[ Page 13007 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Abortion services. Mr. Harcourt –– 13007

Confidentiality in Attorney-General's office. Mr. Sihota –– 13007

BCTV series on Swedish forestry. Mr. Smith –– 13007

First citizen's fund loans. Mr. Zirnhelt –– 13008

Dumping of soil from Expo site. Mr. Cashore –– 13008

Preservation of W.A.C. Bennett home. Mr. Serwa –– 13009

Soil from Expo site. Mr. Cashore –– 13009

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

(Hon. Mr. Jacobsen)

On vote 52: minister's office –– 13009

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Serwa

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Michael

Mr. Miller

Mr. Sihota

Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 1991 (Bill 14). Second reading

Hon. S. Hagen –– 13035

Ms. A. Hagen –– 13036

Hon. S. Hagen –– 13038

Forest Amendment Act, 1991 (Bill 13). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 13039

Mr. Miller –– 13039

Hon. Mr. Rabbitt –– 13040

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 13040

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

(Hon. Mr. Jacobsen)

On vote 52: minister's office –– 13041

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Sihota

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Serwa

Mr. Miller

Mr. Peterson

Mr. Barnes

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It's an honour today to rise and welcome to this assembly my ministerial assistant's sister and her husband, Lorraine and John Toljanich. Would this House please make them welcome.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join with me in welcoming over 30 students from Oppenheimer Elementary School in Vancouver, along with their teacher Mr. Northy. In addition, I want to welcome my secretary from Vancouver, Sheila O'Reilly.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome you after a most wonderful ceremony on Saturday afternoon when you and Val were married.

MR. BARLEE: I would like to welcome Mr. Harry Lali, who is somewhere in the precincts. He is the New Democratic Party candidate for Yale-Lillooet in the coming election.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join me in welcoming Graham Travers and Blair Robertson to the session this afternoon. Graham is the son of the assistant deputy minister within my ministry. Would you please make them welcome.

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome the dean of the faculty of management at the University of Manitoba, William Mackness, who is visiting our House today.

Oral Questions

ABORTION SERVICES

MR. HARCOURT: I have a question to the Minister of Health. Therapeutic abortions are an insured service under the province's Medical Service Act. A recent Supreme Court decision has made it very clear that this is a medical procedure to which all women have an equal and legal right. However, the board of the only hospital in the Okanagan that provides this procedure has announced its intention to outlaw therapeutic abortions. Has the minister decided that he will direct this hospital board to guarantee access to this legal procedure?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member probably knows that hospitals in British Columbia are legally autonomous entities. As such, they have the right to do or not to do procedures, and we don't involve ourselves in determining what medical procedures are going to be carried out at any particular hospital.

MR. HARCOURT: A supplementary. This is not a question of local autonomy This is an issue of access to a publicly funded and legal medical procedure for the women of this province. This public hospital must conform to the letter and the intent of the law of British Columbia and Canada. No board has — or should have — the right or the expertise to go beyond those parameters. Has the minister decided that he will not allow a vocal minority to impose its own views on the women of this province?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The original answer still stands. My question to the Leader of the Opposition would be: what would the NDP be doing to take away autonomy from hospitals? That's the question.

CONFIDENTIALITY IN
ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S OFFICE

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Attorney-General. What representations did the Attorney-General receive from the Premier with respect to her concerns about leaks emanating from his ministry?

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA: Again to the Attorney-General. What representations did he receive from the Premier with respect to her concerns about leaks emanating from his ministry?

HON. MR. FRASER: It would be very nice to be able to answer an open-ended question like that. Perhaps if the member has a question I can address, I'll think about it.

MR. SIHOTA: In his statement to the House with respect to the termination of Mr. Walsh, the Attorney-General made reference to leaks concerning confidentiality of opinions regarding the member for Saanich and the Islands when he was Minister of Finance. Did the Premier express any concerns to the Attorney-General with regard to leaks emanating from his office concerning those opinions?

HON. MR. FRASER: We are always concerned on both sides of the House, whether it's their side in caucus, our side in caucus or our side in caucus and cabinet, about caucus and cabinet confidentiality in every event.

BCTV SERIES ON SWEDISH FORESTRY

MR. SMITH: I have a question for the Minister of Forests. Recently BCTV ran a series on their news hour program entitled "The Swedish Solution." Many viewers thought the series looked a little like a Swedish tourism commercial. It now has been reported that BCTV crews had travel and accommodation expenses paid in whole or at least in part by Sweden for that series. My question to the minister is: in light of that information and the fact that British Columbia and Sweden compete directly in the forest industry, will and can he advise this House whether in his view the

[ Page 13008 ]

program was complete and whether or not it fairly represented the issues that were discussed?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I wouldn't comment, first, on the ethics of whether they should have been paid to go there, but I will comment on the content of the series. I watched it as closely as I could and as objectively as I could, and I think that the reporting was anything but objective. It wasn't balanced coverage by any means. In fact, Swedish foresters who have recently been to British Columbia have confirmed that. So I find it strange to understand why British Columbia Television, with the largest audience of any news hour in Canada –– 600,000 viewers every evening at 6 o'clock — doesn't use a little more responsible attitude in their coverage.

For example, they have turned down invitations from our ministry on many occasions to go and cover things that we would like them to see, such as the largest plantation in the province; yet they will accept an invitation to go to Sweden. I would ask that the coverage be just a little more objective and responsible.

FIRST CITIZENS' FUND LOANS

MR. ZIRNHELT: A question to the Minister of Native Affairs. On May 13 the minister confirmed that the Premier's freeze on government loans included the First Citizens' Fund. This is inappropriate. It breaks the perpetual trust made by W.A.C. Bennett 22 years ago. Has the minister decided to lift the freeze on business loans to native groups?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The issue of all loan programs and grants, as I'm sure everyone in this House realizes, is under review. We expect to report back with a decision within a couple of weeks or less.

DUMPING OF SOIL FROM EXPO SITE

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Environment. Has the minister instructed his staff to ensure that the dumping of Expo site soil in Richmond does not begin until the ministry and Richmond have agreed to a soil-testing protocol?

HON. MR. MERCIER: I was thinking of not answering any more questions from that member unless he straightened out the public commentary he made in the very first instance that the soil going to Richmond was toxic. This description precipitated a lot of activity based on a falsehood. The soil was originally categorized as industrial soil because it included broken asphalt and pieces of concrete foundation. This was about 5 percent of the material. The other 95 percent was sand and gravel — and like sand and gravel.

In the first instance, this member, who has been in this House for so many years as the critic of the Environment ministry, should have known better than to start a release....

[2:15]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's really only appropriate in question period to answer the question as put. There are other opportunities for you to have this dialogue on other items.

HON. MR. MERCIER: It's very difficult, if you're said to be guilty, to then prove you're innocent. In this country it's supposed to work the other way around. What I wanted to do for the sake of the House and just to touch on the Expo site.... It's all relevant, because the Expo site, you might say, got bad press. What we have to do now is see what the truth was. Before I can answer this question, which was based on a falsehood, I have to deal with the truth. The truth is that the soil to be moved to Richmond previously qualified, but because some people on the Richmond council were nervous about the industrial category and didn't take the time to realize that the industrial category was not toxic.... In other words, it was not harmful in any way. In fact, the soil was going to cover a garbage dump that Richmond had been using for many years. I'm glad the question was asked. This soil....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There are other members who wish to ask questions. It's an abuse of question period by the minister, and this is not the first time.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, listening to that convoluted, inappropriate answer, the answer was no. What the minister basically said was no, that he will not follow through on a commitment to develop a protocol with the Richmond council. I would say to that minister: you stick with your definitions; I'll stick with the dictionary.

Supplementary question. Can the minister inform this House why Richmond council's request for a brief delay to allow a mutually acceptable protocol to be developed has been denied by his ministry?

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of difficulty when a very complex issue is involved. I'll do my best to answer this succinctly.

If the lie hadn't been told in the first place, then we wouldn't be dealing with the matter the way we are. Since we are dealing with it, the protocol referred to was to give the Richmond council an opportunity to find a soil-tester. They put their bylaw in place so fast that they didn't have the staff in place to police their bylaw. As for the testing that we do, we meet the requirements; we are testing the soil. The soil is going to move, because there's nothing wrong with it. The protocol referred to was to provide them enough time to retain someone to do the testing should they want to do so.

As to the definition, it isn't just the dictionary; it happens to be defined in the regulations. So the letter going to the Richmond council will say that we will only do what is lawful under their own bylaw and that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the soil that will be moved to that location.

[ Page 13009 ]

PRESERVATION OF W.A.C. BENNETT HOME

MR. SERWA: My question is addressed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture. Kelowna city council has decided to support the bid to preserve the W.A.C. Bennett home as a provincial heritage site. The property has great historical significance as the home of two Premiers of British Columbia. Has the minister decided to support the initiative to acquire and preserve the site as a tribute to the greatest Premier to have lived in this country?

HON. MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker, I'm aware of the concerns that have been expressed by the association in that community and by the city council about the preservation of that site. I'm sure that all members of this House would agree that it would be incumbent upon me to have a very in-depth look, on behalf of the ministry and the province, at any household that was the home of a Premier for as many years as that one was — let alone the fact that it is the home of two Premiers. I will be taking that look and hope to visit the site in the near future to determine the situation as it stands today.

SOIL FROM EXPO SITE

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for the Expo contract, whom I assume to be the Minister of Lands and Parks. As the minister knows, the province is responsible for cleaning up contaminated soil on the Expo site before Concord Pacific begins construction. By what deadline must the province remove the soil from the Expo site in order to fulfil its contractual obligation to Concord Pacific?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, that's not my ministry.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, this question is to the minister responsible for the Expo contract. If that minister knows who he is, would he stand up?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair is in an awkward position, because I am not able to assist the member in directing him to whichever minister may be appropriate. I'm not sure that the question was so specific that if the minister is present, the minister would identify himself and rise. As a matter of protocol, it might be wise to try and ascertain which minister you are going to put these questions to in advance, to assist all the members of the House.

MR. CASHORE: There have been so many changes in this cabinet, you need a road map to keep track of who is responsible. It's a reflection of the bad Expo deal that none of these cabinet ministers know which one is responsible for this contract. It's appalling.

A new question to the minister responsible for the Expo contract. Can the minister tell the House what financial penalties the government faces if they are not able to remove this soil from the site by the time Concord Pacific Developments Ltd. is ready to begin construction?

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave for the Select Standing Committee on Ethical Conduct and Conflict of Interest to meet this afternoon at 3 p.m.

Leave granted.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

On vote 52: minister's office, $337,553 (continued).

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman, before adjourning the estimates last week, we were going through the issues of children's policy with this government. Just to remind some of the members who haven't had an opportunity to look at the child protection legislation review that this government has initiated, the initiation was in June 1991, but we won't actually see any changes, according to the government's plan, until September 1993 to January 1994.

The government has issued a list of their policies, and we have repeatedly raised concerns about the lack of real, tangible change and concrete rights for the children of this province — in particular, rights legislated for children who are in care of the ministry of this province. We have gone through a number of the United Nations articles that the government of Canada as well as this province have been signatory to. I would like to continue through that process very briefly.

I refer the minister to article 20 of the UN convention on the rights of the child, where it says that if a child must be removed from his or her home because of abuse or neglect, due regard should be given to "the child's ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background." We've seen a number of policies and statements come forward — nothing in legislation — acknowledging the right of native families to look after native children in this province.

Can the minister give us any information about the progress he is making in identifying native children who are put up for foster care, and about the work his ministry is doing in ensuring that those native children's heritage is respected? Have you put in place programs to ensure that their cultural and linguistic background is preserved?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, yes to the member opposite. We have a number of programs that deal with native children. It's one of the areas we have paid a great deal of attention to, because we think it's important that native children have the opportunity to grow up with native people and to be part of their own cultural background. We work with native people on a

[ Page 13010 ]

number of programs. When a child is taken into care and we have to put him into a care home, we try first to place that child with its enlarged family or within the band. If that isn't possible, we try to find someone of the same native background to look after the child. Only if all of those are exhausted or unavailable to us, do we then proceed to provide accommodations that perhaps don't have a native background. We work together with many bands and councils to provide services to native children. The overall thrust is that we try as much as we possibly can to encourage the native community to take the responsibility and deal with their own children, and we assist them in doing that.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I wonder if the minister could provide some numbers. How many native children are taken into custody and how many native foster homes do you have in the province?

[2:30]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The status Indian children make up 32 percent of the native children in care, while non-status Indians make up 68 percent. On March 31, 1991, there were 6,084 children in care, of whom 623 had status Indian background and 1,294 had non-status Indian background. That tells you the number.... Did you want to know the number being cared for by native families?

Interjection.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Native foster homes.... We do not have that particular information. We can develop that, I suppose, but we don't have it available at this point.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The numbers the minister has given raise two concerns. One, you don't have ready numbers to reflect the native foster homes, while at the same time you talk about being sensitive to the need for culturally sensitive homes and support for their linguistic and religious backgrounds. That's one concern that the inability of breaking out those foster homes raises. The second issue is the percentage of native children in foster care. The numbers you've given me roughly indicate that almost a third of the kids in foster care in this province are native children, while very clearly a third of the population in this province is not native.

I wonder if the minister could indicate why he feels there is that problem of natives in the province relinquishing their children at a disproportionate rate — whether that two-thirds of the kids in foster care are voluntary or whether they have been apprehended — and what the ministry is doing to alleviate that problem.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The native children come into care for reasons similar to those that other children come into care — because their home, for one reason or another, is an unsuitable environment for them. Obviously the reasons for that vary a great deal, but admittedly there are an awful lot of native children in care, and it's a serious concern of ours.

The fact that we don't have the number of native foster homes is not in any way an indication of the ministry's lack of interest. We have a policy that encourages the placement of native children with native families, and we are asking native people to develop native homes for children. Certainly it's a priority of government to find a solution to that problem, and we have concerns about removing native children from the native community. We prefer them to be kept within the native community if that is possible. But there are, as you've seen, a substantial number of children, so it is not easy to find accommodation for all of them within the native community.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we proceed, the second member for Central Fraser Valley seeks leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. DE JONG: From the Central Fraser Valley we have quite a group of students from the William A. Fraser Elementary School, together with their teacher Mr. Morrison. I would like to ask the House to give them a cordial welcome.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to refer the minister to one of his policy statements. It says: "...to provide supportive services directed to assisting families in raising their children." I want to go back to the issue of almost a third of the children in care in this province being native. That's a disproportionate number; it means that more native kids are living outside their families. I'd like to hear about some concrete programs from the minister that reflect this policy. What are you doing to help keep those kids at home?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: We're doing a number of things. For example, we have a native service unit in Vancouver. This district office serves all native children in care under 12 who live in the North Vancouver area. The staffing of that area is one supervisor, who is native; six social workers, three of whom are native; and two administrative support workers, who are both native. There are a total of nine staff. Of those nine, five native people work there to be able to deal better with the native children.

We have a native group home in Vancouver. The ministry funds that at the rate of $60,000 a year. It is a three-bed home developed in conjunction with United Native Nations. It's staffed by native house parents.

We have the native family support program in Vancouver. The ministry funds that at $100,000 per year. There are three full-time and one half-time native staff provided, and outreach services for difficult-to-reach native families. Staff assist families with the child welfare court process and provide support and referrals to other services. The program also provides a connection with native band resources.

We have those programs and we have others, of course, where we deal with native people.

[ Page 13011 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I wonder if the minister can indicate how long those programs have been in place.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Two of the programs have been in existence for about a year and a half, and the other one — the native group home in Vancouver — for about a year.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The shortest period is a year and a half. The minister has said that a number of native children are in care for the same reasons. Very clearly, when you see one group within our society that is disproportionately represented — whether it is by the number of children in care or through the representation in the prison system or indeed on welfare, as we certainly have seen when we've looked at who is on welfare — it means that there's something very wrong with our system and that there is a need for some sort of systemic change that addresses these concerns.

With the programs in place.... I'm pleased to see the family support program in particular, in the hope that it does more than just help families through the courts; indeed, that it helps them stay together. I wonder whether there has been any analysis done as to why those children end up in care, and whether there is something the ministry can be doing more proactively. I notice that all these programs you have identified are in core Vancouver. I'm wondering what happens to other native kids in the rest of the province. Do you have an analysis of where the kids now in foster care come from?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: There's no question, Mr. Chairman, that the native community has a serious problem that deserves careful attention, and we are providing careful attention to the problem. We want to deviate a little from practices in the past where native people were pretty much told what they should or should not do. We believe the best way to help alleviate the difficulties faced by many native families and people and certainly native children is to provide an opportunity for them to participate in deciding for themselves and having input into how their circumstances should be dealt with, what facilities should be constructed and how they should be run. We work with several bands and tribal councils in order to encourage input from the native community.

That's important. It's not right for me as minister, or for government in general, to impose a solution to their problem upon native people. It's better to enter into dialogue with them. Perhaps it is the first time this has really been done in a meaningful way by governments, giving them an opportunity to participate in the solution. Given the opportunities, native people will address these problems, and it may take some time. They will compete with the rest of society without any difficulties at all, and then they will not have a disproportionate number of people in our care or in the prison system. It's important that they have an opportunity to participate in the solutions. That's what we're trying to do.

I have an answer for the question you asked earlier, Madam Member: there are 277 native foster homes with a total of 437 beds.

MS. SMALLWOOD: So there are approximately 2,000 kids in care, and we've got 437 beds within native foster homes. You've already said that you think it's important for government to support native people in dealing with their own problems. Can you indicate what dialogue you're having with native groups — whether band councils or others — to provide more foster homes for those children?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The type of dialogue we're having is to help them establish programs for family support systems within their bands, for which we have provided funding to assist them. For one band we have $337,611 in family support; for another one in McLeod Lake we have $46,000. For another one we have $15,000, and for another one we have $140,000 to assist them to develop programs that they wish to develop. But they need help and support in order to do that.

We provide them with financial assistance and also support workers to assist them in developing the programs. The programs are designed to help native people care for the children in their band or on their reserve who need care and help, to remove the necessity of taking native children away from their cultural background.

MS. SMALLWOOD: One final question in this area. As the minister speaks, he doesn't seem to differentiate between status and non-status, reserve and off-reserve. Can the minister indicate whether or not it is the policy of your government to actually become involved with contracts on the reserve?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: No, I guess they will do it themselves on the reserves. But I'm told that we fund group homes on the reserves. I have here the booklet on an overview of family and children's services for 1989-90. Perhaps the member has that. It contains a fair amount of information about our dealings with native people. If you don't have a copy, we'd be happy to provide you with that.

[2:45]

MS. SMALLWOOD: So the minister is saying that it's your policy.... You are involved in funding actual group homes for children who are, for some reason, away from their families, but you don't actually involve yourselves in support programs to keep those kids with their families on the reserves.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'm told that we fund group homes on the reserves and support services for families. We work with the federal government to encourage them to provide more assistance to families on the reserve. You would appreciate the complications between the federal and provincial authorities when it comes to dealing with programs on reserves. As I understand it, they are also involved in providing some of the services.

[ Page 13012 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I actually want to move on from this subject, but I want to get this very clear for the committee. Are you saying that you are involved in funding support programs for families? Let me give you an example. Would it be against your government's policy to fund a day care on a reserve?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The example that the member gives would be the same as anywhere else. We don't fund day cares, as you know; we fund the users. And we would fund the user on the reserve.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I will probably come back to native issues a little later, and more specifically.

Let me move along on the UN charter of rights for children. Article 23 requires us to ensure that disabled children enjoy a full and decent life in conditions promoting dignity, self-reliance and the child's active participation in the community. While the government has very clearly begun to address the support of families with severely disabled children, I believe it is also clear that a number of the government's policies, recognizing that I'm dealing with this in the broadest possible way.... The government's policy on education, specifically, is now seeing a cutback in some of the education funding for special-needs programs that support children in their schools.

Before the minister gets up and says that's for the Education estimates, let me say two things: first of all, in the minister's own policy, he says "...to provide an educational system which respects and encourages individual potential"; and secondly, the fact that, again, the ombudsman has said that the only way we are going to be able to deal with children and family problems in this province is if we co-operate in identifying the whole child. Because of this government's policy, we are beginning to hear phrases like "park and run," where the government has deinstitutionalized children in the province and failed to follow through with support programs in the community. I'd like to hear the minister's comments on that and whether or not the minister is actively involved with other ministries in trying to ensure that children are not abandoned once they do have the support of their families and communities.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: First of all it is correct that the first part of your question deals with the Ministry of Education, but since you strayed into asking a question about it, let me then try and answer it. We do not abandon children. We provide services to children, and we make a very good and successful effort in meeting children's needs. You say that special care and special education needs for children are being cut. If any programs in schools are being cut, it's not because we have not provided funding for those programs. It's because someone has decided, at the school board level, where they will spend the dollars that are available. They have chosen to spend it in some other area — be it salaries or it could be a number of things — and remove certain programs. The people that make those decisions should be accountable, every one, as to why those particular programs are being tampered with.

They are needed, and they were put in place to meet the needs of a group of citizens that need our support and help. They should not be tampered with. They should be carried through. I don't believe there's any conscious effort on the part of this government to take away funding from those programs, but if someone else chooses to apportion the money in a different way, that's something we have a hard time being responsible for. I don't think it's right for them to come to us for it. Go to the people who are doing it.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I would argue with the minister that as much as the electorate has a responsibility to ensure a school board carries through with their priorities, it is also the responsibility of the government when you are giving school boards and districts grants to provide services. Beyond that it's the province's constitutional responsibility to be involved in delivering a good education system.

To make the argument that you have no direct influence over how money is spent doesn't.... The point I'm trying to make is that you are not abdicated of that responsibility any more than the electorate is in ensuring that their school boards represent them well. I would hope that there would be more coordination, and if there's a problem with the system, it should be addressed.

I want to remind the minister of an earlier discussion we had around the UN Charter where the minister and this government brought in policy stating their priorities around the care of children; not committing you, as a government, to deliver on those priorities, but nice platitudes about feelings that you might have about how children are looked after in the province.

When we began to talk about the UN Charter, the minister made a reference to Third World countries, and more or less said that the UN Charter doesn't pertain as directly to countries such as Canada. As we have gone through each of these articles, it's very clear that the UN Charter pertains to Canada and to British Columbia just as much as it does to any of the poorer countries. Perhaps it's a bigger shame that we still have children living in poverty in British Columbia and that we now have food banks being developed to specialize for single parents and children. We see food banks now not only calling for the support of their communities to provide food for those unable to feed their families, but now asking specifically for infant food, formula and diapers. When we see women and children in this province having to line up for the very basic needs, it's a real indicator of the failure of this government.

Before I leave the government's policy on children and continue into issues around foster care, I want to make one final reference to the minister's press release. In that press release, where we have this time-table laid out — everything from June 1991 and all the way through to June 1994 — the minister includes the Family and Child Service Act. I actually considered whether or not to bring this to the attention — of the minister, but I think more than anything it underscores how antique this act truly is. The minister, if he has the

[ Page 13013 ]

time, might take a look at the act where it refers to the superintendent of child welfare and his powers. I'm sure the superintendent will be pleased to see some gender-neutral reference just for a start. It goes on in the act to talk about the parent, and that parent is once again a "he." Further in the act, the superintendent or police officer — in this case the police officer — is also a "he." It goes on then to refer to the child; the child also is a "he." There is a real problem with the legislation. Not only is it not sensitive to some of the needs of families in this province, but if this act pretends to reflect the reality in this province, it would have us believe that there are no "she's" at all. If the minister is looking at redoing the act, it might be a good start to make sure that the legislation is gender neutral.

I'd like to raise a couple of other issues with the minister. This one has to do with youth in care in this province. I'd like to ask the minister whether the ministry has any programs dealing with AIDS or sexually transmitted diseases and with educational requirements for youth in care.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: While I'm getting the information on the last part of the question, perhaps I can comment on some of the other remarks. You talked about the policy on children — that it was a nice thing, but government had no responsibility to it. I want to tell you that government has a great deal of responsibility to it. Not just this ministry but every ministry in government has a responsibility to it — to fulfil the objectives of the policy. That's what the purpose of the policy is: that government will be directed in their legislation in not just one but all ministries to fulfil the policy that was laid out.

The member talks about the needs of children, that we need to have more money for children and single parents, and that they have to depend upon other sources to live because they don't have enough money. I don't know what the member is advocating.

The members opposite have expressed some concern about the letter I sent out urging people to cooperate with us in order to get off the welfare system and to become financially independent. Maybe the member is suggesting that I didn't take strong enough measures, because obviously there are people on social assistance who need more help than we're able to provide. If we are going to increase it to anyone, then we have to find somewhere to take it from. We have to find some ways to adjust it.

We spend almost $2 billion now in social services, and that's enough of a load for a province of three million people to carry. So if we are going to provide more, we will have to find ways to encourage people who are able to find work to be somewhat independent — if not totally independent — so that we will have more money left for those who don't have that option That's something we will have to look at.

You talk about the act. I agree that the act needs to be redone, and that's exactly what we have announced. We will be redoing the act. Earlier the member made some comment about the length of time it would take. It's far more important that it be done right than that it be done quickly, because we have legislation that works and serves the public today. It serves them quite well, but it does need updating. The experience in this province and in other provinces that have done similar reviews shows clearly that it requires at least two years of input before you can be sure that your act reflects the views of the people who are dealing with the issue. So it's important to take time to do it.

As for the parts of the act the member mentions that have to do with gender, I appreciate that it's not right and should be corrected. Obviously we should not be talking about just "he's," we should be talking about everyone in society equally. But that wouldn't be a major concern of mine within the act; rather, my concern would be that the act could be worded or rewritten in such a way that it provides better service to children — be they boys or girls. I think that's what we're interested in: providing better service.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

So the wording will have to be improved with respect to gender, but those aren't the important points that will have to be improved. The important points are the kinds of service that will be provided for children of both sexes.

We do have an AIDS policy for children in care, and it requires assistance from Health with a training package. I'm not exactly sure what that entails. I would assume that means we get information from the Ministry of Health, which obviously we wouldn't have. We provide the information to do with AIDS to the people who are looking after the children.

[3:00]

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister touched on a number of things, and I'd like to go through a few of them. The minister said in his press conference that in regard to the policies the government has brought down, each and every ministry responsible for children is responsible to deliver on those policies. Perhaps you can indicate what the penalties are for not living up to those policies, whether or not the client has some appeal to the government when the government is not living up to that responsibility. When the minister says "legislation," perhaps you could point to the legislation that guarantees the public, or those children in care, the right to those policies.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The policy is not drafted as a legal document. If it were, it would be introduced in an act. It's a policy to guide the government. It is the view of this government of how children should be cared for in this province. Its purpose is to be a guide. It's a goal that we would aim for in dealing with children and families. I don't want to leave families out of this, because they are a very important part of this component. It's a policy of this government; it reflects our attitude towards children and towards families. It's expected that each ministry will evaluate their programs and see how the programs that they deliver may better fulfil the intent of the policy.

[ Page 13014 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I know that the minister has only been with the ministry for a year now, but one of the first things that strikes you in any work that you do with the ministry is all of the nice words. There are a lot of nice words wrapped around the delivery of human services. I suspect it is the case everywhere, whether it's in the private sector or within a ministry. But what the people of this province — the families, the kids — are saying is that they need something more than just nice words. They need something tangible, some process that can ensure them the right to those services and the right to the values that are reflected in these nice words. That's why we ask about the legislation. That's why we look for some kind of legal framework, for an appeal process and for penalties for not delivering.

When I ask the minister, it isn't out of some misunderstanding that the policies are anything more than what the minister explains, but it is a reflection of the real, tangible needs that children and families have in this province.

I ask the minister why, in developing these nice sounding phrases, he didn't consider bringing into full force a provision within the GAIN act to allow children and families the right to appeal the delivery of services. It would have been a nice way of carrying out your policy.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I think the evidence is there. The policy is the guide, and the policy and our commitment to it will be demonstrated in a number of ways. One of the first ways it has already been demonstrated is a review of the Family and Child Service Act.

The benefit of the policy being there is that the member opposite, when sitting there in opposition a year from now and two years from now, when policies are announced and this review is coming forward, can say: "Well, you have a policy on children for British Columbia, and I question whether this particular recommendation complies with that policy. If it doesn't comply with it, then you should be changing it." That's the benefit. It will be a wonderful tool for you and the opposition to use. It's there as a guide to help direct the policy, to make sure that the policy of government goes in the proper direction.

