Hospital who are visiting the buildings today, accompanied by their coordinator, Mrs. Lavallee, and other staff from the facility. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming them to the precincts.

[11:30]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Granted, the numbers for Prince George are high, but it's not only this ministry that has difficulty in keeping enough people in that region; others have problems too. People are being

[ Page 10012 ]

acquired wherever we can find them. We have advertised across the province for them. We've increased the funding for training programs because of this problem.

I guess the choice is very simple: when people decide to leave and to move on to other things, or live somewhere else, you cannot compel them to stay in Prince George or any other place. People are free to do what they wish. So then the question is: do you replace them with the best people you can find, and try to train people to take their places, or do you just leave it vacant? Well, we think we have to try to provide the personnel there. We are seeking the best people we can find.

I see the member laughs about that. The member thinks there's some magical way of doing that, but she does not have the answer, nor does anybody else on the other side of the House. But it's something that you like to talk about and pretend that it's a government problem. It's not a government problem at all. We are doing what we can to deal with it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'm not saying it's Prince George; I'm saying it's a problem people have within the area.

Interjection.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: You'll have your turn, Mr. Member for Vancouver East. I'm waiting for you to get up, because I've been missing you since I started here.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I think this is a really good example, and I want to tie it back into that quality and standard control issue for children in care, and other services in this province.

When you look at the responsibility of those workers, it's not just a matter of managing an office or supervising staff, but indeed they have responsibility for quality control, for reviewing programs with children, for looking into the delivery and quality of services to the province. The minister has said in previous discussions that they do have quality control and there is accountability. I question how the ministry can have that accountability and that quality control when we have regions with such incredible turnover; when we have people with eight months' experience in the ministry supervising offices in Prince George and other large regions in the province. It's inconceivable that they can do the proper job of reviewing each and every client under their responsibility.

It comes back to the issue of mandatory reporting and the issue of need for advocacy and independent advocates in the province. Without that, given these kinds of statistics and given the reality of instability in this province for care, it is very difficult for us to have any confidence that the children in the care of this ministry are getting the quality that they deserve, or indeed that the people putting forward the tax dollars to pay for services which this ministry, holus-bolus, has contracted out, rather than dealing with the responsibility directly themselves.... It is hard to believe that anyone can have any confidence that those services are being provided and that the highest standards are being met, the standards that I'm sure taxpayers and clients alike deserve.

I want to go on a little bit. I'm feeling pressed for time. There are many issues that need to be dealt with. But I want to talk a little bit about the disabled in this province, and hopefully make a few points, if nothing more than as an advocate on behalf of disabled children and adults. Again, there are several advocacy groups, but in dealing with this government they need all the support and assistance they can get in doing the job.

We had an intervention earlier by a member talking about the program of support for children living in a family setting. When that program was first introduced, the government was a little bit sensitive to the fact that some of those families stood up and said: "Just a minute. You didn't talk to us. You didn't hear what our needs were, and therefore the program you have now brought down does not meet all of our needs. It does not recognize our reality."

When the program was brought down in the last estimates, I emphasized the need for the ministry to understand and to coordinate more closely the needs of those families. Again, it's a situation that has been repeated by professional after professional, and the ombudsman as well. It's extremely difficult for families to get the services they need because of the structure in government.

Many of the programs provided are interministerial. As stated again and again by staff frontline workers, up to one-third of their time is spent in trying to coordinate services, doing paperwork and holding meetings with other ministries in trying to make certain the services are provided. That's another example, given the turnover and the reality we've just talked about, of how the attention that should be spent with the clients is perhaps not being given directly to them.

I want to know from the ministry whether or not there has been any further work on this program. At the time, I asked for a specific contact for the families, to help coordinate, so that each and every family didn't have to re-create the wheel. I asked for a specific person to help guide families through the maze of government bureaucracy.

I don't want to take it away from government, but before I sit down I'd also like to emphasize that this program was a good step — even though there were some significant criticisms of it. But we need to go further. We need to recognize that not only families and children need support, but also disabled and handicapped adults. It's a good model, looking at some of the programs needed for children, and I wonder if the government has looked at a comparable program for adults.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the minister, I would like to remind all members of this House that

[ Page 10013 ]

we like to stay away from repetitiveness in the debates on these particular votes. It appears to me that this subject has been canvassed by several members of the House on both sides. Unless the member who has just spoken has some specific points in that area that have not been addressed, I will have to rule the repetitiveness out of order at some future time if this continues.

