[ Page 13063 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

British Columbia fishing industry

Hon. Mr. Chalmers –– 13063

Mr. Gabelmann

Committee of Supply:

Ministry of Social Services and Housing estimates. (Hon. Mr. Jacobsen)

On vote 52: minister's office –– 13063

Mr. Barnes

Ms. Smallwood

Hon. Mr. Fraser

TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 1991

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

Ministerial Statement

BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHING INDUSTRY

HON. MR. CHALMERS: The fishing industry in British Columbia makes a vital contribution to our economy and the economic health of the communities up and down our coast. The industry is under considerable pressure these days from a number of sources, ranging from shifting global trade patterns to native claims issues. The province is committed to working with the industry to ensure that it can chart a steady course through rather turbulent waters and continue to be a vibrant engine of growth in our economy. This undertaking necessarily involves close working relationships with the federal government, which holds strong jurisdictional powers over the management of the west coast fishery.

Not one comma in federal fish regulations can be changed in Ottawa without an impact being felt on the economy of British Columbia. Accordingly, after becoming minister responsible in the provincial government, I made early contacts with the Hon. John Crosbie, federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, to build a cooperative relationship in which British Columbia's interests could be expressed and recognized. I and my colleague the Minister of Native Affairs met with Mr. Crosbie in Victoria on May 30 to underline our commitment to a cooperative relationship. We expressed concern that the province had not been invited to a select industry-stakeholder session convened at Dunsmuir Lodge on May 25 and 26. We noted our strong interest in the design and evolution of the management regime for west coast fisheries, and we received Minister Crosbie's assurances that we would not be left out again.

Regrettably, Minister Crosbie has either forgotten or overlooked this commitment. A second stakeholder session is now underway in Vancouver, and Minister Crosbie has rescinded on his promise to invite provincial participation. This province remains committed to an open and cooperative relationship with the federal government on the west coast fishery. We cannot, however, abide by federal consultative strategies which operate behind closed doors and do not accommodate or recognize the vital interests of the people of British Columbia in the future of our fishing industry. I have written today to Mr. Crosbie and expressed my profound regret that he has rescinded on his commitment to cooperate with us in this initiative and has chosen a counterproductive course of action which ignores our interest and the need for our participation.

MR. GABELMANN: The first thing I want to say is that the minister talked about cooperation. The first thing he could do is begin to cooperate with this side of the House when a ministerial statement is to be introduced. No one on this side knew until about three and a half minutes ago that there would even be a ministerial statement this morning. The kind of cooperation that this government provides to this Legislature is indicative of the way both the federal and provincial governments work in this country.

AN HON. MEMBER: The member is being argumentative.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, the member is correct: I am being argumentative.

The minister is belatedly getting to his feet to talk about the fact that the federal government has not cooperated with British Columbia in developing regulations for the fishing industry in this province. It is no wonder that the federal government hasn't participated and hasn't involved the provincial government over the years. When the federal government was involved in free trade negotiations with the Americans some years ago, the British Columbia government — the Social Credit government — paid no attention to that issue and did not advance British Columbia's fishing industry position. As a result, B.C.'s fishing industry was sold out by the federal government, because the provincial government was not involved.

The same thing continues today with the FTA discussions between the Mexican and American governments, B.C. is nowhere to be seen. They make these pious speeches about cooperation and yet are not involved in pursuing and pushing and advancing the interests of the B.C. industry. That's why we're in so much trouble in this province, Mr. Speaker. I applaud the government — with one hand — for at least acknowledging that it should be involved in these discussions. My criticism is that it has never taken the proper initiatives to make sure that Ottawa cannot ignore British Columbia anymore.

Orders of the Day

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).

MR. BARNES: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the assembly. I was very pleased to have had the night to reflect on some of the questions I asked the minister. I did some checking and briefed myself on what I wanted to talk to you about. In responding to the question last night about the number of street youth workers you had working under the auspices of the ministry, you suggested that there were 59, of which there were 25 contracts. You didn't give me the breakdown of gender representation, which is an aside to that. I was just curious to know if the government was attempting to respect the importance of equal opportunity as far as employment is concerned.

[ Page 13064 ]

The Reconnect program was not really elaborated on very much. I'm wondering if the minister could clarify for the members precisely what the 59 workers are doing. In some kind of a profile form, what is their scope of responsibility? Who are the young people that these workers are attempting to relate to? Are they mostly dropouts, or are they still living in their homes and having troubles? Who are they?

Before the minister responds.... Last night I was trying to recall the definition of the profile of the youngsters who are going to be served by the program proposed by the First Baptist Church in the West End. I didn't have those notes with me, but I have been able to obtain a preliminary report which highlights who these youngsters are. I will go through it just to give you an idea of how serious the concern is, and it might be more helpful to the members in trying to make a distinction between the Reconnect streetworkers and the streetworkers who I suggested should have more latitude, more freedom and more flexibility in how they approach their jobs.

These are youngsters who have been talked to personally through direct contact, and information was gleaned from social service agencies mainly in the periphery of the West End and the general downtown area of Vancouver. They say that many of the street youth are from all walks of life. All social and economic groups are represented. They are mainly from dysfunctional families. Abuse is a common theme, and one of the issues is having control — the youth want and need control of their lives. They go to the streets to gain control and actually lose more control.

The government agencies tend to make judgments and label the youth. They assume control, and the street youth reject this. Street youth are highly exploited by society. The people who do this are not sought out, and we see little publicity on this. These youth are also exploited on the street, but not judged. Their ages are 14 to 18; some are beyond majority, but generally they are 17 or 18 years of age. In 1991 the average age was about 15 to 16 years.

[10:15]

Institutions like The Maples, for instance — a provincial resource — are actually introducing out-of-town youth to the streets through interaction with street youth. The system actually increases street-kid populations. The total number of street youth today is between 400 and 600, but this number picks up considerably in the summer. And on and on it goes.

I'd like the minister to get the gist of the problem. From what we see here, these youngsters sound as though they aren't getting along too well in their homes, and yet the problem the Reconnect workers have is that many of these youngsters do have homes; they just aren't getting along very well. Therein lies one of the concerns that your workers would tell you if you discussed their jobs with them.

Last night I suggested we need flexibility. We should at least give the youth workers, within their mandate, sufficient flexibility so they don't lose ground they've gained with people that they're connecting with on the streets by saying, "Now that we've got you to a certain point, you have to go back home," or "You've got to go through the system," in a way which is uncomfortable for the youngster. We're talking about building personal relationships. This is why these youth workers are hired: because of their expertise, sensitivity or applicability to the situation as opposed to a more formal setting that these youngsters will simply not access.

The fellow I spoke of last night from the Strathcona Community Centre, who is actually a worker for the community centre association but who has access to schools, is providing a service primarily in the form of prevention. These youngsters are in school; they are in their homes; but many of them are new Canadians or have English as a second language and are not able to function and access the opportunities in the school system the same as some of the youngsters who are more settled and who don't have these barriers — psychological, cultural or whatever the situation may be in terms of adjusting to that environment. You need a multitude of different levels of youth worker to really have a comprehensive system.

I certainly know that the minister and his colleagues have read the ombudsman's report with respect to the need for a youth strategy that coordinates these services, for a very good reason. The ministers have to speak to each other, and there has to be a means of assessing the effectiveness of the various programs. I realize there are quite a few programs that the ministry and various other ministries have. But it's hard to get an impression of intelligent or focused planning and what the government's mission is in terms of a comprehensive strategy that will deal with these young people. This means coming together and conferencing and communicating. It means that decisions are not just handed down unilaterally but that there is participation at all levels so there is input, ongoing assessment and a realistic appreciation of just what we're dealing with.