You asked whether there was an appeal mechanism. That is something that can very well be discussed and looked at in the review. I'm sure it will be looked at as part of the review. There may very well be a proper procedure put up, but all the people who would want to use that will have input into how it should be formulated. That's the benefit of a detailed review: they will all have an opportunity. That's what the review is all about: to bring issues like that into the legislation.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I thank the minister for his kind offer regarding the policy and the results of the next election. But let me tell you, the fact that this government is in the fifth year of its term and is now deciding to review legislation and policies is clearly not good enough for the kids of this province. Let me tell this minister that the only way that kids and families are going to get immediate care, and not promises of new legislation four years down the road, is by electing a New Democratic government. That's the only way there's going to be some substantial changes.

For the minister to talk about consultation in the process of developing a piece of legislation taking four years, when this party has been sitting in the government benches for five years while children line up for food in this province, when foster children are kept in hotels that have used needles in the hallway.... This is what the people of this province will be judging this government on, not a promise of four years down the road.

Let me move along. When the minister talked about GAIN and the number of families reliant on this government's GAIN policies, the minister asked what I was suggesting. I'm sorry the minister has such a short memory. Again and again the government members get up on their side and say: "Well, what will the NDP do?" Since the beginning of these estimates I have been stating over and over again what the NDP will do in this major ministry in government, and you completely disregard our suggestions — and I suggest you disregard them at your own peril.

The fact is, when we were talking about income assistance for those families lining up to feed their children, lining up for infant formula, one of the things we indicated as a positive move to increase the standard of living for people reliant on GAIN was allowing them to keep more of their earned and unearned income, to increase their ability to close the gap between GAIN and the poverty line.

There are tangible things that can be done to support people on income assistance over and above the need to increase welfare rates. There are tangible things that can be done to target those people on income assistance, those children reliant on the government for care. We've talked about those programs: figuring out who is on income assistance and targeting the programs to their needs, figuring out who the foster kids are and targeting those families to ensure that they don't have to rely on foster care but indeed keep the families together in the first place. But this minister seems to be completely oblivious to that kind of an analysis.

I think other members want to raise some issues, and I know we'll have lots of other opportunities to delve further into some of these specific issues. In the way of providing some notice to the minister, I'm wanting to speak to him about street kids in Vancouver, about kids who have been and are technically still wards of the state, and ask him about some of the programs. I hope we're talking more than just pamphlets to caregivers about AIDS, but we'll have an opportunity to do that later.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I thank the member opposite for her questions, and I will comment very quickly on the last comments. I'm quite surprised to hear the member opposite suggest that were they given the opportunity, they would change the policy immediately. It would happen right away. That means that the

[ Page 13015 ]

people affected would not have the opportunity for input. Well, in Ontario they require two years of input, and Ontario told us that if you're going to do this kind of review, don't try and do it in less than two years, because it would be difficult to do. Nova Scotia took two years, and they thought they had run it on a very tight time-frame. They thought we would require at least that much time in order to do it properly. It's not something we are doing simply to drag out time; it's required in order for people to have proper input.

You can talk about why I didn't bring this in earlier. I have to remind you that I became responsible for the ministry in June of last year, and this is the first opportunity to bring it in. I brought it in as quickly as I possibly could. I'm very pleased with the changes we have brought in. The final suggestion of helping the people by allowing them to keep more of their income is precisely the same policy operating in Ontario today. That is exactly what they're doing. That is the difference between the Ontario welfare system and the B.C. welfare system: it simply comes down to allowing them to keep a larger portion with bigger exemptions. By adopting that policy we would adopt the same policy they have in Ontario. I don't think British Columbia can afford the policy they have in Ontario. I don't think Ontario can afford it either, and time will certainly tell. There's a lot of concern about that.

It is a difficult thing. We have to care for the people in need and do it properly. We have to look after people when they have an emergency in their life, but we also have to be concerned about the taxpayers' ability to meet the cost of it.

MR. LOVICK: I want to turn to another area under the mandate of the Ministry of Social Services, which is the whole difficult area of suicide, suicide prevention, suicide counselling and so forth. A couple of years ago I met with the minister's predecessor and had a private meeting in his office with a woman whose husband had unfortunately taken that awful step. At the time, the woman was trying to get counselling and assistance. To her credit, when she encountered a blankness, if not a brick wall — there was nothing there in place — she didn't give up instantly. Rather she talked about establishing some self-help organizations.

The conclusion to all of that was the development of a group in Nanaimo — my constituency — called Survivors of Suicide. It was established about a year and a half ago, and in a relatively short space of time they had a flood of applications. People said that they had never had counselling or assistance to make them, as survivors, put their lives back together.

Of course, it doesn't take a leap of imagination to see that if someone close to us were to commit suicide, obviously a good part of the problem would be our own feelings of inadequacy and guilt: "Did I do everything I could? Is it partly my fault?" The literature shows that it is a very common phenomenon that bereaved individuals require a considerable amount of assistance and help. The question I'm getting to is simply: what are we doing at the moment and are we doing enough?

I'm not going to try and surprise anybody with new information or anything here, so let me spell out the information I have for the minister's consideration. In British Columbia we have something like a suicide a day. I'm told that's the case; I don't know. I also understand we have very little in place to provide those who are bereft with any counselling and assistance.

[3:15]

I know that in Alberta there is something called the Wild Rose Foundation, which is a creature of the government. They sponsor workshops, schools and so forth consisting of one or two days. Members of groups such as the Survivors of Suicide can go and actually take a short one- or two-day course in suicide prevention, bereavement and crisis intervention.

I wonder if we have anything comparable to that in B.C., and would the minister care to tell me, if this falls within the aegis and responsibilities of his ministry, what kinds of things we are doing and what he envisages we might be doing?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I listen with interest to the remarks of the member opposite, and I'm interested in the program that exists in Nanaimo. It is a terribly serious situation when that happens. Of course, in our ministry we deal with people who are facing very dramatic and traumatic experiences, and so there's an awful lot of emotional upset involved. We do encounter the problem or the tendency towards suicide, but it is not within the mandate of the ministry.

Suicide is considered a very serious mental health problem and lies with the Ministry of Health. Our responsibility is to direct the people to the attention of the Ministry of Health, or to bring the Ministry of Health's attention to the individuals so that care is provided. We are not involved in providing that particular treatment, counselling or service, because it is very complex care that falls within the other ministry

MR. LOVICK: I recognize that there is a line between mental health within Health and Social Services and Housing that is, sadly, sometimes rather grey and obscure. It seems to me that here again we have found an example of precisely that problem. What we're talking about, ideally, is providing people with prevention counselling so that it doesn't become the ultimate problem of bereavement.

I take it, however, from the minister's answer that there is nothing within the Social Services and Housing budget for this particular kind of activity. The reason I ask with a certain amount of incredulity in my voice is that when we dealt with this before, it was entirely within the mandate of the Minister of Social Services and Housing. Perhaps that was for other reasons that I wasn't aware of at the time, but I'm surprised, as I say, to discover: "Well, sorry, you'll have to shop somewhere else because we don't do it in this ministry."

I haven't had a chance to look closely at the estimates document about this to see whether there isn't some kind of counselling program available within Social Services and Housing. It would seem to

[ Page 13016 ]

me that even the kind of work done by financial aid counsellors within the ministry — the people that I deal with in my constituency — would come pretty close to the kind of program we're talking about here. I'm wondering if the minister would care to comment on that.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The answer is that there is nothing within the ministry that provides counselling or treatment in any way to people suffering from this particular illness. That's not to say that there isn't counselling available or that there isn't preventive counselling available, and so on. I can't give you the details of those, because they are within another ministry. Certainly we have extreme regard for circumstances where there's a possibility of this occurring, and we would direct the attention of the Ministry of Health to that immediately.

So I don't think the grey area you talk about is really that grey. We obviously, because of the nature of our ministry, come in contact with people where this problem exists, and we refer them immediately to the Ministry of Health, because there is treatment — and it is very complex treatment — there. The counselling is complex, so it's not within this ministry.

MR. SERWA: I would just like to ask the Minister of Social Services and Housing some questions on the matter raised by the colleague from across the floor. It is a very serious matter and a very serious concern, and the suicide rate among young people — certainly among young males — tends to be very high. I think we all express quite a bit of concern over that. In a way, it appears to be stress-related and induced by environmental issues. My question to the minister is whether the Ministry of Social Services and Housing has been able to come up with anything definitive, through an assessment of different jurisdictions, on the causes, first of all, so that rather than treat the symptoms, we address the causes.

One of the reasons I'm standing here today and asking that particular question is because in Sweden, which is governed by democratic socialists, they have the highest rate of suicide of any nation in the world They have the highest rate of mental illness of any developed country, and they have the highest rate of worker absenteeism. That is in a society which has been designed and structured to provide a tremendous degree of support to individuals. My question to the minister is: what has gone wrong there? And perhaps, what is going wrong here, so that we can minimize this regrettable tendency in society today?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I don't think I can really comment on the situation in Sweden or in any other place. I certainly agree with the member that it is a very serious situation. When you see this happening to anyone, it's a tragedy. When you see it happening to teenagers or young people, which is a fairly common occurrence — regrettably so — it's absolutely appalling. If we're not terribly concerned about it, we certainly should be, because it is something that we as a society cannot take lightly and must in some way feel there's a responsibility in how society functions that causes people to make this terrible choice.

As far as research into the causes and how we might prevent it are concerned, my only response would be that I assume that is a very important part of the work of the Ministry of Health. As is expected in all cases, when the Ministry of Health is treating an illness, part of the treatment would be not only to help the person with the problem to overcome it, but to prevent other people from getting it. So I would assume that is looked after in the Ministry of Health, and I certainly hope that it's taken care of and treated very seriously, which I'm sure it is. But it's not within the mandate of this ministry.

HON. MR. DUECK: I would ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. DUECK: Thank you, I appreciate that very much. Earlier we had half of the group that you, Mr. Chairman, introduced to the House just a few minutes ago. I understand the other half is in the House at this time. On behalf of the second member for Central Fraser Valley — the Chairman — and myself, I would like to introduce these grade 5 and 6 students from William A. Fraser Elementary School in Abbotsford, which is my community. I want to wish them well, and I ask the House to please welcome them to the Legislature.

MS. A. HAGEN: What we're talking about this afternoon, I think, has to do with the coordination among ministries for people services. Although this is not relevant to the debate, I might point out to the member for Okanagan South that it is interesting to look at other jurisdictions around what happens in Sweden. For example, only 5 percent of youngsters don't finish high school, and the transition between the world of school and the world of work is one of the most highly developed in the world. They have a very creative program that deals with all youngsters, even the round pegs who are trying to fit into square holes. We have much to learn by looking at how well they are serving the needs of young people.

On the issue of suicide and suicide prevention, I want to note that one of the challenges that we face — and it is one that has to be addressed by the Education ministry, the Social Services ministry and the Health ministry — is the need for identifying people at risk and the potential for a person to take an action that may in fact result in that person's loss of life ... that there are emergency services and follow-up counselling services available. It isn't something that fits neatly into the basket of one ministry, and I think that the minister would agree that there are ways in which we can coordinate the people who are helping, both ministry staff and volunteers in the community. To deal with these issues is very important.

Mr. Chairman, I have a large number of issues that I would like to address. I'm going to try to address some of them fairly briefly to get some sense of where the

[ Page 13017 ]

minister's and the government's thinking may be at this time.

I'd like to begin with a reference to Woodlands, which is a facility that has joint responsibilities with this ministry and the Ministry of Health. I can't always separate them, so I'm not even going to try. I'm simply going to deal with the issues as they affect the residents at Woodlands and their families. I hope the minister will respond in kind, because I know that his ministry and the Ministry of Health have worked cooperatively on this.

As we all know, Woodlands is in the process of phasing out its long history as a major home and care facility for mentally disabled people, whether they are children or adults. In recent years it has been a home only for adults. There are presently about 250-300 people still living at Woodlands, some of them to be moved this year and the others over the next three years.

The model for most of the people from Woodlands who have gone out into the community is that they are moved into group homes for about four people. There may be an occasional house that's larger, but the majority of the models are four-person homes.

I have met on several occasions over the last year with parents or close relatives of the residents out in the community and of the residents of Woodlands now in the process of having planning done for them about that move. While there is a degree of satisfaction among many of the family caregivers and concerned people, I would say that somewhere between a quarter and a half of the parents have concerns. Some are very serious concerns; others are more modest concerns that have been addressed. The concerns tend to be around these issues: first of all, the compatibility of the person in the group home with other residents and the staff.... Those incompatibilities do exist, and if you're in a big institution, you can deal with those incompatibilities through organization — where people live and who works with them — but in a small group home they can get to be pretty serious problems.

[3:30]

The second has to do with the quality of care. Again, there are variations, but it is clear that there are circumstances where the training of people who work with the residents in these small homes and the challenge to those caregivers, who are on 24-hour duty with people with very special needs and often quite challenging behaviours, means that we sometimes have a much higher staff turnover than we might like. There's an interaction between the resident and a caregiver and perhaps the family, with situations that are quite tense and difficult. At times there is a real concern for the life and safety of people.

The third issue is one about the single model — the fact that we are dealing almost exclusively with a four-bed special-needs home, often purpose-built for the residents who are going to be there.

I want to ask the minister what role he sees his ministry having in dealing on an ongoing basis with the first two problems — the problems of residents, caregivers and family support people where it's clear that things are not working. At this stage of the game I don't want to talk about who's responsible for those kinds of problems, because you'd have to look at the specific circumstances to do that. But it's fair to acknowledge that those difficulties are there and there isn't any easy means to mediate and to bring about a more compatible, happy, comfortable, good care situation.

[Mr. Serwa in the chair.]

Quite honestly, I've talked to older family caregivers who are quite frantic about what to do on this matter, because they don't have a big institution which has the flexibility to enable some mediation and some resolution to occur. There's nowhere else for their family member to go. There are circumstances where people have in fact deteriorated quite drastically as a result of these tensions — people who have lost a lot of weight, people who have lost close friends because they're not in the same home, people who begin to act out because of the frustration of the tensions.

I want to ask the minister to comment on how the ministry is going to deal with that problem. We've invested a huge amount of time and resources in putting all our eggs in that one basket, and if that basket doesn't provide the necessary kind of facilities, interpersonal relationships, qualified staff and resources, then we have nothing to fall back on. Woodlands is not there in the way it was. There's no place for parents to find some resolution.

From that, then, I want to explore with the minister some ideas that are being promoted and talked about, very often by families, who are the people most concerned about their sisters and brothers and sons and daughters and nieces and nephews. I want to ask some questions about that.

Perhaps what I'll do is ask the minister to give me some comments about these very real problems that he and I know exist in the deinstitutionalizing process, what he is doing about them and how he plans to have something available where things just are not working and a special-needs person is at risk because that person is in a care home where, for whatever reason, the care is not just right for him or her.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'm trying to get a document that provides a list of the recommendations of the advisory committee. It outlines the operating principles that we have agreed to adhere to. Hopefully we'll get that in a moment and I can read them off, because they are important. They talk about the rights of handicapped persons to have a say in their own well-being and their own placements and services that are provided to them. To the extent that they're able to participate, they must be allowed to participate. It talks about the rights of families to have input as to what will happen, where the handicapped person may be placed and the kind of care they will receive.

These are the service principles:

"That individuals with mental handicaps and their families are treated with respect and dignity. "That the service system shall operate in an open manner to encourage communication and joint prob-

[ Page 13018 ]

lem-solving between individuals with mental handicaps, their families, ministry staff and contracted service-providers.

"That there are mechanisms to ensure that individuals with mental handicaps and their families are listened to when decisions affecting their interests are made.

"That an eligibility decision is clearly communicated in a timely fashion.

"That there is access to review mechanisms when individuals with mental handicaps have concerns about whether an administrative decision is appropriate or fair.

"That the ministry produce plain-language information on available services, on the role of the ministry staff, the role of the service-provider and how the review process works."

Those recommendations came from the advisory committee. They recommended to the minister that they be accepted as the operating principles.

One morning about three weeks ago in Vancouver, I met with the group and accepted those principles as the ones that would govern the care provided to people with mental handicaps. But I went one step further. When people were in institutions, I suppose it was easier to monitor what was happening with each individual. Because they are spread out into smaller homes in a number of areas, even with these principles carefully spelled out, there will undoubtedly be cases where the service doesn't really measure up to what was proposed here, or perhaps there was a disagreement. I agreed that I would appoint a service quality advocate, That person is now in the process of being appointed, and we are asking for input from interested groups as to the names of those they think could be the right person for this particular position. That will all be happening very quickly

That advocate will be independent of the Ministry of Social Services, because the ministry is so involved in providing day-to-day services. They decide the type of service, deal with caregivers and arrange contracts with the caregivers. To have ministry itself judging whether or not that service is good, appropriate and fair in all cases would be having them judge their own work. So I am in the process of establishing an advocate who will be outside the ministry's control to monitor what is happening and to have the power to call the parties together to review situations. That person will report directly to the minister when he or she has concerns about the service that's provided. I think that's a necessary structure to have, in view of the difficulties that people with mental handicaps may have in society This is a safeguard for them.

The purpose of it, first of all, is to protect the person with the mental handicap. But it is also to provide a comfort to the family, who I am greatly concerned about, because I know that families worry about a family member who may have a mental handicap. Often it's parents worrying about a child. Sometimes they spend their lifetime looking after the child, but then they wonder what will happen to the child when they are no longer able to. Will they be treated kindly, will there be somebody to see that their life is fair and that they get the kind of life they had when they were able to look after them?

That's the purpose of the advocate. I want to make it clear that it is a system I'm quite sure does not exist anywhere else in Canada; it may not exist in North America. That is a leader in how to care for people with mental handicaps; it stands alone as an example of how best to do it. It's something that we can be proud of. We strove to do something that we recognized was radically different: to have government hire somebody to monitor our own work. In this case we have done that.

I want to touch briefly on the number of people still at Woodlands. There are about 250 people at Woodlands. A few years ago they had 800 or 900 people in Woodlands. The place was crammed, and there was no doubt that there were people brought in who should never have been there — they should never have been put in an institution. Given a little bit of help and a little bit of attention, they could have been on their own in society. Perhaps they don't function quite like the rest of us, but nevertheless they could get by. They could have been on their own, but instead of that they were placed in institutions. No question about it, it was unfair. One day somebody said that it was enough, and that we should do something about it, that we should get people out of there. A move was started to bring people out of the institutions, and now we're down to 250. The 250 that are left are the ones that are more difficult to house.

There is a philosophical view that all people who are in institutions should be put into communities in group homes or whatever it may be, and I respect that view. I also recognize that there is a concern with the parents of the people who are remaining in Woodlands. As a ministry, it's our responsibility to make sure that when these people are moved, they're moved to a facility able to guarantee that they will be provided with a quality of care they have now, because many of them require a lot of medical attention. We can be sure they will not be put in any jeopardy by that move. Not only is that important for the individual being moved, but I respect the views of the parents, because some of these parents have committed a lot to the child that's in Woodlands, and they deserve to be heard. When it's a question of rights, while I recognize and appreciate the philosophical view, I have to lay a lot of emphasis on the feelings of those parents, because they have a direct stake and have contributed a tremendous amount to those individuals. They will not be forgotten. I have assured them that before any final decision is made, their concurrence will be sought.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm sure that all people are interested in what the minister has to say about providing support. A single advocate — the minister called this a service quality advocate — is really unlikely to be able to deal with some of the situations we're talking about, because there is no place for people to go, and there is no resolution.

Let me just read a couple of specific instances to define more concretely in human terms what I mean, and these are people now in the community. I want to

[ Page 13019 ]

stay with those people for another few moments of discussion:

"Our daughter moved from Woodlands to a group home run" — in this case — "by the Ministry of Health, in December 1990. The traumatic change has been a disastrous tragedy. She is now an invalid, struggling to gain back the health and happiness she had at Woodlands.

"We are respectively...." — they give their ages; they're old people — "yet if we had not kept close vigil on her daily life during the last four months, she would have died. Even so, our observations were not acted upon before she became like a helpless zombie, unable to coordinate at all. She could not eat for 12 days and drank dangerously little."

It goes on.

[3:45]

Another case is of a person who is severely handicapped and who can't possibly have much to say about choices in his care — a man who is non-verbal, nonambulatory, incontinent and totally dependent on others for his every need. He requires repositioning at least every two hours, a task which requires two attendants. A difficult feeder because of his poor swallowing reflex, he requires an Osterized diet, fed slowly and carefully by a caregiver. Drugs are administered four times daily in an effort to control his seizures. His health will likely deteriorate, and he therefore requires monitoring by medical staff who are on site and able to take care of emergencies.

Here's another instance, perhaps a little more like the minister's description of people who might indeed participate in planning their care. But this woman is in a setting where she's not compatible with the other residents of the small group home in which she lives.

"My daughter is very verbal and social. She loves people. The groupings for her are not right. She is a quadriplegic. She is grouped with two who are deaf and non-verbal and one who is verbal, usually, when prompted. Loneliness is what I see in my daughter, and she could become depressed as well."

An advocate is not necessarily going to provide the answers for those situations. The question is whether that kind of group situation is the appropriate one.

We could spend a lot of time on this issue, Mr. Chairman, but I want to follow up on a leaning that I think I heard in the minister's comments a moment ago about facilities for those residents still in Woodlands.

I'm sure the minister is aware that there is a pretty strong impetus among the parent community and in my community of New Westminster for some special facilities to be developed for what people are calling a village concept. It's a concept I personally like very much. It's the idea of there being homelike and appropriate facilities for people with special needs, attached to medical facilities with therapists and specially trained people who can provide on-site, in the community or village, if you like, some of the services for the residents of Woodlands. There's a real impetus for some of the land associated with the Woodlands complex and Queens Park Hospital to be preserved and developed with that perspective. That kind of facility could also have respite or a place for people to stay for assessment if there was a need, perhaps, for another kind of group home placement than the one they currently have.

It's a small scale from what we've had at Woodlands, where — the minister's quite right — there have been many hundreds of people, some of whom should never have been there. But there are many profoundly handicapped people who require medical, social and therapeutic support that shouldn't be scattered all over the community.

In the budget speech there was a reference to Woodlands providing a legacy in terms of dollars for the housing of people. I think the people in my community and the parents of mentally disabled people are much more interested in a legacy in terms of service. The concept of a village with permanent resources for some of the most needy of Woodlands residents, plus respite, assessment and a place for people to come for some training, is a very attractive one that has a lot of salience to what people now know about deinstitutionalization and about the needs of this community, and what they see should be in the planning. I'd be interested in the minister's comments about some of those ideas that I'm sure have come forward to him and to the Minister of Health on behalf of this group of people in our communities.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: That's exactly what is being looked at. There is a planning process in place that is looking at what facilities are required and where they should be in order to provide for the people presently in Woodlands. It's a process that is taking some time, because everyone involved is to be given an opportunity for input. It may well end up being the type of development that you talk about, depending upon the input we get from the interested parties. But we are in that process right now to look very carefully at it.

You read out, member opposite, some problems that individuals have had in being placed out in the community. I know that they do have them. But I think the advocate will be exactly the person to deal with those specific problems. That's exactly the role the advocate will do very well: come in and say that that isn't good enough, that the service for this person is not what it should be and that there could be improvements made — and then suggest how they might be made. That will deal with many of those particular problems. The position of the ministry is that, in conjunction with the Ministry of Health, we will know what the proper care model will be before we close out the rest of the building. We will have that decided.

MS. A. HAGEN: I wonder if the minister could confirm a couple of things on the matter of the advocate. Then I'm going to ask that some information be made available to me.

Is he talking about one person, or is he talking about a role that might be filled by a number of people available in different parts of the province — so there might be an advocate, for instance, on the Island and in the lower mainland? Could he tell me how many people this advocate will be serving in meeting the mandate?

[ Page 13020 ]

I will leave that particular series of questions with the minister's response, but before I sit down I'd like to also ask if the minister would please forward to me, when the estimates are over, the mandate terms of reference of the advocate, and advise me more about how that person would be contacted, where that person will be located, how he intends to let parents or other concerned caregivers know about the existence of this person, and how they will be able to make reference to him or her to express their concerns or ask questions about the quality of service.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: First of all, we'd be happy to provide you with the information on the terms for the advocate. On your other question, at this time there is one person who would be appointed as an advocate. The advocate will be someone who really does understand the needs of people with mental handicaps and their families. That person will assess the situation. They will have it within their power to come to the ministry and recommend that there be changes. They could come and say that in order for this to be done properly we would have to make such and such an adjustment, that additional people would be required in order to monitor properly. That's something that could come from the advocate. At this time there's one person set up to begin that process.

MS. A. HAGEN: How many people are there, in terms of the clientele, if you like, for whom this person has some provincial responsibility — some global responsibility?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: We have 3,500 mentally handicapped in the community, and this person would begin by serving as an advocate dealing.... Most of it is centred around the people from Woodlands, but anyone within the handicapped ruling.... It would be one individual to start with.

MS. A. HAGEN: We often are somewhat overwhelmed by the tasks we ask people to undertake, and one advocate dealing with the special needs of 3,500 people and their families sounds like a pretty huge task, even though I recognize that not all of that population would need to have attention. But in these early days, I hope that the minister is going to look at having someone in place who can do the job that she or he is being asked to do. That sounds to me like a pretty impossible task as I look at just what I've had as an MLA in my own riding, or look at people who have family members close to my riding of New Westminster. I'm sure I could refer 15 people to that person right now, just from recent inquiries I've had. I'm sure that other members have had similar inquiries, and I don't pretend that all of the concerns land on my desk or come to my attention.

I want to move to another aspect of the minister's portfolio and ask some very specific questions about the services for seniors in his ministry. Two years ago, for the first time, Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters — SAFER — was unfrozen, with rates having been fixed for a very long time. Over the last two years there have been increases in the base level of rents to which subsidies can be applied. They have come more closely in line with market rents, but this year I note that there is no increase in the budget for SAFER. I'd like to ask the minister, first of all, how many seniors are currently covered by that particular program. How many people are under 65 — because when some changes were made it was made available to people who were younger? Given the fact that the number of older people in every one of our communities is increasing and a significant number of those people live in rental housing, why are we not seeing any increase in the budget for those services this year?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: There are 10,870 people under the program. We don't have the number for under 65. The average benefit was $137.72 a month, and the total budget for last year was $17.7 million. It was 10 percent underspent last year. That's why you don't see an increase. There may be an increase in usage, but there was a surplus in that budget.

MS. A. HAGEN: Can the minister advise whether his department does any analysis in terms of the potential applicants for SAFER? One of the concerns that I have raised before this House innumerable times is that the people who need assistance from this program often don't know about it. It's not one that is broadly advertised, as the guaranteed income supplement is. There are many people who I believe are simply not aware that they might have some help with their rent that would make it more possible for them to eat. I wonder if the minister has any comments about how they track the potential for that program against the actual takeup of the SAFER program.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yes, we do track the program, and we have done the best we can. We've made a very substantial effort to make sure that people are aware of the program. The July 1990 campaign provided a supply of brochures, applications and posters to pharmacies — there were 179 sent out; health units, seniors' organizations — nearly 500 of those; senior citizens' counsellors; DERA; housing registries; and of course through the MLAs and through government agents and our field offices. In addition there was a mail-out to 1,785 seniors, including a letter from the ministry briefly outlining the program. A brochure and an application was also done at the end of July 1990 for the seniors on the B.C. Housing Management Commission waiting-list for social housing. So we have made an effort to contact people.

[4:00]

You may be interested in the caseload for SAFER. In '89 it was 7,970, in '90 it was 9,340 and in '91 it was 10,870. We expect that there will be an increase again this year.

MS. A. HAGEN: The minister noted that the budget was underspent but the clientele is increasing every year by a significant number. Is there a relationship

[ Page 13021 ]

between income and rents that produces that result? It's not adding up for me.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: No, we simply didn't have the uptake. Not enough people applied for it. But there has been a steady growth in it from year to year, and we assume that there will be growth in it this year. There is enough money, we think, to accommodate the growth we expect.

MR. BLENCOE: I want to shift the discussion a little this afternoon and talk about some housing issues, if the minister's staff can shift gears.