MS. SMALLWOOD: On a point of order, I think a review of the Blues in these estimates would indicate that the issue of disabled people has not been canvassed in this debate. This is the first time that this issue has been brought up. It has been canvassed in debates of previous estimates in previous years, but this is the first opportunity we have had this year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your comments, hon. member.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Unfortunately, the member asking the questions either doesn't know the facts and won't accept them or else doesn't care about the facts. If we don't stay within the truth, it's pretty hard to discuss anything and provide any great information.

You talked about contracting out child services. I said yesterday that we do not contract out child care services in British Columbia, but it was repeated this morning that that's what we do.

Yesterday there were comparisons made about Ontario and how great the service was in that particular province. Let me tell you that on the issue of staff turnover in Ontario, it ranged from 20 percent and in some parts of that province was 35 percent. The Child Welfare League of America, greatly respected and talked about here yesterday, says that North America has a recruitment problem. It's a bit of a phenomenon, if you like, but it's a problem that we have across this country.

On the question of the disabled, we provide a great many services for the disabled; but of course, for the member, no matter what's provided or how it's provided, it is never enough. This ministry now has a budget of $1.7 billion. I guess, in the view of that member, the budget should escalate dramatically to cover a host of things, ideas, views and perceptions that she may have. We think there's a responsibility to balance what we spend with the people of this province, because they ultimately have to pay the bill. We are now putting $1.7 billion into this ministry, and I don't think anyone can suggest that British Columbia is not being cared for or that the people needing care in British Columbia are not looked after

MR. SERWA: Mr. Chairman, I've been listening to this debate with some considerable interest. As a matter of fact, Mr. Minister, I'm surprised at the consistent, persistent and somewhat vicious attack by the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) on members of the civil service, who are voiceless in their opportunity to respond.

I would like to say that in my constituency of Okanagan South, I'm exceedingly proud of the administration of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, of the regional and district managers, the caseworkers and all of the people involved in the affairs of this very important and sensitive ministry.

I can see valid reason in the debate on estimates for members opposite to challenge the government on policies, on budgetary matters. I find it's belittling of a group of people who are committed, hard-working, sincere and striving to do their very best for them to suffer this type of an attack which they have no ability to respond to. It belittles the status of the member, and certainly belittles the status of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

Mr. Minister, I would like to hear you respond as to the quality of the administration and the quality of people employed in your ministry, because I believe that they do a profound job in a very sensitive, difficult and challenging social area of government responsibility.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Chairman, after the last member spoke, I can't help but rise to my feet. The member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley has never attacked the staff, has never attacked the workers there. We were attacking the ministry and the ministry's policies.

We have some exceedingly good people in this ministry, who are doing their best, despite the policies of this government and despite the fact that they're unable to do their jobs properly,

It is totally untrue when the minister says there has been nothing contracted out. There are so many services contracted out in Social Services nowadays that just about nothing is done by the people in the ministry. In Prince George alone, the special-needs adoption service is contracted out to a profit agency, a profit company. We are adopting our children out through a profit company, Mr. Minister.

In Prince George we have contracted out services for sexually abused children to a profit company, as well as a non-profit company. There are numerous sections within the ministry that are contracted out. For you to stand there and say that nothing — no service to children — is contracted out is totally untrue and unacceptable. I expect you to give truthful answers when you're being questioned by the member who is the critic for this area.

[11:45]

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I've been listening, patiently as always, to the debate going on in these estimates. I am concerned with the matter raised by the first member for Okanagan South (Mr. Serwa): this fudging around of the words we use in here in a way that implies and suggests, and indeed sometimes states, that the people who work in these ministries aren't properly doing their job. I share that concern with the first member for Okanagan South. It is real, and it is said. And it has been said in other estimates as well as these.

[ Page 10014 ]

But always, when the individual members are called on it, somehow they make a distinction between the ministry and those who work in it. I would be curious to know what that distinction is. Is it their view that somehow the people who deliver the services are inanimate objects, pieces of marble as they are in this place here; that they aren't real flesh and blood who work their butts off every day on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia; that they aren't somehow immune to the kind of scurvy attacks that come upon them from time to time under the guise of making some sort of political point.

People who are reckless and indifferent to the citizens serving this province through work in the government should look in a mirror and ask themselves if they are really doing public service or are playing political games and tricks for some partisan advantage.

When we heard the member for Prince George South say....

MRS. BOONE: Prince George South?

HON. MR. SMITH: Oh, Prince George North. The current member for Prince George South (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is a fine, outstanding individual who contributes well to the public service of this province and will continue, I might add, to contribute well to the public service of this province as the first member for Prince George–Mount Robson — and will be elected after the next provincial election, I might add, Mr. Chairman.

It is the case that the member for Prince George North said — and I hope she didn't mean it — that the workers do practically nothing.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MRS. BOONE: I did not say that!