We hear the horror stories every day. We read about kids who find it easier to belong to a youth gang or to be involved in some kind of antisocial behavior than to pursue the so-called legitimate careers and opportunities of the ordinary British Columbian and Canadian, in terms of getting an education, pursuing a career, accepting responsibility and dealing in a traditional way. Many of these youngsters find themselves disadvantaged in ways that we should look at in an objective way in terms of current conditions.

This isn't perhaps as partisan as we think, because it's a problem for all of us. We need the public to understand what we're talking about. It's just not good enough to spend the money without the insight and appreciation for what we're spending the money on. We hire social workers, for instance. I was a social worker for many years, and I can tell you that one of the most compelling reasons for me to get out of the field of social work was the fact that when I worked for an agency, there were too many rules and regulations that didn't allow me to do what I had been trained to do when I was in university, in terms of interaction with individuals and having the ability to deliver once I had achieved the confidence of my clients. That is a

[ Page 13065 ]

problem, I am sure, for many of these workers. Let's face it, we put them on the spot. We equip them with the resources to go out there. We shouldn't have them going half-prepared to do the job. If we want them to do their job, we give them their mandate, we give them the confidence that we believe they are the best person to assess a situation, and I think we will begin to see a better response. A lot of these young people have a very short period of commitment or willingness to stick with too much conversation or too much dialogue and not enough action. They want to see some results.

There is every reason to suggest that we should be talking first of all about what are the goals, what are we trying to do with these programs — especially Reconnect — and talking about it in terms of what the workers themselves are reporting back.

I don't know if the minister has had an opportunity to talk to the youth workers — the 59 or so that he mentioned last night. If these workers are able to give reports and recommendations, if these recommendations are acted upon and if the youth themselves, who shouldn't be undervalued.... The youths — the target groups — are the people we're trying to help. Are they consulted collectively? Is there a realization that they too are part of the process, not just subjects to be affected by those of us who are deliberating around what's good for them? Are they themselves involved in the decision-making? Are they referred to? If that's happening, great, but that certainly should be happening, simply because by including them in the process they also have a stake in the success of whatever it is you're trying to do. It makes good sense. It's true in anything.

I'm just not sure how expeditiously the government is acting on the recommendations of the ombudsman, who very clearly pointed out the need for children's and youth rights.

Is my time up, Mr. Chairman? It's amazing how time flies, isn't it, when you're having fun. Actually, that's only true because what I'm saying is something that I feel has to be said. It would be much more fun if I could congratulate the government on us having achieved all of these things that I'm talking about. He could say: "Well, you may as well sit down. You're redundant; we're doing it. We appreciate where you're coming from, and it's all being taken care of."

Mr. Chairman, you and I know, and all the members know, that times are pretty frightening right now and that the province is at risk. The population is concerned; they're not sure what to make of the messages they are getting. It's rare that we read in the press or see through the visual media what is happening in a positive way with young people. I'm sure there are many great stories out there; we can always read that there's something very destructive happening or that society is breaking down and falling apart. But we are the policy-makers; we are charged with the duty of assessing and determining whether public programs are effective or where their faults are. It's our duty to pick up on these problem areas. The indication is that we're having more than our share of difficulties with the direction in which many young people are going today. I'd just like to ask the minister if he could try to give us a sense of coordination.

When I sat down last night, I was a little concerned that the minister did not have.... I respect that he didn't have in his hand a response on the summer employment program for youth, because it's not under his ministry; it's under Advanced Education. I thought it was Labour at one time, so I can see the problem. But we've got to get that together. Clearly that youth work connects with what we're talking about.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I want to tell the member that I do think that we have it under control, but I don't want you to sit down, because I do enjoy you standing up and talking about the problem. I appreciate the sincerity that you address the problem with. That's something that I say to you in all sincerity.

I too have found out that the program you asked about is under the Ministry of Advanced Education. I understand that the funding goes on in that, so the funding is available this year as it has been in the past for that particular program.

You talk about, first of all, coordination between the services that are provided by the ministry, and we have a great deal of coordination as to what is being done for youth. The care and the helping of youth in this province is a big issue. It involves a lot of people and a considerable amount of money, because we think it's a problem that we must deal with. We have child care workers in different capacities. First of all, in the schools we have the rehab resources, and the province spends $10.6 million a year on that program, working with young people. On the street, for the Reconnect program we spend $2.3 million a year. And in the community as special services for children — non-residential programs — we spend $22.4 million. That's people working with youths in the communities. This is coordinated by an interministry committee, and that's on the recommendation of the ombudsman, who also felt that there was a need to make sure that it was coordinated. So it is coordinated through an interministerial committee.

The member talked about the Reconnect program, and I said that there were 29 contracts and 54 workers, or something to that effect.

Interjection.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Okay, that's the way it was. We obviously can't look at each one of them, but we have one. Perhaps it's an example of what the program is all about. I'd like to go over this one in some detail; it gives us a pretty clear picture of the program. The flexibility that the member spoke of quite a lot is something that has to be there, because it's not possible for someone, particularly in Victoria, to design and administer a program that will affect the lives of people in Vancouver or some other community in the province. People in the community have to be able to analyze the situation, deal with the problem as it exists and have the flexibility to adjust to what the problem really is. All the programs that we have as a ministry

[ Page 13066 ]

are based upon the principle that the local community will develop the programs that best deal with the problem within that community That's also the case in other programs.

The Minister of Labour is here. That ministry's alcohol and drug programs are also designed within communities, and the most appropriate type of program is used for a particular community. What we have is not government coming to the communities and saying, "This is the program you must implement to deal with your problem," but rather: "We recognize that you have a problem within this community, and we will take submissions from you as to how you think it's best to deal with the problem and how we might help your community deal with it." That's the way the Reconnect program works as well.

The one I want to give you details on is the Downtown Eastside Youth Activities Society. It's located in the Main and Hastings area in Vancouver. The Ministry of Social Services and Housing is the major funder. The society does crisis intervention and referrals to social services for children and youth on the streets of the downtown east side of the Mount Pleasant area. This is their thrust and their geographic location. The society is open days and evenings six days per week, and workers spend most of their time on the street where street youth congregate.

There are three streetworkers — two males and one female, two of whom are native Indian — to locate runaways, establish contact with children on the street and bring them to the Ministry of Social Services and Housing for services.

There are three Reconnect workers — one male and two females, one of whom is a native Indian. Their job is to work with the Ministry of Social Services and Housing to identify new kids on the street and attempt to re-establish them back home or to their home community. They drive the young people home, and they accompany kids on out-of-town programs.

There are two Latin American streetworkers working with Latin American refugees in the downtown east side. Under that contract there are two street nurses testing for HIV, hepatitis and other sexually transmitted diseases. There is a needle-exchange program offering clean syringes for the return of used ones to intravenous drug users. There is a native medical clinic five evenings a week. There is a part time employment counsellor proposal for the use of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing youth incentive program to provide an honorarium for street youth engaging in volunteer work at the Downtown Eastside Youth Activities Society.

The cost of the program to the Ministry of Social Services and Housing this year — the Reconnect portion of it — is $130,896. It costs the ministry $104,715 for the streetworkers.

I also have information concerning the proposal from the First Baptist Church, but I'll let the member indicate whether she wishes to question that.

[10:30]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I only intervene somewhat reluctantly, because I think what the member is doing in raising these issues is really important, and we'll continue along those lines. But it strikes me that in the amount of time that we've been dealing with social services in this House, the problem we're having is to get a real picture of what's going on. Those of us who are dealing with issues such as these in our constituency office or in other areas in the province know there's a problem. It is very clear that there is a problem with the system, where young people are ultimately paying the cost.