Perhaps the minister can give us an overview of some of the work of the B.C. Housing Management Commission for the last 12 months. What have some of the priorities of the Housing Commission been? We don't hear much from it these days. It used to be a very active organization. I'd like to see whether we can explore that a little bit this afternoon and see what it's up to: some of the recommendations it's been making, what policy it's been looking at. Perhaps the minister can give us some general overview of the B.C. Housing Management Commission.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: B.C. government housing accomplishments — through the B.C. Housing Management Commission, social housing — add about 1,800 new units of social housing every year to B.C.'s existing stock of social housing. Later this year we will achieve a significant milestone: a total of 10,000 new units of social housing committed since our joint approach began in 1986. The total number of units committed to date is 9,241. They have managed the rental supply program, which was initiated as part of a 1989 provincial budget. This $80 million initiative will boost the supply of rental housing in low-vacancy areas throughout the province. As of June 1991 the B.C. Housing Management Commission has approved a total of 6,729 new units of rental housing under the rental supply program. Of these, 1,337 are complete and occupied, 1,526 are currently under construction and 3,866 are waiting municipal or mortgage approval. I should mention to you that they cannot get mortgage approval until they get municipal approval, so the municipal approval has to be the first one.

By purchasing financial services in bulk, the B.C. Housing Management Commission has saved Canadian taxpayers about $31.3 million since this approach was developed in 1987.

We have been involved in a number of different programs. I don't know whether the member wants me to go through each one, but we have been involved in such small projects as the one in DERA, Victoria Cool Aid, the renter's tax deduction, homeowner grants and a lot of things that the ministry is involved in through the B.C. Housing Management Commission. I think the member knows that. He obviously has some specific questions that he wants to ask about each one of these.

MR. BLENCOE: I do have some questions about the B.C. Housing Management Commission. The minister rattled off a bunch of numbers and statistics. I may or may not get into some of the numbers and what I believe to be some of the inaccuracies of that.

At the outset of my section of these estimates, I want to talk about: the B.C. Housing Management Commission in terms of developing policy; long-range planning; housing initiatives in terms of where we're going in the future, both short-term and long-term; some reports to cabinet on what can be done in housing — not just firefighting: "We've got a problem in housing; the opposition is giving us a rough time on housing, so we'd better get something in the field." Where's the long-term strategy? What long-range planning is B.C. Housing involved in? What strategy is being developed?

We know that the housing in this province, like everywhere else, goes up and down. We've suddenly either got a supply problem or a housing crisis. The government runs around at the last minute trying to resolve those problems. Every time we say we could have anticipated this if we'd had a little bit on the ground in terms of doing some long-range thought, looking into the future and preparing policy for housing programs, but we don't do that. I'm wondering where the policy is on B.C. Housing? Does it have a policy? Is it advising the government on long-term housing needs in the province? I see very little evidence of that. Does the government of British Columbia have a housing policy, or is it just a matter of throwing what it can at it, citing a few units that are basically federally driven, mostly paid for by the federal government? Or is it just smoke and mirrors, which we've come to expect over the last five or ten years? Is there a housing policy for British Columbia?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I certainly welcome the opportunity to respond to those questions; there were more than one. Yes, we do have a housing policy, and priorities. The B.C. Housing Management Commission is there to work with government in meeting the housing needs of British Columbians. The policies vary from time to time, because circumstances vary, and the policy must address the current situation.

The B.C. rental supply program was brought in because there was a very serious shortage of rental accommodation within the province. More units were required in the market at that time, and they were not being built. They were needed in order to meet the rental needs for housing in this province; we had vacancy rates of close to zero in many areas. Action was needed. So the rental supply program was introduced for the specific purpose of developing rental accommodation within areas with low vacancy rates.

Since that time, things have changed somewhat. There is still a very low vacancy rate in most areas in the province, although it has significantly improved over a year or two ago. Nevertheless, people do have problems with housing, and the concern that I have as minister, and shared by this ministry, is that we have a number of low-wage-earners who may not be on government assistance in any way but nevertheless struggle to meet the cost of providing shelter for their families.

[ Page 13022 ]

Through the B.C. Housing Management Commission we are looking at how we might address that problem in the best way possible. It is under very careful review by the commission. We have had a lot of meetings concerning it, and I am hopeful that we will soon arrive at a decided policy to address the problem, because it is a serious one, and there are people who certainly need the help. There are different ways of approaching that need, but we want to be sure that when we introduce a program, we do it in the best, most cost-effective way, with the least amount of government intrusion into the lives of individuals.

The second area of serious concern for me and for the ministry is that, particularly on this side of the House, we have always valued the opportunity for British Columbians to own their own home. We believe it to be one of the paramount rights of people within this society. It is difficult to get into the market today, particularly for young people wanting to buy their first home. The B.C. Housing Management Commission is working with government on that, and we will be bringing forward a policy in the near future to assist people in obtaining and owning their first home. It is something that I think would be very well accepted by society, because it has been the hallmark of this government and this party since its inception that we would encourage people to own their own homes and have an interest in society through home-ownership. It's a great thing for all British Columbians and something we want to encourage.

Those two areas are being worked on: first, to make it possible for low-income wage-earners to be able to rent suitable accommodation in the areas where their employment exists — it's easy to say people should move, but people have to live where their jobs are; and secondly, to find ways of assisting and encouraging people to become homeowners.

MR. BLENCOE: Would the minister confirm that in terms of planning and policy, housing development and advising the government on a broad look at housing policy in British Columbia, there is only one person doing that in this province?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I don't know who the one person is. I would like to commend him, because he's doing a lot of work. I talk to a number of people about it, and they offer valuable input. I'm told by the staff beside me that B.C. Housing Management have their full staff and are involved in the process.

MR. BLENCOE: If the minister is saying that there's a policy and planning unit, could he tell me how many people are involved in it?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: We have five people in B.C. Housing Management involved in research and the development of programs, and one in the Ministry of Social Services and Housing.

MR. BLENCOE: Five people in policy planning and community relations — that whole division? Is that what you're referring to, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Five people are in research.

MR. BLENCOE: Could the minister tell me what kinds of policies they're working on these days for the people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, they're looking at a number of things. They're looking at options to choose from in order to develop a program that would meet the needs of people requiring rental accommodations or to assist people in becoming homeowners. There are a great many ways that that might be done. We think it's important that it be done correctly

[4:15]

In '89 we committed $80 million — a very substantial amount of money — to the rental supply program. That money has been put into that program. We recognize that the circumstances are somewhat different from what they were then, and the next program will undoubtedly require significant funding as well. But it has to be funding in the direction that's going to provide the maximum benefit to the people concerned. That is being carefully researched and evaluated.

MR. BLENCOE: I would basically contend that the B.C. Housing Management Commission does very little in terms of long-range planning for the housing needs of the people of this province. It has been an area of neglect by this government for many years. Quite frankly, it has been shown in terms of crisis after crisis in housing in this province. We go from one crisis to another. We try to develop programs overnight that get us into all sorts of problems, and the government has to say they're doing all sorts of wonderful things. When you analyze it, there's very little there. The units haven't been built or things are not developing. The minister knows what I refer to. Let me ask a question of the minister. When was the last time Peter Thomas chaired a meeting of the B.C. Housing Management Commission?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I don't know when the last time was that Peter Thomas chaired a meeting of the B.C. Housing Management Commission; I couldn't tell you. I want to tell you this: if the suggestion here is that housing is not doing well in British Columbia, that is simply not the case. British Columbia has led all of Canada in producing housing. We have produced more homes for more people over the last few years than any other province in Canada. Even today, the housing construction market is booming. That is not to say that there are not people who have special needs we have to deal with. Don't discount the thousands and thousands of units that have been built, provided and sold over the last three or four years, because this province has been the leader in homebuilding.

One of the reasons we have had this tremendous demand is that people are coming to this province and wanting to live here. Of course, with that comes some problems in trying to meet all of the housing needs in such a short period of time. Many of the communities,

[ Page 13023 ]

particularly in the lower mainland, have broken all-time records in construction of new housing.

MR. BLENCOE: I know the minister is part of the government and has to defend what he can, which is basically indefensible. The minister knows, for instance — and I will go back to this; let's be honest about this, Mr. Minister — that the government announced in its budget 6,500 units either under construction or built. Mr. Chairman, that was outright distortion. I won't say the word I want to use, because you might rule me out of order, Mr. Chairman. We found, through phoning the minister's staff, that the claim of 6,500 units was 4,000 short. They were nowhere to be seen. It was really one of the worst kinds of deceptions you could expect from this government. People are in desperate need for housing.

In the last two or three years the government announced housing action programs, all sorts of units to be built and wonderful things. I will do some analysis of the figures in a minute — what actually is spent on housing in this province. We are one of the worst in this country, if not the worst. As for what was announced in the budget, when we take a look, 4,000 were nowhere to be seen. Mr. Minister, don't try to pull the wool over people's eyes. The units aren't there, and the rental supply program is not there.

I want to get back to Mr. Peter Thomas. The minister doesn't know when he last chaired a meeting. The former Minister of Housing, now the Minister of Forests, announced with great embellishment that this man was going to resolve the housing problems: Mr. Peter Thomas, the former head of Century 21, who is a great guy in development and all those wondrous things he does and could do for the people of the province of British Columbia. He was going to develop housing policy, get this province turned around and put before this Legislature all sorts of ideas for housing: long-range and short-range strategies, home-ownership, rental and how we can help tenants. I haven't seen it — haven't seen a thing. What happened to Mr. Peter Thomas? I want to ask the minister: do we have a chairman of the B.C. Housing Management Commission today? Do we have anybody at the helm? I know there's nobody at the helm of this government, but do we have anyone at the head of B.C. Housing Management? I haven't heard a whimper from Mr. Thomas in over a year, or two years — I don't know when he was appointed; it was a long time ago. I haven't heard a statement, a plan, a program or a strategy to help people in British Columbia with housing. So I ask: where is Mr. Thomas, the saviour for your government in housing? When was the last time he chaired a meeting? When was the last time he developed a program for the province?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The rental supply program is being distorted here. That is true, but it is not being distorted on this side of the House; it's being distorted on the other side of the House. It's the member opposite who is trying to distort the program. I told you before what the numbers were. The province has committed the full $80 million to the program. Let's get the number right now: 6,729 new units. The province has made the commitment. Those that are remaining could be built tomorrow as far as the province is concerned. The money is there.

There are 1,337 occupied; there are 1,526 under construction. The close to 4,000 that you talk about, Mr. Member, are the 3,866 already funded and agreed to be funded by this ministry. The money is there from the province; there is nothing to stop them from going ahead, except that they require approval at the local community level.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's responsible for that?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The member asks who's responsible for that. That is a very good question, and that's why we should have a separate discussion to examine who's responsible. It is not the government which is responsible for that. I've seen some of these developments, and they are the best that you could find anywhere. They are a credit to any community, and yet the people that propose to build them have had difficulty in community after community in getting the necessary approvals.

That's something I really don't understand, given the quality of the projects. As far as the province is concerned, the commitment is made and the money is there. The uptake on it now is much better than it was before. There are people now who are very interested in building them since the market declined somewhat on other types of housing.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, well — more bafflegab and smoke and mirrors. I asked a question of the minister. Would you send me a memo in an hour and give me the addresses of those 4,000 units that you say exist? Tell me where they've been built and where they're under construction. Send me the list so the people of British Columbia can see you weren't distorting the figures.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, Jack, you're awake.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'm sure, Mr. Member, we'll have no problem in supplying you with where they are proposed to be built.

MR. BLENCOE: You can't do it.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yes, we can. We can send you the list. And then you can take those....

Interjection.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Well, you can take it to your municipal councils. You can take it to your mayors — the socialist mayors. And you can ask them: "Can't you let this go ahead, because the people of this province need some housing?"

[ Page 13024 ]

MR. BLENCOE: I rest my case: "proposed to be built." They're not there. You've had over two years, and what have you got built? Maybe 1,300 units built or under construction.

Back to the question again, Mr. Chairman. He answered it; they're proposed. Anyone could propose anything. So the people of the province better know that of the 6,500 units that were announced in the budget, 4,000 today are still proposed. They're not built; they're not under construction. This government did not tell the truth on what it was doing with housing allocations. It's quite evident. Once again we've had all these action programs. When we take a look at the figures, they don't stand up. There's nothing there; it's all smoke and mirrors.

Let me get back to Mr. Peter Thomas. A question to the minister. When was the last time Peter Thomas was actually seen in British Columbia? This is the man who's the head of your housing arm, who's developing your housing policy and who's leading government in the housing programs in the province. When was the last time Peter Thomas was seen in British Columbia, Mr. Minister? Where was he? He's the head of your whole division on housing — as small as it might be. Tell us about Mr. Peter Thomas and the wonderful things he's doing.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I don't know where Mr. Thomas is today, but I suppose I could go and find out. Last Friday — today is Monday; we go back Saturday, Sunday; take those two off — he was with the staff people at the B.C. Housing Management Commission. That was last Friday. Do you want to know where he was on the weekend, too, because I'd have to check. I just don't know.

The 3, 800 units that the member talks about in the rental supply program.... He distorts it when he says they are proposed. They are more than proposed; they are financially committed to by government.

MR. BLENCOE: Will the minister send over to this side of the House by memo all the latest housing policies and programs that Mr. Thomas has put forward? Remember that the Minister of Forests announced, when he was the Minister of Housing, that Mr. Thomas would lead British Columbia and bring forward all these housing initiatives, long- and short-term planning and a housing strategy for the province. Would the minister send those over, so we can see what Mr. Thomas and the housing commission have been doing for the last two years? Where are the strategies to lead us out of the nineties to the year 2000? Perhaps the minister could send those to us.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I've just been standing here for the last hour talking about all the good things we've been doing, and he wants me to send over a list now. Haven't you heard all the things I've been saying?

Interjection.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Nothing to hide, no.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister knows who Mr. Peter Thomas is. He knows where Mr. Peter Thomas is. This is the chairman of the B.C. Housing Management Commission.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: We've been in this House too long, Mr. Chairman.

It was a great announcement that Mr. Thomas had all the ideas in the world. We know where Mr. Thomas is today. He left British Columbia and headed south. He said he couldn't do business in British Columbia. Do you know what he has done? Mr. Thomas has said that he's gone down to the U.S. because it's easier to flip properties in the U.S. He has become the king of property-flippers. This is the model for social housing. This is the man who was supposed to build affordable housing for British Columbians.

[4:30]

This is what BC Business Magazine says about Mr. Thomas: "This is down to the nitty-gritty........" This is talking about Peter Thomas. "How does Peter Thomas make his money? Well, deep down under the media act and sales spiel that flows from Thomas like liquid silk, he has fine-tuned the old-hat real estate flip to a new art."

Now, Mr. Chairman, this is your leader of housing in the province. This is the guy who is supposed to do all your wonderful programs to build affordable housing. But BC Business Magazine says: "...the old-hat real estate flip to a new art. 'Anyone can flip in a hot market, ' Thomas says, 'when prices are soaring. But can you flip in a cold market? That's the trick, and that's what Samoth is up to'" — Thomas's company. This is the guy who's supposed to lead us to build affordable housing in the province. He is now the kingpin in flipping properties south of the line. He has abandoned British Columbia. He can't flip properties as well here anymore. People are watching. Is this the role model that the government wants to show the people of the province? Is this the man who was going to develop all the housing programs for us? But now he has "fine-tuned the old-hat real estate flip to a new art."

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister can confirm that Mr. Peter Thomas has been flipping properties south of the line in the last year. And do you know what he's doing? He's sending messages back to British Columbians saying: "This is how you do it. This is the kind of housing programs you want in the province of British Columbia. Flip a few properties. We can make a little money. To heck with the people. We will just send out smoke and mirrors. We will say we're building 6,500 units, but we're 4,000 short. We will create a whole advertising atmosphere around it — television and news ads — telling them we're actually doing it."

What's the leader of housing doing? He's down in the south flipping properties. He says it's the way to go. Peter Thomas is back. This time around he has added a new sparkle to the old magic.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's back for business.

[ Page 13025 ]

MR. BLENCOE: That's right.

I want to ask the minister how long we are going to have this man as the chairman of B.C. Housing. How long are we going to stand for that, Mr. Chairman? How long can we accept that as the role model for developing affordable housing? The man who's supposed to develop programs for people — what is he doing? He's developing to a new fine art how to jack up the prices of housing, in terms of flipping and speculation. Is that the role model the minister wants? I want to ask: when are you going to fire Peter Thomas?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The member opposite asks questions about who will head the B.C. Housing Management Commission or the strategy of housing into the future. I guess we will have to wait and see. But one of the things I have noticed that the people opposite are very good at — and sadly they delight in.... I think that's unfortunate, because the people watching and listening throughout the province certainly must get a bit concerned about that.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

First of all, there's an attempt to distort the housing program as it truly is. But then there's an even more serious thing: attacking individuals who are not here to speak for themselves. It's a game that the member obviously enjoys. If you want to participate in it, then be my guest. But don't expect that I will participate with you, because I just don't believe in that sort of thing at all. I have no respect for it; I don't think many British Columbians respect it. The person you're talking about is not here to answer the question for himself. It's easy to criticize and condemn within the protective confines of this room. But is it fair? Is it right? I don't think so.

MR. BLENCOE: That's not the issue. Don't try that old line. You're the minister responsible; you're the minister in charge. You're the one who supposedly does the appointing and the monitoring. You're the one to make sure that someone this government appoints is doing the job on behalf of all British Columbians.

All I'm suggesting is that I think the judgment of this government is questionable, because the fellow in charge of B.C. Housing, Mr. Peter Thomas, has virtually abandoned British Columbia. He has moved his operations south of the line, and he's developing the new "state of property-flipping." Is that the kind of role model you want for social housing and affordable housing for most British Columbians? Is that what we should be saying is the way to go?

Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, we know that Peter Thomas has lost interest in the B.C. Housing Management Commission. He says he has lost interest in it; he says he has lost interest in British Columbia. He can't flip properties. He can't make thousands of dollars overnight by flipping property, so he went south of the line. He has admitted it. Is that the policy of the government? Is that what you want to tell the people of the province — that that's the leader of your housing policy group; that that's the role? I would hope not, Mr. Minister. It's your judgment.

We're waiting, Mr. Chairman. We've been waiting for two years. I haven't brought this up before. I gave him the benefit of the doubt. But now the time has come, because we've had virtually nothing from the B.C. Housing Management Commission. I see no long-range plans. I see none of the great things Mr. Thomas talked about. So I wonder: is this the kind of leader you want for housing? Is this the kind of message you want to give to the people of British Columbia?

I wonder if you've had any meetings with the chairman to see what's going to come forth in the future in terms of how we can deal with making homes affordable for British Columbians again, with home-ownership, with providing affordable rental units, and how we can build up the co-op program. I don't see Mr. Thomas talking about those things. It's your judgment we're questioning. Is the minister considering a review of the leadership of the B.C. Housing Management Commission?

Mr. Chairman, I think this speaks for itself. We've had very little in terms of planning and policy from the B.C. Housing Management Commission.

I want to talk a bit about the figures the minister mentioned a few moments ago. The latest B.C. News — I think the minister was citing these figures — claims that the government is spending $76.3 million on social housing programs. When we called the B.C. Housing Management Commission to confirm those figures, they couldn't. They couldn't confirm the claims in B.C. News and the claims in the budget.

The Ministry of Finance said that the figure was made up of two items: housing programs, $48.7 million; and social housing financing transactions, $27.6 million. We managed to break it down. What the government isn't telling the people in B.C. News or anywhere else — again, more smoke and mirrors — is that nearly half of what you're supposedly spending on housing is totally recoverable. Nearly $30 million is going to be recovered, therefore it's not spending on housing — a pay-out to make a purchase, as the dictionary defines it. Once again it's more smoke and mirrors. Nearly $30 million of the $76 million announced for great housing programs is totally recoverable; it's not spending.

When you do more analysis of the affordable social housing program, do you know what percentage of the total provincial budget is spent on affordable social housing? In his preamble the minister talks about all the things they're doing for housing and all these wonderful programs that Mr. Peter Thomas is supposedly doing. It's 0.29 percent of the provincial budget that's spent on affordable social housing. You nearly spend more on advertising the programs that you don't have.

Let's be a little honest in terms of what's actually happening with the figures. Would the minister confirm today that of the $76 million he announced for social housing programs, nearly $30 million is recoverable?

[ Page 13026 ]

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, the second member for Victoria talks about honesty. He talks to the minister about misleading and made some inferences about not telling the truth. I would suggest that the member should perhaps look in the mirror, for those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

I think that most people in this House will recollect a few years back when MLAs were talking about a capital city allowance. We had three MLAs from the greater Victoria area — the two members from Victoria and the member from Esquimalt — running to the press in a little huddle, promising their constituents that they would return the $60 a day capital city allowance and donate it to charity. Mr. Chairman, I and a lot of other people are still waiting for copies of receipts from those charitable institutions. So when this member stands up and starts talking about honesty, trustworthiness, lying, not telling the truth, etc., I would ask that that member have a very good look in the mirror.

I'm going to be sending some pictures over to the minister for his perusal on a subject that I will be raising later in his estimates. I want him to have the pictures in front of him as I'm speaking, because it's very important.

First of all, I would like to talk about the social housing projects that have just been announced. I look at all of the projects on this communiqué dated June 21, and see projects throughout the province of British Columbia, but very few outside the lower mainland. As a matter of fact, of all the projects approved — and I think there are 33 of them — I believe it's safe to say that there are only three outside of what I would describe as the lower mainland, those being at Kamloops, Kelowna and Vernon.

I would ask the minister to perhaps look at the most recent analysis of vacancy-occupancy rates throughout the province, and I think he will agree, if he has examined the statistics which have just been released, that there are only two areas in the entire province that currently have a zero vacancy rate. Just two communities have zero, and neither of those are on this list. One of those communities is Salmon Arm, and the other is Powell River. As a matter of fact, as I look at the vacancy rates in Vancouver and Victoria, they seem to be on the upswing right now. There are significantly more apartments available today at reasonable rates than there have been before. I'm very disappointed, in looking at these approval rates, that Salmon Arm.... I'm sure the member from Powell River is perhaps as disappointed as I, if he had an application in for approval. We in Salmon Arm did, and it was not approved. So I'm somewhat disappointed in that.

[4:45]

The other thing I want to say to the minister is that I watch these news release communiqués as they come out. I could go through a number of them here, but I don't intend to go through them all. I look at one, as an example, dated April 24, 1991. It's a housing project in the city of Vancouver — the Red Door Housing Society This project is made up of 22 two-bedroom units and 21 three-bedroom units. The monthly subsidy of taxpayers' money — two-thirds federal, one-third provincial — is identified as being $1,094 per month per unit. I find it a little bit difficult to understand how we can be paying this kind of money. This doesn't include the rent that the residents are paying. This is a monthly subsidy granted by the federal and provincial governments combined, and the aggregate amount on the Red Door Housing Society is $1,094.96 a month per unit in perpetuity.

I go on and can find another one here. This was released April 23 and also is a project in the city of Vancouver. It is going to require a monthly subsidy of $938.89. I look at another one here, in Port Coquitlam, the release dated April 24. The monthly subsidy on that, over and above the rent, is $912.65. We have another one in West Vancouver, dated April 30. The subsidy on this one is $863 a month, and 56 of the 82 units are one-bedroom. We the taxpayers are subsidizing these units at $863 a month. I'm assuming, because the press release says an annual subsidy, that it is in perpetuity. I should also add that the average cost per unit is $102,508. Mr. Chairman, I don't how that sits with you, the minister or other members of this House, but it seems a little bit steep to me from a taxpayer point of view, and further requiring a subsidy of $863 a month.

We have one here for the Columbia Centennial Housing Society. This one is a little lower at $772 a month. We have one here called the Red Door Housing Society, which is $954.29 a month. Here's one in Vancouver which is $1,037.36 a month per unit. Again, I'm assuming, in perpetuity.

Some of the releases mentioned the total aggregate cost of the project but most of them don't. Most of the releases just mention the monthly subsidy. In the future it would be much more interesting to read these and do an analysis if it had the total cost of the project as part of the news release. Here's one that does have the total cost, and it does make interesting reading. It's a Squamish project, the Sea to Sky Housing Society. This has 40 units. The total cost of the 40 units is $4, 923, 929-a per-unit cost of $123,098. I'm not that familiar with the price of housing in the Vancouver area, but I certainly am in the Shuswap-Revelstoke area, and I tell you, you can buy pretty fancy homes there for $123,098. By the way, this one requires a subsidy of $1,054 a month; subsidized by the taxpayers — two-thirds federal, one-third provincial.

If there's one message I would certainly like to leave with the minister, it would be to attempt to get the housing responsibility and the housing budgets placed in provincial hands. One of the problems we have is that we jump into these programs. I don't believe the provincial government has that much authority in the actual management of the projects and the authorizing of them. I assume the federal government has more in view of the fact that they are contributing two-thirds of the subsidy to the project and the province only one-third. Based on that, the province probably has one-third of the say, and the feds have two-thirds of the say. But it certainly looks to me like we could do a much better job if we could get that money from the federal government. They could increase our provincial grants, give us that money and let the province run

[ Page 13027 ]

it, because I'm convinced that we could do a better job if we had 100 percent control.

I relate these subsidies to the minister because the last time I returned to the constituency, I had a young lady in my office — a single-family parent — and she has three little girls aged about six down to three, and all she was looking for was a financial institution to loan her the money to buy a house. Her brother was prepared to put up the down payment, and she was making enough on social assistance — along with a little bit of part-time work — to pay the $415 mortgage. That's what she was looking for.

She was looking for a financial institution — a bank or a credit union — to give her the loan for the mortgage, and it worked out to $415 a month. And do you know what? There wasn't one single bank or credit union in my community that would permit her the loan. She wasn't looking for a grant; she wasn't looking for a handout; she just wanted a mortgage. Then I look at these housing projects and the capital cost — many of them exceeding $100,000 a unit — and I look at the subsidies ranging from $725 upwards to $1,100 a month, and I must say that it really doesn't make a lot of sense to this MLA from Shuswap-Revelstoke.

The entire program needs — at the federal level — a great deal of reform. The entire program should be reformed. It should be looked at in depth, and we should think about the dollars being put in for the service we're getting back.

Mr. Chairman, I said at the beginning of my address that I had sent some pictures over to the minister. I think we have a problem in Salmon Arm, Mr. Minister, having to do with the fact that some pieces of property were acquired by the Ministry of Highways as a result of the highway expansion that took place some three years ago. I have just learned that the main piece of property, shown in the picture — a building of 3,500 square feet more or less — has now been transferred over to Crown Lands. It's my view that the disposition of that property would have been better if it had been transferred to BCBC. It has a building on it; it's not vacant land. In my view, an error was made by Highways in not transferring it to BCBC but to Crown Lands. Perhaps that's policy, and it went in that direction.

However, you are currently looking for square footage for your ministry staff in Salmon Arm, Mr. Minister. You've turned the matter over to BCBC to make a selection, and BCBC is out advertising right now to build a brand new building in Salmon Arm to house employees of your ministry. I would submit to you that that piece of property, the picture of which I've sent to you, is certainly adequate in every way, shape or form to staff your people. I would urge you to give it priority treatment, because the tendering is closed now, I believe, and there's liable to be a selection made any day. Action is needed on this immediately.

I would accept all kinds of excuses as to why this may not be acceptable property, if the place is found to be built on polluted land or soils, or if it's infested with rodents or something like that, but please don't come back and tell me that it is not a satisfactory location. Because if you look at the picture, exhibit 1— I've got it marked in the bottom right-hand corner — you will see that the building across the street, an old home, is the former location of the Social Services and Housing ministry. That's where you used to be located. If you look at exhibit 2, that picture was taken from the east corner of the building in question — the building that's just been renovated and completely redone by the Ministry of Highways. The arrow on the picture is your current location, one block away from this building. That's where your current staff are located. So I don't think it's a question of location. The building is there. There are no structures inside, no walls, so you can build the inside in any way you want. If you and I work together on this, Mr. Minister, and you get your staff working on it really quickly, I think we can save the taxpayers a lot of money — probably up into the six figures.

You'll see in picture 3 that there is a lot of parking. It's a good-looking building, the lawns are in, there is a lot of space to expand, and I would ask the minister to please give this priority attention, because it's my understanding that BCBC is on the verge of giving a contract on a different location way over in the northeast corner of town, which probably would involve....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must inform you that your time has expired.

MR. MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask the minister to please look at that situation.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: First of all, with regard to this particular building, we talked about other locations, but I think this is different from other discussions we had before concerning locations in Salmon Arm. The ministry does not know why this building has not been accepted. I don't know whether it's the size; you say it's 3,500 square feet. We will look into that again to make sure we understand exactly what is happening there.

On the issue of subsidies for the rental supply program, I share the concerns when I look at the very high numbers. But it's not a flat subsidy — that's not the model of subsidy across the life of the program. The subsidies tend to go down, in some cases very substantially. It's a complex formula that works it out. The subsidies tend to go down over time and actually become quite economical. The reason for the high cost at the outset is that these buildings are 100 percent financed, so a lot of cost goes in at the beginning, because there is no down payment as there normally is in property acquisition.

