Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, APRIL 10, 1992

[ Page 665 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Presenting Reports

Hon. C. Gabelmann: On behalf of the government House Leader, I have the honour to present the second report of the Special Committee of Selection, related to the membership of Committee of Supply A.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Barlee presented the annual report and financial statements for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991, of the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority.

The Speaker: Before we have our first member's statement, hon. members, finding ourselves in a bit of an unusual situation of having discussed this issue yesterday, I now ask if the House will grant leave to the member to continue with his prearranged topic for this morning.

Leave granted.

Private Members' Statements

ASIAN GYPSY MOTH

H. De Jong: At the time I signed in on Tuesday at the Clerk's office, I had no idea that an emergency debate would occur in this House, nor was I aware that the government was going to make a decision on this issue as quickly as they did -- which, of course, I support.

Nevertheless, considering what has happened, I will try to speak on this issue from a more personal perspective, rather than from a political one. Having said this, I'm pleased that the government can indeed make quick decisions on issues as important as this one. I believe it does instil a certain amount of confidence in government when they make decisions on issues as important as this one.

It's unfortunate, in many instances, that through a complex process -- be it public hearings, reviews or measures for appeal of one kind or another -- government's hands are often tied to the point where people tend to lose respect for government by not being able to make a decision. While many areas have already been covered during the debate, and while there may be some repetition in my statement today, I will, for the record, confirm some specifics related to this program.

Btk is not harmful to birds, pets, fish, bees, beetles or spiders. Btk is safe for animals and people. However, it is an effective product against the Asian gypsy moth. Btk is a naturally occurring bacteria which exists in the soil. It has been prepared as a liquid for ease of application. Btk biodegrades within three to seven days and does not add anything new to the ecosystem.

As I understand it, under the program, Btk will be applied to trees and shrubs either by ground application or aircraft or both. The method intended seems to be effective, fast and efficient. Btk, in fact, has been used on eight previous occasions over the last 13 years in British Columbia with no adverse effects reported for people or animals living in the treated areas.

Dr. Blatherwick said: "I am confident that Btk can be used safely in Vancouver to combat the Asian gypsy moth." Robert Fisher and Lawrence Rosner of the insecticide safety committee made the following comment: "One of the advantages of the new living insecticide, based on the viable spores of the microorganism Bt, is a non-toxic nature for man, other animals and plants." I can appreciate that the average person in the urban centres of British Columbia is somewhat skeptical of spraying, whatever kind of spray is being applied. I guess there are some good reasons for it because some questions of occurrence have occurred, and they have been made well-known to the public via the media.

I believe it is time that we, as legislators, turn our attention to the work accomplished through science and technology, and let's give some credit to the many experts and the great progress that has been made over the past 20 years in the development of many safe biological sprays and dust powders currently available. Btk is one of these products, being a biological product.

Having these assurances then, the question we must answer as politicians and the general public is: can we risk the millions of dollars of forests, and horticulture and agriculture production? Can the public of British Columbia afford to run the risk of having embargoes placed on the many ships entering British Columbia ports, and thereby running the risk of not being able to ship our grain, lumber and resource materials and other products to our trading partners? Should we continue to argue whether a proposed control measure which we hope will eradicate the Asian gypsy moth should be done by ground spray or air application? I think not. Why would Agriculture Canada be so concerned? Because they know the effects of the presence of the gypsy moth and the destruction this little moth will bring about.

What would be the alternative to not proceeding with the spray at this time? The alternative is that our precious forests will be placed in jeopardy. The many nurseries, and yes, all of the shrubs, trees and plants in private gardens which people are very proud of, would be placed at risk. The Okanagan tree-fruit industry would be at risk. The crops of the many raspberry and 

[ Page 666 ]

blueberry farmers in the lower mainland would be at risk.

I do not believe that we can afford this type of risk. There's a famous saying that an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. If there ever was a situation to fit that saying, it's the gypsy moth issue before us today. On behalf of all British Columbians, as legislators, we should not delay the program. If we do, it may be too late. Our Social Credit caucus is giving its full support to the government in their decision to proceed with the program, combined with adequate public information.

[10:15]

Hon. B. Barlee: I thank the member for Abbotsford for his lucid address from the agricultural point of view, which I appreciate. The downside of this situation is very serious. Yesterday, the leader of the opposition mentioned Pennsylvania. We should examine the situation there last year. Pennsylvania was one of 14 states hit very heavily by infestation from the European gypsy moth. They lost ten million acres in Pennsylvania in 1991. There were staggering costs as far as the economy, the environment and health were concerned.

The health question should be brought into closer focus. In Pennsylvania they did not spray for the European gypsy moth. Comparing the European gypsy moth to the Asian gypsy moth is like comparing a kitten to a tiger. The European gypsy moth is a kitten; the Asian gypsy moth is a tiger. Where they did not spray for the European gypsy moth, they had very heavy infestations. The medical results were really quite staggering. From 25 to 40 percent of the students in those areas exhibited various symptoms. Some of these symptoms where rhinitis, dermatitis skin rash, irritation of the eyes and shortness of breath. This is the area where they did not spray for the European gypsy moth. Some of those cases were not serious, but some were serious. In fact, they were so serious that they had to give these kids systemic steroids. That's extremely important, and it's not generally known by the public. That illustrates what can happen in an area where precautions are not taken.

The Leader of the Opposition and some other members of the opposition waxed very eloquent about their very definite concern about this problem and why they have not been given advance warning. You were given warning. One month and one day ago, on March 9, all Vancouver area MLAs were given this letter -- every one, including the various Liberals: the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, the member for Richmond East, the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, the member for Delta South, the member for Richmond-Steveston, the member for Langley, the member for Surrey-White Rock, the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, the member for Chilliwack, the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, the member for Richmond Centre, the member for Vancouver-Langara and the member for West Vancouver-Capilano.

It said in this letter: "A public information program by the council" -- and this is the British Columbia Plant Protection Advisory Council -- "has already created an awareness of the situation among your constituents. As MLA, you will have an opportunity to obtain more information at a meeting in Victoria on March 13, 1992. The meeting will take place in the Douglas Fir Room of the legislative building at 11:00 a.m." Convenient time, very convenient place; we met about 100 feet from most of you. Out of the 14 members on the Liberal side, not one was there. Your concern now may be more partisan than real.

Some people have mentioned the problems in Oregon. Let's study the problems in Oregon.

An Hon. Member: How many NDP were there?

Hon. B. Barlee: I was there. The other member was there as well. I know that.

The Speaker: With due respect, the minister is straying from the statement that was made by the hon. member.

Hon. B. Barlee: I believe the member for Abbotsford alluded to health concerns as well. I am trying to stay on the health concerns, which I think the public should be aware of. If I may continue on that, I think it's very important.

In Oregon 120,000 people were exposed to the spray in 1985 and 1986. Out of those 120,000 people, they thought that only 55 were at risk. This is under one-tenth of 1 percent. What about those 55? The American government carried out very severe and extensive studies to see if those 55 were really affected. They brought that number down to three. This is three out of 120,000. What about those three? Even those three they weren't sure about. One of them had existing lung disease, one had a serious gall bladder infection and the third individual was a habitual IV drug user. And they think that none of those individuals out of the 120,000 people sprayed for the European gypsy moth were affected at all. This was a long-term study.

The Speaker: I regret, hon. minister, that your time has expired.

H. De Jong: I'm glad that the Minister of Agriculture has made those specific points, because they are very important in this discussion.

While there is a fair amount of uncertainty among the general public on spraying of any kind, which, I'm sure, all of us in this House can appreciate, in this particular case the uncertainty and the fear expressed is probably based more on emotion than facts. I would like to refer again to a statement by Dr. Shaun Peck, medical health officer, that Bt has been used very extensively worldwide, with hundreds of workers exposed without any adverse reactions reported. Bt is considered a very safe pesticide and is environmentally acceptable.

As politicians, we have a responsibility to research the facts. I believe the facts in this issue are overwhelmingly in favour of public and environmental safety. This being the case, while we may differ in this Legislature on many issues, for reasons supported by facts I believe 

[ Page 667 ]

that while there is emotional fear among the public, it behooves each and every one of us in this assembly not to build on those emotional fears but to subdue them. The facts are well-researched and proven many times over. I would like to ask every member of this assembly to give support to what is a very emotional issue. It's essential, under the circumstances, that we support the government in this important action, which I believe is of importance to all of British Columbia.

MENTAL HEALTH

M. Lord: I wish to address some of the needs of the mentally ill in our communities across British Columbia. Hon. Speaker, I believe that the health care system has failed miserably in its attempts to care for the mentally ill in this province. The families of the mentally ill are under incredible stress, and yet they feel totally helpless. The patients themselves are alienated and scared. The remaining staff in our chronically underfunded and now gutted community health care centres are sagging under a tremendous workload and are continually frustrated in their attempts to deliver quality service to their clients.