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, you used those words and the record will show it, and I hope that those words were not used in the context in which they were spoken, because it is the case that the workers in this ministry and all others in government work extremely hard. I think they do an outstanding service.

I think they have a more difficult time in the service they do in the province of British Columbia because of the egregiously partisan, confrontational attacks they have to put up with from time to time, particularly come from the opposition benches. They suffer through those attacks well and truly, and I want to say on behalf of every member in this House, including the member for Prince George North, that the workers in this ministry and others that we are dealing with today do much more than they have been given credit for by that member, and that we all  — through you, Mr. Chairman — extend to them our vote of confidence and our support and our gratitude for the difficult and outstanding job that they do on behalf of their ministries.

MS. SMALLWOOD: There are certain times in this House, after certain people speak, that I think it's necessary for a reality check. This is what I'd like to do. I'd like to just check to see whether this government that is wrapping itself in this cloth of protecting the staff is the same government that has downsized government....

MR. ROSE: They fired a third of the them.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Yes, and they have constantly attacked the bureaucracy in this province and virtually gutted the service.

I'm sorry the last member left. He obviously can't stand the reality check. All he is interested in is bombast and political manipulation.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm glad to hear that the minister of.... What is it, forestry? No, land. He was demoted, right.

The minister answered a number of my questions by giving a statement that was so far from what is real in this province.... The minister got up and said in a loud and angry voice that there is no contracting out of services and that he covered that material yesterday. But if the minister himself can't even understand the difference, then it makes it very difficult for us to conduct the people's business in a meaningful and real way.

The member for Prince George got up and gave a couple of examples of services to children that have been contracted out, and I would add to that list that indeed the majority of services to children are contracted out. I would be interested to hear from the minister what services are not contracted out in this province.

When I go down the list of services — and the minister provided a list of some of those services to children — I would be hard-pressed to find one service that has not been contracted out. This ministry has been the leader in this province for privatization and contracting-out of services. This ministry provides very few direct services to clients, if any. This ministry — and this is part of the problem — deals only with its statutory requirements for crisis intervention. We have explored many areas where it is questionable as to whether the ministry is indeed able to uphold its own laws and fulfill its own mandate to provide services. The minister can respond in the most bombastic ways he likes, but it doesn't change the reality. We're going to continue to try to do these reality checks and say: "Hey, just a minute, guys. Aren't you the guys who... ?" You have a lot to account for.

I want to do one further thing along the line of reality checks. The minister came back with some information yesterday about the number of people on welfare; he compared '75 to '89. The ministry's numbers are very confusing, so I did a little bit of

[ Page 10015 ]

checking: "Gee, since our numbers are so different from yours, let's take a look at the ministry's numbers and do a reality check."

I looked at June '89 and the total number of recipients, and compared it to the population. Then I looked at June '75 and the total number of recipients, and compared that to the population. You know, the numbers don't jibe with yours, so I wanted to do another reality check. Using your own numbers, there are still more people on welfare today than there were in 1975.

This government talks about its economic record; it talks about a province of plenty. I want you to justify why it costs the province so much for services, why there are so many people on welfare and why we have no accounting for those dollars that the public can have some confidence in. In 1975 the population was — I'll give these numbers to you, and you can do your own calculation — 2,433,200. You can copy this down directly. In '89 the population was 3,055,600. Those are the numbers I used.

In 1975 the client population was 127,000, or 5.2 percent. In 1989 the total number of recipients — this was in June, a comparable month — was 223,027, or 7.3 percent. In 1975 — that was the NDP legacy, where we provided money for support to families and opportunities for people on income assistance — there were considerably fewer people on GAIN. We spent considerably less of the taxpayers' money on GAIN and income assistance than is spent today.

There's a bit of a reality check. You're the guys who talk about supporting families, and you gutted those programs. You gutted community support to families and support to people who live below the poverty line....

MR. SERWA: On a point of order, in this Legislature all members are to be called hon. members. I find the continuing belittlement in the remarks of that member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley distressing. "You guys" should be stricken from the records, and the member should apologize to the Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate your comments, hon. member. I think perhaps more dignity could be expressed in our debates. I would ask all members to keep in mind that we should treat each other with dignity in this House.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm interested in hearing the minister's response; I'm interested in hearing whether or not we live in the same world. I'll be fascinated to see what he's going to do with these numbers. Perhaps the minister has an answer.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: This gets more confusing by the hour. We spent a good part of the day yesterday listening to the complaint that we do not spend enough on social assistance in British Columbia and that we don't provide this service or that service. Of course, when you talk about not providing a service that you suggest we should provide, it obviously can't mean anything other than that you should spend more money. But now we've heard the reverse: we've spent too much. My natural question to the member is: where do you think we should make the cut? We'd like to have that bit of information for them.