[5:00]

The other question I had from the member opposite was about the number of units acquired in different parts of the province. That was through social housing. This year the number for the interior is significantly higher than before. I had a paper here showing me the number. There were 60 units in the interior for 1990, and there are 200 units in the proposal call for 1991.

The allocation of these units is difficult to do. It is done by the B.C. Housing Management Commission.

[ Page 13028 ]

The formula they use is based on needs within given areas. Need becomes the main criterion. A very high percentage of those ended up in the Vancouver-Burnaby-Surrey area. I would wonder about a bit more of an allocation to other parts of the lower mainland and province, because there are substantial needs in all areas; but as is common, there was a request for many more units than we were able to provide under the program, and selection was made on the basis of the needs.

The amount of money we put into the B.C. Housing Management subsidies was questioned by the member opposite, who said he did not agree with the $76.3 million. But provincial money that went into it — our one-third of the financing for operations subsidies — was $43.5 million; for site acquisition the funding was $32.8 million. That's how you get the $76.3 million. Plus there was the $17.7 million for the SAFER program. So the province makes a very substantial investment in social housing.

MR. BLENCOE: Let's just do a little recap on housing. The B.C. Housing Management Commission, which we were promised two years ago by the current chairman would have policy, programs, long-range and short-term strategies — which we haven't had.... It turns out the chairman is very rarely in British Columbia these days, and most of his business is south of the line. In the last two years in the basic housing programs that we've had before us.... The last major one was the housing action program in 1988-1989 and 1989-1990. With the millions of dollars for housing programs, when we came down to it, we realized that what they were putting into the housing program were things like homeowner grants, the land tax deferment program, shelter aid — which was fine — property purchase tax relief. They were all supposedly under housing action programs. We discovered again this year that the government spends less than one half of one percent of the budget on affordable social housing.

I look at the ad that comes from B.C. News: "Spending on social housing programs has increased to $76.3 million from $21.8 million over the past five years." We get different numbers every year, but it's virtually impossible to track exactly what the government is referring to when it makes its announcements. But we can say that we have tracked the $76 million that supposedly is for social housing programs. Close to $30 million is recoverable; it's not an actual expenditure. It's not spending on housing; it's taken back. It's really difficult to believe the government when it looks at its housing programs.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: No, Mr. Chairman. The minister shakes his head. All the evidence has been there in the last two or three years that I've been taking a look at your great announcements. When you get down to it, there's nothing there — hardly anything, a very small commitment on behalf of this government.

I want to ask about the announcement of the study. The budget announced that there would be another study into housing. In 1989 they announced an action plan, but by 1991 the government said that it needed another study into housing, and they're going to take a look at home-ownership and all these various things. Can the minister tell us who is going to conduct the study, at what cost and over what time-frame?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I told the member earlier that we are dealing with the issues of home-ownership and affordable accommodations for people with low incomes. That is being reviewed on how best to approach those particular problems; it's being done by the B.C. Housing Management Commission that he has so much criticism of. But they are doing the work, and we are very close to determining exactly what program we would like to bring forward.

I'd like once again to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the member opposite can stand here as long as he wants and say black is white, but it still remains black and does not get white. He's made the same kind of speeches year after year, but the $30 million that he talks about is not recoverable. This is $43.5 million of provincial funding that goes into that part of the program, and $32.8 goes into site acquisition for a total of $76.3 million — every one of them provincial dollars — plus the $17.7 million for the SAFER program.

MR. BLENCOE: We were unable to confirm with the B.C. Management Housing Commission that the government is actually spending $76.3 million on social housing — as you announced in B.C. News. But the Ministry of Finance did tell us that the figure was made up of these two items: part of vote 53, housing programs — $48.7 million; and social housing financing transactions — that basically is jargon for recoverable moneys, not actually that you're going to get it back — $27.6 million. Now we're told that it's recoverable and that it's not spending.

This is the problem. There's been so much PR and propaganda about what the government is doing in housing. You try to sort through for what is reality. But that's what we are told. The B.C. Housing Management Commission would not confirm that $76.3 million was actually going to be spent on social housing programs. What we've determined by our analysis, going through it all to see what we can sort out, is that less than half of the provincial budget is going into social housing construction in this province.

Let me get back to this study. We know what the housing problems are in British Columbia, and we've been calling for all sorts of strategies and development. Now we're going to have a study at this late stage. I want to know what the role of the B.C. Housing Management Commission will be in that study. I want to know if any policy papers have been commissioned in the past year on the topic of affordable home ownership. I suspect that as we are developing a starter-home program and working with the private sector, the government has realized that they had better get onto the scene. Can the minister tell this House where BCMC's role is in this development and this policy? What policy papers are being commissioned? Has he anything to report on that?

[ Page 13029 ]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The role of the B.C. Housing Management Commission is really quite straightforward. The ministry decides what they consider the needs of housing to be in British Columbia, and it's the responsibility of the B.C. Housing Management Commission to come forward with the information on how those needs can be met. That's what they're doing.

It's not necessary that we should have a staff within the ministry whose sole purpose is to deal with housing. When we find out how to deal with a problem, it's not necessary for us to go outside and commission studies from someone else. That's what we have the staff for, and we expect them to provide that service.

MR. BLENCOE: I guess while people wait for some indication from this government that they have some thoughts or plans on home ownership, they will have to be put off by another study.

I want to just get some accounting for the housing program expenditures. Basically it goes back to '89 and '90, because the housing action program announced a couple of years ago had an impact not just on the year it was announced but on a couple of years. I don't know if the staff have it before them. Maybe the minister could confirm that in '88-89 the British Columbia Housing Management Commission was allocated $20.8 million and in '89-90, $23.6 million. I'm wondering if the minister would tell us what has been allocated for '90-91.

MR. SERWA: It's again a pleasure to rise and speak on an issue of significant importance, which is affordable housing for people of British Columbia.

Before I get into that, the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke raised a rather interesting question directed to the second member for Victoria. The second member for Victoria has had the chance to clear the general interest and certainly re-establish his credibility in the House, and he has failed to do so. There was a firm commitment made by that hon. member and the first member for Victoria that they would donate their capital city allowance to charity. If that member has any interest in clearing his credibility — and credibility is important in dialogue in the House — he will table a record of those charitable donations in the House,

On the standpoint of housing, I've listened to that member, and he fails to impress me with the knowledge, background or credibility on an issue of very major importance to the people of the province, and that is housing. We have a great deal of concern. We've done a very good job in the province, but there are constructive ways that we can improve on that.

What bothers me is that there are options available, and generally we have not taken advantage of those options. We have a lot of seniors and a lot of senior women living alone in housing. They could possibly be housed in basement suites, which not only would provide income for the individual living in the home but also would provide security and comfort as well The ability to act as a grandparent to a young family perhaps by living in the basement suite, sharing the expense.... I think it's a worthy initiative, because almost instantly we could make a lot of housing units available in all areas of the province, be they the densely populated urban areas or the more sparsely populated areas in the interior.

[5:15]

We should be looking at a variety of initiatives, such as perhaps a narrower frontage on lots to reduce the cost of land required for housing and to reduce the cost of frontal services. We should be looking at plans that would incorporate the basic design for a small unit that would serve either seniors or a newly married couple which would be preplanned and predesigned for electrical and plumbing so that they might build as their family increases, as they require more floor area and as they are able to afford that floor area.

There are a variety of positive options, Mr. Chairman, and it always bothers me that the members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition fail to seek out the positive and continue to enunciate the negative. They're great at destroying, but collectively they're not great builders. That bothers me. It's significant to note that last year in my constituency of Okanagan South, centred around Kelowna, we built 150 percent of the housing built in the entire province of Saskatchewan and 75 percent of the housing built in the entire province of Manitoba. The activity taking place in the housing industry in this province leads me to believe that, with about 11 percent of the population of Canada, last year we probably built 25 percent or more of the housing built in the entire Dominion of Canada. That's certainly significant.

The housing being built in Kelowna has been of all sorts. I am very proud of the type of housing built for seniors — it's affordable — and for the handicapped. It's an integrated situation, where you're not isolated with a group of other individuals but are integrated into housing, so that there are young families, older families, couples and handicapped and physically challenged individuals all living in the same complex. It's sensible, sensitive and balanced; it's an example of the real community.

We have continued to do that, Mr. Chairman, with the units that have been built for families. One; two and three-bedroom homes have been built for families in my constituency of Okanagan South. But there are real challenges, and there are opportunities that we have to focus on: modular homes, mobile homes.... We have to facilitate the provision of zoning for the type of development that will provide quality housing for a number of people who can invest in a mobile home, or perhaps in a modular home, and who would like to have title to their property. Those are things — all sorts of initiatives — that the government, through the Social Services and Housing ministry, has taken to communities.

But fundamentally, what is hampering the volume of housing that we require here is the unwillingness of a number of municipalities to rezone sites for that type of housing, be it affordable rental housing or affordable housing to purchase. That seems to be the most significant handicap, and the provincial government can only do so much. The members of Her Majesty's

[ Page 13030 ]

Loyal Opposition could do a great deal to assist if they would do something positive and convince their colleagues in the various levels of municipal government to be more sensitive to this real need and to facilitate the construction and the development of subdivisions for affordable housing — if they are genuinely interested in solving the problem.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The member who spoke last on the housing issue must forgive the members opposite. They are not very progressive when it comes to housing issues. I think they recognize the political merits of talking about housing, but I'm not sure that philosophically they believe in private home-ownership. They talk about it, but they show very little support for it.

You're right that there is a great deal of opportunity to enhance the housing market by innovative ways of developing additional housing. The secondary suite, which I think you are referring to, is one good example of that, where people can have a suite downstairs in their home and rent it out. It's an ideal arrangement. But communities have been a little reluctant to accept that. Some communities have said they're willing to try it; others have said no. But the signs are encouraging.

We have a project that is going ahead in Vancouver now, with full cooperation from the city of Vancouver, to develop a housing project just like that. The city is providing the land; we are providing the capital to put up the building. It will be built in such a way that there will be a suite downstairs. For instance, a young couple could acquire this house and rent out the suite downstairs. It would help them with their mortgage for a period of time. When they have a family and require that additional room, it can be incorporated into their house as living space for themselves.

That's the kind of innovative approach we need to have in housing. I'm very pleased that the city of Vancouver is cooperating with the province in making a demonstration project like that.

There are other innovative things about that development that will be interesting to the housing community. The intention is that it will be built and put on public display for about six months' time, and then it will be sold to a homeowner. The city of Vancouver will be compensated for the land, and the province will have its capital returned. It would end up costing no one anything, but it will be a good example of what can be done.

The member asked for the amount of money provided by B.C. Housing Management in 1991. He listed off, I think, the '89-90 and '88-89. In 1991 B.C. Housing Management Commission operating subsidies were $32.6 million; in '91-92 that's raised to $43.5 million. Social housing site acquisition in 1990-91 was $24.8 million; in 1991-92 that is raised to $32.8 million. The shelter for elderly renters was $17.7 million in both cases. The explanation for that is that it was underutilized in 1990-91.

MR. MILLER: It's a pity that the member for Okanagan has left the House, because he started a topic I wanted to canvass with the minister — that is, some innovative ways we can look at housing and perhaps reduce the cost. I should say — and not in a defensive way — that one of the legacies that I'm proud of when my party was the government is that for the first time we started to look at a number of these areas. I happened to be involved in a number of projects in my own constituency, and I was particularly pleased with the innovative approach that was taken. There was no single model that was adopted in terms of trying to provide housing. We did a number of things, such as straight construction to meet what at that time was a pretty horrific demand. In fact, people were sleeping in their cars in that community because of recent developments, so we had to move quickly The government did move quickly.

At the same time, we did things like mobile-home parks. We did some experiments in terms of zero lot lines and some innovation in design. We tried a project that unfortunately failed. In order to keep the initial capital outlay down.... The biggest obstacle that first-time homebuyers face is the first down payment, particularly now in the urban areas. In fact, we've undergone a transformation in this province from years ago where housing expenses in the rural areas in some parts of B.C. were much higher than they were in the urban areas. That's now changed, particularly because the cost of housing has been driven sky-high for various reasons.

[Mr. Serwa in the chair.]

So we tried what I thought was not a bad program, which was a lease where the family could get in for a pretty modest down payment — a percentage of the value of the land capitalized over a year. We coupled that with an offer to actually send an individual into the community, and if a number of people wanted to take advantage of that lease option, this individual would train them in construction over the winter.

It went back to that old idea. When I was young and first went north, it was quite common for the people I worked with in the pulp mill to build their own homes, and it still is. The crew that you worked with would come out on their days off and help you build your house, and vice versa. So there was the old camaraderie that cut down costs, and it worked reasonably well, even though we have quite a high land development cost. The topography in Prince Rupert and parts of my riding is such that land development costs are extremely high.

I was the chairman of the municipal housing corporation that was set up to develop 62 units of apartments and townhouses. It was a CMHC project originally started as a non-profit rental and subsequently converted to a cooperative. But the biggest single obstacle we faced was the fact that the CMHC rules separate land costs from project costs, and we had some trouble, given the kind of guidelines they have, in building what I thought to be adequately sized units.

I'm prepared to make a claim.... Clearly the minister doesn't know my community, but that has turned out to be really the best.... It's the last significant

[ Page 13031 ]

housing project, and that's significant in itself in that there's no incentive out there to build rental units. But in terms of its quality, it was clearly the best housing complex in my community. It was designed by an architect, and we tried to get everybody located so they got the sun in the morning and at night. It's well landscaped and well maintained as a co-op by the residents. I think it will be a credit to the community for many years.

I am interested at this point — and I have been for a number of years — in the concept of smaller housing. In fact, I sent an article that was in Maclean's magazine in July of last year, the title of which was "Redefining a Dream." I can say that I am not impressed in the least with the particular model used in this article. It's a rather square-looking box with a funny-looking brand on the front. It's called a Grow Home — basically a no-frills home.

Subsequent to that I noted that the Victoria city council — and again I didn't put the date on this news clipping — had planned and probably have completed a project on small-lot housing. I believe they built two units and were able to put them on the market for slightly more than $100,000 — around $110,000 or $120,000. The goal of that program was to show that houses on small-lot subdivisions, regulated under design guidelines and zoning amendments, can add to the affordable housing stock.

[5:30]

More recently, the minister may have noticed in Friday's Sun an article in the Homes section, on page E13, where a magazine called Progressive Architecture had just completed a contest for affordable housing initiatives, and had awarded a prize to a Boston architectural firm — Abacus Architects — for what I consider to be a much more aesthetically pleasing design of a house that is only 14 feet wide but has verandas on the main and upper floors and measures 14 feet by 60 feet. It is intended to be built with modular pieces, and it can be constructed on the lot in a very short time. Although they undertook this as a project, they basically had the land donated. The selling price of the unit was $50,000 to $60,000, which is remarkable by today's standards, even in my community, where an average new house would exceed $100,000. It would probably be in the $110,000 to $120,000 range.

It's significant to note that you can't really move into those things. I assume municipalities have some resistance in terms of the zoning required; although it might be appropriate in some of the older communities that were laid out on the grid. Prince Rupert particularly was laid out by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway with 25-foot lots that in terms of in-filling would have some attraction. You can build quite an attractive house on a 25-foot frontage lot.

But the way zoning bylaws are constructed, there's actually an encouragement and almost a mindset that you want to build to the maximum square footage a lot will allow. There's also an economic incentive in that having paid out so much for the lot, you would be foolish if you did less than fully occupy that lot and maximize your investment and possible return.

It's one thing talking about innovation, but what specific things has your ministry undertaken? Do you accept the concept I'm discussing as one worth pursuing? Does it have some promise in terms of affordability? Specifically what issues have you undertaken apart from the one you spoke about to try to foster a feeling in municipalities that they might want to look at that and change on a project basis? There's some opportunities here, and I'd be pleased to hear the minister respond.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: We have been working on that very issue. You will appreciate that the items you talk about have very much to do with municipalities and their right to accept or not that type of development. I can appreciate home-owners within the community having concerns about what's developed next to them, how it will turn out and what it will do to their property values, etc. It's understandable that there will be concerns, and people will want to scrutinize it very carefully. We have to be responsible for demonstrating to people that this is a viable alternative; it need not detract from the community; and it will meet the needs of housing for today.

One of the interesting things when it comes to housing, and I've thought of it through something the member said, is that we continue to build large three- or four-bedroom houses. The average house today is over 2,000 square feet. At the same time a very big percentage of our population is made up now of families of one or two people. There are a lot of single parent families. They don't require anything like that for accommodation. They probably can't afford it to begin with, and they don't really need or want it.

There are a lot of things that tend to encourage maximum use of the lot, as you mentioned. First of all, in municipalities the development cost charges are based on per-parcel charge in nearly every case that I know of. I wonder if it wouldn't be logical to have the development cost charges based on the square footage of the building. That would make equitable the small house against the larger one. When you have it on a per-parcel basis, the developer tends to build the maximum allowable on that parcel.

A lot of different things can be done. B.C. Housing Management has been working hard with the municipalities and the public to get them to accept their share of responsibility for making housing available. We don't serve people who need housing when we just talk about it. They want the housing. They want it to happen. We've tried to impress upon the other areas of authority, such as the municipalities.... We respect the authority and rights of a municipality and the local community to make the decisions that affect them directly. We try, through B.C. Housing Management particularly — and I have met with mayors myself on this — to encourage them to accept their responsibility to provide housing to meet the needs of the people of this province. B.C. Housing Management's efforts to encourage municipal cooperation and involvement in social housing have met with some success in locations such as Vancouver, Surrey, Kelowna, Coquitlam, Saanich, Victoria, Langley and Richmond. There are

[ Page 13032 ]

demonstrations of successes where communities are cooperating with the province to make housing happen. This has had a positive result in terms of reduced project costs and local neighbourhood support for social housing.

Very often what's really needed is to be able to explain clearly to people what is going to happen, what it will be like. Most people, if it will not have an adverse effect on their community, are happy to accept it, and we will get the cooperation. But it isn't easy to come in.... I remember when 7, 200 square feet was the standard lot almost everywhere in the lower mainland. Then it became 6,000 and 5,000, and each one of these drops in size was met with a certain amount of resistance. Now we're talking of some very small units, and of course people are apprehensive. But we are making progress, and B.C. Housing Management is working continuously with municipalities to try to encourage it, because the demand for that type of housing exists.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. MILLER: There's no question that you can reduce costs. Just to illustrate, we in Prince Rupert.... I don't think it's that typical, but municipally we develop all of the residential lots. We don't say that those with private land can't do it, but there's very little private land available. I think Prince George was the other municipality that really took that approach. It had some very positive benefits in that — I hope I don't get a barrage over there — it actually took the speculators out of the land development business.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: I see I've caught the interest of the minister from Prince George. He wants to tell me about Prince George.

In theory at least, it took the speculative part of the land price out, in that the lots were sold essentially to cover the cost of the development. There was no private company in the middle trying to ensure their profit, or trying to take what the market might offer. I think the reason it was developed was simply that the land costs are so high, it's a tough area to build, and most of the land is owned by the Crown or the city.

It's a very good program, but in developing one of the projects, in not that attractive an area of the city, we did the typical 50-by-100-foot lot and found that the price was rather high considering the area. In looking at how we could deal with this, we decided to reduce each lot by ten feet. So we in fact added, I think, a couple of more lots that were 40 by 100 versus 50 by 100. We lowered the cost considerably by spreading it over a greater number of lots. The housing that is built there is quite attractive. It's equal to anything built on a 50 by 100. That's one little example of how you can, through some kind of innovation, do that. But I don't think most municipalities are in a position to materially affect those kinds of things. I guess you could argue that my home community is, because we developed the land. If we so chose, we could develop smaller lots. I suspect that residential land is typically developed by private parties. Their interest, of course, is to try to get the maximum they can for those lots and to meet the perceived consumer demand.

So unless there are some projects.... I'm thinking particularly of the smaller communities. Housing is also a problem there, not just in Vancouver and other urban areas. There is no incentive to change. Meetings and all the rest of it may be fine. But has the ministry considered apart from the ones you mentioned, residences with suites to offset the cost? Have you really gone in in a fairly major way and looked at this whole area of smaller housing and the market that might exist for it?

I have the perfect example. My children have all flown the nest, as they say. They call us empty-nesters now. My spouse and I find ourselves in a rather large house and would actually prefer to live in a smaller one, with a smaller yard and all the consequent maintenance that goes with it. But you can't find it; it's not there. So what are you doing to specifically encourage this kind of thing? First of all, do you think it has some merit? Can you substantially reduce housing costs through these kinds of proposals? Have you considered any kind of demonstration projects, both in urban and rural areas, to kind of promote the idea? It's always nice to see it on the ground to give people an idea of just how attractive this stuff can be.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Certainly we have done some work on this particular area. I agree that it can be done very attractively The municipalities have the flexibility to do this now. There's nothing that stops them except their own decision not to, and we cannot really go in and dictate to them that they must create smaller lots. I suppose we could do that, but that would certainly be interfering with local autonomy. I'm not sure that that's what we want to do. Far better, I think, that everybody be in agreement that this is the right way to go and be happy with what is proposed. I think that this has a lot of merit. I think that a small yard, a small lot doesn't really provide some of the amenities that it's nice to have in family housing. It perhaps is less necessary to have very much additional land in each particular lot than to have some central recreation area where small children can go to play and have enough space to be able to do that properly.

But municipalities are free to use that type of innovation. They do it in a lot of areas. There are some very attractive developments that take place, and there's a lot of ingenuity. There are very good planners who work together with the private sector and come to an agreement on a development. I think there are lots of good projects that happen.

But I agree with you that we need to somehow be able to persuade the builders and the communities that times have changed considerably and that we need the smaller house, the smaller unit. There is a growing market for that. Not only is it necessary for the cost implications, but also to really meet the true needs of the people that want to buy the house. There's a demand.

[5:45]

[ Page 13033 ]

It's the same thing with rental units, if I may digress for a moment. Your colleague from Victoria talked to me often about that when I had the other responsibility for rents. We talked about rental accommodations, and people came to me and talked about what was required for rental accommodation. Everybody had the same answer: it was a three- or four-bedroom house and a family with mother, dad and two, three or four children. Of course, they had to have three or four bedrooms or they couldn't get by. That's what family housing was, but the reality is that family housing for a lot of British Columbians is a single bedroom, or no more than two, because a lot of families in this province are single-parent families with one and sometimes two children. They don't need three or four bedrooms; in most cases they can't afford that, and that's not what they're after. They need smaller units. We need to recognize that. But there is progress being made, and hopefully, there will be more.

MR. MILLER: Is there an extension service that your ministry offers on this topic? In other words, if a municipality had some interest, could they come to you and you could pretty well give them all the information that's current with regard to this topic — primarily design, but that kind of thing?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yes, there is. As a matter of fact, we have consultation with communities ongoing on that very issue.

MR. MILLER: Does the ministry still maintain the program whereby the upfront capital cost financing for municipal land development is basically offered by the province and recaptured by the sale of the lots?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'm sorry, I can't answer that because it's under Municipal Affairs and not under this ministry.

MR. MILLER: Okay, I hadn't realized that in terms of the overlapping jurisdictions. It seems to me an integral part of housing. Maybe you should try to grab it back — if you ever had it, I don't know.

That program was quite a useful one for keeping land prices down. In some areas land prices are very significant, either because of high development costs or because demand has created prices that are not affordable.

I have some other questions, but they relate to other facets of your ministry, and I'll get to them on Friday afternoon some time.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to just raise a couple of issues in the short time that we still have available. I'm like most of the other members of the Legislature: we get cases coming into our constituency offices, and some we handle in a routine way and others are quite disturbing. I find that the toughest issues I have in my office relate to housing. There isn't a day that goes by that we don't get a call in the constituency office or here at the Legislature from someone desperately looking for housing. The demand for affordable housing, particularly from families of modest means or low incomes, is absolutely incredible.

Some situations you find yourself involved in are disturbing. For example, recently I had a single parent come to me who was living in a trailer with no running water and no toilet facilities whatsoever, paying $500 a month and desperately looking for housing to accommodate her needs. I had another situation where a woman who was a disabled senior citizen was living in a unit with fungus growing — I had to go down there to talk to her — all over the roof because of the substandard health conditions of the housing. She was begging to get into a seniors' housing project being built in Esquimalt. I dealt with another recent case involving a single mother living in a facility — if I can put it this way — which is substandard in terms of the health requirements: there's fleas, and her newborn baby has allergies. She's been told by her physician that, in part, she needs to change her environment to address some of the allergic reactions the child is having.

Again, when someone comes to you, what do you say? The lists of those needing social housing — low-income housing, affordable housing, whatever you want to call it — are incredible. There are lists here locally about 800 strong, so it's difficult for people to quickly get into housing. I've had a couple — two senior citizens — who were given an eviction notice some time ago and have begged their landlord to allow them to stay until they can work their way up the list. They came to see me a year ago, and they came again just a few weeks ago, wondering why they haven't been able to move much up the waiting-list, which is about 800-strong.

I've got a situation in my riding where a number of residents live in a mobile-home park on the Old Island Highway that is being closed down. The landlord in that instance is very accommodating. In fact, he tried to give them two years' notice that he was going to shut down his facility. He has tried to work with the residents there — many of whom are elderly — in the hope that they could find housing elsewhere. There's no Crown land or new land for mobile-home parks, and there's a waiting-list for seniors' housing in the Esquimalt area. They have no place to go, and they regularly phone me to find out whether or not any progress has been made, in terms of getting the government to construct more housing in the area and provide more seniors' housing, or to see if I can cut a deal with some of the people who own land, particularly the native community in my riding who rent out mobile-home pads. There has been little or no success in that area. I can give you example after example of the kind of situation we face on a day-to-day basis in our constituency office — people desperately looking for housing.

What bothers me more than anything else is that you really can't give people much hope. I will pin the reason for that on this government's lack of action around the provision of affordable housing.

I don't have to quote all the statistics that my colleague from Victoria has recounted in this House about promises made by this administration to provide

[ Page 13034 ]

housing, promises that they haven't delivered on and false figures that are inflated in terms of the actual number of units on the list as being constructed, when there just isn't that much space available. It's a total denial of responsibility to people of low and modest incomes living in our communities who fairly deserve housing.

Whether it's a single mother who comes to me whose child has allergies or seniors who have an eviction notice from their mobile-home park, they all have very compelling arguments as to why they need housing. It's tragic to think that in a society like ours we can't seem to provide people with the basic need of shelter.

We've gone through — or are still in — a very tough period in the greater Victoria area in terms of the provision of affordable housing. In real terms, vacancy rates are nil in the greater Victoria area, particularly for those people on limited incomes who are trying to find something in the neighbourhood of what we call "affordable" housing. There's very little housing out there for them. There has been, if I could put it this way, a policy of neglect on the part of that minister and this government. They've neglected the problem. They knew; we've had howls of protest from this side of the House, asking for the government to take some action. Really, there has been very little coming through from either this minister or his predecessor in terms of actual housing.

Every once and a while there's a glimmer of hope, a proposal. Most recently, in my riding, there was a proposal put forward by the Pacifica Housing Advisory Association for the construction of a townhouse facility that would provide, I believe, 48 units on property in the 900 block of Admirals Road. The number of people who were coming into my office trying to find out how they could access that housing, because they'd heard it was going to happen, far outstripped the number of units that would ultimately have been constructed on that site. At least you could tell constituents: "Get on the list, take your steps, because there are going to be at least 48 units, we would think, coming on board in Esquimalt on Admirals Road."

I understand that on May 29 the minister indicated that he would be making some announcements concerning the funding of projects. It is my understanding now that sometime last week the province indicated that it would not be funding that project, which would have been built at 911 Admirals Road, to provide those 48 units. It was a $5.2 million project. I don't know why the government made that decision. I guess that's one of my questions to the minister: on what basis was that project rejected? I'd like an answer to that.

What I also know, Mr. Minister, is that those people who were counting on those units aren't going to have them. I know now that for every one of those people who came into my constituency office in the kind of predicament I've outlined, I have little to say to them in terms of housing that one could anticipate coming on the market in the Capital Regional District, particularly in areas like Esquimalt, View Royal and Vic West.

Seniors in particular want to remain in the community they've lived in for years.