In my community volunteer organizations such as the Canadian Mental Health Association and the Friends of Schizophrenics work frantically to try to shore up this most serious situation. By conservative estimates there are some 3,000 to 4,000 mentally ill individuals in this province who live in inadequate and unacceptable circumstances. Vancouver's medical health officer has declared that the vast numbers of mentally ill living on the streets of that city are his number one public health concern.

For the past 20 years we have endured a government that just did not care about the mentally ill, and because those with mental illness did not have a strong lobby to fight for their rights and because many do not vote, their needs have been swept aside. In the 1960s there were between 4,000 and 6,000 seriously mentally ill individuals institutionalized in this province. That number has dwindled to less than 500, and that downsizing has not been well organized. Adequate support has not been put in the communities of British Columbia. Hospital care has become fragmented as local psychiatric units become overburdened with the severely mentally ill, and it becomes increasingly difficult for physicians to have their patients admitted during psychotic episodes. There is a lack of psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.

We cannot continue to turn Riverview patients out into the communities with nothing there to support them. The effects of this policy can be seen throughout our communities in British Columbia as these people gather in hospital emergency departments and in soup kitchens. They are sleeping in our parks and on our sidewalk warm-air grates. They are gathering on the doorsteps of community libraries and service agencies, and more often than not they become victims of crime. They are desperately in need of our help.

In order to find a solution to this crisis, we must significantly improve basic services. The most urgently required of these services is quality housing to meet the various needs of the mentally ill. Without that appropriate housing, it is entirely unreasonable to assume that people with mental illness can remain stable. In communities across British Columbia we need specialized emergency shelters, a dormitory-style facility staffed with a resident worker trained in crisis intervention. We also need tenant-supported housing, as well as some units which provide a more independent living style, with support workers checking in from time to time.

Hon. Speaker, our government has risen to the challenge. We have taken a substantial first step by providing an allocation in this year's budget of $11.3 million to provide semi-independent living units, to supply rental accommodation with appropriate services for the mentally ill. In addition, that funding will also supply six short-term assessment treatment facilities. A further $5.1 million will be spent to establish emergency response teams to help those experiencing mental health crises, and thereby help reduce the use of psychiatric units in community hospitals, where most of these patients currently end up.

In my community, and in many small communities across the province, the mentally ill have been asking and asking for some kind of recreational facility -- a clubhouse which would provide a social and recreational outlet for the mentally ill, who just don't have that outside the institutions. For many in our communities the hospital psychiatric unit becomes their social milieu. Symptoms of their illness cause an uneducated society to make them unwelcome. They are alienated and alone. They have nowhere to go, no money to spend, no jobs, no friends and no family.

In the Comox Valley the mental health patients themselves have organized their own facility and struggle daily to pay the costs, having long ago given up applying to the previous government for funding. One of my clients said to me: "This place is like my home. These people are my friends. It's the only place I can come for coffee, and people will actually talk to me."

Hon. Speaker, help is on its way to these consumers of the service. This government has earmarked $3.4 million to address a series of such initiatives to provide better opportunities for patients, families and communities.

It's also imperative that we address the devastating effects of mental illness in the native Indian communities of our province. Our government has responded to that need. We have provided $2 million to help aboriginal people assess the need and establish treatment programs for their own people.

The inadequacies in mental health care in this province have taken almost 20 years to reach the crisis situation we find ourselves in today. But our government has made a significant first step: the beginning of a strong, broad-based commitment to reach out and give a hand to the mentally ill in British Columbia.

[10:30]

V. Anderson: I thank the member for Comox Valley for raising this very significant and very important issue. We certainly would agree with you that it is of fundamental importance that we learn to respond 

[ Page 668 ]

and respect these people within our community, because none of us knows for sure that we are not one of them. As we learned in the Year of Disabled Persons, the comment was that some of us have visible disabilities and others have invisible disabilities, but we all have disabilities.

One of the struggles we've had over the years is that people who have had one problem or another have been separated and isolated from the rest of us, almost to protect ourselves rather than to be of help to them. We must move in this area as well as in others to let these people remain within our community and not segregate them from the community.

One of the experiences that I had in a period of my training was in Boston State Hospital. There they had a program where, for each of the communities that they served, they had a direct relationship to that community, and as much as possible people who had a mental illness were served in their own community, and their own community took responsibility for them and with them.

One of the dangers I see that we may fall into is that though we provide facilities, these facilities for these persons and the resources may not be in their home community. For instance, in the Vancouver area they may be concentrated in one part of the city, at the moment most likely somewhere on the east side, while many of these people will have come from other parts of Vancouver, have come from the valley or from some of the areas around Vancouver, or they may have come from other parts of British Columbia. They may have come down under the old system into the lower mainland area, and are not able now to go back home where they belong.

I would urge that we have some new attitudes in British Columbia, and do not fall into the system of simply moving the facilities from one location to another, but that we spread these facilities around the whole of the province so that we concentrate on the communities in which these people can live.

Having grown up in a small community, I know that because these people are known, they are accepted like others and they are a part of the community and the community takes responsibility for them. Part of our difficulty in an urban society is that these people are strangers, and like all other strangers they become isolated. We need to overcome that isolation by providing resources for them.

I also would encourage, as has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Comox Valley, the support of those persons who are developing their own resources and their own programs and their own activities. We need to acknowledge that they are very capable of looking after themselves with that kind of support, because all of us need support in our communities. It's not just them; it's all of us.

I would also hope that we would, in supporting them, undertake to change the other programs within our community -- in our community centres, in our schools -- so that these people do not have to supply resources outside the normal ones. They should have resources within their own communities integrated with all of the other facilities so that they can share with us their strengths, and we share with them our strengths, and we have a mutual accountability together.

M. Lord: I am very heartened by the remarks from the member opposite in this regard. It is a very complex subject, and I feel he has a very profound understanding of the problems that are facing the mentally ill in the communities today.

Indeed, we all recognize that while mental illness is not preventable, working to alleviate the effects of poverty, poor housing, alcohol and drug abuse, violence in the family and all of these things is as important as medical treatment in the management and social integration of the mentally ill.

I'm very proud to be part of this government that has taken a very important first step in recognizing the importance of a continuum of services in the community. In addition to the increased funding which I mentioned earlier, we have earmarked some $5.3 million to enhance the outreach teams to assist seniors in our communities who are also suffering from some type of mental illness, including Alzheimer's and depression and those kinds of illnesses which seniors struggle with.

This is a government that recognizes it's unacceptable to move the mentally ill out into communities which are unable or unprepared to support them. We believe that strengthening health care in communities will pay untold future dividends. We are totally and completely committed to provision of quality care and a continuum of services to those in this province who struggle with mental illness. Thank you.

NATURAL GAS DRILLING
IN THE FRASER VALLEY

G. Farrell-Collins: I rise in this House today on a matter of grave concern to the people of the Fraser Valley. Several years ago the Social Credit government, without reasonable notice to the citizens of the valley, sold the exploration rights out from under their homes and farms. The gas corporations, with the full knowledge of the then sitting member of this very House -- and, indeed, the government as a whole -- embarked upon an adventure towards disaster.

These players first planned and then began implementing a program that would see billions of cubic feet of liquefied natural gas stored underground in layers of permeable rock. Needless to say, when people found out what was happening, they became extremely concerned. Suspicious of both government and industry, they spent a great deal of time researching the issue and were anything but reassured by what they found. There are countless instances, which are well documented, of leaking storage facilities which have caused explosions and the subsequent deaths of many people.

It's important to note at this point that the initial applications from the gas corporations were for the development of a storage facility. They have subsequently changed this application to one for exploratory drilling. It's also very interesting to note that in a document that was distributed among the industry in the 

[ Page 669 ]

United States, there is a section that deals with the duties and responsibilities of what they call the landsman. The landsman's job is to go door to door and sign up people to purchase their mineral rights, etc., and to provide access for the gas corporations to the property of the people who will be affected by the drilling.

In that document it is stated very clearly that in cases where opposition to gas storage is severe, one method of ultimately achieving storage is to use the perhaps more amenable process of convincing people that there is natural gas already located underneath their properties and that if the gas corporation were to drill and find this natural gas, these people would become wealthy.

They thereby purchase the mineral rights from these people, the drilling goes ahead and people realize.... The gas company comes forth and says: "As a matter of fact, there isn't any natural gas down there, but it's a perfect spot for storage." It's a roundabout way to achieve the ends of the corporation, and I have some suspicions that perhaps that may be what is taking place now.

The last government appointed David Anderson, a former leader of the Liberal Party in this House from past decades, to head an inquiry into the applications concerned. This process, however, through no fault of Mr. Anderson, was flawed from the start. I believe Mr. Anderson was set up by the Social Credit government. This commission of inquiry was a technical hearing with an attorney appointed by this same government to cross-examine technical witnesses put forward by the industry.

For the people of the Fraser Valley who were justifiably suspicious of both the corporations and their own government, this was an outrage. What provision was there for input on their behalf? What provision was there for them to ask questions? There was none.