Going back to the contracting-out service, I want to make a comment. We spent some time here yesterday, and there was a clear understanding of what the member meant — and it was the same member — when talking about the contracting-out service. It was a question of us giving the right to somebody to go and find somebody else to deliver service. We purchase services, but we purchase them directly. We've done that for some time. The province of Ontario, which has won great accolades in this from the opposition, contracts out all services to children's aid societies.

[2:00]

We should have more people delivering services — well, we have 4,317 people on staff now, and of that number 3,832 provide direct services such as child protection, income assistance, services to the mentally handicapped and so on. I think we provide a pretty extensive service, and we work directly with the provider of the service.

There is one tiny exception to that. The member for Prince George got up, made a speech about it and tried to suggest that all that was said on this side of the House was incorrect because of that. But the member knows that it is a special project out of Prince George and that it's an attempt to evaluate and find a better way to serve children. We don't deny that, but we think we create no violation by trying to find a more efficient way to provide the service.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, I have some questions I want to put to you on two issues. I'm going to background the first issue with a statement about a situation in our community which provides a fairly graphic context for what I want to ask you about.

I went through the file which I keep here so that when we come to estimates, I have a few of the things that I want to bring up. There are a number of clippings in it which I found interesting, because as I leaf through this file, I see that there have been these kinds of clippings in the last couple of months in the newspapers in my area. One is definitely a demand for food bank services here. Then we go to "UI Claims Rise Five Percent"; "Still No Reasons Given for Closure of Women's Centres"; "Vacancy Rate on Rentals Reaches a Nine-year Low"; "Courts Faulted Over Support Payment Orders"; and "Sexual Abuse Victims Require More Assistance." That one is followed with a story which says: "Counsellor Shortage for Abuse Victims Almost at Crisis Stage."

That is the background for an application that is being put together in our community for a sexual abuse centre. This has been talked about for quite some time. It obviously would fill a need in a community where we have a single crisis line and where we have a few safe homes in the Cranbrook region which serve practically all of the East Kootenays region. We have no transition homes. We have

[ Page 10016 ]

victim assistance coordinators who are overrushed and overworked, and who do their best to deal with only those people who happen to be within the court system.

We have a mental health branch with such a lineup for appointments or counselling that it's practically impossible to get to. It certainly is impossible to get anyone in to have counselling within weeks, probably even if it was an emergency — and it could be months. We have very few private counsellors and very few school counsellors.

The situation was brought to the attention of the community by a woman who went to the newspaper because she was so frustrated. Before going to the newspaper, she had been in my office. It was discovered that her nine-year-old daughter had been abused by her stepfather. When the mother found out that the child had been abused, they arranged to separate.

Here we have an abused daughter who is between the chairs, if you like. The daughter has to line up if she wants counselling from the mental health branch. She cannot get it through the schools. She has had a minimal amount of counselling. Once she gets one session of counselling, she has to wait weeks for the next turn. She is beginning to act out more extremely than she did before. There is no service there for her younger brother, her mother or the family as a group. In fact, the circumstances of what's happening with the police are not particularly encouraging, because it was over a month from the time the abuse was reported to when a deposition was taken. Nothing has happened yet, so of course, she's not in the court system. Therefore the victim assistance program coordinator cannot be of help to this family.

I give those as a few examples of the situation of one person in the community. I can give a few more general figures which back that up. In fact, the latest figures I was able to get when I spoke to one of the child counsellors in the area.... Perhaps I was keeping her away from more time to do some private counselling, but unfortunately you need to know these things. The figures for 1988 show that in Cranbrook alone there were 94 cases of sexual assault reported to the RCMP, and there were 234 cases — some of which may be overlapping — reported to the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. Figures have increased since then.

I don't have the figures, but there is no question that there is a need for a sexual abuse centre to provide counselling for these people and advocacy for improved services and community education. Such an application is being put together. That application would serve all of the East Kootenay out of Cranbrook. It asks simply for three counsellors to cover all that area, but it would be a beginning.

However, when the people were working to put together this proposal, I said: "How is it going?" They said: "Our biggest problem is: to whom do we submit it?" They are working with all these problems, trying to look at all these shreds of services that on occasion do not serve any particular client, and they don't know how they are going to get the funding for a centre which could comprehensively address the issues needed by the people who are victims of sexual abuse and the people who are, broadly, victims as well as the immediate victims — the whole families.