I have to say for the record that I find the neglect of this administration as it relates to housing, particularly in my area, not just tragic but offensive. It deeply concerns me that we haven't seen greater action on the part of this administration, particularly when it relates to a project like this one, when the zoning was all in place, all the land requirements were there, and yet the government chose not to fund it. So my first question to the minister is: on what basis did the government decide not to provide funding for that project?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Well, the member has talked about a number of issues. He talked about the difficulty of people finding rental accommodations. It's true it is difficult; at times it can be quite hard. The vacancy rate, he said, was zero. I don't know what it is for Esquimalt; for Victoria the vacancy rate is still not very high — it's only 1.3 percent — but it's the highest it's been since April 1986.

The housing units allocated by the B.C. Housing Management Commission.... It's the B.C. Housing Management Commission that makes the decision on housing. It goes through and evaluates each of the projects, and the ones recommended on Vancouver Island were: one proposal in Victoria for 24 family units, 14 seniors; another for 25 family units, 16 seniors; another in Saanich for 24 family units; another in Victoria for 45 family units, 20 seniors; another in Victoria for 56 seniors; another in Victoria for 18 family units; another for Saanich-Gulf Islands for 28 family units; another in Victoria that was 25 family; another one for Saanich-Gulf Islands that was 21 family. Many of the projects approved were the ones that demonstrated the most need.

[6:00]

As a matter of fact, I wonder why some weren't approved, too. I can tell you that in my constituency — you're concerned about your constituency — we had a couple of proposals. There were no allocations made in that constituency. There were none made in Chilliwack or in the Abbotsford-Matsqui area — not one of those units. We have need for them there too, but the need was considered even greater in the places they went. So they went to your colleague's riding. Many of them went to Victoria because there was a great deal of need there, and it's based strictly upon where the need exists. We wish we could build twice as many of them, but we can only build the ones that we can.

We have a sharing arrangement, of course, with the federal government on these projects, and a year ago I was in Saskatoon and met with the federal government. The federal government capped this program. The idea was that there would be a reduction of units in Canada. For the first time in 16 years, we managed to get the percentage of units allocated to British Columbia increased. So despite the federal cutback, we now get the same units as we were getting before. Otherwise there would have been a substantial reduction. But it's based upon the need.

I can also tell you that I agree that a need certainly exists in Esquimalt, but Esquimalt turned down a

[ Page 13035 ]

project for the rental supply program. It was rejected by that community.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a number of points to the minister.

Look, if you want to make apologies, be my guest. If you want to make debating points, then be my guest. But all of these examples don't solve the problem. You and I know that there's a significant need out there. That need isn't being met in its entirety by the 1.3 percent vacancy rate. You know full well that the demand for housing far outstrips the vacancy rate, and you know as well as I do that there are very few suites available on the market that meet the needs or the financial capabilities of people living on fixed or modest incomes. That's where the gap is.

When you talk about need, Mr. Minister, you're right. There is a significant need out there, and the problem is that you're not meeting it. You haven't allocated the resources necessary to meet the need. So when you rattle off the list, very little of it, if any, as I remember, is in the western portion of Victoria and the western side of the CRD, in communities like View Royal, Esquimalt, Colwood and Langford. Very little of what you read, if any of it, is there. If memory serves me right, most of it is in Saanich. You haven't met the need at that end of the community

Saying that you built 25 units here or 24 units there.... Maybe I wasn't able to add it all up, but somewhere in the neighbourhood of 200 units, to give you the benefit of the doubt.... Those 200 units are a drop in the bucket in terms of the need.

Very simply, the point here is that you are not allocating the resources necessary to meet the needs out there. If you want to debate and rattle off the list of what you built, that's all nice and good in terms of making debating points in here, but it sure as heck isn't all nice and good for my constituents who are desperate for housing. Quite frankly, this government has failed to meet that very basic social need of affordable housing in the greater Victoria area. That's the problem. You haven't allocated the resources.

Then, after he rattles off a list that is insufficient in terms of attending to the real problem, the minister says he was wrong on the percentage of housing that may be available — the 1.3 percent. I find it insulting that at the end of the day you would seek refuge in blaming municipalities. Granted that municipalities have a role to play in all of this, but I'm giving you a real live example here where a municipality had the land zoned appropriately, where the land was available for this type of housing, where there was a demonstrated need for those 48 units — if not more — and where for reasons that defy all sense of logic, a decision was made not to provide that housing. I want to know from the minister what the reasons were for turning down that project on Admirals Road, because the need is there,

I want to know that, and I want to know....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: If the member would quieten down here, maybe the minister could hear me.

Is the minister prepared to concede that the problem really lies with the inability of this government to commit the resources necessary to meet the basic need out there of those people on low and modest incomes?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: What I'm prepared to recognize is that the government will be fiscally responsible in this program and every other program that it delivers. We will fund programs according to our ability to fund them, and we will give the priority to meeting the greatest needs. If people in your community who have a very serious need for housing contact the ministry, we will do what we can to get those people housed. We do that for a lot of people. We work on the basis of trying to meet the greatest need, but I am not prepared to stand here and say that we will go and build unlimited amounts of housing regardless of.... Just as your community would like to have this number of units, so would other communities. We added them all up and there were probably about 6,000 units that we could have built instead of the 1,280 that were approved. But somebody has to pay for that. It's not government that will pay, it's the taxpayers out there that would have to bear the burden — or we'd have to take it away from some other place. But if we take it away from some other place, those services will be lacking. So we try to balance the services and provide the best we can out of the resources that we have available. That's the policy of the government — we will continue to do that.

I now move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 14, Mr. Speaker.

TEACHING PROFESSION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

HON. S. HAGEN: This amendment to the Teaching Profession Act is to provide the College of Teachers of B.C. with full jurisdiction over the certification, conduct and competence of both members and former members of the college. This act will allow the minister to require the college or discipline committee of the college to inquire into the conduct of any person who holds a teaching certificate if that person has been convicted of a criminal offence.

This act will also provide for the establishment of a certification review tribunal, appointed by the minister, able to review a discipline decision of the college if the minister considers that the conduct of a teacher that resulted in the decision may render that teacher unsuitable to continue to hold a teaching certificate. The decision of such a certification review tribunal would be final and binding.

[ Page 13036 ]

Finally, this act will require the College of Teachers of B.C. to make bylaws adopting a code of ethics governing the professional conduct of members of the teaching profession.

I move second reading.

MS. A. HAGEN: The minister introduced second reading of this bill with perhaps the fewest comments I've heard in respect to any piece of legislation brought forward in this House, in my memory. I want, therefore, to spend a few minutes providing some context for this amendment.

It deals with Bill 20, the Teaching Profession Act, brought into the Legislature in 1987 — interestingly, without any consultation whatsoever with the professional body that Bill 20 proposed to regulate.

The Teaching Profession Act is like legislation that regulates bodies such as doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, architects and the health professions. It provides the basis for teachers to certificate members and to discipline members who, for whatever reason, may have been involved with behaviours that bring into question their right to continue to teach in the province, either in the short or in the long term. It's a very important piece of legislation. The initiative of establishing a Teaching Profession Act was very important.

It's interesting: as we look at this legislation, which was tabled in the House on Friday, we can note that the circumstances surrounding these amendments are identical to those surrounding the introduction of the Teaching Profession Act in the first place. It's been brought in without any consultation with the College of Teachers, which is made up of all certificated teachers and about 80 percent of the independent school teachers of the province. It is governed by a council partly elected from teaching organizations and partly appointed by the minister and cabinet, so this body is broadly representative of the community Over the last three or four years, it has begun to deal with matters relating to the conduct and certification of teachers.

I want to express regret on the part of every person in this House that the Minister of Education has chosen to go against all tradition in bringing in amendments that relate to a self-regulating statute without any consultation with the people who are responsible for the actual conduct of that bill — working under the legislation that is currently in place and that is proposed by these amendments. For all fair-minded people, that would be deemed to be an unacceptable way to introduce changes to a body that is fundamentally a self-regulating and autonomous body.

At the same time, it is important to acknowledge — and the College of Teachers of B.C. would acknowledge this as well — that every citizen in the province is concerned about the qualifications of teachers and about teachers' conduct that in every way protects the rights of children. Teachers are in a position of special responsibility; they are in position of special trust, and we on this side of the House believe that the trust must be of the highest priority in the regulation of teachers. We believe, too, that teachers share that view.

Let me state from the outset that any legislation that governs the conduct of teachers should live up to that principle: that teachers have positions in our communities of special trust and responsibility It is very important for us to know that their conduct lives up to the expectations we have of them, and that there is legislation in place that deals with any actions on the part of teachers that would put into question their role of special responsibility Children must have protection by the laws of the land, and the Teaching Profession Act provides the basis for that.

[6:15]

I want to look at the substance of the bill dealing with these principles. We now have a self-regulating, autonomous body in British Columbia consistent with many other professions where the Legislature sets up the basic rules by which those self-regulating bodies function. The Legislature has a responsibility to review those rules. The practice has always been — we have amended a number of acts in my term in this Legislature — that the minister responsible for the administration of these professional acts discusses any amendments with the parties. It's important to note for the record that this minister, who has been Minister of Education since last December, has not on one occasion met with the College of Teachers of B.C. This minister has not, in reference to this....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We were doing so well. It's not what the minister does during the principle of the bill; that's during estimates. But debate on the principle of the bill must be strictly relevant to that act and not on the behaviour of the minister.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: You're quite right: it can be done, but let's have it done in order.

MS. A. HAGEN: Thank you for your tempered advice, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a principle of legislation which affects professional bodies that consultation with those bodies be a part of the development of the legislation. That goes very much to the heart of the principle of the bill, because where we are dealing with shared responsibilities, it is important that the legislation that is developed, either in its initial stages or through amendment, is legislation we can all respect and which serves the purposes for which it is intended.

The amendments proposed by the Minister of Education under this amending act were sprung without any affected party having any knowledge that he planned to bring forward significant amendments, and are now something that I want to look at more specifically.

As the minister noted in his very brief comments, there are four major parts to the legislation. In some instances, I believe, even without any discussion with the parties affected and without any consideration of whether there are problems that need to be addressed, the minister has probably brought in amendments that are important and worthwhile.

[ Page 13037 ]

However, in the overall bill that we are debating tonight, we are moving at a precipitous rate. We're moving with the knowledge that the minister wants this legislation to be passed without the usual process involving discussion and consultation on its merit and some opportunity for its amendment. I believe that is an unfortunate aspect of the legislation we are dealing with. It would be much more useful to effective amendment of the Teaching Profession Amendment Act if there was some opportunity for the parties concerned to review the legislation, have consultation with the minister, look at issues that the minister is attempting to address, and then bring in a piece of legislation which would effectively and appropriately amend legislation with fairness to all — children, teachers, and in terms of the public perception.

I think it's worthwhile to note that the bill we're amending is now in its third year of operation in the province. It's a piece of legislation which, in spite of the difficulties with which it was born, has worked quite well. It's a piece of legislation where there has been, with the exception of the minister's unwillingness to discuss issues of concern with the college.... It's a piece of legislation that has a good record in dealing with disciplinary matters. I would note, for example, that in the three years since this legislation began to work in the province, the college has cancelled 21 certificates of teachers. That means that those teachers no longer have the right to teach in the province. And it has suspended eight teachers' certificates for either definite or indefinite periods.

That record doesn't tell us very much in its own right. But if we look at what the method of discipline was prior to Bill 20 — the Teaching Profession Act — being made the law of the land, that responsibility rested with the ministry. From 1969 to 1988 — a period of almost 20 years — the ministry cancelled 60 certificates and suspended 20. It's very obvious that in the period of time that the college had responsibility for certification, discipline and actions related to their decisions about discipline, they have suspended or cancelled many more teachers' rights to continue to operate in the classrooms of British Columbia than was the case in the period when that was a ministerial responsibility. That indicates the importance the college places on protecting the rights of children and having a fair and due process to deal with disciplinary matters.

Let me look at the specific parts of the bill. I support the initiative to bring all certificated teachers under the jurisdiction of the college as a good move. That's a shared responsibility now between the college and people who are members of the college. The minister has that responsibility currently if people are not members of the college. Although there hasn't been consultation, the minister would find that the initiative is supported. It means that there's no question about discipline. If a person holds a certificate — whether they're an active teacher or they've resigned from teaching — and there's a disciplinary matter, that matter is something that comes under the purview of the college. That is a clear, appropriate jurisdiction, because the college is responsible for certificating teachers and therefore they should be responsible for anyone who holds a certificate where there is a question about the conduct of that person.

In this legislation the minister has proposed that the college must establish a code of ethics. Here the question of consultation can be borne out. It is my understanding that the college has a task force which is looking at a code of ethics for a very specific purpose. The task force has been asked to provide recommendations about whether a code of ethics would enhance the jurisdiction and the ability of the College of Teachers of B.C. to discipline its members or whether it might narrow and constrain by virtue of what might not be in the code of ethics. In other words, the jury is still out about whether a code of ethics is going to be a tool that is helpful in the matter of discipline.

In a consultative mode, it would have been useful for the minister to have been aware of that task force, aware of the issues that the college is looking at, and then come forward with an amendment with the knowledge that that amendment is not one that has come out of his perspective alone but out of a perspective where the legal ramifications have been examined and where a code of ethics is deemed to strengthen the power and jurisdiction of the college. I don't have an answer to that; I'm not sure the minister has an answer to that. The college is certainly open to the minister's views and has set up its own procedures with the idea of making a decision and a recommendation for an amendment that would be in the best interests of the overall legislation. But I come back to the point that the minister has made his decision without so much as a reference to the college on this particular issue.

A third part of the legislation has the minister requiring the college to investigate the conduct of any teacher convicted under the Criminal Code or the Narcotics Control Act. It's my understanding that the bylaws of the college have this procedure in place, and the need for an amendment is something that we can look at in committee. There is reference from the minister, from the Minister of Social Services and Housing, from the Attorney-General, that goes to the college for investigation if there is any question. So the need for that particular amendment is not clear, and when we come to the committee stage of the bill, we will take the opportunity to look at this.

The most extensive amendments have to do with new powers that the minister has taken unto himself. They fundamentally mean that the College of Teachers is no longer self-regulating, and that the minister has a final authority — as he noted, a "final and binding" decision on a disciplinary matter.

There are several clauses that deal with this process. First, we should note that once again any question about the conduct of teachers and about their fitness to work in the classrooms of the province are not at issue here. What is at issue are the ways in which those matters are dealt with fairly, with due process and with laws that we can respect and that we know will work for all.

In this particular legislation, this minister is taking a very different tack from all of the other professional acts in the province, and I want briefly to look at the

[ Page 13038 ]

method by which he's doing this. We will want to look at this more extensively when we come to the committee stage of the bill. First of all, the minister has taken unto himself powers relating to appeal. Anyone who is subject to discipline has, in the laws of our land, some due process regarding that discipline. In this legislation, what the minister has done is to take that appeal process into a unique and rather strange set of rules.

The minister proposes, first of all, that the council will reconsider its own decision. Then if the minister has questions, he may call on the registrar of the college to provide all information, including all confidential information around the case in point. The minister then has taken unto himself the right to set up a certification review tribunal of three people. There's no indication whatsoever who those people will be. It's a very different tribunal, for example, than the tribunal that used to exist under the old. School Act, where there was representation from different bodies in terms of the makeup of that tribunal. That tribunal is fundamentally dealing with an appeal of the college's decision. It's fundamentally charged with saying the college made the right decision and agreeing to it, or the college must cancel the certificate of a teacher. It doesn't have any authority, interestingly enough, to look on the other side of the equation. It doesn't have any authority to say that the college made too severe a decision. It is an appeal of the college's decision that either upholds that decision or takes it a further step toward cancellation.

[6:30]

It is an appeal that is final and binding. In this regard there is a further clause which takes a quite unusual step, different from any other profession act extant in our jurisdiction. It says that no longer will a teacher have any right to appeal beyond that tribunal to the Supreme Court about any decision affecting that person.

An amending bill regarding the teaching profession that comes forward without the minister having shared or discussed with the College of Teachers any concerns he may have at any time since he became minister, that moves in directions that deny to teachers a due process in respect to the disciplinary hearings that affect them, and that removes from teachers any right of independent review of the decision and makes the minister fundamentally the judge and jury about who may or may not hold a certificate, is one that, I believe, requires further study and further discussion.

We need to have a Teaching Profession Act and due process that ensure that every child in British Columbia is taught by a teacher who is engaged in conduct that is becoming to the profession and consistent with the ethics of that profession. Where there are any questions about a teacher's conduct, we need to have a process that deals speedily with the questions that may have arisen and provides a fair process so that we can rely on the decision to be one that all can see as fair. There needs to be in that, as there is in all of our laws, protection of confidentiality and due process.

None of those are achieved with the amending act that we are dealing with tonight. I would hope that the minister, who has made some quick decisions and some precipitate decisions, would recognize that in the interest of good amendments to the Teaching Profession Act, ones that enable us to be able to review those, for the minister and those affected to discuss the issues and be sure that whether it's a code of ethics or whether it's a final and binding tribunal that takes away the right of teachers for any appeal, or whether it's something that assures the public that the protection of children is handled by our legislation.... I would hope that the minister would take a little time to ensure that that legislation is in place in a way that is going to serve us well.

When we had the first piece of legislation, that legislation came down without consultation. We thought that the point had been made that good legislation is developed in consultation with the parties concerned. I believe that there are always opportunities for us to look at legislation and bring in amendments, but I would be very concerned if we were to look at legislation governing the professional acts of any body that came in without the minister having taken any time to discuss his concerns and the issues and to look at the ways in which the legislation can be improved — in this case, that children's rights are protected, that we have fair processes that all can respect, and that the right of final appeal is not at a political level but goes to the Supreme Court, where there is independence.

The minister has an opportunity, I believe, to have this legislation under review, to give it some time and to give him some time to meet with the affected parties and discuss the legislation, and then for it to come forward for our final discussion. I would encourage the minister to do that, in the interest of good legislation, in the interest of the respect due to the parties related to this and in the interest of children.

Mr. Speaker, we will not be supporting this legislation in its present form. We would encourage the minister to act in accordance with the principles of due process and consultation to ensure that the legislation he does bring forward is legislation that is going to serve us all well.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised that the minister closes the debate.

HON. S. HAGEN: In fact, Mr. Speaker, teachers are in a unique position of trust with regard to the children in their classrooms. I certainly agree with that, and I think everyone in the province would agree. However, concern has been expressed by a growing number of parents and others that some persons who have been convicted of certain offences should not be permitted to remain as teachers.

We talked about the rights of individuals. I think children have rights. Children have the right to assume that when they are in school they are safe. I think parents have the right to assume that when their children are in school they are safe.

With respect to your concerns about consultation, I can tell the member for New Westminster that I have met with virtually every group involved with education, be they teachers, trustees, parents or students. I

[ Page 13039 ]

had a meeting arranged with the College of Teachers which had to be changed because of my estimates. That meeting has been rescheduled and will take place very shortly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We discussed the matter earlier, when the member for New Westminster was speaking, that Votes and Proceedings of the House indicate that committee has discussed your estimates at length. I would imagine these matters should have been discussed in committee, but not during the principle of the bill. Strictly the principle of the bill, thank you very much.

HON. S. HAGEN: I was only answering a question, Mr. Speaker.

While the College of Teachers has been given the authority to deal with teacher certification, members of the public see the minister as ultimately responsible for this. It's the minister who gets the letters, petitions and telephone calls.

In the normal course of events, I would hope never to have to use the referral power in the certification review committee. I expect that the college will exercise its authority and perform its duties in a professional manner. However, there is a public expectation, and that is what we're dealing with.

I would now like to move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved on division.

Bill 14, Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 1991, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I now call second reading of Bill 13.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Bill 13 removes woodlot licences from the major licence category in the Forest Act in order to simplify administration and reduce costs. In addition, the bill will ensure security and fairness for logging contractors in British Columbia.

Firstly, regarding the woodlot licences, the holders of these small tenures must presently provide my ministry with the same kind of reports on silviculture performance that major forest companies must submit. These reports must be prepared by a professional forester. While these requirements make sense for large forest companies, they are not appropriate for small woodlots that are owned by individuals, local societies, Indian bands or small corporations. The present reporting requirements impose unwarranted costs on woodlot licensees, and there is also significant cost to government in handling all of the associated paperwork. It makes much more sense for ministry staff to spend their time in the field checking actual performance on woodlots.

This bill will not reduce woodlot-owners' obligations to perform basic silviculture on woodlots, but the bill will permit us to recognize the special nature of woodlots and how we administer them. To implement this, the silviculture regulations under the Forest Act will be amended.

The other part of this bill deals with legal contracts between major tenure-holders and the operators that harvest timber on these tenures.

The British Columbia forest industry can be roughly grouped into two sectors: the manufacturing sector and the logging sector. The manufacturing sector has the benefit of long-term replaceable and transferable licences. This tenure security is necessary collateral for the very significant capital financing requirements associated with forest products manufacturing.

By contrast, the logging sector, which is largely composed of contract operators, generally has limited tenure security Yet — and this is a central point — the investment in the provincial logging sector is about equal to that of the sawmilling sector.

Clearly, logging contractors and subcontractors need improved tenure security as a basis for financing their considerable equipment and operating costs. Greater contract certainty will mean improved stability not only for the contractors themselves but also for their many employees and the communities in which they live.

This bill will enable us to write regulations to provide for written and replaceable contracts, contracts that may be transferred to third parties, and access to quick and inexpensive mediation and arbitration to resolve contract disputes.

These regulations will be made effective as of January 5, 1991, to coincide with public statements made by me respecting the government's intentions in this area.

I now move second reading.

MR. MILLER: We will be supporting the bill. I just wanted to make a couple of points or observations with respect to the change.

Certainly the reduction of the red tape, if you can call it that, for the woodlot licences is welcome. I know that when I've talked to people on woodlot licences, that's been one of the things they've said: they're treated essentially the same as a tree-farm licence.

The extension of contractual rights, if you like, or contractual protection, to this vast contracting sector is also welcome. I know that this issue was dealt with by the forestry standing committee a couple of years ago, and we traveled around the province and held public hearings. It was rather intriguing, because the holders of major licences would by and large argue that they need those licences for security of supply and in order to attract the required capital. Evergreen licences can be perpetual, but when you raise the question of having that same protection offered to their contractors, they present an argument that that is against the market; that they don't want to have that regulation there, because there won't be the economic efficiency the market induces — which always leads you to go back and ask them if that same condition would apply if we didn't extend these long-term tenures. I was

[ Page 13040 ]

struck by that contradiction during my tours, Mr. Speaker.

[6:45]

I can only say that when we extend the kind of protection a major licence offers the holder, and provisions for renewal of that contract and some provisions for appeal, it only makes sense that that same right be extended to the contractors. The reason we as government would do that is that it's all based on a resource owned by the Crown.

I have discussed the contents of the bill with.... I understand there's unanimity. I understand that COFI supports the bill, as well as the truck loggers and the union. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I'll sit down.

HON. MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of this bill.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RABBITT: Maybe for the member for Prince Rupert it is a surprise, but for somebody who's made his living in the forest industry and who still has many friends and constituents making their living in the forest industry, this is one that's close to the heart.

For rural British Columbia this bill is very important. Its principle is built on stability, not only to the contractors but to the communities they work in and live in. I think that recognition has to be given to several parties: first, to the select standing committee, which the opposition critic participated in. Had I not had a logging truck active in the industry at the time, I would very much have liked to have participated in that myself. But not wanting a conflict of interest to exist even on a select standing committee, I was certainly not going to participate as long as I was active in the industry itself.

Mr. Kent Woodruff was also very instrumental in developing the concept that resulted in this bill, when he did his independent review. Mr. Woodruff is a lawyer from the Kamloops region and certainly understood the problems that surround the industry in my area. He was able to put together recommendations that became a major part of this bill.

The last one I want to mention is the first member for Kamloops, the Minister of Forests, who had the intestinal fortitude to come forward with a bill that is considered controversial in some sectors. But I can tell you that to many individuals in my riding — contractors and subcontractors — this bill is a very important item. The infrastructure it creates is really the principle of the bill. It creates an infrastructure between licensees, contractors and subcontractors, and sets up stability for people who have worked in the industry for years — decades — and have not had any protection They will now have specific protection.

The reason I want to spend a moment on this is that I don't think most people realize the commitment that independent loggers and truckers have in the industry dollarwise. That's why there's a necessity for this type of infrastructure. The investment in both log-harvesting and road-building equipment is substantial. For example, in my constituency of Yale-Lillooet we have three basic categories of loggers: conventional bigwood logger, small-wood logger and high-leader cable logger. Then we have the road builders and the truckers.

Just to give you an idea of what a conventional logger — a big-wood logger — in our area would require, a small operation which would produce from nine to 12 loads a day would require a crawler worth a quarter of a million dollars, a loader worth $220,000, two to three line scalers worth about $175,000 each, plus a shop truck, crummy, several pickups and three logging trucks with a value of about $150,000 each. That one small contractor right there has a capital investment of a replacement value of about $1.5 million. That's why the bill is so important to individuals. When you consider that there are probably anywhere from five to seven contractors for every major licensee out there, you can see very quickly that the value of the equipment in the bush is probably equal to the value of the actual infrastructure of the manufacturing plant itself.

I won't spend any time going over the equipment that a small-wood logger would have, which would run well over $2 million for the same size show and would produce 12 to 14 loads a day; or the high-leader cable logger, at roughly $1.5 million, who would produce four to six loads a day. Those are minimum values for new replacement value. Many of these loggers have much more equipment, dollarwise, than what I've mentioned.

It's an industry experiencing a lot of changes at the present time, so this infrastructure is even more important when the logging community has to deal with some of the environmental changes, for example. A set of four flotation tires on a single skidder, the tires and the rims, are $30,000, and if you consider that one logger could have three of these running around, you can see that they need stability — the stability that this bill gives them.

I believe that stability will result in many good reflections on the industry. It will allow loggers to pay good wages. It will have a result in getting good-quality people into the bush, which will reduce accidents. It will reduce turnover in crew. It will increase production, and basically that reduces the cost to everybody involved: the contractor, the licensee and the consumer, who's the customer. Stability is good for the contractor, the community, the employer, the employees and the government.

This government has delivered a lot of good legislation in the past four and a half years, and this is one of the better ones, if not right at the top. For my riding of Yale-Lillooet I have to say that I am very pleased to see the minister bring this bill forward, and I'll certainly stand up to vote for it. It's been a pleasure to support this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, I advise the House that the minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I just have a very few remarks as we close debate on this bill. I'm pleased that the member for Prince Rupert and his colleagues will

[ Page 13041 ]

be supporting it, and I appreciate the comments made by the member for Yale-Lillooet. This bill is truly important to the whole province, but it's especially important to anyone who has forestry as a large component of their constituency.

Both members have mentioned the select standing committee, and I appreciate the work that they did. It was very valuable. Likewise, Mr. Woodruff consulted with everyone on the industry side and on the contracting side.

I just want to take two minutes to mention an interesting meeting. After all the consultation with all sides and everyone concerned, they got down to about six points that they were having trouble agreeing on, so I decided to call a meeting in my office with two members each from the contractors, two from industry, two from the IWA — and they sent their two most senior members, by the way, and you know who they are — a couple from the ministry and myself, and I said: "We're going to sit in my office and come to agreement on these points. When we walk out of here, we will all be of a like mind about this legislation."

It took about two and a half hours. It was a most interesting meeting. I wish that it had been videotaped, although there might have been a few bleeps in it here and there. It was a great meeting, and, by and large, everyone — as the member for Prince Rupert said — has agreed with this legislation. Not everyone is totally happy with every section, but I think that's a pretty good average. Thank you to everyone who was involved.

Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 13, Forest Amendment Act, 1991, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

On vote 52: minister's office, $337,553 (continued).

MS. SMALLWOOD: Since we're waiting for the minister, I'll use this time to recap some of our earlier discussions.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You go ahead; I'll take notes.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The government House Leader says he'll take notes, but I don't want the minister to miss my next question.

I'd like to recap a couple of the points that we made around the efficiency of spending in this ministry. I think it's very clear that as one of the major spending ministries in the government, and with the number of concerns that people in this province and the opposition have about the services, it's very important for us to look at how the money is spent and whether or not the government is achieving its goals in spending what they do spend.

One of the best examples that we've seen around that issue in the last year is the ombudsman's report, in particular as it concerns an establishment called Eagle Rock Ranch. In November the ombudsman reported the results of his investigations of Eagle Rock Ranch, a group foster care facility in which they had a serious incident involving a fire and the subsequent death of a youth in care of that ministry.