The present Premier spoke strongly against the process, saying: "The process stunk from the beginning.... The Energy minister awarded the rights secretly and then set in process a study which set everybody up. "This commission has" gone off the rails right from the start." He went on to say, and justifiably so: "There is a legitimate public interest involved, but it's a severely impaired commission." After the report of the commission was released, the present Premier commended David Anderson for his work in a difficult situation, but stated: "The Fraser Valley residents have the right to adequately review all the information and be heard before the government makes any decision to allow drilling or not."

These were very clear comments and commitments made by the Premier, and I would like to commend him for his stance. We would, of course, like to hear an unequivocal no, from the lips of the Premier, to drilling and storage in the Fraser Valley. However, if he will merely allow the people of the Fraser Valley a chance to hold public hearings into the recommendations of the commission of inquiry, as he has promised, then I'm sure these very people will convince the government that this project is flawed and places the lives of its fellow citizens at risk.

I know that the member for Peace River South was the former Minister of Energy who signed the drilling permit for the Delta well. I'm also aware of the fact that coming from the Peace River country, he's very familiar with the gas and oil industry. I'm equally sure that he sees no problem with the proposals to drill for exploratory purposes. However, the geology, geography, agriculture and demographics, and even the population density, in the Fraser Valley are all vastly different from the Peace River. A parallel, reasonable comparison simply cannot be made.

The beautiful Peace River country is one of grain farms and ranches, similar to my birth province of Saskatchewan, while the Fraser Valley is one of small farms, anywhere from five to 60 acres in size -- extremely small in agricultural terms. One simply cannot compare the risks of damage and death caused by a blowout or leak in the Peace River region to the much higher damage and number of deaths that would be inflicted on the residents of the much more densely populated Fraser Valley. It's worthy to note that this week an explosion of a gas facility in Texas destroyed homes and farms in a four-kilometre radius of the site and a four-year-old boy was killed.

It's with great concern that I remind members of this House that the next drill site -- the one that these companies hope to start this summer -- is within one mile of the only hospital in Langley, within one mile of the RCMP station and within one mile of the only emergency response centre, all of which would be critical to the disaster evacuation plan that would be required instantly in the event of an explosion at the drill site.

Hon. Speaker, this Premier was right when he expressed his concerns over this issue and voiced his determination to guarantee the residents a say in the permit process. I encourage members of this House to drive to Langley and to walk or drive around the Murrayville neighbourhood. Take careful note of the families who live there. Take careful note of the homes, farms and businesses that have been built up over the last century. Note the schools and hospitals and the close community that supports their neighbours and cares for each other. Then take very careful note of the well-maintained signs fastened firmly to every house, fence and barn. Those signs say: "Say no to gas drilling and storage in the Fraser Valley." They've been there for over two years.

The voice that we're hearing is the quiet voice of determined people shouting across the Strait of Georgia to members of this Legislature. I urge this Premier, this minister and this Legislature to listen to that voice. We were elected to speak for them and to listen to them. Please don't let them down.

Hon. A. Edwards: Thank you very much, to the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, for this statement. I certainly realize that this issue is a matter of considerable importance to his constituents, the people generally in the lower mainland and the people in the petroleum industry. The issue has obviously drawn a lot of attention over a number of years, and I recognize that.

Although no applications have been made to drill on the other two drilling sites that have actually been held 

[ Page 670 ]

under lease, B.C. Gas, Conoco and Dynamic Oil would have to make an application in order to drill. They have not yet made those applications, and there have been no applications by the private landowners who actually own the rights to the oil and gas underneath their properties.

I have very carefully reviewed the previous government's decision last year to allow a test drilling site and demonstration well for natural gas in the Delta area. This application and drilling, which took a few weeks, followed an inquiry by the commissioner, David Anderson, who had completed his hearings by the time this happened. I examined the reports that were made on that well very carefully. I'm sure the member will recognize that everyone was watching what happened when that particular site was drilled.

[10:45]

First of all, the hole was dry, and the site was reclaimed. The reports on it show that the drilling, environmental protection and reclamation processes were exemplary in that case. This really can be attributed to a very thorough review by all the involved agencies, which was definitely the case in this project. Besides that, a citizens' advisory group was formed. This was made up of local residents who advised the company about the drilling. That process was recommended by the Anderson report. Reclamation of the site was done to the satisfaction of the resident farmer and the Agricultural Land Commission.

Since examining the reports that followed the drilling, I met with the consortium of companies that owns the leases. They may well apply to drill on the other two sites. I also met with local concerned citizens and heard what they had to say to me. Our discussions have been fairly extensive, I would like to say.

As minister, I can say that there are no applications, and until there are, we will not be indicating any action. However, in the event there is an application.... I would remind the member that these applications were made under existing legislation. If the rights belonged to individual citizens, they still belong to individual citizens. There are ways that those things can be managed.

I would also like to respond to the member's suggestion that Commissioner Anderson was set up by the previous government. Perhaps that's a bit demeaning to the commissioner. Mr. Anderson took the task, and I believe that he did what he did.... We have said clearly, and without fear of having to change our mind on this, that we don't think the hearings were complete enough. We don't believe they did exactly what we thought they should do; nevertheless, I don't think Mr. Anderson should be said to have been taken control of by someone else.

We need to look very carefully at what kind of public input we are going to have and we are going to require. This government is committed to appropriate public input and as broad a public input as we can possibly allow. Believe me, with the Fraser Valley drilling, there is no question at all that the commitment we have made to the public will also be carried out.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you very much to the minister for that reaffirmation of her commitment and her government's commitment to hold public hearings on this issue. I'm sure that the people of the Fraser Valley are fully able to respond and participate in the process when those applications come forward from the corporations.

I, too, would like to make a few comments. I want to make it very clear to this House that under no circumstances was I intending to impugn the reputation of David Anderson, whom I know to be a very reputable gentleman; I was merely making comments with regard to the process that he was saddled with by the past government. The terms of reference of the commission were relatively restricted to things of a more technical nature, as opposed to a public hearing process where the public is able to contribute. In that regard, I do believe that the process was fundamentally flawed from the beginning, and I agree with the Premier's statements in that regard also.

I do want to caution this House, and definitely the minister, that in the review of the Delta well study and the reports that came from the Delta well.... First of all, those reports should be made public so that the public whose homes are around that area will be able to see for themselves what the results of the Delta well were and to comment on the Delta well in the public hearings. That's only fair, and I think she would agree. It's no longer sufficient for politicians or corporations to tell the public: just trust us, and we'll decide what's good for you. The people want to be involved in the process, and they need to understand, and they need to see what is actually being done.

I also want to caution that when we do look at the results of the Delta well.... That's the only well that's been drilled recently on this side of the Canadian border in the Fraser Valley, but there are literally thousands of wells drilled every year worldwide. It's true that many of them go off without a hitch; there are no problems, and the operation is perfect. However, there are sufficient difficulties with natural gas drilling sites that there is some concern. There are some very legitimate and definite concerns -- as mentioned by the Premier also, which I stated earlier -- that need to be addressed.

If we try and develop the Fraser Valley -- a very densely populated area -- as a gas-producing or a gas-storage facility, we are running some very high risks to the people who live there; those risks are magnified exponentially by the density of the population, as opposed to some other places. I gave the example of the one in Texas; there's the Lodgepole blowout in Alberta that we can look at for a similar case; there are a number of those. Just imagine putting that type of an explosion or that type of a difficulty right smack in the middle of a community. Just imagine the difficulty that would result if there were an explosion.

THE ANNUAL VAISAKHI CELEBRATION
IN THE INDO-CANADIAN COMMUNITY

U. Dosanjh: I rise today in the House to speak about the annual Vaisakhi celebration in the Indo-Cana-

[ Page 671 ]

dian community. First I would like to say a few words about the community itself.

Hon. Speaker, the Indo-Canadian community, of which I am a member, dates back to the last decade of the nineteenth century in British Columbia. Presently, I believe, across British Columbia, we have some 200,000 members of this community whose ancestral roots or connections lie in the Indian subcontinent. People who are part of that community come from India, Ceylon, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Malaya, Singapore, England, the U.S., South Africa, East Africa and many other parts of the world. So some of us have made the journey directly to Canada; others have gone through other parts of the world and have ended up in Canada. Many of us are second-or third-generation Canadians, and others are first-generation immigrants, like me.

Within that group of a couple of hundred thousand Indo-Canadians, you will find all of the different faiths. You will find a majority of them -- close to 60 percent -- are Sikhs; and others are Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Buddhists. Therefore you see across British Columbia perhaps two dozen or so Sikh temples, some Hindu temples, some Muslim mosques and some Christian churches that cater to the Indo-Canadian population in the languages of the Indian subcontinent.

As a result of that, we who are part of this larger multicultural province and country are multicultural among ourselves as a community, because the Indian subcontinent is home to many cultures and languages, as I'm sure most of the members of this House would know.

[11:00]

The celebration of the Vaisakhi that I want to speak about, to begin with, is a secular festival. It's a festival which is celebrated in April, in the harvest season. Once the harvest is all home and the farmers and others are ready to enjoy themselves with some of the proceeds of that harvest, that's when the festival takes place. So in a sense, it's a festival of celebration and thanksgiving. It was celebrated for centuries essentially in the northern part of India and more particularly in northwestern India. Obviously, as you know, Indian civilization is perhaps as ancient as 4,000 to 5,000 years, and this festival had gone on for centuries until in 1699 the last master of the Sikhs, the tenth guru, invited his followers from all over India to gather at the hill in Anandpur in Punjab. At that hill, he invited all his disciples....