The difficulty in the exchanges that we're having with the minister is that we're not seeing any progress, either in recognition that there is a need to do things differently or in recognition that there is indeed a problem out there. We constantly get the minister standing up, either saying grand things or reading about grand programs.

I just had some information given to me. This is along the lines of the point we have been trying to make — that while the money is being spent, the question is: are we getting the value? Are we getting what we want out of the money that's being put into these programs? Are we achieving a goal? Is the goal well defined?

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

The question is reinforced when you take a look at the statistics from the ministry itself. Since 1987 to today — and this is during the time when the member for Richmond was Premier — there has actually been a decrease of 3.3 percent in FTEs for your ministry. At the same time, we have had an increase in the population in this province of 9.5 percent.

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD: One of the members says that it's an efficient ministry. The question repeatedly raised by either the auditor-general or the ombudsman is: is there ongoing monitoring? In his introduction, the minister had grand things to say about the staff. If you're not supporting your staff in monitoring these programs, ensuring that the money is being spent to achieve the goals that you espouse, and if you do not have the ability to monitor the programs out there to ensure the licensing and safety of children in care, then all of these grand statements and programs are highly questionable.

I can see the minister is looking at those numbers with his deputy. I'd be really interested to hear what the minister has to say about that fact. It seems very clear, with the caseload that people in your ministry have, that it would be extraordinarily difficult to do the follow-up to make sure that, as an example, in the Reconnect program you're talking about, kids have support once they're brought back to the community, and to ensure that there are programs in the community to facilitate some of the needs those kids have. Without that, the fact that you're bringing them home has very little consequence. Unless those kids get the care and support they need, they're going to be back on the street.

[ Page 13067 ]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Let me say that I am completely satisfied, and I think the evidence is there to show that the programs that the ministry has and is using to deal with street kids and the social problems relating to young people in this province are very effective. We are doing a good job of dealing with them. If you take the point of view of saying that the fact that we still have problems is an indication that the program or system has not worked, you take a completely unrealistic view of it. The fact is that the programs do work, but there are many problems within society It's a huge problem that we deal with. While there's a continuation of the problem, let me assure the member opposite that were we to stop the services that we provide, I'm sure we would see a tremendous deterioration in the circumstances out in the community, because there are a lot of young people who are helped, protected and cared for under the services provided by this ministry. Let's never forget that, and let's at least acknowledge that that is the fact of the matter: people are being helped substantially by the services.

Yes, it's a big problem

MS. SMALLWOOD: What about staffing?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Let's deal with that specifically. In 1989-90 our FTEs were 4, 347; the budget for 1989-90 was $130, 240,000. In 1990-91 the number of FTEs was 4,317; that's a reduction of 30 people from the year before. The budget for 1990-91 was $139,440,000. So the budget went up in excess of $9 million, and there were 30 less people. In 1991-92 the number of FTEs within the ministry are 4, 468, and the budget for this year is $181,440,000. So from 1989 to 1991 the FTEs have gone from 4,347 to 4,468, and the budget has gone from $130 million to $181 million — that is for the salary portion of the budget, to cover the cost of the FTEs.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I want to restate the numbers. The numbers I've got from the estimates for 1988-89 — this is the expenditure for the 1987-88 figures — show 4,465 FTEs. The FTEs in 1990-91 were 4,317; that is a reduction of 3.3 percent at a time when the population of this province increased by 9.5 percent.

When the ombudsman says that the staff in your ministry are not able, because of their caseload, to monitor the progress of children in care or the facilities that are under their management, I think these figures speak volumes. At a time when we've got a population increase of almost 10 percent, we had a reduction in staff of over 3 percent in three years. How can the minister justify that? How can the minister explain to the people who rely on his services that he has control of his ministry; that he has control of the taxpayers' dollars that are being spent? How can he assure people, when he is cutting staffing at a time of population growth, that their tax dollars are being spent to carry out the goals and the policies that he so politically announces at the onset of an election? How can people have any confidence at all that the issues that the member for Vancouver Centre is talking about are being dealt with?

It just completely escapes me, when the minister does his introduction and says grand things about staffing, and about how wonderful the staff are in his ministry and what a great job they do. You're darned right they do a good job — no thanks to you; no thanks to your government. The minister makes the point that we're in economic hard times, that there's an expected increase in people reliant on income assistance. We're seeing people on the streets, homeless young people, prostituting themselves. And you continue to cut staff.

How on earth does the minister expect that these programs will be monitored, that those kids can expect that somebody's going to follow up to make sure that they get the counselling they need, to make sure that they make the appointments with the psychiatrists that they need to have, to make sure that they go to drug and alcohol treatment? We saw the numbers of kids in Vancouver, where over 50 percent are involved in significant substance abuse. You're talking about the Reconnect program; where's the staff to follow through to make sure that those kids get the support they need?

I don't want any more platitudes from you. I don't want any more grand statements. I want to hear what you're doing with tax dollars, and I want to know that the kids are getting the attention that they deserve and that the people of this province can be assured that these platitudes are something more than just that — that there are goals and programs to follow through.

[10:45]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I wonder how the public can have any confidence in the opposition. I almost feel sorry for them. We're here to discuss the budget for '91-92, and the member cannot find anything to criticize between last year and this year. She cannot find anything to criticize from the year before that to this year. She has to reach back beyond that, even beyond what I have on my charts.

I don't know the numbers she was talking about, but I assume they were correct, because the number she mentioned for '90-91 is correct; it agrees with the numbers that we have.

But you see, the purpose here is not just to employ a lot of people. The purpose is to provide a service and to provide it as efficiently as we can. Our interest is to protect the well-being of the taxpayers of British Columbia, to minimize the amount of dollars that they have to take from their pocketbooks and their paycheques to cover the cost of social services in this province.

The interest of the members opposite may be to employ as many BCGEU employees as possible. Maybe that is the thrust of the whole argument being made here. That is not our purpose. Our purpose is to run the organization and provide the service as efficiently as we can.

We have reasons for the changing in the staff. One of the reasons we had a downsizing in the number of employees was the downsizing of Woodlands.

Perhaps the member opposite would suggest that whether we have a downsizing or not, we should still continue to employ the same number of people — because that's creating employment, in the opposition's

[ Page 13068 ]

view, and that's a great thing. But our purpose is to protect the interest of the taxpayers. In so doing, we provide the good service, we provide the needed service and we provide it very well. We do it as efficiently as we can. I make no apologies for us being able to cut wherever we possibly can if we do not have a loss of the service and benefit to those in need.

MR. BARNES: It seems as though our opposition spokesperson has got the minister riled up a little bit. That's good, because I think we should have a little more passion around this issue. Perhaps it's just the early morning that's got us in a laid-back state of mind.

When you look at the subject matter and the examples of concern, nothing less than absolute satisfaction should be the objective. We want to know that the tragic statistics that we've been presenting to the House are going to change.

The social planning department in the city of Vancouver has done some analysis of the sort of profiles of young people that we've been talking about. There is 16 percent of downtown south.... I'm talking about my riding mainly, because the inner core of any city is where young people tend to go. They go there for all kinds of reasons. Perhaps they think it's more exciting, with more things happening. But nonetheless, a lot of them are in the city. This other part just doesn't fit in; they're residents who have been there for years.