The concerns raised by the report of that investigation were as follows: inadequate facilities and programs, untrained house parents with little time off, lack of funds for activities, a high staff turnover, lack of educational training for youth in care, harsh treatment by the owner of the facility, rapid turnover of house parents, inadequate supervision of youths, improper clothing during cold periods, exploitation of youths as workers on the ranch and in a mill, inadequate staffing, inadequate screening results in inappropriate placements, low skill levels of staff, lack of response to staff concerns on the part of the owner, no treatment for disturbed youths, placement of youths from distant communities, misleading advertising of Eagle Rock Ranch, lack of consultation with neighbours, lack of reporting of arson a week before the fatal fire and inadequate safety practices in the sawmill at Eagle Ranch.

Added to the list is the fact that Eagle Ranch was not licensed initially. There was confusion as to whether it needed to be licensed under the Community Care Facility Act, and finally there were delays in meeting the licensing requirements. The interim licence was issued more than two years after the application, and more than a year later a full licence was issued.

A number of concerns were raised about the ombudsman's report, only a few of which pertain to some of the recommendations and the status of those recommendations. I'd like to say that for many people within the social service area in the province the concern that the ombudsman's report raises above all is: how many other facilities out there have similar conditions or concerns about licensing? I wonder if the minister can let us know what progress has been made with the procedure of licensing such facilities to date.

[7:00]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I don't have very much specific information on Eagle Rock, because we talked about that quite a lot last year in the estimates, and I think in the year before that as well. I didn't really know that we would be back to talking about it here, but we have made a lot of changes since that time.

That was an unfortunate incident — no question about it — and there were a lot of things wrong that needed to be corrected. We have developed standards governing residential care, and it's something that's involving foster parents and ministry caregivers. The standards will address such things as physical environment of the residential setting, the ministry's expecta-

[ Page 13042 ]

tion on the nature of the direct care a child receives, the qualifications of the caregivers, staff-child ratios and organizational and administration accountability.

These standards have been developed and are being implemented over an 18-month period. As you can appreciate, it takes some time to implement the standards, but certainly changes have been made. There's no question that Eagle Rock was a bad incident, and I'm well aware of what the ombudsman had to say about it. But we were well aware of how serious that situation was before and of the need for much closer monitoring. That's what we are trying to do.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I wonder if the minister would be good enough to table the standards that he has developed.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yes, we'd be happy to do that.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I wonder if the minister could also tell the House whether or not those standards only pertain to facilities governed by the Community Care Facility Act?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: No, they're not. They're for all our programs, all our resources.

MS. SMALLWOOD: So foster care as well.

While I'm waiting for the standards and the opportunity to look over them, does it also deal with the qualifications of caregivers and the ratio of caregivers to children in care?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yes, the qualifications of caregivers and staff-to-child ratios are looked at.

MS. SMALLWOOD: My assumption is that the ministry will enforce those standards. I'd ask the minister how those standards will be put in place, whether it will be through contract compliance or whether there will be actual licensing.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: For the ones covered by licence, the standards will be set as part of the licence. For other contracted services, it will be part of the contract.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Do the standards also include the requirement for the number of visits by the ministry to the facility, as far as direct contact with the person in care is concerned? Does it outline the number of doctors' visits or dental visits that the person in care is required to have?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: No, that is not included at this point. Those standards are yet to be developed. These are the standards that the caregiver is required to meet. The other standards that you talk about under the social worker's jurisdiction are to be developed.

MS. SMALLWOOD: One of the concerns raised by the ombudsman's report was the lack of filing of financial statements by this particular facility. Has the minister made any progress in ensuring that financial statements are filed regularly?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yes, we have.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Could the minister elaborate a little? What has the ministry done? How can we be assured that taxpayers' money is being spent properly?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: As part of the negotiations for the licence they are required to produce the financial statements, as I understand it. The statements are to be submitted regularly, and they're monitored.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The difficulty is, Mr. Minister, that anyone having dealt with the minister would have thought all along that those were the requirements. In this example, those requirements were not met. It's obvious that there has to be some follow-up to that. I'd like to ask the minister: what penalties are in place for not upholding the standards or licensing requirements that the minister spells out?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The ultimate penalty for non-compliance is that they would lose their licence or see a cancellation of their contract.

MS. SMALLWOOD: That seems to be a pretty logical answer — it's certainly an answer that a number of ministers have given in this House year after year. The fact is that because of the scarcity of resources, ministry offices are very reluctant to withdraw licences or, in this case — and there are other cases I'll be able to cite later — ministries have continued to give contracts because they have nowhere else to put the kids.

It begs the question, Mr. Minister, that in situations like this, when resource workers are strapped to the point where they have got to place a child because they know they are in jeopardy by leaving them in their home, they are in some ways in a bit of a conflict. They may realize that the facility they're placing the child in is less than adequate or less than what they would like to see, but they have no alternative.

We have advocated the rights of children in the past; indeed in the previous session we brought in a bill which included an advocate for children. It's very clear that in situations around the province like in Eagle Rock someone has to speak for the kids. Someone separate from the ministry has to speak on behalf of those children and bring issues like this to the public's attention so that those kids can be assured of a safe and decent place to live. I wonder if the ministry, while they're in the process of looking at their legislation and standards in licensing, has considered the role of an independent ombudsman or advocate for kids.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: It's something that may very well come from review of the legislation covering family and child care and the different facilities children stay in. It's something I would expect to be discussed under the review process. There may well be a case for just such an office; I wouldn't discount that. I

[ Page 13043 ]

think it's the same as what we are setting up at this time for the mentally handicapped. Having done it there, obviously I believe in that process. So it could very well apply in this case.

Regarding the difficulty the ministry faces and the compromise that would have to be made because of a shortage of spaces, we recognize that when we come to change standards, it might not be something that can happen immediately. We have allowed 18 months for people to conform to the standards. We also have a contract management process that we go through to determine what the requirements of people holding contracts with the ministry are and how those contracts will be managed.

I can tell the member opposite that it isn't always easy to get the facilities we require and would like at any given time. Sometimes we have to work at establishing those, but I know that in my office when people wish to provide a service, if there's any concern on the part of the ministry, the ministry is very careful about not entering into contracts until they are very sure that the service will meet the proper standards. Despite acknowledging that there is always a demand for accommodations for these young people, I can't point to one example in existence today where we have children in any kind of a facility in which we don't think they are properly provided for.

From time to time it will happen in a system that's as big as the one we operate, but as soon as there is any indication of that, the ministry takes the necessary action. We are very careful. I think and it's shared by the people in the ministry that the young people who go into facilities — foster homes or other facilities — have come through a very traumatic experience in their life, and we need to do everything we can to ensure they are not further disadvantaged by getting into a facility that does not offer them the proper care. For instance, we are very strict on the discipline used with foster children. It's a very strict standard that's applied, and people have to comply to it.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Those are all very grand statements, but I wonder how it measures up when you look at reality. Look at the reality of children who don't have a placement, and the ministry puts them into hotel rooms with housekeepers. Is that what the minister is referring to, those requirements when the ministry, on occasion, moves a child from foster home to foster home — seven placements in two years? Are they the placements the minister is talking about? All of these grand platitudes aren't dealing with the real needs or the realities of kids in the province.

As documented in the ombudsman's report, the ministry knew that this facility was not living up to their licensing requirements, but what was happening is that kids from all over the province that couldn't be placed elsewhere were being placed in this facility for the very fact that there was nowhere else to put them. That's the reality of the care in this province, and all of the grand statements in the world don't mask the press headlines that we have seen in the past year when we've had kids cared for in hotels.

[7:15]

I want to continue with some of the other questions around foster care and the apprehension of children. Whether the apprehension is permanent or not, as a result of the best interests of the child and the parents, the matter is aired and determined as quickly as possible. However, we're seeing repeatedly, and in increasing length, delays in the courts. What that means is time spent away from home while anxiety builds and money is spent by parents trying to deal with the apprehension.

By legislation, there is a required time at which the apprehension has to actually go to the courts. Depending on whether or not the courts are sitting, there are situations where the apprehension takes place and the parents do not have information before the case comes before the courts. I wonder what the ministry is doing to try to alleviate both the anxiety for the parents and the trauma for the children in such cases.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: That is one of the issues that is being addressed by the child and youth secretariat. I may tell the member opposite that that's an area that I'm personally very concerned about. I think we have to find a process that can substantially speed that up, because it is not good to delay the decision that ultimately has to be made. If the child is to be returned home, then the sooner that happens, the better.

It certainly is something that I would like to see improved, but it does depend on the court system. It's not only our decision; it's the court system that has to be able to accommodate it. There's also, I guess, the matter of evidence. Sometimes medical evidence is required, which takes a certain amount of time to be processed. I agree with the member opposite. The sooner that hearing can be held and the ultimate placement of the child determined, the better. Those children who can be returned to their home.... We want them to be returned there as quickly as possible.

MR. SIHOTA: Of course, the minister is quite correct that there are apprehensions under the provisions of the Family and Child Service Act. The child is taken to court, and application is made with respect to the appropriate location for the child, be it returned to the original family home or to another facility or placement. Obviously, parents have to appear in court and take issue with what the ministry has concluded. The ministry, I know, doesn't act on these matters willy-nilly. They, of course, do their background work and then make a decision to apprehend a child. The minister knows as well as I do that the process can often be a long one, as it's just part of the court system. I don't mean "just" in terms of time — but the evidence, the putting forward of all of the material.

There have been cases, which I'm sure the minister is familiar with, wherein parents have proven that the apprehension was wrongful in the first place and that the information upon which it was based was wrong. In order to prove your innocence.... That's the way a lot of parents take it, you see: there's an allegation of sexual abuse or whatever the case may be, the child is apprehended, and the parents feel they have been unfairly attacked and maligned by that decision. They

[ Page 13044 ]

have to incur considerable expense. Some people can't afford that expense. I dare say that what would happen in those cases where a family can't afford that expense.... But in the cases where they've incurred that expense, and the apprehension has been proven to be wrongful and the child is returned.... The ombudsman in one celebrated case — I don't have the case here in front of me, but I'm sure the minister knows about it; if not, I'll produce a name for him tomorrow — recommended that those costs incurred by the parents to fight that legal case be returned on the normal cost schedule — in other words not the entire fee but some contribution. Another case that I've written to the minister on is a family from Terrace, in which, again, I've raised this issue with your predecessor, Mr. Minister. Could you tell us what your policy is with respect to those parents who have wrongfully had their children apprehended, spent thousands of dollars litigating the matter, finding themselves to be correct, and then not being able to recover back from the province for some of those expenses incurred by an action of the province?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I think the interesting point here is that very seldom are these cases black and white; they really come down to being a degree of concern and what the ministry's action should be in a particular given case. I have seen cases where the court has returned the child home, but at the same time may not have faulted in any way the ministry for the work it did. In fact, the court may have gone out of its way to say the ministry did the appropriate thing under those circumstances — did what was right. But in the view of the judge who hears all the evidence, the decision is made. The court decides that the child should be returned home, and that there really is not a need to apprehend.

In some cases, as I'm sure we can all appreciate, that becomes a fine line. Because the social worker has the responsibility to protect the child, if that social worker feels that the child is at risk, then that social worker is obliged to provide protection to the child. I guess we could make the terms a little different, where we would be willing to accept slightly more risk, but then we have to make sure that the social worker has the benefit of that — that we would recognize that social workers would use their best judgment. There would be times when they made an error, and if it had bad effects for a child, that would be very regrettable. But we wouldn't hold the social workers completely responsible, because they would have made their best effort. As the thing sits today, the social worker really has a pretty serious responsibility. So it is in degrees and is not one way or the other.

As far as costs being awarded, that too is something that I think will be reviewed in the process of reviewing that particular act. I can understand the hardship that it would put some families through. If there is a case — and I think these are very infrequent — where the ministry has obviously erred and caused a lot of financial hardship to the family, I don't see anything really wrong with the ministry having a responsibility for at least a portion of the costs that were incurred

But that's something which I think will come out in the review, and perhaps there will be a recommendation. I'm hoping that there will be a recommendation dealing with this issue, because it is one that has concerned a number of people.

MR. SIHOTA: Tomorrow during debate — I think it's safe to say your estimates won't get finished today — I will bring a case for you. The reason I am going to do this is that, like you, I get letters all the time from people, and you have to make those judgment decisions. I think that on the facts of the case that I will bring before you tomorrow, you will agree with me that it is one where the ministry really should consider the payment of costs. I know there is one that the ombudsman looked at some time ago which I haven't had an opportunity to review in its entirety. But it's my understanding that it parallels very closely the circumstances of the case that caught my eye, and I will bring it to your attention. In order to assist the minister, I'll let his staff know that it's the Smith file from Terrace. You may want to familiarize yourselves with that file.

I agree with what the minister says. These are calls of judgment, and there are some difficult decisions to be made by social workers. I know that. I was a social worker and did this kind of work. So I appreciate what the minister says in that regard; there's no disagreement there. But surely the best person to arbitrate on these matters — you're right; they aren't black and white — is a court. If a court comes to the conclusion in one of these cases that it is black, white, or even grey, as the case may be.... If a court makes a decision that costs should be payable, surely the minister would not be adverse to the payment of costs in that case. Why not amend the legislation to make sure courts can make that kind of an order and allow for payment of those costs?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I appreciate what the member is saying. We should keep it all in perspective and recognize that in 96 percent of the cases the court says we made the right decision. In the cases where we did not make the right decision, if the court says we have a responsibility to pay towards costs, certainly we would pay that.

MR. SIHOTA: Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Minister. Are you saying that this current right exists with the courts now?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: No. In the provincial court, as you know perhaps better than I, they do not award the costs. In the Supreme Court, the appeal court, if it goes to that, they could be. But I'm told by my staff that we have paid in cases where the evidence has shown we have made an error. We have helped in those cases.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to read a memo to the minister. This memo was circulated to ministry offices on May 17. I'd like to know initially two things from the minister: (1) if he was aware of this memo going out, and (2) whether he agrees with the use of the

[ Page 13045 ]

government apparatus and government offices for the circulation of this kind of information.

I'll not read the whole thing, although I'll be happy to share a copy with the minister. The memo starts out:

"How would you like to have a guaranteed income for life and not work? That's exactly what's under consideration [in another jurisdiction]. Proposed changes to welfare regulations have been dubbed by social workers in that province as 'cash for life.' Recommended changes include eliminating any requirement for welfare recipients to look for work, and if they're on welfare for 24 months, they would automatically be put on a permanent family benefits. Presto! Cash for life.

"Those applying for welfare wouldn't have to have a permanent address. Their cheque would be placed electronically in a bank account, and they could travel anywhere in the world and just withdraw welfare money with a bank card.

"Can you imagine what would happen if we did that? People would be moving here in droves, and those working would probably quit their jobs and go on welfare. Competitiveness, jobs and the creation of wealth would grind to a halt."

There is considerably more in this memo. I'm just wondering if the minister was aware of this memo going out.

[Mr. Serwa in the chair.]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: No, I'm not. I would really like to know if that is a memo that has circulated through my ministry. Does it have to do with my ministry? Can I ask that question?

[7:30]

MS. SMALLWOOD: The memo actually came from the public affairs bureau here in Victoria. It went to all ministry offices. The staff in your offices were required to read the memo, sign it and pass it on to the next employee to do the same.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: We will certainly check it out. I haven't seen that particular one that I can remember. My staff here.... The deputy minister has not seen it, either. So maybe it went to others besides us. I don't really know. Is the information factual or not? I don't know. What is it all about? Is it a statement of fact, or is it a statement of error? Do you want to tell me?

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, just a question to the minister. With that kind of matter being circulated from one office to the other, does he agree with the sentiments expressed in the document?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I don't know what the sentiments are in the document. The document says that there is no need for seeking employment. While I forget what some of the other things were — there were a number of things — I don't know that there's a sentiment to it. It's supposedly describing a situation in another jurisdiction, and I think the jurisdiction they're talking about had some difficulty in arranging their social assistance program. Some of the things that were talked about originally are perhaps being reconsidered a little and put into a different kind of package.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Would the minister not agree that the use of the government apparatus for the distribution of a document such as this through public affairs to your ministry offices is inappropriate; that it is editorializing; that it is...

AN HON. MEMBER: The rendering of an opinion.

MS. SMALLWOOD: ... the rendering of an opinion, my colleague says — exactly — and that it is a very political viewpoint of another administration's policies? Would you consider that the appropriate use of government and the appropriate relationship between a government and its staff?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: No, I don't, because if it was circulated to my ministry... That was something I didn't realize when you first talked about it. Without discussing it further, I will certainly want to check on it to see just exactly what was circulated and how it was circulated. Obviously the deputy minister is not aware of it, and my understanding is that with material going through the office, the first responsibility would be that the deputy minister would be aware of it.

MS. SMALLWOOD: This particular memo was circulated under the name of the current Premier. Mr. Minister, I would ask you to convey to the Premier in your words that this is an inappropriate use of your office, of your ministry and indeed of the public affairs bureau in Victoria. I would ask you to join with us in requesting that she refrain from such activity

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I have some trouble with the whole proposition of the memo, but I'll check it out. I want to see the details of this before I make any other comment.

MR. SIHOTA: While the minister is checking that out.... I agree with him, it's inappropriate. There's no need for the Premier to send that kind of material to Social Services and Housing offices in British Columbia. Would he also undertake to advise the House whether or not all offices received this document? I know, for example, that it went....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, I know that the member for Burnaby-Willingdon is a little disturbed tonight. If he would just settle down.... If he wishes to debate, he can get on his feet and debate.

Will the minister undertake to determine exactly how many of the offices received this document?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I have said that I will look into the matter of the document, and I have no other comments to make on it at this time.

[ Page 13046 ]

MR. SIHOTA: I want to ask the minister this: is it normal for the Premier to send out a document through the public affairs bureau to your employees without your being advised of the communication and the fact that it's being sent out?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: You know, this is a new experience for me. I don't know if I have ever had the experience of giving evidence in court before. I'm getting a taste of it now, I guess. I think that what we're here to do is to discuss the estimates of the Ministry of Social Services, and in so doing I would think that we would discuss what the minister and the ministry have done. I'm happy to answer questions on that and discuss with you whether or not the things that I or the ministry have done are appropriate, but to begin to remove the conversation to something that has nothing to do with my ministry estimates at all is really.... I guess it's interesting for the members opposite, but it isn't the purpose that I came here for tonight.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm sure, Mr. Minister, that we don't have to remind you that what we're talking about is the spending of your ministry and the confidence taxpayers have that their tax dollars are being spent for the good of the people of this province. What we are concerned about is the use of your office and your ministry for the spreading of blatant political propaganda. If, indeed, government offices are now being used and somehow being confused in your own party's attempt to be re-elected, that is of concern to your estimates and whether or not people have confidence that you can spend their tax dollars without prejudice and without bias. That's what we're talking about. This is relevant to your ministry, and how you conduct your business is relevant to the taxpayer.

HON. MR. VEITCH: On a point of order, I see no relevance at all to this minister's debate. I don't see how someone receiving a letter for someone else can possibly have anything to do with one's own spending estimates. The line of questioning is completely out of order. The hon. member is merely trying to bait the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair determines that it is not a point of order. Debate will continue.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Our concern is that this particular memo went to a ministry office. We want to know how many other ministry offices actually received this memo and why staff were required to read the memo.

For the Provincial Secretary, I realize you came in late, so I'll recap some of this for you. This memo, for your information, was circulated through the public affairs bureau here in Victoria — a government office — and it was circulated to a ministry office of Social Services and Housing. It contains....

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Well, interestingly enough, it was mailed under the name of the current Premier of the province.

I'm hoping that we can take the minister at his word that he will investigate this matter and put an end to it, because taxpayers in this province and certainly the people that use the resources of the ministry want to know and want to have confidence that they're not going to be met by this kind of blatant propaganda. There's really no other word for it.

MR. SIHOTA: Given the fact the minister considers the dissemination of this type of information to his offices to be inappropriate — to use his word — is he prepared to convey that view to the Premier?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: At this point in time, I'm not prepared to concede that anything was said to my ministry office by the Premier or anybody else. What I have said is that I'll look into the matter, and when I have done that I'll decide what else I may do or say about it. I'm not prepared to make any commitment at all, because to make a commitment in that fashion would be to accept the situation is just as proposed here. I'm not convinced or satisfied that it is.

MR. SIHOTA: I see your colleague the Provincial Secretary is here. You may want to talk to him because the public affairs bureau is under his mandate. Are there people in your ministry who are engaged to do background research with respect to these matters and prepare papers for the Premier?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Not that I know of. We don't have to prepare background papers. The way the system works in Canada is that it's quite open. We know what is happening in social services in every province in the country, and those provinces know what's happening in British Columbia. As a matter of fact, we freely exchange information, talk about programs and the experiences that one province has had, the difficulties they encountered and how we might avoid it. There is a very good, cooperative process. There's nothing secretive between one province and another, even between Ontario and British Columbia today. There's a free exchange of information as to what's been done in the two jurisdictions. We know what's happened there. I don't have any doubt that they know exactly what's happening here.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to go back to some of the issues that we were raising around apprehensions and when we talked to the minister about the court delays. Recently there was a newspaper article about a child that was apprehended. It turned out to be a false accusation. In this case it took five months to clarify the matter before the child was put back with the parent. Can the minister explain why it would take so long for that case to come to its conclusion? It's very clear to me that that delay in a child's life is significant and causes considerable damage, not only to the child but to the family.

[7:45]

[ Page 13047 ]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I can't tell you why that specific case took that length of time, because I'd have to know about the case to do that. I do know there are cases that do take a long time. The information is difficult to obtain, there may be adjournment of court cases, new dates set and so on. That's an example of the type of case I have concerns about. The very fact that it would take five months and the child is to be returned home, unless — and I don't know the details for this particular case — there was something done or changed at the home that made it possible for the child to return.... If nothing was changed in the home and it was simply a matter of five months to find out that it was appropriate for that child to stay home after all, then I'm disappointed the decision was not made in a week or ten days. That's altogether too long. That's something I don't want to see children go through in this province. We have to find ways of improving the system in those cases. There are those examples that do happen, unfortunately. Those are the ones we must correct, because it isn't fair to a child.

MS. SMALLWOOD: In some jurisdictions they have programs where they put workers into the home, or at least in connection with the family, to ensure the child's safety rather than apprehend the child. I would hope that the ministry would look at that as a real alternative to ensuring that families stay together and that children and families are not subjected to such trauma.

Another issue arising from this case has to do with information. When the social worker in the case had some misgivings and there was concern about the ability of the social worker to actually file those misgivings about the apprehension in the first place, it raises the issue of information on files and access to that information for both the family and for the child. I've heard the interim Premier talk about access to information, and we heard the previous Premier talk about open and honest government. In no other ministry is information so crucial and so directly related to people's lives. I'm wondering if the minister can tell us how wards of the state, parents or foster parents can access information in the ministry's files and whether or not he's considered an ongoing process in which the person whose file the ministry has is alerted to any new entries on that file.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: If I could answer the first part of the question — the first statement that was made regarding putting the homemakers in a home — we do that in British Columbia. We put homemakers and child care workers into homes to help the family look after the child and to avoid taking the child out. That's a common practice here now.

The question about access to information is certainly something that is a fairly significant issue in this particular ministry because of the type and nature of information that we have. The notes I have here would perhaps shed some light on that. The Family and Child Service Amendment Act, 1990, was introduced in the 1990 spring legislative session. The act requires that upon apprehending a child, the superintendent of family and child service will provide the child's parents with a copy of the report to court prior to the initial court hearing. The act, which came into effect on November 14, 1990, strikes a balance between the parents' rights for information and the child's right to protection. As I understand it, that was a practice that happened before that date, but was officially put into law so that it must happen. The parents would then get that basic information.

I don't know what else I can tell the member opposite about access to information, except that it is a discussion within the government and we are supportive of that. In this particular ministry you recognize that there is information that is confidential because it protects the well-being of some other individual. Those issues have to be dealt with.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister just read a provision in his legislation that requires the information be given to the parent upon apprehension. I'm wondering what the penalties are if the ministry fails to do that.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I don't think there is any specified penalty. It is the law, though, that they are to provide it. People who work for government and carry out government procedures are expected to comply with the law, so we certainly expect the people who work for the ministry to do that. If that doesn't happen and it comes to the attention of the ministry, then through the normal process that matter would be discussed with the worker to find out why that did not happen and to ensure that such a thing wouldn't happen again. Whatever action was appropriate would be taken, because we're serious about the law being applied in each case.

MS. SMALLWOOD: In some jurisdictions it's just not possible, given the court dates that are available to the ministry. One of the things I'd like to do, if the minister is serious about that, is provide you with some information about one jurisdiction that I am familiar with in hopes that there can be something done in coordination with other ministries to facilitate the timing. The jurisdiction I'm familiar with are the court cases that come up every Wednesday, so if there's an apprehension done on a Monday or Tuesday, it's very possible that the social workers are not able to provide the information and files to the parents before it actually goes to court. The minister can well imagine the increased anxiety parents feel not having that information before them, not understanding what it is they will be facing when it does go to the courts. In a way, it is an unfair disadvantage that parents have in situations like that, when they are already traumatized by having a child removed.

I'd like to read a couple of quotes here from a document I obtained from the First United Church. It was a study of the needs of parents with children in care. When we began to talk in the estimates about who is in foster care, I came to realize that almost a third of the children in care are native. I asked earlier on if the minister could share with us the breakdown of voluntary and involuntary children in care. The minister made a reference to over 40 percent being

[ Page 13048 ]

voluntary and was unable to give the committee statistics as to why children come into care involuntarily. I suspect that when you look at whether it is native children or some of those voluntary apprehensions, economic status has a lot to do with it. This particular study refers to the reality of parents on low income, finding themselves either having their children apprehended or living under the threat that their children may at some time be apprehended. In this study they identified a number of categories that they wanted to look at: lifestyle issues, having to live under imposed standards, how they were affected by the apprehension and then just a general comment. I'll share some of those comments with you.

Under lifestyles the comments were as follows. Yelling at kids can get parents in trouble. Parents' lifestyles often have emphasis on survival. Living in close quarters and the lack of privacy may cause tension among neighbours. Low-income status means families' activities are centred around the apartment complex, while higher incomes would allow more activities away from home. The inability to get away may add to family tension. In social housing complexes there seems to be a power struggle over children and their behaviour. The range of parenting skills of low-income parents is due to a myriad of reasons. Working parents have added stress through work situations.

The comments on the second category, having to live under imposed standards, were these. Low-income parents are under pressure to maintain middle-class attitudes and values of child-rearing. The feeling is that if you can't live up to these values, you are an inadequate parent. The danger is that innocent events can be mistaken for neglect. For example, a diapered but unclothed baby in hot weather was thought by a social worker to be inappropriately clothed. Parents are made to feel guilty and inadequate due to stigma and double standards. The perception is that low-income parents are expected to have a different standard of moral behaviour; that is, what would be okay for high-income single parents would not be appropriate for a welfare mom. The example here is hiring a babysitter and spending a night away.

It goes on to talk about some of the difficulties that parents on low incomes have in dealing with their children, and the vulnerability they feel to the ministry, in particular, and to the standards of society. The example that comes to my mind time and again is the issue of forced employment, where the ministry's own policies indicate that a mother on welfare, once her youngest child is six months old, must go out and find employment. Just recently I was talking to a single parent of four young children — I think all the children were under the age of ten. She was told by a social worker that she was expected to go out and find employment. If she did not do so, she would be cut off welfare, and if she was cut off welfare, she would have no visible means of support for her children. Therefore her children could be apprehended.

To see very clearly the trap that low-income parents in this province find themselves in due to government policies.... I'm wondering very seriously whether that is reflected in the number of children that either voluntarily or involuntarily find themselves in care of this ministry.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I have a list of the reasons for all the children that come into care — both the ones that come in voluntarily and the ones that are apprehended. I can read the list, but I did read it once before late one night just a couple of weeks ago. The biggest reason on this list is parent-child conflict, which accounts for 17.6 percent of the cases; parent mental-emotional condition accounts for 13.8 percent; and disability of parent is 13 percent; neglect of parents is 9.9 percent; physical abuse is 9.7 percent; absent or endangered is 7.9 percent. That's just taking the higher ones.

I guess the argument you're trying to make is that all of these things are in turn related to poverty, but I suspect that there are many people who are not necessarily poor who might also be included in this group. I'm not quite sure about that. But I suspect that there might be, because society is far from perfect.

Now I recognize that it's not easy if you're at the lower-income level in society. It's not easy to make things go, and that puts a certain amount of pressure on you. But to say that people are poor because of the policy of this government is an unbelievable statement. People have not been made poor by the policy of the government. The policy of the government is to help those people in need.