My question to the minister is: where does this group submit its application? What are the possibilities that they will be able to get some assistance in funding for setting up a sexual abuse centre?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to be light about this, because it's a serious problem. One of the things that always strikes me in the discussions on this kind of situation.... Your community is not distinct from other communities. Other communities share these same problems.

But one of the things that always strikes me a little is that we have become so accustomed to this now that we talk about those things happening within the community, and we almost take it for granted that that's the way it is. I think the first real regret is that it happens within the community at all. What can we do about that as a society?

The services of this ministry and any other ministry involved are really just to deal with the problem after it happens and to try to deal with the people who are affected by the problems and help them through the situation. But certainly by far the best alternative would be to deal with that problem before it develops and to find a way.

As far as the application that's being submitted, I can't tell you whether it will be accepted or not. That would be impossible for anyone to tell you, particularly without ever having seen it. But I can assure you without any hesitation that it will be considered, and the need will be evaluated very carefully.

I was saying I don't want to be light about the people saying they didn't know what to do with their application, or who to take it to. They should take it to their MLA, and their MLA knows, I'm sure, where to take that. You could pass those concerns on to the Ministry of Health and ask them to give you an evaluation of their assessment of it.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, the point is that I didn't know where to take it. It's not clear whether.... You say that it should go the Ministry of Health. Certainly the advice that the group has been given by some of the civil servants who work in the area is that some of the money — if not all the money — could well come from Social Services and Housing. Are you telling me there is nothing in your budget for sexual abuse centre support?

The other question that comes to my mind is that perhaps there is this social policy committee I believe you have within cabinet. But surely it doesn't go immediately to ministers. Or maybe you have a secretariat for that committee; I don't know. How do you get it there? Do you take it to the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, Health, Attorney-General or Solicitor-General? Is there money in your ministry? Does your ministry intend to support this kind of request?

[ Page 10017 ]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: It's not a choice for me as to whether to support it or not. Sexual abuse comes under the Ministry of Health; it doesn't come under this ministry. Transition houses come under this ministry.

But if there's a problem of where to send it, give it to me, and I'll see that it gets to the right party. I'm not looking for additional work, as I think you can appreciate. Many times people come and say: "I've got this problem. Who do I talk to about it?" That's what we're here for: to try to help people sort their problems out. So if you as an elected member are not sure about that, and you think it has to do with my ministry, by all means approach my ministry, and we'll do everything we can. If it's not something that we deal with, we'll do everything we can to assist you in finding the appropriate individual or party to give you a decision.

MS. EDWARDS: Interestingly, Mr. Minister, one of the things that did come from the group was that they had taken this issue to the mental health people, who of course are in the Ministry of Health; maybe it's somewhere else within the ministry. I don't want to press the issue of some other ministry right now But they were told that it was not the mandate of the mental health branch within the Ministry of Health.

Again, I'd like you to clarify. I assume there is money in your ministry to support some of these functions which include not only counselling but advocacy for improved services that cannot be done by a victim assistance program coordinator, who has to work within a certain court system-and there are other things she can't do. So there is advocacy and community education that needs to be done. Are any of those functions part of the functions that your ministry would consider?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I suggest that rather than try to decide if there's any part of this proposal that would affect this ministry, you get the proposal and bring it to our ministry. We will have a look at it, and if there are sections of it that deal with us, we will advise you of such. And we will look at the sections that do not deal with us and that have to be looked at by somebody else. We will give it a fair evaluation. But I think we have to have it before we can make any further comment on that.

[2:15]

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, I don't feel that I have been assured that there's a very good handle to deal with this kind of thing. But certainly we'll do our best, because we need this facility in the community. There is no question of the need for the facility and for an expansion. We don't have a transition house at all. There's none of that service. There is no service at all for the molesters themselves. The whole thing is indicative that we need action, and we need to know where it is. We would certainly try to avoid any of the paper shuffle that it sounds as though we may have to go through.

The other issue that I wanted to talk to you about began with my interest in this particular bit of it. Back in December of last year the Ministry of Social Services and Housing put out a release with the topic listed as a new role for non-profit agencies to provide day care support. According to this release, non-profit agencies were going to play an important new role in recruiting, training and supporting family day care providers. It said $1 million. Since then, I believe the former minister said the other day in estimates it was a $1.7 million program.

At that time there was more detail to those three functions: to expand into established caregiver registries; to assist caregivers to access training; and to provide ongoing support to both caregivers and parents. At that time the release suggested that there were 28 communities who were in the process of developing these programs, and those 28 were in addition to four that already had established day care support programs.

Cranbrook was one of those 28 communities. Since that time there actually has been a contract signed with the ministry for the women's resource centre, as a private agency, to carry out the functions as they were laid out in this press release, I assume. However, I have a few questions because I am not.... The general description of the contract which the centre signed said that one of the functions was to compile and make available to the public a complete directory of the various types of day care spaces available. This was for both licensed and unlicensed facilities.