I was listening to a few points that have been documented by the social planning department of the city of Vancouver: 16 percent of downtown south street youth have been there on average three years; 65 percent have slept on the streets in the past five years; 50 percent have slept on the street in the past six months. The youth who sleeps on the street has done so an average of 11 times in the last six months. A fair number of these youngsters are obviously just drifting from place to place and sleeping in shelters. In the past five years 50 percent of street youth have used shelters; 32 percent in the past six months. On the grounds of age or general appearance, 71 percent have been blacklisted or refused a room; age alone accounts for 33 percent of refusals. Few hotels in the area want to rent to street youth. Do they eat regularly? Mr. Chairman, 59 percent have missed meals in the last month. They missed an average of 34 meals in the last six months They are more depressed and emotionally unhappy than the other area residents; 77 percent claim to be frequently depressed or restless, compared to less than 50 percent of the area population. And 26 percent have been hospitalized in the past year. This is a highly significant rate of hospitalization; the general population experiences yearly hospital rates of approximately 5 percent.

The youth in downtown south are not being given the resources they need to stop abusing themselves Their sense of security often comes from knowledge of the neighbourhood and the people who live there, not from living at home. One 25-year-old youth stated that: "Granville Street is my security blanket. I've been here ten years, and I can't leave now." Street youth get out of the circuit of homelessness and transience by learning to value a secure home.

There is a population among us we are not conversant with. The reason I'm having to read these notes is because it's not something that comes easily. I'm not able to speak from experience. Although that's unfortunate, it is unfortunate that we're not more conversant about these issues. We end up making excuses for what are, quite often, feeble attempts to address issues that require a lot more commitment, understanding, insight and resolve.

That is what the member for Surrey–Guildford–Whalley was talking about, saying that she can't quite get a picture of where we're going and what we're doing. If I want to emphasize anything, it is just this: we need a good, clear picture of reality when we talk about youth. I'm sure members in this House heard me say many times that the rhetoric has always been in place. The member for Surrey–Guildford–Whalley refers to it as platitudes. We all do it, not because we could care less, but because we haven't made the connection. You talk about Reconnect for the youth; the leaders are going to have to do some reconnecting — or connecting in the first place. I'm not sure if we grasp what we're talking about. That's why I say we've got to get a little passion into this and understand what we're talking about.

I listen to the political pundits speaking about what's important: the major portfolios of economics, business and trade. Do you know where human resources, especially youth, fit into that list of priorities? They don't exist. How many ministries of youth are there? There are probably a few secretariats around, and maybe a few people with responsibility for youth, for multiculturalism and for citizenship.

The time has come when we can no longer neglect this area, because it's gangrenous; it's cancerous. We are creating a monster in society. With all the great things we are achieving, we neglect young people. When people are depressed and become suicidal, when they are being raped on the streets and have no place to stay, we don't even have a place to take them. Young people have no recourse or refuge. There is nothing in the system that says if you fall between the cracks, we will pick you up. This is why I've raised several times the project being sponsored by the First Baptist Church in my riding.

I'm not doing this for any religious reasons or to support one agency or the other. It's simply that this organization has recognized that many young people are coming to the area and walking the streets with no place to go. There is no transition house for teenagers or for youth. We say: "If you've got a home, go home. If you are a minor and your parents are responsible for you, then you should go home."

Now let's be realistic. We know how much at risk many youngsters are at home, and how they are abused and the kinds of situations that happen. These young people are thinking that they have to flee a hostile environment. They are human beings; they can see and feel; they care. They would like to be included and have an opportunity. We can do this with genuine commitment and convince the youngsters that they

[ Page 13069 ]

matter in a different way than we have before — not just providing a facility out there which they cannot access because there is no communication. There isn't that relationship, and I think we're failing.

I'm not sure how we get a handle on this in terms of just talking. I would like to see these young people approached. This is something I have been thinking about doing on my own. I thought I should try to get together some of the street workers and the youth themselves and have a conference to ask: "How do you rate the various government services in terms of their effectiveness in addressing your concerns? Where do you feel the breakdown is? Is it with the worker or the contact person who represents the agency? What do you really believe and feel that you can do?"

It is such a complex, ongoing problem that we're going to have to invest serious energy, serious dollars and serious commitment in a way that we've never done before. There is a momentum happening in North America and perhaps right around the world, where many young people are becoming outrageous. Their attraction to criminal activity is awesome. Their lack of conscience is unfathomable. How some of these young people are able to coldly move into a store, for instance, and rob people or beat somebody up or even kill somebody almost without blinking an eye.... We're talking about 12- and 13-year-old youngsters. These are not the kinds of situations we saw a decade or so ago; there seems to be a change taking place. So I think it is time for a major initiative, something beyond anything that we can imagine.

I keep going back to the ombudsman's report. He used gentle language to talk about something that is really urgent and is a crisis situation, in terms of a comprehensive strategy and a coordinated effort that is even bigger than what we've got with the Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit to deal with criminals. We're now going to become more proactive in dealing with youth issues and recognizing the whole ball of wax in terms of how it's affecting this. How is the education system failing? What's wrong? How many youngsters are being sent home for poor behaviour, and when they get sent home, where do they go? Do they go home to empty homes? Do they go on the streets? What really happens?

We have elements of good thinking. The study centre is an example of what we need. It's just one little place that deals with 50 or so young people on the streets a year. It is a very small unit, but it's effective. There are stories being told in terms of how they are connecting with these youngsters and getting them back into the academic environment; how the youngsters are starting to have confidence, are doing very well and are going on to further education. There are some great stories about what is going on there. But these are just little pilot projects. I'm not sure if it's because we're cynical, in terms of giving too much for fear that it may be misunderstood and that we'll look too soft, or what it is, but there just isn't enough latitude in dealing with young people.

I can't believe that these youngsters out there want to be so destructive and want to destroy the society. That is their home, their environment. Why are they so abusive? Why is there a sense of "I don't care"? It's a bad sign. I don't know if we really believe that we can do anything about it.

I sort of feel that we think as long as we put up some agencies and get a few workers, we can say that we have the staff out there. But if it isn't a coordinated effort where there is a meeting of the minds, tied in with the people who we are talking about, and something quite different than what we've been doing — a different feature than government working in the community — I just think the cynicism will continue. There are too many breakdowns. Things don't link up, they're fragmented, and the pieces are like a jigsaw puzzle. Any department, any minister or any member of the Legislature can always stand up and say: "I did my part; I demanded this; I demanded that." But what is missing is a coordinated effort, so that we can go somewhere where the buck stops.

When a street worker inspires and encourages a youngster who is maybe 20 years of age, who has been abusing himself on drugs or alcohol, who has probably had some serious traumatic experiences at home, who has been drifting on the street, who is in poor health and who has no place to stay... Someone should reach that person and say: "You can do better. Society cares about you." We don't want that person to have to turn around and say: "Now here is a phone number for you to call. Go down to welfare, or go and talk to this counsellor." They run into the bureaucracy, and the bureaucracy has no relationship with or understanding of the situation whatsoever and tells the person....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. member, to interrupt you, but your speaking time has expired.

[11:00]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm interested in what the member has to say, and I'd like him to continue.

MR. BARNES: Thank you. I appreciate that interjection.

I just think that the lack of understanding of what happened to that person's life before.... When we send them from place to place in the system, each time requires a real adjustment. The better the coordination, the better it is. But if you have one person who is uninformed — if the computer isn't working that day, and they can't get the information — they frustrate the situation. No one can really be blamed in that system for not understanding or being sensitive, but there is nonetheless an indication that the system is not tight. We haven't thought it through.

Remember, we are dealing with human beings. We're not dealing with humanoids — machines. We're dealing with sensitive people, with emotions, with personal lives and with the ups and downs that we all experience. When people find the strength or the desire to open themselves up and try to relate to someone trying to help them, we should be willing to support whoever is in that position. I'm not sure if that exists, and if it does exist, it should be in such a form that workers know they've got that confidence. I'm alluding to the days when I was a streetworker,

[ Page 13070 ]

working with youth. One of the things that bothered me the most was when I said: "Well, I don't know if I can help you. I've got to go and check first." I believe that if I can say I can do my job and the system knows that the most efficient way for us to spend taxpayers' dollars, which you were talking about earlier, is to get the best people on the job and let them do the job, then let's begin to have some flexibility in dealing with difficult situations.