We talk about a single parent with a child and the terrible suggestion by government that she should be considered employable at a certain age. Well, I know. I met with a group that strongly endorses that point of view — that they should not have to seek employment. I remember one of the young mothers telling me that being a mother was a very honourable thing and to be respected — the very fact that someone was willing to be a mother. I couldn't agree more. I think it is. It's great. Women make a tremendous contribution when they raise their children well.

[8:00]

What we're saying is that a mother of a certain age and with a child is employable, and the reason we believe that this mother is employable is that there are literally thousands of mothers with children who are employed. If we were to classify motherhood as a condition that doesn't warrant being employed anymore, then I guess we'd have to offer a pension to every mother, rich or poor. It wouldn't be on the basis of income; it wouldn't be on the basis of their finances. It would be on the basis of the fact that they were mothers. That, I think, is stretching the obligation of government a long way. Many women — in fact, a high percentage of the women in the workforce — are mothers who have children at home. I don't say that's easy, but they do it. And if they can do it, why is it unreasonable to expect that others would attempt to do the same thing? We have many people who have been on social assistance, and have taken advantage of training programs and worked their way off social assistance to become independent. They were mothers with children — and there are many of them. There are not just a few; there are many of them.

[ Page 13049 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: If I'm not mistaken, the statistics show that over half of all single-parent woman-led families in this province are on welfare. I think that says something about the kind of work that's out there for women to support those children. I think it says something about the resources in communities to help families to be able to stay together and to enable a parent to raise their children. The statistics themselves — the fact that you have single parents on welfare disproportionately — say something about the society we live in.

Until such time as the government is prepared to recognize that for a mother of four young children, it becomes impossible, without those kinds of supports in place, to work, we will continue to face situations where — and the minister read the description of why those children are in care — families have to decide whether or not they can afford to keep their children. Surely that's not what the government wants to force. Surely the government wants to realize that in those categories you've read out, there are situations that this government can effect and that it may not only be better for those kids to be at home with mom but it may also be cheaper for the government to have those kids at home with her.

I want to go on reading this particular document, because it refers to some of the situations that parents face when there is an apprehension. It says:

"Initial investigation methods are very intrusive, and a parent may not know how to respond to allegations from the social workers and the police. When apprehension occurs, it creates fear — fear about whether the child will be returned or not. When apprehension took place, they felt anger at themselves, the ministry and the person who reported."

They felt "loss of control of feelings" — that is, having their belief and value system and their self-worth invalidated. Through this process they may be forced to suppress feelings. Expressing feelings freely shows anger or grief and may not be seen as responsible behaviour. A parent must be extremely careful about what is said to a social worker.

I've dealt with situations of apprehension in my own community. One of the things that is used against parents when there is an apprehension by a social worker is that anger, and I would ask the minister himself. I don't know whether the minister has children, but imagine what it must be like for parents to have a child apprehended and then feel that they must suppress absolutely all of their feelings about that apprehension to prove to the system that they are functioning and capable of having the child returned to them.

Parents are made to feel that it is their fault: "Exchanged bad role for sick role after apprehension." I'm not sure what they meant by that. Oh, they're referring to how a parent feels after the apprehension. "The apprehension affected their behaviour and health. They felt disoriented, intimidated and isolated. They lost weight and control of their life. They still feel anger and guilt, even after the situation is resolved."

Apprehension also creates tension between the parent and the foster parents, and the childhood experience can affect how you react to apprehension.

There's a greater fear if your foster experience was a bad one. It's particularly interesting to me to have a study of the parents' history of children that have been apprehended. I suspect that with some of those broader statistics, the ministry could tell a lot and could design these policies accordingly.

I'd like to ask the minister some other questions about apprehensions and whether or not you have statistics about the age group of children in care or children that have been apprehended. Can the minister indicate to the committee...? If I recall the minister's own numbers, there are over 6,800 children in care currently. I wonder if the minister could indicate what percentage of those children that have been apprehended are between the ages of 16 and 19.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: This includes all the children. Between zero to age four there were 1,617 — 28.4 percent; from five to nine years there were 1,054 — 18.5 percent; from ten to 14 years of age there were 1,794 — 31.5 percent; from 15 to 18 there were 1,222 — 21.6 percent.

I just want to comment on the remarks made regarding apprehension. Apprehension is not a very pleasant thing. I don't know whether you think the ministry should abandon the whole business of apprehension. It would be great if we could, but it's not.... I can understand how traumatic it is for a child and for a parent. But in 96 percent of the cases we are not involved in that, except if it is necessary. For a child to be subject to the abuse, neglect or some other conditions that befall children, that's pretty traumatic too. I don't think you expect that I'm going to stand here and say that there's a nice way of apprehending. We try to do it the best way we can.

One of the things we look at is the possibility of not having the social worker who does the apprehension be the same person who would go back and try and deal with that family after, because there is a bit of animosity that develops when the apprehension is made. We understand that, and we understand their feelings. There isn't really an easy way to deal with it. I understand the concerns and frustrations of the parents. But what are the options under those circumstances if you have to be concerned about the safety of the child? That's the question.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I appreciate the minister constraining his comments about whether or not I'm arguing against apprehensions completely, because very clearly I recognize, as do most people working in the area, that there are situations that cannot be avoided and that there are situations in this province where children must be apprehended for their own safety and indeed for their own survival.

My argument is that there are apprehensions.... The minister quoted 46 percent, I believe, to this committee. You indicated they were voluntary custody. I would imagine that with voluntary custody orders, in particular, those were very clearly not situations where the ministry took the children. I would expect that for most of the very serious ones where the children's safety was involved, those would not be voluntary, but

[ Page 13050 ]

instead would be situations where the ministry would apprehend.

There are other areas that I want to deal with, but I know the member for Alberni had some issues that he wanted to raise with the minister, so I'll relinquish my spot.

MR. G. JANSSEN: On the same apprehension area, although a slightly different venue, I'd like to have the minister comment on a recent case under the human rights commission which the ministry lost. The services of Rick and Audrey Price, who were caregivers for some three and a half years, were no longer required, and they were denied positions as caregivers. Mr. Price brought the matter to my attention, and I gave him some suggestions. I went through various avenues in the ministry and eventually advised Mr. Price to take it to the human rights commission, which in fact he did. The ministry paid $1,000 in damages and $3,100 in back pay but never did offer an apology to Mr. Price. He was obviously wronged by the ministry. He was in a position where an apprehension was made from a handicapped person that he himself was not the caregiver for but for which his wife had signed the contract.

The ministry owes Mr. Price an apology, and the ministry should offer him reinstatement for his services — or his wife's services. I know this is a serious matter, and the mistakes were not made by Mr. Price. The mistake was entirely on the ministry's behalf. I would ask the minister to try and rectify that situation.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'm not happy that this happens, but in another sense I'm pleased with the results because it shows that justice does work in the province. There was an individual who complained about the treatment he got from the ministry; he took it to the Council of Human Rights; he won and the ministry had to pay. The ministry should apologize to him for that as well. He got paid, but he should also have an apology. If he was right and we were wrong, he should be apologized to. I'll see that it happens.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The second part of my question or the action I'm seeking is that both the Prices be considered for reinstatement in their role as caregivers — something, as I said, they had undertaken for three and a half years with no complaints at all, and have so far to this date been denied the right to be caregivers again. In speaking with people within the ministry, they did a fine job. There was never a question as to the type of care that was given. I appreciate the apology, as I say, but I would also ask the minister to go further and offer reinstatement for the services that were provided.

[8:15]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Looking at the material I have before me very quickly — I don't have time to review the case sitting here and trying to listen to what the member says — but I would have to look at the details more than I have had here. When they went to the Council of Human Rights for a ruling, one of the requests was that the ministry be found to have not acted appropriately and that a decision of reinstatement be made. The Council of Human Rights decision did not recommend reinstatement. It did say that they should be awarded $1,000 for emotional suffering and $3,000 to pay out the contract, but it did not recommend reinstatement; however, the apology, yes.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

MR. G. JANSSEN: I realize that there was no recommendation from the Council of Human Rights for reinstatement; however, what I'm doing is asking the minister — and I realize that he can't review this case here tonight — to consider a review of the case that may possibly lead to reinstatement. There was never a question about the care that was given by the Prices. They were always considered good caregivers, and it was over a technical matter and oversight on behalf of the ministry that their right to be caregivers was denied. If the minister is saying that he would review the situation and possibly offer reinstatement to the Prices, I find that very appropriate.

I would also like to canvass the minister on a letter he wrote to city council in Port Alberni on a request for an increase in programs. The letter is very thorough, and to help out the staff, the reference number is 467 on the letter. It says that the increases in shelter allowance, support allowance ... coverage — this is for a mother with three children.... The minister goes on to talk about the addition to support shelter allowances, medical and dental coverage, Christmas bonuses, school start-up allowances, camp fees, special diet allowances, natal allowances, families with children that have additional sources of income such as federal child tax credits, federal sales tax credits, goods and services tax credits, family allowances and enhanced earnings exemptions programs. The bottom line is that the minister, in his letter, claims that for a single parent with three children on income assistance, the potential monthly family income equals $2,083.23 as of January 1991. I wonder if the minister could advise us exactly how many people are collecting what works out to some $25,000 a year on assistance.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: We don't have the information here as to how many there are, but every one of the items listed is a factual item that covers the value of the services and benefits we give. As for a letter such as the one you're reading, we send out quite a number of letters like that, because people ask questions about what we really do provide. There are people who are genuinely concerned and think that we offer very little, because they never really hear about it. They hear the complaints about the service, but they never really hear what is offered. The list you read is a rundown of all the earnings.

Everybody on there might not take advantage of every one of them. For instance, in order to benefit from the exemption for additional income, they have to earn some additional income. If they do, they can keep $100 a month. That becomes additional income to them, and they have to do those things in order to

[ Page 13051 ]

maximize it. But we will pay the benefits you have listed there, and if they take advantage of each thing, that will be their maximum income.

MR. SERWA: It's a pleasure to once again get up during the debates of the Minister of Social Services and Housing. I suppose, as I said last week, that fundamentally what we're discussing here are philosophical differences. I was brought up with the saying: "So shall you sow; so shall you reap." I would like to talk a few minutes about people's obligations and responsibilities.

Altogether too often I hear from the members opposite that individuals are aimless and adrift and helpless to control their own destiny, and the members opposite — the New Democratic Party — feel they can solve the problem by giving these people a sense of direction and pointing them in the right way. Well, I have a great deal of difficulty with that. While the intent may be somewhat noble, it's misguided. There are obligations and responsibilities on all of us in society, and I'm appreciative of the commitment of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing to assist people working in that direction, and that's incredibly important.

The hon. member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley has spoken with respect to single parents with children, be they with a mother or with a father. They are masters of their own destiny too. They are not victims, and that awareness of responsibility has to be purveyed to all people.

Government cannot do everything, Mr. Chairman. Government doesn't have the resources or the ability. People are responsible for themselves, and I think the members opposite are purveying a myth that government in fact can do everything. This country was built by individuals, hon. members — not by governments but by individuals who accepted their responsibilities and obligations. That's something that each and every one of you has to be aware of. Every citizen in this province is well aware of it.

Each one of us, every waking day, gets up and makes some 10,000 decisions. Not all of them are right, by a long shot. When I was involved in the ski business, I used to feel that a person who made more than 50 percent of the decisions right was really working for us. In the upper levels of management, I expected 85 to 90 percent. But I never expected 100 percent of the decisions to be right.

In the course of debates on the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, I hear a lot of individual things — mistakes perhaps, but probably honest and genuine mistakes made by perfectly willing staff striving to the very best of their ability, handling the caseload and the complexity of the situation, making judgment calls. That's what we're talking about here: judgment calls. In the course of estimates, I believe we should be talking about policies of the ministry and not individual judgment calls by caseworkers out there in the field, or individuals in ministry staff who are striving to do the best possible job with their training and experience and certainly with a great deal of commitment. I think they do a splendid job with the challenges placed before them. So when I hear the criticisms on all of the small things, on the countless tens of thousands of decisions that individuals have to make while carrying on their obligations, I'm somewhat appalled that the members opposite do not understand.

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, maybe you would point out to that member that it's not up to any government member or backbencher to be telling our side of the House what we should or should not be doing. We're doing Her Majesty's opposition work, and we will continue to do it. This sanctimonious twaddle from the other side is uncalled for.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order, hon. member. I believe that both sides are allowed to express an opinion, and that's exactly what's being done.

MR. SERWA: I'll carry on, because we on this side of the House endeavour to purvey honesty, reality and a sense of balance.

In the day-to-day operation of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, I am confident that the minister and staff are doing a splendid job in the province of British Columbia. I've not heard one of those hon. members speaking against any of the initiatives or policies. What you've been speaking against are some of the breakdowns — perhaps — from the standpoint of perspective. The reality is that if we want to live in a free society, with a quality of life, we collectively have to shoulder our obligations and responsibilities.

We talked a bit about apprehension, and I too am somewhat puzzled by the hon. member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley with her statements on that, seemingly going on with a great deal of concern for the parent and not having concern for the child. I'm well aware, because of the occasional apprehension in my constituency, of the process that has to take place for that to transpire. I know the ministry does not proceed without a court order and a lot of soul-searching, and always with the best interests of the child placed first and foremost.

I'm very pleased with the operation of the ministry and very confident of the minister and his commitment to the ministry.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I can't help but respond to the member. I want to start by conveying my best wishes to him in the hopes that he never finds himself in the situation that many people in this province find themselves in. The government member says that he was brought up with the sentiment that socially.... I'm at a loss for the quote.

Interjections.

MS. SMALLWOOD: To paraphrase, the member says you reap what you sow. I expect that he was not in the House when we talked about people on income assistance and took a look at the percentages and the groups represented there. One of the groups represented on income assistance in increasing numbers

[ Page 13052 ]

nowadays is men over the age of 50, men who have become technologically redundant in their workplace, who have worked for 20 to 25 years or more and whom I would suspect were raised very much like the member who just spoke — the first member for Okanagan South. The reason I wish him well is because all too often I have had those men come into my constituency office in tears, because they never expected to have to go on welfare. They never expected to have to face an income assistance worker and explain what happened in their life that has caused them to rely on welfare. They've paid their taxes all their life; they've raised their families; they've lived up to all the responsibilities and all the things they were raised to think of as their responsibility. Indeed, they thought they had sown well.

It could have been because of government policy. It may very well have been just a grant to one of their employer's competitors, or it could be that a certain amount of wood was allowed to be exported out of the province, and on and on — all government policies that affect people's daily lives and employment. Those are issues that they don't have direct control over but indeed find themselves the victims of. For the government to say that their policies don't affect the economy.... It goes two ways. If they don't affect the economy negatively, then they can't affect the economy positively either. There has to be some responsibility accepted by government in the policies brought down.

We just talked generally about that group of men who have worked all their lives and all of a sudden find themselves unemployed. Certainly they didn't sow that for themselves. I would suggest to the member: if you were to look at people with disabilities who find themselves on welfare, surely they did not sow that for themselves either. Yet people with disabilities are disproportionately poor in this province. Surely the number of women who find themselves on welfare simply because of their gender....

[8:30]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I really feel left out here. These are my estimates, and the member opposite is standing there looking at the member from the Okanagan, and I'm completely ignored. Will we get back to my estimates, please?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I suppose I would feel the same way if I had had that much attention all day. Anyway, I would ask the member for Alberni to proceed.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I imagine the government members will soon find out what the member from the Okanagan was speaking about: what you shall sow you shall reap. They've been sowing disaster, and I imagine that's what's going to face them when they go to the polls.

But to get back to the estimates of the minister — and these will probably be his last estimates for a number of years. We were speaking about the letter and the amount of dollars that he had written to my city council: the $2,083.23 available to a mother with three children, on social assistance, and all the support services available.

As many members of this House know, when people on social assistance come to their offices, it's a matter of last resort. They've gone through the Social Services ministry, and many times those offices are understaffed; they have a big caseload. Communities such as Alberni, like many communities away from the lower mainland, where the economy is overheated.... The single-industry resource-based communities have had many layoffs through modernization or poor markets. The only industry in the community has had to downsize, and there have been some problems. They end up on unemployment insurance or, if that's not available to them, on social services. There's a great increase, and there can be dramatic swings; a thousand people in a matter of a month can end up on social assistance, and many times those workers can't cope. As the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley has just pointed out, many of those people have never been on social assistance before and have no idea what is available to them. They find themselves having difficulty coping — emotionally and with the amount of benefits that is available to them.

Perhaps the ministry could publish a booklet explaining all the programs that are available, so that when the worker in the office doesn't have the time or perhaps does not have the ability to explain to the person that has ended up on the welfare rolls.... Explain to them exactly what is available and everything that they're entitled to, so that they can take advantage of this $2,083.23 and raise their family members up to a standard of living that perhaps will be socially accepted as their children try to work their way through the education system and try to work their way through some social acceptance with their peers in the community.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'd be the first to acknowledge that there are a lot of people in the province who are very reluctant to come and ask for social assistance. We always hear about the other person, the person that may choose to abuse the system or attempt to abuse the system, and a lot is made of that. But there are a number of people who are very reluctant to use the service. As a matter of fact, there are a number of cases.... I've seen many since I've come here. Many times I've sent letters. Someone has written in describing the circumstances of someone that they know; it may be a relative or friend or somebody within their community who is really having a very difficult time and will not go and ask for assistance. We have suggested that that person try to persuade the other one to come in and ask and talk to us about it.

I've seen people who have certainly needed help and have been reluctant to ask for it. If the personal circumstances are such that they require assistance, then we want to see them have it. It's equal and fair for all. It shouldn't be for one and not the other. There are times when we've suggested people come in and ask for the service and have their case reviewed by the social worker to see if they're eligible for some assistance. They may be on assistance and be eligible for

[ Page 13053 ]

some additional benefit. That happens and may well happen with the gentlemen you were talking about a while ago, who was getting on in his working life, had lost his job all of a sudden and had never been on social assistance. He's the type of individual it may very easily occur with.

We think there are a number of people who are reluctant to claim the benefits they're entitled to. As far as information on what people are entitled to, there's really no reason for people not to know that. That information is available to everyone now at social assistance offices. I have to be honest with you, when we talk about $2,083.23, we're talking about the maximum, the very best scenario. There's no question that the person has to earn additional income to make that. It's pointing out what the maximum potential is. I think that answers the question.

MR. G. JANSSEN: It doesn't answer the question, Mr. Chairman. I'll try to put it in a manner that perhaps the minister can give us some commitment on. I do realize $2083.23 is the maximum. But as the minister is probably aware, many times people on social assistance come to our offices or the offices of other community organizations because they're not receiving enough benefits in order to survive in the community — to feed their family and find adequate housing. Many times when they come to our constituency offices, we have to take out the manuals and go through them to make sure they're getting everything they could possibly be entitled to, such as the support and shelter allowances, camping fees, special diet allowance and natal allowance. There's a long list of them. What I'm asking the minister to do is print a booklet so that the person on social assistance can look at that booklet and say: "Yes, my children are entitled to camp fees. Yes, they are entitled to other programs. Yes, I am entitled to extra. I'm having difficulty meeting it now."

I have 63 1/2 -year-old women in my office who have been deserted by their husbands. They have no income, and they're receiving $580 a month. They're unaware, and they have been to their social workers and asked whether there is something else. They have been told: "No, that is the maximum you can receive." When their rent is $315 a month, you can recognize the circumstances that puts those people in, not in terms of the type of nutritional food they may be able to buy, but in terms of clothes and whether they may even want to buy their grandchildren a small present on their birthday so they can remember their grandmother — so they can do the right thing.

But in many cases they've been down to the social worker and have been rejected and told: "Sorry, that is the maximum." Then they come to our offices, and we have to go through the manuals. To be fair, would it not be acceptable under the minister's existing programs to put those simply in a small brochure that would point out to those people the income levels and exactly what they're entitled to so that they can live at a decent standard?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, we have the pamphlet with all of that information in it. I don't know what more we can do. It's there in black and white. As a matter of fact, we're thinking of printing it in other languages now in order to make sure everybody is aware of it. But it has been in English for some time. So it's there. There's no use printing another one.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I would like to share some statistics with the minister that have to do with the AIDS program and street kids. As a parent of teens realizing that even the best kids occasionally find themselves heading downtown for a bit of big-city action and excitement, when I read these statistics, quite frankly, they scared me to death. I want to hear what the ministry has in mind to deal with some of these situations.

First of all, I want to give you some numbers from a national study which says that the majority of street youth were sexually active. Seventy percent had first experienced sexual intercourse before the age of 15, 32 percent of these youths had never used a condom and two-thirds of all street youth were found to heavily abuse drugs or alcohol. More of the female prostitutes than other groups use intravenous drugs.

To compare to that national study, a study done in Vancouver recently was even more frightening. A grimmer picture emerged from this study, as opposed to the study which was primarily done in Ontario. Nearly half of sexually active street youth were found to have two or more partners each month. Although 99 percent considered themselves to be heterosexual, 16 percent had had same-sex partners in the past. Street youth often knowingly had sex with intravenous drug users — 48 percent; and men who have had sex with other men — 36 percent. Over half of the street-involved persons in the Vancouver study were prostituting themselves, compared to only 14 percent nationally. A similar discrepancy occurred in reported intravenous needle use: 53 percent of Vancouver street youth and 12 percent of Canadian youth had used intravenous drugs. Approximately one-half had shared needles.

The AIDS statistics are equally as concerning as the number of persons at risk on the street: 911 cases of AIDS have been reported to the Ministry of Health in British Columbia as of March 31, 1991. Although the absolute number of AIDS cases is lower in B.C. than in Ontario and Quebec, the rate per 1,000 cumulative population is the highest in Canada. So we have the highest number, by population, of cases of AIDS here in British Columbia. The B.C. provincial laboratory, which performs most of the diagnostic testing in the province, has reported 4,500 positive tests since 1985. Intravenous drug use has been cited as the only risk factor in 138 positive tests; 135 tests not showing full-blown AIDS have been reported in individuals under the age of 20. Additionally, 1,300 positive test results have been reported among those aged 20 to 29, a portion of which were likely infected during their teenage years.

[8:45]

The thing that most concerns me is that the only needle exchange and condom programs in B.C. that I'm aware of at this time are based in Vancouver.

[ Page 13054 ]

I want to know whether the ministry itself has a strategy to introduce programs for street kids in other cities and other vulnerable areas in the province. My municipality, Surrey, which is at the end of SkyTrain and is directly impacted by street activity in Vancouver, is looking for the ministry to support a program with not only some of the street kids but some of the foster children directly in your care. While I recognize that many of those programs are supported by the Ministry of Health, I think it's important to recognize that most studies show that a large percentage of children on the streets either are or have been wards of the state. It's very clear that when we're looking at the policy on children in the province, there is a direct responsibility for this ministry.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'm not sure exactly what the question was. In explaining the situation, there was a lot of information and a lot of views. I don't have any argument with what was said; I'm just not quite sure what's expected of me as a response. Are you talking about the programs we have for street children — is that it? We have a lot of programs, and I don't know whether we want to go through all of them.

In Vancouver, as an example — and there's more here — the Drake Street office provides an integrated service model. Services include a medical clinic, a mental health worker, two drug and alcohol counsellors, counselling from 11 ministry social workers as well as an alternative school program, and job and employment training and opportunities; police and probation provide support and monitoring. This service is available through Drake Street from 10 a.m. until 1 a.m. on weekends. In addition, the Drake Street program has two street-front operations funded by my ministry to provide outreach services to locate kids where they congregate and to encourage them to connect with other services. The total budget for Vancouver inner city and street youths is $1.5 million Then it talks about the program in Victoria; there's a program here.

Does that answer the questions the member was asking?

MR. MILLER: I've been advised that about a quarter of the people who are receiving social assistance are aged 19 to 25. Is that correct? I didn't take the time to check this statistic.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: We'll have to dig that information out. Do you have another question?

MR. MILLER: It's really on the whole topic. I've tried to be involved in helping groups in the community. We've had various attempts to deal with the problem of kids on the street, and I've raised it a few times in this House in past years. My contention is that, quite frankly, in a lot of areas they fall between the cracks between the three ministries: yours, Attorney-General and Health. I’ve seen some examples of kids on the street, and I'm also aware how difficult it is to deal with that problem. I don't want to get too philosophical about this, but have you made any kind of evaluation in terms of how effective your services are? My sense is that it's not very effective.

I'm not criticizing you personally or anything. This problem is a difficult one. It's societal in some respects. It is very closely linked with poverty in many cases — not all cases. As much as you can say we've got a mental health worker, etc., I just wonder if we're really getting at this problem. Has the minister got any thoughts on that?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yes, I do have thoughts on that. I think the problem has many roots. Poverty undoubtedly contributes to the circumstances if it exists, but I suggest that perhaps the biggest cause in society is the family breakdown. You can perhaps relate that again to poverty and say poor families are more likely to break down. That might have some truth to it, but I'm not sure that the argument is 100 percent valid. I've seen some families that have done very well and struggled pretty hard. As a matter of fact, I've seen some husbands and wives who struggled together for a long time and raised a family, and then one day things got better for them, and then the family came apart. That's not an unusual scenario either. More money and success does not necessarily mean stronger and better families. Some very good families are not very well-to-do financially, and that's why it's important that people's rights to be parents are not regulated on their amount of income. There are some very good parents who perhaps don't have the benefit of a high income, but they have the values and they have what it takes to contribute to a good, strong family life and to offer to young people something that's worthwhile for growing up with — some strengths there that they may not get in other places. So I don't think that's related strictly to the financial circumstances.

The other issue that you talk about is what we can do with the children. Remember that it is not the ministry that creates the circumstances that the children are in in the first place. The children come out of very difficult circumstances. Many of these children, particularly when they get to be teenagers, can be very difficult to deal with. They can be very hard to handle. It's difficult to find placements for them. They will not be told what to do; they will not listen. The ministry has only so many options for dealing with them. We cannot take them forcibly into a situation that they refuse to cooperate with. There are limits, and I tell you that it's a challenge to deal with many of these young people. We have to feel sorry for them; they are the way they are because of circumstances that they have come through. I guess you and I were lucky enough that we didn't go through exactly those kinds of circumstances, so life was easier for us. Had we, we might have been one of them. The circumstances have been tough for them, and the outcome is that it's difficult for anybody to deal very effectively with them. Yes, the ministry tries to have programs and tries to help them, but very often I think the situation is that it's met with pretty much of a negative response as to participation back to the program.

[ Page 13055 ]

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I have my own views on that. In fact, I think it's a gross oversimplification to talk about family breakdown, quite frankly. I think it ignores some things. It ignores historical reality as well as the current reality.

I would suspect, from my limited reading on the subject, that during the period, for example, of the Great Depression of the twenties and thirties we saw the same kind of thing happen. I'm also mindful of the fact that there is no absolute norm. But one of the tools that's available to you in trying to do your job is statistics. Presumably they do tell you some things about behaviour. You have to do that kind of statistical analysis.

I'm also going to recommend a book to the minister. If he has ever heard of an author called Nathanael West, he might want to check out a book called A Cool Million, which sort of debunks the Horatio Alger type of myth.

You know, statistics do tell you something. I would wager that statistics probably tell you that if you look at the incidence of young people who are in the category we're talking about.... I don't know what we would call them. I'm talking about kids on the street, kids who run into trouble with the law. I'm sure statistics would tell you that there is a preponderance of people who come from lower-income situations. Whether that's attributable to a family breakdown or simply low income is.... I'd be prepared to listen to what you have to say about that.

I think there are some comparisons. A friend who has been dead for many years used to say that the opposite of poverty is money. I guess in its simple form it's true. If you look, for example, at the population in our prisons, a big chunk of that population comes from the native Indian community, far greater than their percentage as a population of the whole. You can link that, I think, to poverty.

I want to get at how effective we are at dealing with these problems. A variety of programs have been tried. I was aware of one here in Victoria called Cooks Down Under. From people I've talked to, I think it had a reasonably good approach to young people. I should say at the outset too that I think young people — in my experience, and I've raised a few kids and it hasn't been easy... Anybody who's raised children through to adulthood knows that they go through some difficult times in their teen years, and maybe more now than when we were young. Maybe it's a more complex world; maybe it's a more difficult world.

But I certainly know that as a parent, it's not a bed of roses. One of the overwhelming and compelling things that allows you to reach children is love, quite frankly. Despite all the difficult times, if they know that's there, somehow you've got a line of communication and some feeling of a sense of worth and a feeling that people value us for ourselves. You know, a lot of well-being comes out of that kind of feeling, and programs that try to reach people on that level, it seems to me, have more of a chance of success.