Previously, from the mid-fifteenth century, Sikhism was a religion that essentially had nothing to do with organizing militarily against anyone. It was essentially a religious reform movement. Concomitantly with the Protestant Reformation that was going on in Europe, you had this reform movement going on in India. Out of that grew Sikhism, and the Holy Scriptures of the Sikhs embody the reformist poetry and scriptures of many saints from all parts of India. Many of them are Muslim, others Hindu and others Sikh. So you find in the Sikh scriptures verses from all of those saints from different faiths. This was a faith which was open to all of the people across India. In fact, the Golden Temple in Amritsar has four doors, symbolically four gates, so that people can come from all directions to it.

At the end of the seventeenth century, there was some political oppression and persecution. The last guru of the Sikhs organized the Sikhs and baptized them in 1699 on that hill and asked them to wear five symbols: the unshorn hair and four other things being part of it. That's why you see the turbans on many baptized Sikhs' heads.

This community here holds a celebration starting from Ross Temple on Marine and Ross in Vancouver, going from Knight Street to 49th, back to the Punjabi market on 49th and Main, and then going back to the Ross Temple. Every year 15,000 to 20,000 people attend that celebration. In fact, people of all faiths attend this celebration, because Sikhism being an open-door faith allows everyone to come and participate without having to convert. Therefore this celebration serves as a unifying event for the Indo-Canadian community.

Our community has prospered over the years in British Columbia. We have Indo-Canadian Supreme Court judges, born and raised here, or from South Africa of Indian origin. We have the president of the B.C. Medical Association, Dr. Gur Singh. Farm workers, who do much of the seasonal work on the farms, come disproportionately from our community. We have poets and writers and artists and politicians, and there are several of us with that background in this House. That simply shows you that this community is a thriving community.

I just want to ask the members of this House to join me in wishing all of the Indo-Canadians, and more particularly the Sikhs, a happy Vaisakhi. Thank you.

V. Anderson: It's my privilege to join with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kensington, whose riding is adjacent to my own. Part of the parade and the celebrations that he's talking about will take place in my own riding. Over the years I've also had the privilege to work with the Pacific Interfaith Citizenship Association and Canadian Ecumenical Action -- another interfaith group. In both of these groups I have had the opportunity to learn a great deal from the members of the Indo-Canadian community in the variety of interfaith expressions which we have shared together.

I'm also very much aware of the service orientation of the Indo-Canadian and of the Sikh community. When we talk about food banks many people may not realize that every time the Sikh community meets and worships they have a meal afterwards, and that meal is open without charge to anyone who would wish to come and share in it. So they, in their own way, have provided a service to the community which is very important.

We have a great deal to learn from this community, as well as the other communities which we share together in Canada. And it seems that as we learn from each other, we will become much better world citizens. I'm delighted to share in the celebration of this time.

C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, it's a pleasure for me, and I sincerely thank the member for Vancouver-Kensington for bringing this to the house this morning. I have a very strong Indo-Canadian community in my constituency, and I've learned a great deal about Vaisakhi from 

[ Page 672 ]

the member's statement this morning. I certainly wish all members of the Indo-Canadian community a very happy Vaisakhi celebration.

In the forest or the fields, in the factories, in the businesses, certainly in medicine, education, the arts -- both performing and visual -- in all fields members of the Indo-Canadian community have enriched Canada. They really have done that. Multiculturalism is a facet where all elements -- all ethnic bases in this great nation of Canada -- work together with tolerance and understanding of the differences in perspective. Multiculturalism is the beautiful and rich tapestry which is Canada as a whole.

Ethnicism is an important element of that tapestry, and it is the very thread that the tapestry is woven of. So I am very pleased to hear of this initiative this morning, and recognize that the song and the dance, the customs and the traditions, and the sharing that we do through ethnic traditions, culture -- certainly ethnic foods -- enrich all of Canada, provide the work ethic, the innovativeness and the togetherness, because I recognize that Canada is the world's first truly international country, and I thank the member from Vancouver-Kensington.

U. Dosanjh: I thank the members for their generosity in making their remarks. I just want to repeat again that it's a privilege to be able to stand in this House and be part of this House, knowing that the community went through struggles such as the Komagata Maru, the lack of the franchise and the lack of ability to practise in the professions, and over the years this community has produced many people in various aspects of life: business, trade unions, professions, politics.

I want to recognize, however, one man who is not among us: Darshan Singh Canadian; he was always known as Canadian. He was one of the founders of the International Woodworkers of America in the early forties and was general secretary of that union. He returned to India in 1947, became a legislator in the Punjab legislative assembly, and was shot by some individuals more recently. He was a very progressive man. That was the legacy of Canadian freedom and Canadian politics to my native country, and those are the kinds of things that unite the two countries and people from different cultures.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; E. Barnes in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL SERVICES

On vote 56: minister's office, $350,718.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm afraid this may be an omen, where the hon. Chairman has a bit of a blind side where the minister is concerned.

I have been looking forward to this estimates process. I'm very proud of the work that we've been able to do -- this government, my ministry -- in the preparation of this budget that we're bringing forward.

While I recognize that there is much need in the community and much work to do, I think this budget shows the commitment of this government to doing that work and to entering a partnership with the community and, indeed, to walking down a road that I believe represents a consensus with the community. The question, of course, is how we can impact that need and how long that road will be.

I present for this House the budget for 1992-93 and the estimates. My ministry is committed to working with individuals and with the community in planning and delivering social services. The community panel that we announced earlier this year to establish a review of family and children's services is an example of how we intend to ensure that there is meaningful input into the decisions made in the processes of government. I will also establish an advisory council for our income assistance programs, so that I can hear directly from clients and from the community on issues of concern to them.

Saying that government supports families is nothing but empty rhetoric, unless we acknowledge that citizens must be able to define for themselves what their family is. Supporting families, for my ministry, will mean providing real help for real people: single parents, young moms, native family groupings and clans. It will mean providing access to a safe place for women and children who are victims of family violence and counselling for these victims to break the cycle of violence and abuse.

This government knows that investing in people is fundamental to both our economic and social development. This commitment will be reflected in community and individual initiatives. My ministry will no longer reflect the paternalistic approach to social programs. We will build programs that support and empower clients -- not trap them in a cycle of poverty, abuse and dependence. This ministry will reflect this commitment to empower in all our dealings with clients.

In addition, we are planning to develop user-friendly interactive video terminals, where clients can learn about their entitlements and approach government as informed consumers. Our written material will be published not only in plain English, but in plain Punjabi, Cantonese, Vietnamese and in whatever other language is required to ensure that we communicate with British Columbians in a language that has meaning and relevance in their lives.

In keeping with this new climate of openness, the Ministry of Social Services will actively support the overall direction of government reflected in the freedom-of-information legislation that will later be brought to this House.

Knowledge is power, and we will strive to establish a more equal relationship with our clients -- a relationship that respects cultural diversity and the dignity of clients and supports the integrity of individuals, families and communities. The empowerment and training programs for ministry clients are being redirected to ensure that these principles are reflected in our program development and service delivery.

[ Page 673 ]

We will be increasing our overall allocation to employment and training initiatives by $17.5 million -- an increase of 44.3 percent. This money will be allocated according to local community and individual development needs. As a part of this commitment to individual initiatives and development, I will increase the amount of money that income assistance recipients can earn without affecting their entitlement. The exemption for single persons will be increased from $50 per month to $100 per month. The exemption for families is also doubled, from $100 to $200 per month. We have put together a strong package of bridging programs to assist clients to get into the workforce. This work will continue, but it will continue in a way that recognizes both our clients' rights and their aspirations.

The economic downturn has meant an overall increase in our income assistance caseloads of almost 20 percent over the last year. This has happened at a time when the federal government has abandoned its commitment to 50 percent cost-sharing. Our estimated shortfall in revenue from the Canada Assistance Plan this year alone is $271 million. That's for the fiscal year 1992-1993.

We have no intentions of abandoning British Columbians who have become victims of this recession. The budget for income assistance will increase from an estimated $1.09 billion in 1991 to a proposed $1.39 billion in this fiscal year. That is predominantly reflected in the increased caseloads.

I cannot provide details of rate increases at this time. However, I will maintain government's commitment to living within our means. The timing and amount of increases this year will depend on the volume of new cases which must be served. I want to point out to the House that 80 percent of my ministry's budget is committed to statutory non-discretionary programs. We have been abandoned by the federal government at a time when caseloads and costs are rising.

I have a fundamental belief in directing the work of the ministry in the next years to come, and that is that the only way we will be able to deal with the crisis management of the previous administration, either by income assistance caseloads or child protection services -- those are the statutory programs that I referred to -- is by shifting the emphasis of this ministry from crisis intervention to empowerment and support. You will see as we go through the budget that we have begun that shift.