There are people out there who simply don't believe governments can have a heart, who believe that administrations are there to administer, to do the bottom line, to deal only with actuarial and fiscal matters, and to be cold and calculated and have a bunch of regulations — that we don't have hearts and we don't care. I'm sure that when I speak this way, there are others who care too. But why are we blocked off? Why aren't we doing the job?

Maybe the minister could respond to me in terms of just what is being done in the way of tactile contact with the people. How much is the government really doing? Am I totally remiss, or am I getting to a point where this is really a problem? As my colleague for Surrey–Guildford–Whalley keeps saying, are we going to have the platitudes and the speeches that touch all the bases, while all the time we know that when we adjourn we are going to have frustrated workers out there and youngsters who are still going to be sleeping on the streets, who are still going to be abused, who are still going to be hungry, who are still going to become the statistics we are going to have to pay for through the welfare system because we simply can't reach them? And most importantly, we're not asking them for help. They should be involved in this equation and in this decision-making process.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The member asks what we are doing for youth. We're doing a great deal. I already talked about how much we spend in dollars and cents, and I mentioned that to demonstrate the importance we attach to it and the commitment we make. We do a great deal to assist youth in need. We have many facilities that we have established to try to help people who don't have a home or a place to sleep, and some of them are different from the normal type of programs that we might be expected to endorse. The Portland Hotel in Vancouver is a pretty good example of us going ahead and supporting a project that was not similar to the other projects that we do, but it was a program that met a specific need. When I went to the opening of the Portland Hotel — not very luxurious surroundings, I agree, but nevertheless filling a very important need — I met with a great response from the people who were there to see that the government was coming in. It was, admittedly, a small amount of money, but it was enough to help in that particular situation. So the facility was established, and as a result of that, there are people today who have a place to sleep who perhaps didn't have a place before, and it's located where that need is perhaps most likely to appear — and we have a number of other ones.

The members opposite can argue that we don't do enough. That's fair enough; they're the opposition and are telling us what they think we should do. I can tell you what we are doing, say that we're doing a very good job of it, and that would be expected to be my position. But I guess we need to look at what is being said by people who don't have a vested interest, such as you or I have. We've had such an analysis done of the programs in British Columbia by the Child Welfare League of America. They came here to see what we do on the streets of Vancouver.

I want the member's attention. I listened to him so carefully while he was speaking, and now he's reading while I'm talking back to him — and that's not fair. If you're not interested, we won't bother answering. But if you are interested, the Child Welfare League of America came to Vancouver to see what is being done in British Columbia for streetworkers, and I tell you, they went away very impressed with the performance of the province with regard to its treatment of street youth.

I think the member touches upon a very broad issue when speaking about what causes the problem. Why are there so many young people out there? You asked the question: why are young people attracted to crime, as they are? Why does that happen? That's something that we can all debate for a long time. But I have my suspicions of what might be a contributor to it, and I don't mind standing up here and expressing that. I don't think, Mr. Member, that you started far enough back. Everyone seems to agree that the young children, the young minds, are very impressionable, that they learn very quickly from what they see, that they are impressed with what happens before their eyes and that it becomes part of their being and influences their conduct. Let's recognize that the children in this province and other provinces in Canada — in fact, in all North America and perhaps many other places in the world — spend thousands and thousands of hours sitting before a television set watching violence, drugs being injected, sexual abuse and all the different types of violence. I really wonder: is it surprising that some of them — fortunately not all of them, by any means — become attracted to that way of life? They've been exposed to it a lot through the medium that you, I and the rest of us choose as our form of entertainment.

I've made speeches in this House criticizing it, because I think that type of entertainment is a luxury that adults may be attracted to, but that the impact upon the youth of this country is too much. I think we should take a second look at what we accept as entertainment and let influence the minds of our young people in this province. I'm concerned about that. I welcome you to join with me in criticizing some of the violence that takes place on television, because I don't think that's family entertainment.

When that has happened, we get the young people out on the streets, and we have a problem and have to deal with it. The purpose here is for the members opposite to ask me questions, and it's not appropriate for me to ask questions. But if I could, I would dearly like to ask a question of the member, because I know that he has a great interest in the young people on the streets. I know he has talked to a number of them, and I know he understands something of how they feel and

[ Page 13071 ]

the problems that they face. I know that some of them are on the streets because they don't have a place to go. Maybe their home setting was not suitable for them to go back to.

But I think he will also agree that a lot of them are there because that type of life has become attractive to them. There is some kind of attraction on the street that is not found anyplace else. Perhaps they are influenced by the amount of time spent watching some of that same kind of activity taking place on television sets. They're attracted to the way of life, and it's very hard to get them away from it.

We have young people whom we have tried to direct from the streets, but we cannot force them into another type of care. Many of them simply won't stay. They go back to the street, because unfortunately they have grown comfortable in that surrounding. They choose it. To reverse that process and change that young individual is a momentous task, I tell you. It's something that we work at. We try to make life better for that person day to day, as life goes on.

To say that we can go back and remedy the whole cause is a pretty big undertaking. I don't think it's really within the parameters of this ministry alone; it's within the parameters of society. As a society we must begin to evaluate what we do and the impact that has on young people. Then, perhaps, we can begin to improve circumstances for young people, so that we won't have to deal with the problem; we can hopefully avoid it. That will take the support and cooperation of you, me and everybody of goodwill in the province.

MR. BARNES: I guess if we're not careful, we'll be moralizing here. I don't want to get into that area. I agree that there are limits beyond which politicians and legislators can't go, but I think that when you consider that.... There are quite a few youngsters on the streets, but far fewer than the number that would be there if the actual number that we know are abused in homes — one in four — were also on the streets. There would be more kids on the streets than adults.

The thing is that many youngsters are at risk in their home and in other institutions. Generally, we've perhaps got corrupting factors in our society that we have to address. Rather than trying to get into moralizing about what people's values should be, I agree with you: the entertainment media that we use are not to my liking in every respect. I think we have confused what is good public interest, good value, with some of the principles of so-called freedoms. We have so-called freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, etc., but we never say: "...as long as there's responsibility attached to it." There has to be some sense of responsibility and of the impact that those freedoms have on society and on the lives of other people.

We clearly know that you can influence people. That's why advertising is such a big item in every endeavour. I'm sure that even the government knows, because it spends $20 million to $30 million a year on advertising — we call it communications. But the point is, let's take a look at what we're doing. As I said earlier, I think there is a corrupting factor in our system. We're working on the one hand to try to save people, and on the other hand we're allowing just about everybody to have at our youth — the resource that we claim to value the most.

I would just like to say, let's be practical for now. Let's ensure that we are doing as much as we can to prevent the corruption of young people. Let's provide the resources that we should, and assess the situation. If we were to involve young people, they themselves could make the comments that the minister and I are making, Mr. Chairman. No matter how much I and the minister talk, it's nowhere near what happens when young people — young girls and boys, young men and women — themselves tell us about this. They're the ones we don't listen to. I'd like to be able to enfranchise the youth. I've talked to you about the fact that I think they should be allowed to vote — at least at 18, with the rest of the nation. Nonetheless, in B.C. we haven't recognized that.

We should put our money where our mouth is, so to speak. We're going to have to involve them in this process we call democracy, this decision-making which is affecting their lives forever and a day. Either something we do or didn't do is having an effect.