Cooks Down Under, for example, brought the kids off the street and taught them some basic skills. They brought people from the community in to talk about various topics, really just life skills. They taught them to cook, and I suspect part of that rationale was to simply give some of these kids on the street a square meal, which they probably didn't get. And they gave them some reward. It was a pretty tough program: if you didn't show up, you were out; they didn't fool around. But at the end of it all, they gave them some reward, and there was some sense of self-worth there.

I've always favoured — without having a statistical analysis of it — the sort of adventure approach, taking them away from the setting in which they're in trouble. There are various attempts around the province — one in my constituency in the Queen Charlotte Islands — to remove young people from the setting that they're in, to get them out into a wilderness setting and make them deal with life in probably a very simple form. The idea is to learn those basis skills in the woods — learning to survive and getting along with the people you're out there with.

[9:00]

I want to hear more from the minister about the various approaches used in dealing with this problem. Which ones seem to offer more promise than others? In terms of directing your budget to the ones that are most effective, where do you personally think we should be heading, or where does your ministry think we should be heading, in trying to deal with these problems? Because I think it's an important topic for all of us. Most of all, it's such a terrible waste for young people not to be in a position where they can be productive members of our society, and, probably most important for them as human beings, not to tap the potential that they have.

With that, I'll retire from my spot and let the minister answer the questions.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I think there's a lot to be said for what the member is saying: developing programs to help people develop their worth and have a better image of themselves. I guess if you start analyzing the problem down to the finest degree, you'll finally get to the point where you'll find that the seed at the bottom of most emotional problems might be just that one very issue: our self-worth. How do we see ourselves? How do we really feel about ourselves?

That self-worth is affected by the breakdown in a family, or parents one may feel responsible for. It may be that one didn't do very well at some things and so self-worth deteriorated. There's a whole list of things that affect people's self-worth. Parents often are not very good at building the self-worth of their own children. They may not always encourage children to really believe well of themselves.

But I understand we teach that now in the schools, not in my ministry but with the Ministry of Education. Particularly in the elementary and high schools there are programs of teaching people life skills and living in relationship with each other. I think that's a very important thing. That's really where we should be putting a lot of our effort — catching children when they're young to teach them something about the problems they're going to face when they get out into society and as they're growing up, and responsibilities

[ Page 13056 ]

that belong to them as married partners and as parents — and a whole host of things.

Training and teaching is obviously very important, and we spend so much time teaching others particular skills. But I'm not satisfied that as a society we spend enough time teaching the basic skills: just how to live, how to live with each other and how to deal with children and families, and so on. If we do that, we might help the situation a great deal.

The adventure programs that you talk about — taking young people away, putting them in a wilderness setting removed from the temptations that they have on the streets and giving them an opportunity there — I think have some merit. There are some problems for us as a ministry. I have to admit that to you, because once we do that, we separate the children not only from society but from our opportunity to monitor what happens. Sometimes the results are not good. They may in fact be detrimental to the child, and that is a major concern.

We talked about the situation at Eagle Rock earlier this evening. That was one of the settings that was somewhat removed. It took children for whom it was very hard to find a place anywhere else. A very unfortunate situation developed. I guess if you participate in those kinds of programs, you can expect to experience that from time to time. We all have to be a little bit philosophical about that, recognizing that we're dealing with a difficult situation and that the results may not always be perfect.

We try to concentrate on the programs. The Reconnect program is one that we put a lot of effort into, because we really do think that if we can bring young people back to their families, if we can somehow tie the two together again, it will be in the best interests of all the parties concerned. We have Reconnect programs in many communities: Richmond, North Vancouver, Vancouver, Burnaby, Maple Ridge, two of them in Surrey, Chilliwack, Kelowna, Penticton, Victoria, Nelson, Creston, Kamloops, Vernon, Prince George, Terrace, Prince Rupert, Dawson Creek and Nanaimo.

That program has been really quite successful, and sometimes we're able with a fair degree of success to persuade people to go back and be part of their family again. After being away for a little while, sometimes they find that things are not so great on the street and that maybe home wasn't all that bad after all. Everybody gets a chance to think it over. The Reconnect program can work very well.

We also have the environmental youth program, which gets young people involved in a work experience doing environmental work. We have a community tourism program and the forest enhancement program to try and teach work skills. And young people respond quite well — those we can get to participate. If they start to participate, they can become quite enthusiastic about it, and that can be an important step towards the change that will lead them on to do something worthwhile with their lives.

MR. MILLER: Perhaps the minister might want to elaborate on the hesitancy about the wilderness setting You said there was an inability to monitor.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Again, in terms of evaluating the various approaches, clearly there have to be multifaceted approaches; no single model can predominate. You have to try a variety of things. But in coming to grips with the problem, do some stand out better than others? Do some appear to be more effective than others? For example, the wilderness setting or.... Some of it, by the way, is on shipboard. I may be in error, but I think I read of one program based in Victoria — maybe it was Vancouver — where they took kids out on a sailing ship. I'd like some elaboration on the effectiveness. You must do that kind of analysis internally in the ministry — I would think you would, anyway.

Secondly, I'd like some elaboration on this apparent problem of monitoring, because one would presume that the people running the programs are doing the monitoring. They're doing that kind of assessment and evaluation of how children respond in those various settings. Surely you're not sending them out without having some reporting requirements. Perhaps you could elaborate.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: You're right in one sense, but society is full of disappointments for situations supposedly started for good intentions that ended up being not all that was expected. I tell you that we in the ministry feel very compelled to be able to monitor on a regular basis — if not day to day, then certainly at clear-cut intervals — what is happening with young people whom we place in care.

Perhaps we're particularly sensitive to that, but we've had disappointments. I have talked to young people who have come out of very disturbing circumstances with their families and have been brought into care and placed in a care situation that was not at all conducive to their healing the trauma they had been through. In fact, I can think of situations that imposed additional stress on them, and that becomes a very serious thing. We have the responsibility to make sure that that doesn't happen, and maybe that responsibility is so strong that.... Some programs might conceivably be quite beneficial, but if we could not guarantee the safety of the young person in that program, I know that the ministry would not be willing to take the risk. We have to be sure of it, and we have to be able to monitor it.

The work programs that we have have been very successful. Young people who have gone through those and had the work experience.... Just the fact that they have got up in the morning, gone to work and spent the day at it repeatedly over a period of time has done a great deal for many young people. One of the best ways that we know of getting to young people is to find them that kind of temporary job. That's why we in Social Services and Housing dedicate a fair bit of emphasis to those make-work programs, if you like.

People say: "Well, that's only a six-month program. What is that?" I can tell you that for lots of young people, and others not quite so young, who were involved for that six-month period, it was enough to make the turnaround and start them looking after their

[ Page 13057 ]

own affairs, becoming independent and so on. Those are good programs for us, and we think it's money well spent.

MR. MILLER: I'm not certain that I fully understood your response. What I was really trying to get at, in terms of your internal analysis or evaluation of various programs.... You did say that the work experience program is tied in with other ministries. I'm aware, for example, of the Ministry of Forests' silviculture programs that create some training and employment opportunities. So what you're saying is that programs that actually offer employment seem to be — assuming I'm interpreting you correctly — superior to other types of programs. Is that basically it?

Secondly, I still don't quite follow the safety problem with respect to the wilderness-type settings. As I said, maybe it's just intuitive, but I happen to feel that those would be good programs. Yet all I've really gotten from you is that you're concerned about putting people in situations where they may not be safe, plus your inability to monitor. I still don't have a handle on what the ministry's attitude is toward those types of programs. I don't know if you can offer any more.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I can't offer much more, except that I think it's important we get the situation in perspective. When a child comes into care, we then become the parent for that child for all intents and purposes. We assume the responsibility of the parent, so we really try to treat that young person the same as a family would treat their child. That's the perspective we try to work from.

If it's a young person, we desperately try to concentrate on their education, to get them in school and keep them in school. We have some success at doing that, and we make a special effort at that. If they're older, we try to give them training for different kinds of work that they may be interested in. If they show an aptitude towards something, we would try to promote it and take advantage of that ability. We also find work programs they can go into.

They are wards until age 19, but we are even looking at that particular age. There have been discussions in the ministry about what happens. If you have a son or daughter at home and they become 19 years of age, you don't suddenly lose interest in them. You, as a parent, would be concerned about what they will do next and that they will make out fine in the world and have opportunities. We look at the possibility that we have an extended responsibility to try and help them make that transition from being under our care completely to being able to function on their own and develop independence. So there's a gap in time there, and we will look at special treatment for that young person.

In fact, we become the parent. Obviously that's not nearly as good as if they could have their own, but we try to make it the best we possibly can.

MR. MILLER: I'll leave that particular topic. Maybe I'll try to inform myself a little more on certain aspects of it.

I was kind of curious about the relative percentage of people who find themselves needing social assistance. Has there been any trend of change in that, say as a percentage of the population, over a period of time? Has it decreased or increased?

[9:15]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: It has increased. There was about a 16 percent increase in the last year. I'm not sure that that applies as of today, but a couple of months back that was certainly the case. There was about a 16 percent increase in the caseload and a 21 percent increase in the cost. We know what that was related to: a downturn in the economy. There was a heavy impact from the fact that the federal government changed the unemployment insurance regulations; we ended up covering people who normally would have been covered under Ul. We estimate that that cost us something like $45 million last year as a province.

But people do not have an income. If they don't get unemployment insurance, they have to have something, so we provide help.

MR. MILLER: I certainly appreciate the impact of changes to programs such as UL What I was really after was kind of a longer-term trend. I suppose it would be much like the unemployment rate.

It would appear that the percentage of people requiring assistance is in fact unrelated to the level of assistance that may be available. Do you have anything on that?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I don't think it's related to the level of assistance that's available. I think that if we had a system that made it more attractive to get unemployment insurance than to be employed, then it might have that effect in some cases. But the system we use is one that we think is fair. We know that people on social assistance do not have any excess income. But the purpose of social assistance is to meet basic need, and that's what we try to do. While they're receiving coverage for their basic needs, we also do what we can to assist them to return to the workforce. That's not always possible, and we know that it's not always possible. If people are not successful at that, it doesn't mean that they get cut off assistance. As long as they're making a reasonable effort to become financially independent, that's all we ask of them. But we expect them to do what they can, because really it's up to each of us, if we're employable, to do what we can to provide for our own keep.

I have the numbers of people who are receiving GAIN. The unemployables have been almost constant from April 1990 to March 1991. In April 1990 about 50,000 people who were classified as unemployable were receiving GAIN; in March 1991, a year later, there were 51,640, a change of just 1,600 or 1,700 people. But in the employables, in April 1990 there were 73,469 who were receiving GAIN benefits. A year later, in March of this year, there were 92,886. It jumped from 73,000 a year ago to 92,000 this year, so there's a substantial change in the employable category.

[ Page 13058 ]

MR. MILLER: In the first part of your answer, you seemed to me to be agreeing that — on a relative statement — the number of people on social assistance has less to do with the rates of assistance that may be available and more to do with the economic conditions that drive people there in the first place. I think you said you agreed with that.

I'm not going to try to beat you up about Ontario, although I think it was an unwise thing to say. In fact, I suppose you could argue.... When you're dealing in an objective sense with people's needs, one presumably says that we've got to provide a rate that meets a basic level of need. So if it's a mother with a couple of kids, she has to be able to put some shelter over those kids' heads and feed them and.... Some basic minimum, right?

I think if you and I had to do that, it would be a real struggle. I have always admired my colleague from Vancouver Centre for actually going out and proving that that was the case. I guess you could also argue that if one were to set that rate in an objective fashion, and it was higher than some of the minimum-paying jobs, you would eventually force employers to bring up their wages. I don't know how anybody gets by on the minimum wage these days. Quite frankly, it's not enough to get by on. I can understand that particularly for women with young children it would be too much of a struggle to get by on the minimum wage.

Don't you think, though, when you set those rates, that they should be objectively set? I know you were critical of Ontario and the rates that were presumably set.... I can't even remember the numbers. But don't you think that overall it will eventually have a beneficial effect, first of all, on the clients who require that kind of subsistence level and beyond, and secondly, in terms of inducing wage rates to increase?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I don't agree that we would put social assistance rates to the unemployment insurance and use that as a mechanism to increase wages in the province. We would then be making a pretty fantastic statement. I'd have some trouble with that. The member for Prince Rupert is in my view usually a pretty rational individual, but I wonder about the logic of that particular position. In order for you to have an effect on the job market, you would have to have so many people on social assistance that the employers would have to raise their rates in order to get them off of social assistance. Otherwise they wouldn't come and work; they'd stay on social assistance. I can tell you I wouldn't be too optimistic about the effectiveness of that program doing anything to improve the wage rates. I just don't think it would work that way at all.

When you talk about people on social assistance, you cannot categorize them with one word and say that they are this or they are that. We talked earlier this evening about having to actually go out and tell some people that they're entitled to receive some assistance from us and that we're willing to give it to them. In fact, I've had situations where I've explained to people: "Please don't feel that it's any disgrace to be on social assistance or feel guilty about this. The system was put in place to take care of someone facing the circumstances you now face. You're entitled to it." That's the part about being a society: we will help others who are less fortunate for the time that they need help.

Many people on social assistance are very concerned about being on assistance and would love to get off. They're anxious to get jobs and would do whatever they could to remove themselves from it. That's not speaking for every single person. There are always those people in society that will abuse something and take advantage of it. With the suggestion you're talking about, it would be nice for those that were sincerely trying to get off of the rolls and be independent, but we would be laying open an opportunity for abuse by those who would choose to abuse it. They do exist in society. You and I know that. It's not a question of everybody being pure. Social assistance recipients are no different from anybody else. There's a great variation among the people who are there.

It may be interesting for you to compare B.C., Alberta and Ontario. In B.C. we have 3,132,000 people with 242,265 on social assistance for 7.7 percent of our population. In Alberta there are 2,471,600 people with 181,000 on social assistance for 7.3 percent. In Ontario, there are 9,743,300 people with 932,542 on social association for 9.5 percent. These are April 1991 figures. Ontario is just over 2 percentage points above Alberta and British Columbia, if you take the average between them. That is a pretty significant amount when it comes to social assistance.

MR. MILLER: I want to make a correction if there was some misunderstanding. I'm not suggesting we use welfare or social assistance rates as an instrument, I was simply trying to present the corollary for the argument you had made with respect to the rates in another province.

We have other mechanisms, and I don't think we should hesitate to use them. The minimum wage, for example, is established by the province. It's clear we have an obligation to ensure that the minimum wage, which is obviously not the best wage, has to be a benchmark. I'm not proposing that we use rates in that respect, but whenever I hear this argument.... We have heard a lot of arguments — quite frankly, reactionary ones — from your party, and you're familiar with some of them on this subject, and I've always viewed it as kicking people who can least fight back.

I think the statistics you cited are proof of what I said. From the reading I've done, the job loss in the manufacturing sector in Ontario clearly has driven people to the welfare rolls. Part of that you can deal with in terms of your policy to try and stimulate the economy and get jobs created. Time will tell whether you're successful in that or not. But for whatever might be the constant, when we're dealing with the number of people on social assistance — and I'm mindful that they are all individuals and have a variety of reasons for being there — it has always been my belief that people would rather do something productive than something unproductive. That goes for people on the job; there's simply more satisfaction. It's better to do something than not to do something. In trying to reach that constant, whatever it might be, I don't think we've

[ Page 13059 ]

really changed our approach too much over a long period of time. I think it's pretty much that we just make this assistance available.

Have there been trends in other parts of North America — let's just stick to North America — where innovation, for example, in terms of.... I don't want to get into work for welfare; that's not what I'm talking about. I think Daniel Moynihan did some work in the United States on that question: the whole notion of providing the programs in such a manner that there is a feeling of self-respect, programs designed to move people off social assistance permanently. I'm interested in what work, if any, the ministry may have done in looking at other jurisdictions and innovations, because as I've said, we really haven't changed our approach for many years on this whole subject.

[9:30]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I suppose it's probably right that we can do things better than we have done them. We should always try to do them better; I agree with that too. But as a matter of fact, if you start comparing what happens in other jurisdictions against what happens here, in all truthfulness I can tell you that the tendency is more likely to be that other jurisdictions will look towards British Columbia to see what we're doing, because we have quite a lot of activity going on in that particular area.

There are the programs for opportunities for independence and the types of assistance that we provide to people to become employed. There is the incentive allowance, educational training, work clothes, work transportation and day care surcharges. We have different types of Employment Plus programs. There is a youth incentive and counselling, and we participate in a lot of things in order to encourage people to become independent and not have to rely on government. We can understand the need to do that, because if you look at the number of people on social assistance as of March of this year, 51,640 people are unemployable. Some of these people will gain employment, because it's remarkable what some people are capable of doing. Some people who you would expect to have a very hard time to ever be independent will make it as well. But they have a difficult time, and a lot of them are the elderly, the disabled and some children in there. But on the employable side, where we have 51,000 unemployable, we have just about 93,000 employable. So obviously, to make life better for the unemployables, we have to do something about finding ways to reduce the numbers on the other side. We have almost two to one employables against the unemployables. If we could find a way to deal with the employable portion of our GAIN program, we would certainly be in a good position to provide benefits for the remaining one-third.

MR. MILLER: I've been talking too much, and I'm going to allow some of my colleagues to ask questions of the minister.

I just wanted to ask one last question. Has the minister seen the report just issued by StatsCan on the impact of social programs on the deficit? Does he agree with it, or has he formed any conclusions about it?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'm not aware of the details of that, Mr. Chairman.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The member for Prince Rupert raises a lot of really good questions around income assistance and re-entry into the job market. I have a considerable number that I would like to talk to the minister about, but I'd like to finish up on a couple of questions around street youth. We have another member who's coming to the House who also wants to ask some questions.

In your response to the member for Prince Rupert, you talked about Reconnect programs. Most of them that you outlined, I think, are on the lower mainland. The Reconnect program for street youth in Vancouver.... The minister shakes his head. The names that stuck in my mind, at least, are on the lower mainland; you might refresh my memory.

The concern in particular around Reconnect programs is services to the young people who are being brought back to their community. For the most part, a number of those children who are being brought back to their community are in need of significant support from the community, whether it be crisis counselling, psychological counselling for some of the problems they have faced around sexual abuse or other abuse, or drug and alcohol programs specifically targeted to teens.

In the suburbs we're repeatedly hearing of young people who are brought back to their families. When it comes to treatment for drug and alcohol abuse.... I'll remind the minister of some of the statistics in relation to the percentage of street youths involved in intravenous drug use and/or alcohol abuse. Well over half the street youth in Vancouver indicated they had been involved in significant substance abuse.

The reality is that there are very few programs out there for those young people. Where there are programs, often they are having to access them back in the community of Vancouver and are interfacing again with their peers living on the street. It makes it very difficult for families who are trying to bring their kids back and keep them in their community.

I wonder if the minister would make some comment about the accessibility of services.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: First of all, I would comment on where the Reconnect programs are located. There are certainly a number of them in the lower mainland, because that's where the biggest portion of the population is. But there are also programs in Nelson, Creston, Kamloops, Vernon, Prince George, Terrace, Prince Rupert, Dawson Creek and Nanaimo. It's not limited only to the lower mainland.

My understanding of the Reconnect program is that it involves more than just being able to connect the young person with the family and somehow managing to get the two together again. It's a program designed with social workers to help in the process, to provide the necessary counselling and support. That's my

[ Page 13060 ]

understanding of the program. The member shakes her head to that, but....

Interjection.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: If you're talking about the drug and alcohol portion, I really can't comment on that in these estimates, because, as you know, that's under the Minister of Labour.

MR. PETERSON: Earlier today I listened with a lot of interest to the debate concerning housing for individuals in British Columbia. I would like to compliment the ministry and minister on the programs they have. For instance, in Langley I had the ability and good fortune to attend an opening of a housing project which had in it a component of living quarters for disabled people — not only physically but mentally disabled. I can assure all members of this House that those individuals were extremely grateful for the combined efforts of the private sector which helped put it together — the provincial government, the federal government and indeed the local authorities — the local council providing the zoning for this development. I observed that in many areas the councils may not be all that in favour of such zoning. So I really would like to give full accolade to all involved, because it's one of these combined efforts that work well to provide housing for citizens of British Columbia.

But there seems to be something missing in the debate, Mr. Chairman. There's more to housing than just being able to have a place you can rent. What about having the opportunity to purchase your own home? I would wonder if the minister may want to consider this in some of the programs being developed — that we should perhaps accent more on providing opportunities for British Columbians to own their own homes. For some reason that's been missed in the debate today. I'm kind of surprised that the members of the opposition never brought that out. They keep talking about rental housing. Fair enough. There is a need there; I grant that. But there's also a very strong desire for individuals to own their own home. This opportunity should be given to all British Columbians. I wonder if the minister may wish to comment on that.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: In fairness to the members opposite, we did spend a bit of time talking about home-ownership and particularly the first-time homeowner. I agree with the member. I thank him for his comments regarding the activities of the ministry. I appreciate his concern with home-ownership, because the right to own your own home is something that hasn't just now become an important issue for this government; it's been the fundamental concern of Social Credit since it started in 1952. Home-ownership has been a major thrust — people should own their own homes. It gives people a stake in this country and a feeling of belonging that perhaps is hard to find in any other way.

When it comes to the issue of home-ownership, we are working on developing a program that we'll be announcing shortly to assist people to acquire their own homes. We have to be realistic. You don't do anybody a favour by getting them into a home if they can't really afford to be there. Once they can afford to be there and their income is sufficient to enable them to own a home, I think we should remove the hurdles that make it very difficult, especially for young people, to get into a home, make the down payment and so on.

Without giving all the secrets away, I think housing breaks down into a changing situation as the income of people changes. First of all, there are many people who obviously do not have sufficient income to own a home but who have problems renting. For those, we have to perhaps look at some way of providing a degree of support so they can at least — since they're working and not depending on government — get some help in order to find proper rental accommodation for their families. That's the case for many single parents.

There is a gap where people have enough income to provide for their own rental accommodation. I would hope that one day the provincial government, along with the federal government, will come up with an innovative plan where young people will be able to set aside some of their income, tax-free, so that they will be able to start to build a fund that they can use as a down payment on their first home. When people get to the point where they can afford the down payment and they have enough money to meet the mortgage payments, we will have programs — which we are looking at and will be announcing — that will assist them to take that first step, providing them with a bit of security that they don't perhaps have, and providing them with enough guarantee to keep their mortgage rates at least at the best terms available, and some consideration of security so that they do not get into a house and lose it. We will announce a program that will take care of those needs and make it possible for people to make that transition.

[9:45]

MR. BARNES: I'm certainly in favour of home-ownership, but I must say that after about 35 years of occupying the home that I'm now paying on, I have yet to own it, so I don't know what you're talking about. I've been making payments for a long time, and if I had no guarantee of a job, I wouldn't even be able to hang on to it. Let's be realistic. Ownership is not quite an accurate description of what is happening. We get a right to pay on it, and hopefully one day we will own it, but an awful lot of people are losing their homes.

The question that I wanted to ask relates to two things. I heard the minister responding to some of the questions from our critic, the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley, about funding for street youth. The minister responded that about $1.5 is available for programs to do with street youth. I'd like him to elaborate on that.

The other one has to do with the....

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are they?

MR. BARNES: Where are they? I do know that one street youth worker at Strathcona Community Centre works in four schools. To my knowledge the provincial

[ Page 13061 ]

government doesn't pay anything to this person, so I'd like to see who is benefiting from the $1.5 million.

I want to ask about the summer employment program that we've had in this province for the past 15 years to help students. The '90-91 fiscal was about $8 million, a 20 percent reduction from previous years. Has the government made any announcement with respect to employment for students for this fiscal year? If so, how much, and how many jobs would be involved? School is out for colleges and institutions. Of course, high-school students are getting out this month, if not already. If the government has not made that announcement, it's getting a little late. What's the situation with respect to summer employment?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'm not sure what program the member is really talking about. Are you talking about the youth employment? You're talking about government employment for young people? Within government?

I'm having trouble getting an answer. That answers your question, doesn't it, Mr. Member?

MR. BARNES: It's true that it doesn't come under this minister directly; it probably comes under Labour. But I thought I'd ask him because I know he sits on the interministerial committee to do with youth, which involves Education, Social Services, the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General and the Provincial Secretary. Assuming that there is some coordination with respect to the concerns and the services and the resources for youth, I nonetheless would like.... If the minister is not apprised of what the policy is, of what's going to happen, I think it's an urgent matter, because time has run out. This is June 24, and really that program should be well announced and subscribed to. There should be some indication with respect to where those jobs are, which I believe comes in the neighbourhood of 4,000 or 5,000 positions.

That is number one. If you don't know the answer to that right now, could you respond to my first question on the $1.5 million for street youth?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The money for the street youth program, the $1.5 million in Vancouver, is for residential beds, a one-to-one worker, Reconnect for street workers — five positions out of this. It says on this piece of paper that the Reconnect budget for this year is $1.94 million.

On the other program, Mr. Member, you'd have to check with perhaps the Ministry of Labour to find out where that is.

MR. BARNES: I have a lot of questions I wanted to ask the minister, but I'm trying to find some of the notes, and I really would like to have them. For instance, a special program is going to be proposed to the government to deal with street youth. It's going to be sponsored by the First Baptist Church in my riding, the West End. They've done quite a profile of the youngsters that they're trying to accommodate. I had several pages of notes describing who these young people are; I'll probably be able to bring it in the House tomorrow.

This is an example of what is missing in terms of transitional places for these people to go, rather than going to the streets. There are a number of interested organizations out there who want to do the job, but they don't have any resources. I'm not sure if the minister or the government has really stopped to think about some of the means by which we can accommodate this problem. We talk a lot about youth workers. I'm not talking about counsellors in schools, or the traditional person who has an office someplace; I'm talking about street workers, people who are mobile, who are not bound under the authority of an organization that is fairly rigid and inflexible. These are young men and women who can operate from a hands-on proactive approach. These people are skilled and trained, many of them university graduates. You're going to have to pay them at least $30,000 a year or so, which is not a lot of money. But these are competent people who are familiar with the resources in the community. They are sensitive; they understand the dynamics of family breakup and the problems associated with trying to prepare yourself to deal with society, and some of the problems.

There's a need for a person who is flexible, who has the support of the government and the support of agencies in terms of resources. What I'm saying is that the buck has to stop with them. Many of these young people that we are, for instance, identifying as problems, and who are at risk, who are joining gangs, have problems caused by their lack of ability to communicate, lack of ability to access the resources that are available. They feel alienated, etc. These are problems that we can cope with if we have the right people who don't present an official aura around them; in other words, if they're not like somebody who has a uniform on. Many of these young people have a reaction against too much authority. So these street workers dress like they belong on the streets, except they are committed to trying to assist people at whatever level they may be. This is what I think is missing. So none of this $1.5 million is for hiring any of these people. Is that what you're saying?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yes, the $1.94 million is for hiring this kind of person. My understanding is that what the member has described is exactly what the people who work in the Reconnect program do. That's how they go about their business. They get paid just about what you were saying, $30,000; another one, $31,872. That's the work they do, and that's the Reconnect program.

MR. BARNES: This is very helpful. With the little time that we have left, could the minister tell us how many people are involved, how many are male, how many are female and what agencies are they attached to? What's the line of authority in terms of reporting?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: They report to the district offices, and I understand there are 59 workers.

[ Page 13062 ]

MR. BARNES: What's the gender?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: One or the other, I guess.

MR. BARNES: You say there are 59. This is for the province.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yes.

MR. BARNES: Right. And you say they report to the district, so this means that they come under your ministry. They are government employees, are they?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: They are under contract, and there are 25 contracts. They employ 59 workers, and they contract the service to the ministry.

MR. BARNES: I want to thank the minister for giving me that preliminary bit of information. I would like to notify the members that I would like to come back tomorrow, if I have the opportunity, to try to describe the not-so-subtle differences between the street workers who have the freedom, without being bound by the rules and regulations of the department, to access the youngsters. I'm not sure what the criteria are in the mandate of these workers, or if there are limits on what they can do. You haven't quite described what they can do and what their resources are.

But I think that's what we're talking about in terms of a system to deal with youngsters who are getting into trouble, and who are just not accessing traditional services as they exist. But I don't want to pursue it right now, because I haven't got the information I need for myself. I will have it tomorrow, though.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'm a little disappointed; I thought the member was going to move that the estimates are concluded. But he didn't do that. Anyway, given the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:58 p.m.