I'd also like to share with you, to make that point even stronger.... When we're looking at a 20 percent increase in caseloads, I think one of the things that we have to commit ourselves to is the understanding that our caseloads reflect the economy. In many ways the income assistance caseload is tied directly to unemployment, job creation and the creation of wealth. This ministry will work with other ministries of government to try to impact that. We will not continue the past practice of administering a program of last resort without providing real options for people.

[11:15]

In addition to that, I want to bring to the House's attention how much it costs to maintain a child in care in a contracted service. Approximately $40,000 a year is the average amount to support a child in care in this province. By comparison, providing some respite care for a family, in supporting a family in keeping together to support that child at home -- where I think we'll all agree that, for the most part, the child belongs -- is approximately $2,500.

Another example is providing for behavioural management and counselling to assist youth to re-enter the school system, and the average cost is $1,350. The emphasis of programs such as these in supporting families in addressing their issues is obviously not only more humane and more consistent with our goals in supporting families and empowering them to deal with their own issues, but it is also cost-effective for taxpayers and a responsible direction for this government.

Sadly, the need for more services to victims of violence is also on the increase. I have increased the funding for transition houses and second-stage houses, and I have allocated funding to ensure services will be provided to children who witness violence and abuse. Funding for this initiative has been increased by 54 percent to $16.53 million. I have also allocated funds to the B.C. association of transition societies so that we can be assured that our planning will benefit from the advice and information of this important network of local service delivery agencies.

My ministry is a key partner in ensuring that there is accessible, affordable day care across the province. We are keeping our promise to make day care more affordable to families in British Columbia, and we'll be making future announcements very soon.

I am committed to the principle of full citizenship for persons with mental handicaps. My ministry will allocate an additional $4 million to provide community-based services to persons with mental handicaps currently on ministry waiting-lists. We will also ensure that the community-living model of service delivery to persons with mental handicaps is fully supported by realistic human resource development initiatives. This will ensure that community-based services are provided by qualified staff who receive appropriate compensation. An additional $10 million is therefore allocated to address both wage inequities and staff recruitment, and retention issues in contracted service agencies across this province.

This ministry is committed to community living, and one of the ways we show our commitment is providing support in communities so that everyone can have a full entitlement as citizens. As a result of broad consultation on all aspects of services for people with mental handicaps, we have allocated additional resources to enhance our ability to monitor community residential placements. This will be done jointly with families and with service providers. We will increase our reliance on community participation and provide an additional $1.9 million to assess non-profit organizations in providing programs that support and complement ministry initiatives. This is an increase of approximately 37 percent.

We have provided for a 10 percent increase in the number of senior citizens' counsellors to meet the needs of the growing number of seniors in this province. Our 

[ Page 674 ]

priority is to ensure that seniors have access to information that will support their independence. An additional 17 counsellors will be appointed throughout the province in communities where the need is the greatest.

Support for children and families is a cornerstone of my ministry -- my ministry's contribution to the future of our province. While I'm looking forward to the recommendations of the community panel which, as I indicated earlier, is charged with the responsibility of reviewing our legislative mandate, I will move forward on our promise to improve services in this vital area. This is the first opportunity I have had to speak in this House about the work of the community panel, and many members of this House have already had an opportunity to present their views and listen to the concerns and issues of the families in their communities. They've heard about the work that many caregivers have provided to the community.

I want to take this opportunity to emphasize the philosophy that was fundamental to this review. The philosophy that we brought to this process was one of recognizing the diversity of families in British Columbia. We recognized that we could never represent all families on the panel itself, but it was our desire that families would feel comfortable and supported by that open, consultative process of hearings. That panel is reflective of the community and of a number of stakeholder groups -- the many faces of families in British Columbia.

In order to support families, I have increased our crisis-relief budget to parents of special-needs children by 31 percent. Our budget for homemaker services has been increased by almost 8 percent. Our budget for child care workers for families with children who have behavioural, emotional and physical needs has been increased by 43.8 percent. Assessment counselling and support to maintain and strengthen families has been increased by 16.8 percent. The Families First program, which provides a variety of positive-parenting programs by community agencies across the province, has been increased by 29.6 percent. Our budget to assist street kids has been increased by 30.4 percent. Our program to provide behavioural management and counselling for students and their families and to assist students to stay in school has been increased by 44.6 percent.

We will be expanding our services to native Indian children and their families. I will be making further announcements in this area in the near future. Our commitment to independence and empowerment will be most evident in this area. We will not continue the old paternalistic policies that have contributed so much to the cultural disintegration of native communities.

This government values the work of caring for children. We have provided $2.24 million to provide a wage lift to the lowest-paid workers in contracted service agencies providing residential services to children, and $1.23 million for the lowest-paid workers in non-residential settings. While this may not be enough, it is a clear signal that my ministry will not exploit our service partners.

In total we are providing $213.28 million to the family and children's services programs, an overall increase of $40.52 million. This is an increase of 23.4 percent.

In summary, to ensure that we have developed a budget which balances our responsibilities to clients and their communities with our overall responsibilities to taxpayers, we are conducting a number of internal reviews, evaluations and investigations. This will ensure that we discharge our public trust in the most fiscally responsible manner. My ministry is also working on many fronts to acknowledge the valuable contributions our service partners make to the overall achievement of our goals.

I want to take this opportunity to express my personal gratitude and the gratitude of this government for the energy and commitment of all those people who work helping people. It is fair to say that no one sets out in life to become a client of the Ministry of Social Services. People come to us in hard times, expecting help. I want to thank my staff for the caring way in which they provide this help to thousands of people every year. They treat clients with dignity and respect, and they have earned my respect.

I believe it has to be acknowledged that much of the work that the ministry staff does is in dealing with difficult issues, and the conditions in which they have to meet their responsibilities are very difficult. I feel that responsibility as the minister in providing support, and I will target my energies to fulfilling that responsibility to my staff in this ministry. I'm very proud of this ministry, and I look forward to the challenges, many that they may be, in the next year.

The Chair: Before I recognize the opposition critic, the member for Comox wishes to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

M. Lord: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce, behind me in the gallery here today, the First Cumberland Girl Guide Company and their leaders. There are 19 Girl Guides and one Brownie visiting us today, and I have just had the pleasure of presenting these young women with proficiency badges in citizenship and fitness. They are visiting us here in Victoria today from the very beautiful and historic town of Cumberland. Will the House please join me in making them welcome.

The Chair: The member for Delta South wishes to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

F. Gingell: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to recognize my old friend Reni Masi, who's sitting in the gallery. Mr. Massey has lived in Delta for many years and has always contributed in a very positive manner towards our community. I ask you to join me in making him welcome.

Hon. J. Smallwood: As I was speaking, my staff came in, and I'd like to introduce them to the House: Deputy Minister Lynn Langford; Sam Travers, ADM, 

[ Page 675 ]

finance and administration; Bob Cronin, ADM, policies -- in the gallery; John Pickering, director of financial planning.

V. Anderson: Minister, I want to thank you very much for your presentation today. I have indicated that we would like to cooperate very closely with you, because our concern is not the points that either one of us may make for our own benefit, but the well-being of the people in the province. In our particular ministry, that's very important. It's often the people who have the greatest need that we have the opportunity and privilege to work on behalf of. So I want to thank you for this.

I also want to state that I welcome your staff and look forward to getting to know them better -- the ones in the House here, the ones in the gallery, and also the many staff watching on television or listening to us on the speakers who are feeling that part of their future is being discussed and that the style in which they'll be able to work and the kind of cooperation we'll be able to work together on in the community is being reflected even here as we work together.

[11:30]

I would like to thank the minister for what I consider to be a new approach in British Columbia. I'm not going to dwell on the past, because that doesn't do a great deal of benefit for any of us, except that sometimes the lessons we have learned in the past may be ones that are reflected in what we're doing and planning for the future. In that reflection, I would like to say that in the past, for a variety of reasons -- these reasons are not only in British Columbia, but they are also true across Canada, and in some cases around the world -- the community at large has not been informed or not had the experience or not been in the situation where they knew or were able to respond to the circumstances that grew within the community.

In many ways the needs of the people we will be dealing with have been hidden needs for the most part. They have been needs that have only been seen in the headlines of newspapers, needs that have been reflected, as with most headlines, in a negative fashion. The underlying validity, opportunity and responsibility has not been fully known. For instance, a group that the Minister of Environment is very well aware of, in the downtown core of Vancouver, illustrates that -- in what we sometimes call the east side, the downtown core of Vancouver, and negatively, skid row. When they had the opportunity to reflect on who they were and to tell their own story, in message and on tape, they were able to say that this was the place where they were proud to live; this was the place where they were positive people; this was the place where they could express themselves and where many of them felt at home, in spite of the circumstances and the difficulties they experienced. It was this attitude that surprised many people as they heard the message and saw the slides, and as they understood a different approach to appreciation of the dignity of the people themselves. It's that different approach that I trust we will together be able to engender and develop, not only within our government and in programs, but more particularly within the community at large.