In the meantime, the forces are moving and changing all the time. We all talk about how the demography is changing in British Columbia. It's not only changing; it's impacting on the programs and public policies we have in place. English as a second language is one of the big items we always talk about as we get thousands of new Canadians coming and settling in British Columbia. We know many of them don't have the language skills, yet we don't have an effective system of ensuring that they are able to get this skill.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: No, we do not have it. We have some, but not enough. There are prohibitive factors involved. You cannot put dollars in between people's access to something they need to survive. It just can't be done. We can't afford it; it's too expensive. We pay too much if we don't. Let's be efficient in the use of the dollars and have some vision and understanding of how to spend the money. That's all I'm saying. I realize we are getting there; we're just not there.

You understand much more. I listen to members talk more and more about English as a second language. They're beginning to realize there's a problem. But why not be more complete?

We just need a big drawing-board up here so we can say: "Look, here is the situation. Here are how many young people we have, and this is what's happening to them and what our public school system is attempting to do." The Year 2000 concept was very interesting, but we didn't have enough understanding of how much it cost to go through that transition and what it really took to prepare the teachers, society and students to make the change. Everybody's used to going by the numbers with grades: "We're all a certain age now. We do this, we do that." Everybody got into those little cubicles. Now we're saying you've got to be able to

[ Page 13072 ]

celebrate your potential as a unique individual, and we all are. That takes more than just rhetoric. It takes interaction with everyone involved.

It's philosophical right now, I know, because we aren't the ones who are going to do it. But we have to make the means by which things can happen. That means we have to involve the people who are ultimately going to do it. They've got to have the support and resources and be a part of the designers, the architects. We have the idea, but they're the ones who are going to make it work. They may want to modify what we're doing to have it fit local circumstances.

We don't have that. We don't have anybody on that side of the House who is responsible. We have a committee of people. I'm not sure how often they meet and what's on the agenda. We don't have a way to say we've got it under control and are looking at everything. You want to talk about what's happening at any stage in terms of the young peoples' lives in the time from K to 12 and from 12 to post-secondary and right through, and how many are in school and how many are out of school. When I talk about street kids, you can say: "Wait a minute, we've got that monitored. We've got youth workers reporting to us and can tell you how many are down there: how many women and men, their ages and what the facts are. Because we care. We're watching it and designing programs. In fact, we meet with these youngsters regularly and talk to them about how life's going."

This is what's not happening, because it's not number one on our agenda. It's important that we appear to be involved, but I get the feeling we turn our backs too fast. We've got to put our best minds, our best efforts and our best resources on this matter, or we're going to see this ugly situation continue.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I want to go back to the issue of FTEs. I have been sitting here thinking about the minister's response to my questions, and I began to think of the parallels in other ministries, how this government is consistent and how this government has an ideological bent that there shouldn't be a government. It's the only governing party I know of — the only political grouping I know of — that is in government for the sole purpose of doing away with government. Very clearly you have just about achieved that by the infighting and constant turnover we have seen and the lack of attention paid to the people's business.

I wanted to look at what we're really seeing with the downsizing of the Ministry of Social Services. There are some parallels with the Ministry of Forests, and we've seen the auditor-general's report come in criticizing the Ministry of Forests for not returning the public's revenue, for not being the ministry necessary to ensure....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would remind the member that we're dealing with the estimates of the Minister of Social Services, not the Minister of Forests.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Thank you for that intervention. I insist that I am dealing with the Ministry of Social Services and its responsibility to the people of this province.

I was suggesting to the minister that he is very much like the Minister of Forests, who has not lived up to his responsibility to return the revenue that is coming to the people of this province from stumpage. That was very clearly pointed out by the auditor-general. You, your government and subsequent Ministers of Social Services are not living up to the responsibility for the adults and children in your care. We have seen symptoms of that repeatedly through independent reports — the auditor-general, the ombudsman, professional groups — and no other indicator makes it so clear.

I'm just reading through a couple of the ombudsman's reports. It talks about the ministry's commitment to monitor and license and the minister's values and goals that he brings to the job. But the bottom line is that you don't have the people in the field to police it and do the work. Very clearly, while you are busy privatizing all of these services — whether they are services to street kids, services to the disabled, services to children in foster homes, direct services that you have statutory responsibility to....

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD: One of the hecklers on the government side wants to know how many people we would hire. I'll make it very clear right now that we would do the job we were elected to do. We would be responsible to the taxpayers of this province, and we would make sure that their money is being spent properly. That is where you are failing.

You are spending money through this ministry; you are shovelling money off the back of a truck. You repeatedly talk about the amount of money that is spent on this program or that program to deal with a problem, and you have nobody there that is able to carry through and monitor to ensure that the money is being spent properly and that the children and the disabled are safe that are under your care. That's your statutory responsibility, because, as the minister said, you are the parent to those children within your care. You are not living up to your responsibility when over the last three years we’ve seen a decrease of 3 percent in FTEs in your ministry at the same time as an increase in the population of almost 10 percent.

The minister himself says that the decrease is due to the downsizing of Woodlands. We talked about the Minister of Education and his park-and-run mainstreaming of disabled children, where the government as a policy is deinstitutionalizing kids, bringing them back into their community and then not following through with programs and supports and abandoning those kids in the school system. Now we see with the Ministry of Social Services the same sort of thing, where the minister says that the decrease in FTEs is due to the downsizing of Woodlands. Well, who's following through? Who's ensuring that those young adults and children are being looked after in the community?

[ Page 13073 ]

Downsizing Woodlands and the institutions is a goal we can all support. But we do not support your abandoning your responsibility to them. We do not support your dumping those young people into the community with no resources. We do not support your downsizing the staff during a time when their caseloads are increasing so that they themselves are not able to follow through to ensure that the people leaving Woodlands have a safe and proper home.

Mr. Minister, it totally escapes me as to how you can justify the abdicating of that responsibility. No one on this side is arguing that the government has to deliver all these services. We very clearly support community developed programs. We on this side feel very strongly that the community, if empowered and supported to do so, can do a good job — indeed, can possibly do a better job than any government sitting here in Victoria could ever hope to do. But you have a job as a regulator. You have a job in ensuring that the money is well spent. If you don't have the people in the field to regulate and to follow through, to ensure that the tax dollars are being spent properly, then very clearly what is happening is you're shovelling these millions of dollars — where you talk about these programs — off the back of the truck, and there's no way that the taxpayers can be assured that there is any follow-through whatsoever.

I'd like the minister to respond to this question: if indeed the downsizing of government, of your ministry — the reduction in FTEs — has to do with Woodlands, where's the follow-through? Where's the support for the staff now in the field, to ensure that those people who are landing in the communities have the care that is needed?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'm very pleased to respond to the question — although I think the statements are some of the most ridiculous I've ever heard in the House. But that's not atypical from that particular member, because the questions and comments made by her over and over again demonstrate very clearly that the reality of the situation doesn't matter; it's the political content that can be got from criticizing the government that this is all about. The people of British Columbia who are watching will clearly see what the purpose of the people opposite is.

The fact is that we probably have the best service of any jurisdiction in Canada — perhaps of any in North America — for handicapped people.

Those people were moved out of Woodlands; they moved into the communities. What has happened is that we have replaced the service that was provided at Woodlands with community services, which are paid for in addition to our own FTEs. You cannot have it both ways. Surely you would not suggest that we continue to pay all the FTEs we had within government and keep them on the payroll, and that at the same time their jobs should now be done by community groups paid for in addition. That appears to be what the member opposite is advocating.