I wonder if the minister would clarify for me whether there's a difference between a registry and a directory, and whether in fact they are simply the same thing, or if there is any sort of detail about it that I should know that doesn't appear obvious from the simple words.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I don't think there is any difference, but we'll make sure we clarify that.

Can I go back just a little bit to the final comments you made about the program that you wish to submit here. I don't want it left that it's a disorganization or a confusion on the part of the ministry as to how to handle that program. You have to appreciate that all programs and proposals that come from the communities are not designed so they precisely fit into the responsibilities of a ministry. Sometimes they will overlap; therefore it will be necessary to look at it and to see which part of it we're responsible for and which part we're not responsible for. For instance, in the mental health area the treatment is provided by mental health but the shelter is provided through this ministry. So you see, there is a division of responsibility.

On the question of transition houses, you were saying that you didn't have any in your area. The transition houses in the Kootenays are the Nelson safe home, the Cranbrook emergency shelter and the Creston Valley safe home. In the east Kootenays this year, I want you to know that the program is to replace the safe homes with transition houses.

[ Page 10018 ]

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister should recognize that Nelson and Trail, which are the nearest transition homes at the moment, are five hours drive in good weather from the major parts of my riding where there are problems. They're not very handy to be transition houses.

But I do appreciate the minister's comment that there may be different services in the application, and that it has to go around. I would appreciate the minister recognizing that it's coming, and recognizing that we need some way to facilitate an application getting through as quickly as possible, because there is definitely a need for it.

However, I would also like to ask the minister to get back to the day care contract. What is the function of this directory or registry?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The only information that I have here at the present moment is that what we're trying to accomplish is to find out what is available, and what we might do to work with them, provide training and so on. It's to establish what might be available in the area at the time.

MS. EDWARDS: Does the minister comply with the understanding here that the directory would partly be published as an aid to parents in the area? Is it the main function or not?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'm not sure, and I apologize for maybe not getting all of that question. But the purpose is not to register in the sense of putting a stamp of approval or something like that on it; the purpose is to have a directory to find out what is available and then what we might do to work with it.

MS. EDWARDS: If it's not the ministry's idea that it requires a stamp of approval, then I want to go on, as this really leads to my next question. In the contract are two clauses — 4 and 5— which require an assessment function by the organization. The fourth clause requires an assessment for each caregiver. The fifth is an assessment of each unlicensed day care facility. I'm wondering if the minister might like to elaborate on that. I want to ask whether the assessment would be similar to that given to licensed day care givers and licensed day care facilities by, as I understand it, the Ministry of Health under the care facility licensing act.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The licensing regulations for the Ministry of Health are the same for commercial or for non-profit facilities. Furthermore, Ministry of Social Services and Housing staff assist parents in choosing unlicensed care and provide guidelines for parents to use in ensuring that they are receiving the quality care they seek.

MS. EDWARDS: Perhaps the minister could tell me, then, what level of assessment he sees this being How extensive is the assessment going to be? How extensively do you assess a caregiver? How extensively does this non-profit society, which has just signed a contract with you, assess each unlicensed day care facility?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I would have to ask you to repeat the question, If you don't mind.

MS. EDWARDS: How extensive an assessment do you expect to be carried out? What kinds of things do you expect to be assessed, and what length of time would an assessment take? What kind of intimacy of knowledge would someone need to have to do this kind of assessment of both caregivers; and facilities?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: My apologies to the member, but if you have other questions that you would like to go to, we will get people here that can provide it. You are asking for very detailed information now, and I think we would have to have the people that deal with this right in the room. We can't deal with it right now.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm not sure, Mr. Chairman, whether you mean it's on the business of assessment that you want to wait for someone else or whether in fact we can go further along to another of the clauses which talks about developing training programs under this initiative.

The interesting thing to me is that originally... I believe this was the original announcement of the program in December. It said that the purpose would be to assist caregivers to access training. When the contract comes out, I find it interesting that one of the clauses for the society is to develop training programs. My question is: when did that change, and to what extent are we likely to have the private non-profit society expected to develop training programs for day care facilities?

I remind the minister that the kind of training that is normally given, and certainly is required by licensed facilities, is given through the community colleges. As I understand it, it is the function and the mandate of community colleges to provide this training. I am well aware that the budgets at community colleges are so small that the early childhood education branches in the colleges have been limited in what they are able to offer. It's very clear, because I'm told regularly that the college does not do what is needed. That is not an aspersion on the college personnel, because they would like to do the programs. I know that. They do not have the funding to do the programs needed.