Sometimes we will play with words, but the significance of those words are meaningful. Let me use an example. For some time, the members of our church, of all of the religious faiths, have been concerned with peace within the world. When the World Council of Churches met in Vancouver a few years ago, one of the concerns that our people brought to the meeting was a concern for peace and justice around the world. As they reflected upon it, the citizens who had come from other parts of the world, and particularly from what we call the Third World, were very quick and firm to say: "Peace and justice is not what we're talking about or what we're concerned about; what we are concerned about is justice and peace." Just the trading of those words around provided a totally new context in which to think and work. They were very firm in saying that as long as there is not justice, there cannot be peace. Justice must come first, and then peace may follow it.

I was thinking of that when I heard the minister state that we must support and empower the people. I would think that those words.... I'm with her in the intention, but the intention of the way we use words often gives a misunderstanding to the people. Let me use another illustration. There is a National Film Board film called Indian Dialogue. It's a presentation of the aboriginal people in Canada, particularly in Alberta and some in British Columbia, which was done some 30 years ago. It is a representation and an actual documentation of the native community meeting together to discuss their own situation and their own future promises. One of the items, where the film begins, is of one of the young native men, who has since become one of the famous native leaders within Canada saying: "The Indian agent is always saying we can become something; he's never saying we are something." And that's a fundamental difference. The fundamental difference which I reflect here is that....

Let me use another illustration. At our theological college, when we were receiving some of our training and when I was teaching, the word came through that one of our tasks was to enable people, and that had become a new cliché. It was a very positive word; at least, it was meant to be. But Dr. Taylor, the principal of the college at that time, pointed out that it was a misleading phrase, because if we're enabling something, we're keeping the power to ourselves because we're the enablers. So although the intention was right, the actual result was that we kept the power as long as we enabled somebody else. We needed to recognize that they enabled themselves, and we supported them in that enabling. So I would just recommend to myself and others concerned that we recognize that people empower themselves and that we support their empowerment.

One of the things we have done in the past, as they have attempted to express their own empowerment, is that we have prevented it, we have negated it, we have taken it away from them. It is that negative approach on our part in not recognizing the validity of who they are and what they are that is our first and fundamental weakness. When we get to the point that we recognize the 

[ Page 676 ]

inherent dignity of each person.... Perhaps that word "inherent" has gained a new connotation in our vocabulary through the discussions with the aboriginal people. It's something that's there in the beginning; we don't give it to people. All we can do is recognize that it is there, that we respond to it, that we acknowledge it and work with it, and also recognize the empowerment and the dignity that belong to others. We need to recognize, as the hon. minister did today in a number of cases, that each person, each group, each community, has its own nature, its own validity and its own responsibilities, and that part of our responsibility and opportunity is first of all to recognize what those individual concerns and abilities are.

Having recognized them, the questions are: how can we support them; how can we respond to them; how can we undertake to assist them in what they would like to do if we weren't, as a society, preventing them from doing it? So there are many ways in our attitudes that we need to change, and part of it is reflected also in the words "knowledge is power." Partly that's true. But partly it is the system which enables people either to use the power they have or not to use it.

Let me use another illustration of a student who came into theology who had lived on skid row, as we have negatively called it. He had come through the difficulties of life, and out of that he came to represent his people in a new field of endeavour. One of the problems we had with this particular person -- he was very able and very capable -- was that every time he presented his concerns and his issues he made everybody around him so mad and so angry that they couldn't work with him. One day we said to him: "You know, this isn't getting anybody anyplace. Let's change the method by which we work." Only our suggestion was, of course, that he should change the method by which he did it. We said: "Well, you're clever enough. You know that the way you do it angers us and gets our backs up. Why don't you change the way you do it, in order that we could respond differently to you?" He looked at us very condescendingly and said: "But this is the language and the state of the people I represent. It's not us who need to change; it's you who have to change, in order to live and work with us and hear what we're saying. Because if we don't say it in our context, it loses its meaning and significance." It's that ability to be in a place and hear the language and understand the people with us.

Therefore I was very pleased to hear the minister say that there would be a change in the way the material we share with people is written; that we would write it in plain English or in plain language, whatever that might be. In so doing, I would hope that once our professionals -- whoever they may be -- have written this in the plainest possible language, we will then provide it to the people of the community that she's indicated she's going to work with and have them rewrite it in the language of the community itself. Even the plainest of our "educated" language will not carry the same message to people who, in most cases, need to read it in the circumstances in which they live.

One of the things that the minister has quoted -- and we will be coming to it later on, because that's the kind of budget debate we're in -- has to do with the financial estimates and the increases in funds which have been required to meet the need. That's part of what we have to deal with, and I acknowledge that.

I would also like to acknowledge -- as I think the minister herself has also acknowledged -- that the finances are not the fundamental concern in the discussion in which we're now engaged. The fundamental concern is whether these finances -- whether they've increased or decreased -- are significant in the way they're used in order to meet the most necessary needs being placed before us in the community. We might double or triple the budget, but as has happened so often in the past, the funds made available were just missing the point and were often aggravating the situation rather than responding to it.

One concern that I've heard very often from the community at large over the last number of years is that the funds expended are not being expended in a way that is helpful to the people themselves. There is not the communication, the respect or the opportunity in the system. I'm not talking about individuals in the system, but the system itself. The way the whole thing was organized and functioned in the past has not enabled the needs that were there to be met.

A question that I would raise -- and have already raised before in my presentations to this House -- is what we call what we're doing. Traditionally we have come to call it a safety net. To me a safety net is a negative approach. As I mentioned before, a safety net is something that protects the person after they have fallen overboard, after they have got into difficulty or after the circumstances have turned against them.

I think we need to develop a social community and a social program that activates the needs of the community in a way that the safety net will never be needed. It needs to operate at a different level, in a different context and with a different approach. Together, I hope that we could come up with a different term than "safety net." It's a neat cliché, but it misses the point not only for people we work with who have needs but, more importantly, for the community at large that understands and supports these people's needs -- people that we, in the community at large, need to support.

[11:45]

There are many people in the community at large who are struggling with this. As the minister has already mentioned, these people are the many thousands upon thousands of volunteers who work in the community organizations. Unfortunately, in the past these community organizations in large part have worked to do their activities almost in spite of the government, not because of the government. There has been a continual feeling of confrontation and competition in trying to undertake the programs that needed to be there.

If I understand the minister right, she has said that there is going to be a new approach in relation to these ministries. If so, I would affirm that new approach. But in that new approach we will also have to take some new attitudes, and the building of those new attitudes is something that we will need to work on together. I am glad she has indicated that there will be an advisory 

[ Page 677 ]

council for income assistance persons -- which I know they have requested on a number of occasions, and until now have not been heard in that request. I am glad to affirm that that will be taking place, and I hope that we can work with you in making sure it becomes as positive as possible throughout the whole of the province.

I commented earlier on the need for a change of attitudes. One change of attitudes which I also heard the minister express, I will affirm: I will try to affirm when I can, and I'll question when I'm not affirming. We need to have a common context in which we affirm.

By the way, the hon. minister mentioned to me outside the House the other day that she was disappointed that so far I hadn't asked her any questions during question period. I promised her that her turn would come, not only in our discussion in the debates but in the future. Once we have a common understanding as to what we're about, we'll have a common context in which to ask the questions. We have to have that common context. Very early in my studies at university, the professor of philosophy pointed out to us that a text without a context is a pretext. I hope all of my questions will be in the context that is common to both of us, in a language that we both understand.

One of the lessons that I had in my clinical training in Boston State Hospital in working with patients who had mental illness and mental concerns -- as we were discussing earlier today -- was in discussion with the psychiatrist who was responsible for a ward of people. I was interested -- and, I must admit at that point, somewhat surprised -- to discover that in working with this ward of people, the psychiatrist spent 90 percent of his time working with staff and 10 percent of his time working with the people who were presumably the sick within the hospital. When I queried him about this, I expected that it would be the other way around -- that he would be working with the patients and not with the staff. He said: "If I do something with the patients, the staff can undo it as soon as I get out of the ward. But if I do something with staff, they will continue to do what I would have done anyway."

I have transferred that over into the relationships that we have within the community. If we give the social workers and the staff at all levels -- secretarial staff, reception staff and financial workers -- the support that they need so that they have the freedom, creativity and opportunity to do their jobs, then we will create a whole different system. The people who work in the system will be able to take pride in it. The system in which people have had to work so far has unfortunately been one which has been so demanding and so demeaning that they have not been able to do the creative work which most of them had gone into that particular field to accomplish. It was not the workers per se that were at fault, but it was the system that defeated them.

One of the questions I will be asking is about the number of staff and the way these staff are recruited, trained and supported. Unless the staff is adequate -- as it has not been in the past -- then the service is not there.

Also, I would like to suggest that with the attitude in the community at large at the moment that we're facing together, we might try to create a new approach. When you go for service, in the majority of cases it will be a negative experience. You will not be heard, you will not be understood, and your real message will not get across to the person you're talking to. In the past their experience has been that the agenda of the ministry, reflected through the people, has been the agenda that they had to respond to. Rather -- as I heard the minister say -- it will now be, hopefully, the other way around. The ministry will respond to the agenda of the people who come to the offices. In the past it has been the agenda of the ministry, and the other people kind of had to fit into the slots, and they were never able to do so.