The fact is that if you look at the reality of the Woodlands situation, there has been no reduction in staff whatsoever in this ministry at any time; in fact, there has been an increase. From 1986-87 to this year, there has been a reduction of 514 staff at Woodlands. If you add that 514 to any of the intervening years, you will see that there has been an increase in the people left to do the other work within the ministry. We have in fact increased for the other responsibilities that our staff were carrying out; that's very clear. Some of the people who worked at Woodlands were transferred to different offices in order to provide support services to the community facilities that would be caring for the handicapped people who were removed from Woodlands.

[11:30]

The reality is that the people who were moved from Woodlands are now funded through community organizations, which are a separate entity, and the government is paying the cost of that. So 514 positions are no longer required, because the people have moved and have been paid for from another fund.

Interjections.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The Minister of Education says: "Get your facts straight." The difficulty in getting the facts straight is that we constantly rely on the ministry's facts, and they are contradictory to themselves. I have asked the minister about the reduction in FTEs at the same time as the minister has said — his earlier intervention was very clear, and we checked the record — that the reduction is due to the downsizing of Woodlands. That is exactly the point I have addressed. The minister now says: "That's not the case. While we have downsized Woodlands, we have put people in the communities to deal with it."

I can bring in two coroner's reports that I am familiar with about critical incidences in this province, where people with disabilities.... One was in Prince George in a care home, where a young woman died because she was left unattended by the caregiver because that facility was understaffed. That caregiver was not being negligent, but was called away from the bathing situation to deal with another emergency in the house, and that severely disabled person drowned.

That's one instance, Mr. Minister, of the inability of this ministry to carry through and to assure not only those people in care, but the taxpayers, that the amount of money the ministry is spending on care is being well spent. If enough people had been employed in the ministry offices to monitor a situation like that, it would have been very clear to them that the staff requirements were not met. The minister himself has recognized the need to develop standards, and that's a good step. Those standards, the minister says, deal with the staff ratio as one example.

The Minister of Labour wants to deal with this in a political fashion. He wants to play games with this issue.

HON. MR. RABBITT: On a point of order, it's unbecoming for the member to indicate that I'm being political on an issue, when I'm sitting here working on my notes and saying nothing.

[ Page 13074 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't really think it's a point of order; however, I think the decorum in this House could be improved a little bit. I was going to mention this a little while ago when the member addressed the minister on several occasions as "you," which is inappropriate in debates of these sorts. We can improve the decorum by addressing the minister through the chair.

MS. SMALLWOOD: If it was any other minister, I might be tempted to play a little bit with how that minister should be addressed, but the fact is that I do think that this minister has made some progress since he's taken over. So I'll refrain from taking any cheap shots.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I want to be really very clear on this issue. While the minister has already recognized, thanks to the help of the ombudsman's office and the auditor-general, that there is a crying need to rationalize the standards of care in this province, and while the minister has made the commitment to work through that process to deal with issues of training for staff giving care and of the staff-to-client ratios in care facilities, I would suggest this is only one step. All the standards and regulations in the world will mean nothing to the safety of the people who rely on this ministry if there is no staff available to enforce those standards, to do the necessary inspections and to assure both taxpayers and the people in care that those standards are being upheld. When we are looking at the full-time equivalents in this ministry over the last three years being reduced by 3 percent at a time when the caseloads are predicted to increase — as well as the population base increasing — and one would logically assume the demand for service is therefore increasing, the minister standing up and saying the staff is doing a good job is not good enough. You need to support them to do that job, and we need some assurances that when those standards and regulations are in place we've got staff in the ministry who can go out and make sure that our tax dollars are being spent properly, that the people in care are being looked after and that we're not going to see other instances, as we saw in Prince George, where a disabled woman died in the bathtub because there wasn't enough staff on to care for her and ensure her safety.

The minister recently announced an advocate — one advocate for 3,500 people in this province. Supportive? I think advocacy is needed in this province. Very clearly that kind of balance to the ministry is a positive step. But you have got to be able to follow through, to ensure that the caseloads are not so large that the people in the ministry can't do the job they're mandated, or legislated, to do.

HON. MR. FRASER: I've listened to this debate most of the morning with some interest....

AN HON. MEMBER: For four years.

HON. MR. FRASER: Perhaps four years is better, my colleague says. You're absolutely right; maybe even eight would be more like it.

There's no doubt about it. The philosophical difference between the government and the opposition, is that the government thinks we should try to deliver services to the people and let them keep some of their own disposable income, while the opposition seems to think that the government should get larger and larger, crush the people with the weight of government, with more and more people working for the government. But I would remind the member and anybody who might be listening that any government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe even your life.

HON. MR. FRASER: Yes, maybe even, as the member says, including your life. That's why you don't want to have governments so big and so powerful. It's part of the message we're putting forward here.

The opposition always sounds so brave: "If you won't do it, we'll do it for you." But there have been a couple of examples when the NDP opposition has had a chance to be very brave. Recently in Ottawa, for example, the opposition NDP had a chance to bring down the government on a budget item, and they backed off. That's not too brave. Even in this very Legislative Assembly in 1986, the opposition had more members in the House than the government and could have brought the government down, but they didn't. So let's talk about bravery. You aren't very brave.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: You weren't here, Mr. North Burnaby.

We talk about the NDP in Ontario and services to people. The NDP in Ontario is going to give a rebate to people who buy new cars. Can you imagine? The automobile companies do it, and now the government of Ontario, instead of giving services to the people of Ontario, are giving $100 rebates to people who buy cars. Does that make any sense?

We have important work to do for the Ministry of Social Services; $5 million it's going to cost Ontario. What else is it going to cost? What else do NDP policies cost? They're going to cost us our country if we're not careful. Their idea of debt is so totally out of sync with the reality of the finances of the world that we're going to go so far into the hole we may never come out. Spend, spend, spend; debt, debt, debt. It doesn't make any sense. Primitive....

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't you have anything better to do?

HON. MR. FRASER: I have nothing better to do than to try to bring you into the real world, Madam Member, which you've never been in as far as I'm aware. You've never understood what makes the world go round. It's work that makes the world go round.

[ Page 13075 ]

You see, the difference between the NDP and the government is quite simple. The NDP believes that we have to have a vast net of social services. The government believes we have to have hard work and a productive land which creates the money so that we can provide a vast social services net. You have to have the work first. The way the NDP would do it, we wouldn't be able to create the wealth that would pay for the various services they demand.

That 's why we have a minister like this to do the good work that he's doing, and that's why people like us come here, to make sure that people in the province get the kind of quality leadership they deserve. I'm happy to support this minister. In fact, the member beside me, the Minister of Forests, who did the same job before the current minister, did a good job, and the minister before him did a good job, always working to make sure that the lifestyles of British Columbia are improved.

It's so important to understand that big government and big spending are not the answer. If I've taught you one thing today, I hope it's that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Vancouver Centre seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I'm tempted to get involved in the debate in order to comment on some of that misinformation. But I will just say that two friends of mine have entered the public galleries: Jonathan Johnson, who is an MC extraordinaire — and if you haven't heard of him, I'm sure you will one day — and Robert Stanley, who is touring British Columbia from Australia. I just met him last night, and he's a real nice chap. He says he's got six months to be here, and he's driving around in a car that Jonathan is selling him, so I hope he gets a good deal. I'm not sure what's happening, but I want the House to join me in making them welcome.

[11:45]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm sure the minister welcomed the intervention and the comic relief from the A-G, but I'm quite insistent. I would like to hear from the minister what assurances people in group homes now — and those who will find themselves in group homes soon because of the downsizing of Riverview — can have that they will have regular visits from social workers monitoring their progress and their safety in the home.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: First, Mr. Chairman, we should make clear that we're talking about Woodlands and not Riverview, because that's Ministry of Health. The people in group homes can have every assurance that the kind of care they're receiving is being monitored. They can be assured that the government is very concerned that their level of care be good, that it be a safe environment for them and that they have the opportunity to enjoy their lives to the fullest extent possible for each one of them.