When we come to the contract itself, we have a suggestion that the non-profit society develop training. Developing training, I believe, is a very specific and very expert task that should continue to be done by the community colleges.

[ Page 10019 ]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: We have made a note of the question, and we will be able to answer that in a moment.

MR. CLARK: I'll be brief. I have three completely separate topics I'd like to canvass with the minister. The first is something called the cooperative housing disability trust fund. I wonder if the minister or his staff are aware of this. This is an excellent program. How it works is that there is a housing disability trust that assists handicapped people to get into housing co-ops. It assists with the down payment. It's an excellent program that unfortunately has basically run out of money.

Just to give you some statistics, many of the co-ops contribute a percentage of their income into the trust fund, but as you can imagine, particularly with the housing sector today, the demands on the trust are enormous because assisting handicapped people into the one or two units at every co-op has been in great demand.

[2:30]

It is not a government subsidized program at the moment. This non-profit trust loans money at no interest to handicapped people for their share purchase in the program. Mr. Chairman, 87 people have been assisted with share purchases in 39 different housing co-ops in British Columbia. The annual applications range from five to 19 a year. An average of ten people a year applied for assistance from the trust, and the loans ranged from $200 to $1,800, with an average of $780. So the average loan is $780, a very small amount. Sixty-eight thousand dollars worth of loans have been made, and the repaid funds are then immediately reissued to another applicant. All of the administration is voluntary. Direct costs are all borne by Columbia Housing Advisory Association.

I know in this rather large ministry, and in your other ministry, this is a relatively small matter, but it's one of those self-help programs which I think has been a great success. Essentially, it has struggled and now can't survive. The best solution would be something like a $100,000 capital grant that would go into the trust, and the interest on it would be lent out in a revolving way. That would be the optimum solution, but any solution in terms of contributing to that would be most useful.

I know this comes out of the blue and I apologize to the minister for that, but it strikes me as just an excellent program which is now floundering. It has assisted several people and has the capacity to assist a lot more. The donations have all been from resource groups and co-ops. They continue to donate, but the demands on it.... It just ran out. I wonder if the minister would undertake to at least consider this request. I'll forward him the information. The second member for Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) is apprised of this because the Canadian Paraplegic Association is very much a supporter of it. I have constituents trying to get loans, etc. So it's a bipartisan thing, not partisan in any way. It would be a rather small amount in terms of the ministry's budget, and I think it would go a long way to assist the housing needs of handicapped people in British Columbia.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Thank you to the second member for Vancouver East. Yes, I will give you the undertaking that I will certainly look at it. We do not have very much information on that particular item, but don't apologize for bringing it up, because it sounds like something that might be very worthwhile and I'd be happy to look at it. I appreciate any information you can give us.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I'll certainly forward that appropriate information, including the correspondence of the member for Vancouver–Little Mountain.

I'd like to move on to my second issue. I hope there's an undertaking to look at it in the same manner, but maybe we can actually get a definitive answer on this. These social service questions can get extremely difficult, as the minister knows, particularly in a constituency like mine where we get a fairly large volume of problems.

We deal directly with the Social Services ministry. My constituency assistant does an excellent job. Most of the cases are resolved in one way or the other — usually beneficial to the client, I might say.

This is a complex one, and I would like the minister — particularly his staff, because I know the minister is not fully apprised of all of the details of the department with respect to this — to clarify this if I'm wrong.

As I understand it, for someone who's on provincial handicapped pension, on GAIN, any money that is so-called unearned is deducted completely from that. So GAIN is essentially the maximum you receive, or to put it another way, everything is topped up to a certain level. In this case I think it's $633.

As a requirement of the ministry, this individual had to apply for the Canada disability pension, so he did apply and received it. No taxes were deducted at source, however, by Canada Pension, so he would receive the gross amount of his Canada disability pension, and it was assumed he received this amount and it was deducted from his handicapped pension. Every year he got a bill from the government for taxes to be paid on Canada pension. Every year he mailed the bill back and asked them to get it from the provincial government because they had deducted it.

To be perfectly clear, there were arrears in a small amount previous to this going on. He is now in arrears with Revenue Canada to the tune of $5,000 and he's on a handicapped pension.

As I understand it, this needn't have happened. You can get Canada Pension to deduct your income tax at source and, as a result, you receive less than the gross amount and the provincial government makes up the difference. Much of those arrears needn't have been paid; the provincial government would have topped it up.

Can this person make arrangements with Revenue Canada to pay off the $5, 000 in arrears at source, and

[ Page 10020 ]

will that affect his actual minimum GAIN payment under the handicapped persons' income assistance?