So I hope to affirm the different approach that the minister is suggesting, and I hope as we go along that we can clarify the differences in that approach, not only for our understanding here within the House but more particularly so that the people in the community will really know that something different is going to happen. The only difficulty I see with that is that if we raise the expectations of the people out there in the community -- and I think we should -- about a new and significant approach, their expectations will automatically outstrip anything we can do in the next week, the next month, the next year or even the next five years. Somehow we have to be able to ask ourselves: how can we live with, and how can we work with, the new expectations that these people have received because of the new message we're trying to give them? It's interesting that if we don't respond to their expectations, they will be negative. But it's also realistic to be aware that if we increase their expectations, the possibility of their being even more negative increases proportionally. How we're going to cope with that will be significantly important.

Another thing I heard the minister say on a number of occasions was that there will be a real focus on family, on supporting the family that has children, the family that has handicapped persons within it, the family that has mental illness within it, the family that is unemployed or whatever it may be. One of the realities I found in working with the Pacific Youth and Family Addiction Services Society is that the training of many of our people working so far in the service field has not been family-oriented in practice, although it might have been family-oriented in theory. In practice it was oriented to deal with individuals, as if these individuals were unconnected to the families around them. Instead of dealing with individuals in a total family context, they were dealing with individuals as isolated persons. I am glad to hear what I think is a shift in emphasis, so individuals will be acknowledged, but always within the context of the family or of the community in which they live. That context, which varies, will be quite different with each community. So I'm glad to see that we'll be able to follow up on that in the situation.

I also heard the minister say -- and again, I would recognize the validity of this -- that they are going to be working more closely with other community agencies and community groups. I presume one of these will be 

[ Page 678 ]

the B.C. Council for the Family, and again I'm talking about the past to reflect on the future. The B.C. Council for the Family was formed as an all-party agreement of this House -- a unique agreement that came from outside the House as a private member's petition and was affirmed by the House. It was interesting in the way that was done, and as I remember that was under the former Premier David Barrett. When the approach was made to him about the establishment of the B.C. Council for the Family with the assumption that the NDP government would support it, the thought was originally that it would come through the NDP government into the House as a government resolution. He was wise enough to say: "No, I do not want to make this a partisan issue." Therefore he recommended to those making the presentation that they make it as a private member's bill rather a government bill, so that it would have the support of every member of the House, which, as I understand, it did at that time.

But one of the realities that came forth as that initial program began to develop, and one of the realities that people within the community find, is that in the past the ministries within the government that served them -- Education, Health, Social Services, whatever else it may be -- have been so separated from each other that the intercommunication and interconnection that was necessary between these ministries for their care was not available. I think I've run out of time for the moment, Mr. Speaker. I would be interested in some response from the minister if that is possible.

H. De Jong: Mr. Chairman, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

H. De Jong: Shortly after 12 o'clock there will be about 90 students from Yale Secondary School arriving. They're here already in the legislative building, but they will be sitting up in the gallery watching the proceedings, with their teacher, Mr. McClellan, and several parents. I ask this House to give them a cordial welcome.

Hon. J. Smallwood: Mr. Chairman, it's going to be a little difficult with the opposition critic's presentation to sort of hone a number of questions out of that. I also see that the member is feeling a little ignored, and took full advantage of his opportunity with his introductions to set out some of his goals and his particular beliefs and principles. I'd also, though, like to thank the member for acknowledging and expressing appreciation for the good work the staff of this ministry does and has been doing over a long and very difficult number of years, given the resources provided for them by the previous administration. I'd like to acknowledge and thank those who are in my office presently for their continued support.

The member's statement and the one question that I can respond to is in relationship to those people who are working in the field in the many offices that we have in each and every community of this province. The member indicated that it was important that with the new directions of this ministry, the new directions be carried out. That will have a great deal to do with the amount of resources and support we can give those front-line workers. I want to indicate for you now that we recognize that we have not sufficiently dealt with that problem, that it will take other budgets to be able to do that.

[12:00]

The opposition critic referred to the response that staff give people when they come in asking for support. I want the member to realize that each of those financial aid workers, who are the front-line workers, have an average of something like 265 cases that they themselves are responsible for and have to manage. That has a great deal to do with the amount of time they are able to spend with people in addressing their concerns and needs, in addition to trying to alleviate that caseload so that people have more time to spend with families and individuals in the community.

We have two strategies. One is in relationship to social workers and the time they have to spend with families. We are introducing this year a new system that, hopefully, will reduce the amount of paperwork, streamline the job and provide more time for families. In my introduction, I indicated that we will be targeting our approach to clients, providing information so that clients, families and individuals have the information to make decisions and choices based on information that is presented in the most accessible fashion possible. With those combined strategies we will begin, throughout this year and subsequent years, to truly effect the ability of this ministry to enhance its partnership with communities.

I want to take the opportunity to state very clearly for the House something that I have taken every opportunity, when I've been talking to staff, when I've been talking to service delivery groups, with advocacy groups, with families and with communities.... The time for this ministry to own the problem is over. For too long this ministry has dealt in some ways as a triage ministry, cleaning up the mess that has been made by an economy that is failing and by the stresses and pressures that are put on families, and has dealt with those issues in isolation, has tried to serve, support, help and provide healing wherever possible with very limited resources. That time is over. We will continue to work with communities, and we will open the doors to allow communities and service-providers, wherever possible, to sit at the table with us to identify the issues, to identify their concerns and to help, in partnership, to solve the problems.

The member talked about expectations. It's a good opportunity for me to share with you some of the conversations I've had with community groups and with advocates. The recognition that we have limited resources is very clear, but there is also a recognition that we can do more with the resources we have. We can redefine a system so that it is a system of choices, and so that the families and individuals who rely on this ministry have the opportunity to make choices, because we recognize that their expertise in making those choices not only provides for better targeting of our services but better accountability of taxpayers' money. 

[ Page 679 ]

We have a number of programs that we'd like to talk to you about that will enhance that.

In addition to the advisory councils that we are setting up and the open-door approach that we are bringing to the ministry, we have provided some interim measures through the family and children services review. One of those is the hotline for parents in crisis -- a hotline that not only is accessible to most communities in this province, but also has a component that will speak directly to native families in this province. If the member has some other specific questions or if any other members of the House would like to ask some questions, I'd be more than happy to provide specifics.

D. Jarvis: Madam Minister, I'm from North Vancouver-Seymour, and I'm not really proud to say what I'm about to say. We have the unfortunate situation of being the seventh overall and second overall in the area of North Vancouver in the sale of alcohol, out of 217 outlets in the province. As you can appreciate, we therefore have an alcohol abuse situation, plus the beginning of a drug abuse situation.

What I'm trying to get on record or to get some information about is a centre that was ostensibly built by local money. The district raised money by volunteers in the area. I don't know if you're familiar with the Seymour Area Youth Services society, but it's a program there with counsellors to counsel people with drug problems -- and the general youth problem, which is an ever-growing situation on the North Shore, as it is in other areas. I was trying to use the liquor distribution sales as an example to show what is happening in that area.

Nevertheless, they are in an unfortunate situation where they now have constructed this building for about $50 million. It's built and has been opened, but they're in a position now where they do not have sufficient funds to even have counsellors. They have some moneys temporarily, but it's running out very quickly, probably by the end of this month. As you are aware, it's hard to raise funds by different groups. It's easy for capital costs, but it's very difficult for ongoing amounts of money. So we made an application to the Ministry of Social Services, and I was of the understanding, as of about two weeks ago, that everything was put on hold and that they would not know whether there were any moneys available. I was wondering if there was any indication from your side as to how you are going to treat our area over there on that aspect of that specific Seymour area youth society building -- for counsellor purposes.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The process of budgeting is ongoing. We are in the process of breaking down this provincial budget into regional allocations, and it won't be until that time that we will be able to address specific issues like the one that you've outlined.

If your or your office would like to contact us, we'd be more than happy to look into it, as the information becomes available.

D. Jarvis: I assume, then, you're going to take us on notice.

Who would be the individual handling that sort of situation -- whom I could specifically ask?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The regional director responsible for your area is Fred Milowsky.

L. Stephens: To the minister. I was very happy to hear your initial remarks on where your ministry is headed. In particular, I was very happy to hear of the initiatives for positive changes in your ministry to empower the people in this province who need many of these services badly.

I also applaud the decision to review the Family and Child Service Act. Hopefully, your ministry will work closely with that of the Attorney General in regard to some badly needed changes to that particular act and in regard to the formation of the advisory council on Social Services programs. I would hope that your ministry would be working with Education and with Advanced Education as well.