The government has done a great deal recently to enhance the circumstances of people with mental handicaps in the communities, and I have talked about that. I have talked about adopting a set of standards recommended to government not by bureaucrats, but by an advisory committee made up of people whose only purpose in being on the committee is to enhance the quality of life for those with mental handicaps. These people have no other motive except the goodwill for those they are speaking for. They made the recommendations. As the Minister of Social Services I accepted those recommendations entirely, with no change. They are now part of the working principles of this ministry, and it is the responsibility of our social workers to adhere to those principles.

In addition, I'm in the process of appointing an advocate soon to monitor the provision of the benefits of those principles to the people who suffer from mental handicaps. We are improving the standards of service to the people in the homes and are making every effort to continually improve the living conditions and the quality of life for those people. We're satisfied that in the past we have done a good job. We have certainly tried to do our best. But we've learned from experience, the same as everyone else, and as time goes on, we find that if we need to make an improvement here or an adjustment there, we do it.

The member opposite mentioned one tragedy that occurred. Obviously, there are others that have occurred involving people with mental handicaps. It's an unfortunate and sad situation when it does occur. It's safe to say that from time to time we have had similar things happen in other types of facilities too, because they do unfortunately happen. But it's not something we take lightly. It's a major concern to the people in this ministry when an incident such as the one the member talked about occurs.

The morning it happened there was a briefing to me from the deputy and a concern expressed about what happened. There was an immediate investigation into what had transpired, not for the purpose of criticizing and condemning the people who were doing the best job they could at the time — as it's hard to monitor and control the circumstances for people 24 hours a day — but to see what we might do and what process we could put in place to avoid such a thing happening again. They do from time to time, unfortunately, happen. We should certainly take it very seriously, but we should not try to use it as evidence of a failure of the many thousands of people who do a tremendous job providing excellent service to the handicapped. People with mental handicaps in this province receive a service that is probably unequalled any place else in the country.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I've done some work around day care and the licensing of day care. Standards for that care are very clearly set out: the number of caregivers to the number of children, and that number changes depending on the age of the children; the expectations for health; the layout of the facility; the fire safety; the nutritional standards; and the general expectations of care.

[ Page 13076 ]

With that kind of a model in place, and for the government to decide that they are going to deinstitutionalize people, for all intents and purposes.... It can in some ways be compared to children.... All the government had to do was say: we need to take standards and put them in place to ensure that when people are in their communities they can be assured that the staff will have a certain level of training and will be able to deal with the care that is needed for those people. We need to look at the ratio of staff to people in that care home, depending on their disabilities and their needs. Some people with disabilities need a one-on-one, and they got it in the institutions; some people need less. It's very clear that with the experience the government had, both with community delivery models — whether we look at day care or other sorts of care — and the care that was given in the institution, you had all of that information. It has been a number of years since the deinstitutionalization has taken place. It's ongoing, but we are ending up with more people in the communities in care homes, and we're only just now starting to deal with standards and regulations for service.

Earlier this year the government brought in some legislation that deals with pay for the public sector and affects the pay of people in those care homes. We saw very clearly in Bill 82 the acts affected by that legislation. We knew then that this bill was purely a political bill, that it was a re-elect-the-Socred-government bill, and that it didn't deal with the realities. When the minister talked earlier about dealing with the realities, it really brought smiles to a number of people's faces — coming from this government. The government is now coming to the realization that given the contracts that they have let for community care and the turnover in staffing in those facilities — both because of the lack of pay and the lack of support in ongoing training — the people in those facilities are not getting the care they should be getting. This turnover, the change and the uncertainty are making it very difficult for those people who rely on this government. What we see now is legislation that stops the improvement of their working conditions, because that's considered part of the wage. We see legislation that stops the improvement of their immediate wages. With all of these contradictions and with the ministry reducing the full-time-equivalents when the population and the need is going up, when it's bringing in legislation that restricts the improvement of the people who work in the community facilities, I am interested in how the minister hopes....

I think it is becoming very obvious with the minister's political statements and his press releases that he has no understanding or commitment to carry through, because he doesn't have the infrastructure in place. He has yet to recognize the need and his responsibility for the statutory care of those people in those care facilities, whether they are foster children or people in group homes.

The facts speak for themselves. It doesn't matter if the minister wants to get up and skate all over the place and say wonderful things about how much he cares, all of those great platitudes; the realities speak for themselves.

We've heard the interventions from a number of the government members talking about ideology. If a person's life and safety have to do with ideology, then you can be darn clear that that is an ideology that I want to be associated with. I very clearly put the safety of the people who are in your care as a high priority and want to see the infrastructure carried through to ensure that you're not just shovelling money off the back of the truck. Some members found that amusing. But some of those kids in care have got price tags of something like $1,000 a month on their heads. If that's not shovelling money off the back of a truck, I don't know what is. We're talking about big dollars when we're talking about the care of some of these people who are your statutory responsibility. I see nothing from this minister which indicates that you take that seriously and are prepared to put the infrastructure in place to ensure that money is being spent well and that their safety is paramount in your mind.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I hope the executive of the union is watching this morning so they will know that the member has done their noble task of arguing the case. If they didn't watch, undoubtedly you'll send them a copy of the tape.

You argued that we have to employ more government employees. Despite the fact that there were more than 500 people who were no longer required because of the downsizing of Woodlands, you criticize us and say that we shouldn't have had any reduction in the total number of FTEs; we should, in fact, have expanded it. You criticized the fact that the government is concerned about how much should be given in wage increases. For people who work with the mentally handicapped this year, we have budgeted an $8.86 million increase. For family and child services, there is $6.16 million budgeted.

We have a concern about the standards of care that were talked about earlier. It's something that we have been developing for a period of time. In fact, the process to develop standards started about 18 months ago, in the fall of 1989. For the member to suggest that we could apply the standards that we use for day care to the mentally handicapped is something that's a little bit hard to reason out. I don't think that's a logical argument at all. I can understand that the member opposite would advocate that we should simply dictate what kinds of standards there will be. That's big government, central planning — that's the way it works. I know how that works opposite. All comes from the government, and the government knows how to do everything.

We have a lot of care homes in British Columbia that, when the new regulations are put in, will not have to change anything, because they provide it now. I have gone to many of them, and I've seen the care. I tell you, it's something that all of us can be proud of: the kind of facilities that many of those people live in, the care and attention, the accommodations they have, and the specialized personal treatment they receive. It's something we should not overlook. To suggest here

[ Page 13077 ]

that people with mental handicaps are somehow living in an unsafe, unhappy and unsatisfactory environment in British Columbia at this time is unfair. Families of people living in those homes are truly concerned about how their family members are faring, and they should know the truth. They should know that they are well looked after.

Interjection.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The member of the opposition wants me to cut it short and go — it's 12 o'clock. That's fine. You had your time to talk; I'll take my time. I'm not in any particular hurry.

This is an important issue. We've been working on developing these standards for the last 18 months. By the fall of this year the new standards will be in place, and they will cover all of the requirements. So for all the people.... I'm not trying to convince the members opposite, because I realize that isn't possible. I understand the agenda and the motivation for criticism. But for the people in this province who have loved ones in group home facilities throughout the province, let me assure them that they are well looked after and that we do make a very concerted effort to be sure that their environment is safe and happy for them. The best job we can do is being done, and we are determined to make it even better in the future. We've taken the steps for that.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I move 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 12:01 p.m.