MR. CHALMERS: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to make an introduction, if I may.

Leave granted.

MR. CHALMERS: I apologize for interrupting the proceedings, but I would like to draw to the attention of the members in the House that we have visiting us today some 45 grade 11 students from the Credo Christian High School from Langley. On behalf of the two members representing that riding — the hon. Minister of Government Management Services (Hon. Mrs. Gran) and our government Whip — I would like to ask you to make them welcome.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I want to be careful not to get led down the garden path they talk about here, because I'm not too sure what we're talking about the individual receiving. I want to be clear. If we're talking about his arrears being deducted off his future payments, will we then top it up and make up the arrears? I think that that's getting fairly complex. I don't know that I'm prepared to give an answer on that at this moment, but essentially the rule is that we work on the basis of the money the person gets. There could be an abnormal situation if we're talking about a deduction of arrears. If you're talking just about his income tax being deducted and his getting the balance he's entitled to, then I would think we would make that up. I can't guarantee it 100 percent, but I think that's correct, because we do work on the money he receives.

MR. CLARK: I appreciate the difficulty I'm putting the minister in, given that he's only been the minister for 24 hours. I'm not trying to lead you into a commitment that you can't enforce.

Let me get it completely clear. If Revenue Canada deducts at source a monthly amount in order to pay off the arrears accumulated erroneously because of his failure to make application at that time for tax at source, is it the opinion of the minister or his staff that he will then receive, say, only $300 a month or something, because that's actually what he will get if he makes an agreement at source for a deduction at source by Revenue Canada? Is it the opinion of the minister or his staff that the province will make up the HPIA to the $633 a month level that he gets now?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I think that in fairness to the individual involved here, by far the best course of action would be to submit the facts as they are, and we would give you a written response. There is some variation upon whose responsibility it is, and to risk just guessing at that would not be fair to the individual.

MR. CLARK: I will do that, and I hope the solution is as I've suggested. But I appreciate that this is a technical matter, and if I could provide the details in writing, it might be more appropriate at this time.

The last thing that I want to read for the record, if I can.... You can appreciate, particularly with my constituency, the volume of social service cases that I receive. As I said at the outset, one might argue about the level of payments or the different rules. By and large, when my staff deal with problems, we deal directly with the ministry staff. And the problems are resolved, usually in the interests of the client. Even if the quantum might be argued about, I think we have excellent relationships with most of the staff in the regions affected in my ministry.

However, over the course of the last year — and I know this minister would agree with this, given his other portfolio — the volume of housing problems in the lower mainland, and particularly my constituency, has risen geometrically. The city of Vancouver and the ministry have agencies to try and place people, but it's not very acceptable. It's just simply not working. Despite good intentions, the units are obviously hard to find.

I just want, for a variety of reasons, to read for the record a very short letter which I think is representative of the dozens of letters that I've received in the last six months. The quote goes like this:

"I am a 27-year-old single mother on social assistance. For the last two months I have been looking for a two-bedroom suite to live in. During this time I have visited three free rental agencies and two rental guide placement companies. Also I constantly read the classifieds. The average cost is about $550 to $575 per month, not including utilities. This cost is well above the amount allowable by the Ministry of Housing and Social Services. They only allow $454 per month. If you are equal to or greater than this, they will refuse to help pay utilities."

The point — and I don't expect an answer from the minister — is quite simply that in Vancouver a $550 two-bedroom basement suite is a modest price. The total amount paid for by the government is $454. It's clearly not enough. It's not enough in the lower mainland — not just in Vancouver — for a single mother, in this case, on welfare and trying to find accommodation. The net result is inadequate housing. In some cases — I would say in an alarming number of cases — the ministry is putting up people like this in hotels and motels. Clearly that's an expensive and temporary solution and not adequate to deal with it.

I know the ministry has a number of programs in place to try to deal with it, but the fact of the matter is that there is a housing crisis in Vancouver and in the lower mainland, particularly for those who are simply not able to afford it. The welfare rates, in terms of housing accommodation, are clearly not adequate to deal with housing people like this woman who wrote to me. Again, this is representative of literally dozens of letters that I've received over the last six months.

[ Page 10021 ]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I can't do anything but say that we appreciate the difficulty that some people have faced, because there has been a rapidly changing environment out there as far as finding accommodation is concerned. Undoubtedly, under those circumstances, it sometimes puts people in problems. But we're looking at that, and we will be dealing with it in our assessment of what rates should be. We're aware of the problem.

MR. BLENCOE: There are other colleagues of mine who wish to raise issues with the minister. But I think, for this week, we would like to 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. Veitch moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 2:45 p.m.