In my constituency of Langley, my office has had a number of complaints relating to the Social Services ministry. They've been wide-ranging, and they include not only the treatment of your clients but also the interpretation of some ministry policies. In particular, I would like to have the minister clarify for this House the current policy regarding child apprehension. Specifically I would like to know the steps the ministry staff must follow to initiate a child apprehension.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The member asks a number of questions. First of all, I want to take the opportunity once again to compliment our offices and our front-line staff for doing an extraordinarily difficult job, given the resources that have been provided historically to them through this ministry.

Again I want to take the opportunity to emphasize what has happened to this ministry's budget since the years of restraint in 1982-83 with the previous administration. You cannot continually whittle away a budget and continually ask for more and more of your staff without some difficulties coming to the fore. The fact that, as the member acknowledges, there is a significant caseload that comes to all MLAs' offices is reflective not only of the limited resources that are provided for this ministry but also of the great need in the community generally. I would again take the opportunity to ask for the support of all members of this House in dealing, in the years to come, with that need and providing the tools necessary, so that the number of people working in this ministry, because they care.... They want to be involved in supporting families and have the tools to do that job. I will look for that support from all members.

The member asked about work practice standards for child apprehensions. Maybe this is the best way I can begin to get at it. The ministry has established a number of protocols for dealing with most of their work practices. Child protection workers are directed on the process that they need to go through, and I'd be more than happy to share that with the member. I'm sure the member knows that if there is a concern about abuse or 

[ Page 680 ]

neglect, that must be reported by law, and this ministry must then investigate. That is driven by the laws of the land. Indeed, those are the laws that our ministry is responsible to, and in part those are the laws that are currently being reviewed by the panel.

Going back to some of our earlier comments about providing information and knowledge for people, we have developed a number of projects to deal with issues around the apprehension and protection of children. One of our initiatives is a pamphlet for parents who find themselves in the situation where they are being investigated by the ministry in response to a complaint. This pamphlet provides information about what sorts of questions they can ask and where they can get information. That was one of the hotlines that we talked about. Because it is such an emotional situation when the ministry is involved, a parent or family may not know what is really happening to them or where they should be looking for support. So one of the initiatives that I undertook early on was to ensure that a family finding itself in that situation would have a third party to talk to and a list of questions to help direct them in the most productive way.

[12:15]

In addition, we have introduced a new mediation project. It is a pilot project. We're looking at options for mediating solutions with families as well as mediation training for staff members and counsel, which will hopefully stem the number of cases that find themselves before the court.

I want to say one thing very clearly and very strongly: regardless of the work that we are doing around family protection and the support of families, there will always be some children who will need protection. There will always be some children who need someone to intervene and provide them with support and a safe place to be. Our ministry takes that responsibility very strongly and will continue to provide that sort of support to children in this province.

L. Stephens: I'm well aware of the laws regarding the need for the ministry to investigate complaints of child abuse or whatever; we are not living in a perfect world, and there will always be children who need this kind of service. However, that isn't what I asked. I asked the minister is if she could inform the House on the specific steps ministry staff must follow to initiate a child apprehension -- and the accountability.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I will reiterate my offer. That information is provided in a policy document. We will make that policy document available to the member.

C. Tanner: For the past ten years I have been very heavily involved with the United Way in Victoria and through them with 36 or 37 agencies, many of which touch on your department from time to time. One of the processes the United Way goes through each year is to go to each one of the agencies they are allocating funds to -- in our case in Victoria, about $3 million a year -- and investigate where they get funding from and how they spend it. We ensure ourselves that they are properly funded, and that we should give them an allocation each year.

It's one I can recommend -- if it hasn't been used in the department -- that maybe you should look at, because it's very successful as far as we are concerned. We feel that the public's donated dollar gets very good use.

It was my observation, being an allocation chairman for four of those ten years, that in many cases these agencies -- which are working with volunteers and frequently with not-well-paid staff, and frequently doing an excellent job -- are having a difficult time getting through to your department that they need help from you, as well as from the United Way and other sources of funding. As a consequence, they're being pushed more and more to become dependent on bingos, casinos and lotteries. I personally have some trouble with that, because that funding is difficult to get hold of.

My specific question to you is: could you give us a policy statement or your ministry's feelings -- not of what happened in the past but what we could hope to see in the future -- on better recognition of supporting the volunteer sector that touches on your agency, because you're getting, if you like, double results for your dollar there? Could you inform the House as to what your philosophy or this government's philosophy is toward those volunteer agencies and the funding of them?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm sure the member isn't aware of my background. I come from one of those agencies, so I'm very familiar with the work they do and the value of that work. What I had hoped to do in my introductions is to recognize not only the value of the work that agencies such as those umbrella groups that you talked about are doing, but also the expertise they offer in doing that work -- by the value this ministry places in that work.

The member said: "...rather than talking about the past." Well, in your comments, you indicated that these agencies feel that they're not getting through to the ministry to ensure that they have the finances to support the work they have been doing. That is a direct relationship with the kinds of priorities that the previous government had. In the work that we will be doing in the next year with this budget -- and it's a very small step -- commensurate with the need, we will enhance the work of those community groups, because we believe strongly in the principle of healthy communities. It is by recognizing that strength, those talents, those resources, that I believe we're going to be able to effect the crisis intervention aspect of this budget. It's through supporting the strengths that we will make B.C. generally a healthier place.

If I can digress just slightly from your comments, I think it's important to recognize the fundamental change that this administration brings to this ministry. In the past this ministry has, as I said, dealt with deficits; it has dealt with the deficits in communities, the deficits in families, the deficits in individuals because they were disabled. The view this administration brings to this ministry is that that direction in 

[ Page 681 ]

which the previous government led this ministry robs this province of a tremendous resource. There are some 270,000 men, women and children that rely on income assistance from time to time from this ministry. These are people who cannot participate as full citizens; people who have things to contribute to this province. That has to end. We need to acknowledge and respect the strengths that they bring to this province, and we have to listen to them so that we can provide the kind of support that they are asking for so they can contribute fully and so we can all be much better off.

So the services that you speak of are services we value. We will increasingly direct our resources to those service-providers. The big question for us is our ability to deliver the dollars that are needed. I've met with a number of those service organizations, and have talked to them about the limited resources that we have, and they have said: "We understand that, but we want to help problem-solve. We think we've got some good ideas that don't mean dollars." So we're engaged in that process with them as well.

C. Tanner: I appreciate the statement. The minister, in her pre-statement or her brief when she first started her statement, mentioned that she has about 20 percent discretionary dollars to spend. Could she indicate to the House: would the funding for those volunteer agencies come out of the discretionary dollars, or would they come out of the statutory dollars?

Hon. J. Smallwood: As the member likely knows from the work that he's been doing with the United Way, the different umbrella organizations provide a variety of services. Some provide statutory services and are involved with foster care and others.... They may be involved with funding a group home, as an example. That would be an example of a statutory service. That is not discretionary money. We are required to support those children. But the bulk of the services provided by organizations like that will fall under the discretionary amount in the budget, and there have been increases in a number of areas commensurate with this government's support for that sector. There have been increases in community grants, there have been increases in family support, and we are in the process of developing a fair share for money going to community programs. That's ongoing.

C. Tanner: I would congratulate the minister on her statement. She can be assured that any way that I can help, I will do so. Quite frankly, I'm surprised to find myself saying that to the government in this specific case. However, she can be assured of my support in any way that she can help those volunteer agencies. And this time next year she can be assured of the fact that I will have some facts and figures to specifically ask and see if she's fulfilled her promise to this House today.

L. Stephens: I just have one further question before our opposition critic for Vancouver-Langara continues. One of the programs of the ministry that I know is extremely useful, and one that has had much difficulty over the last few years, is the maintenance enforcement program. I am sure all members of the House who are familiar with this program realize that it is one that is greatly needed. I would like to ask the minister what changes her ministry will be making in the enforcement of this particular program. If workers are going to be hired, what kind of workers? Are more caseworkers going to be hired to deal with this problem, which I understand is from two to three years behind?

Hon. J. Smallwood: First of all, the member must be aware that this is a joint program between the Ministry of Social Services and the Attorney General, and that there was an increase in last year's budget to provide more FTEs to that program to try to impact in some way the wait-list that exists. As in most programs with this ministry, it is also under review, and there will be future announcements with regard to that program specifically. There is an increase in this year's budget for legal fees. It will aid in the enforcement of maintenance programs.

A. Warnke: This is really a follow-up from my colleague, the member for Langley. I believe there is a report from the ombudsman entitled Public Report 24. It is in regard to the number of child apprehension cases, especially those cases dealing with abuse, and so forth. I suspect the public is also concerned about it a little bit. There was a concern expressed here about apprehension first and then investigating it later. I'm wondering if the minister would like to comment on the impression out there that what is needed is some sort of legislative review, that some sort of legislative review is long overdue in terms of dealing with this matter -- also the prospect of invasion of privacy and abuse by the state.

[12:30]

Hon. J. Smallwood: I have to tell the member how pleased I was, when he first got to his feet, to see the number of male members of this House concerned about children. My delight in seeing the member come to his feet was short-lived. If the member had not only been following the debate but had been watching the press and been on top of what's going on in his riding, he would know that there is currently a review of the Family and Child Service Act, which is the exact piece of legislation that he spoke about. The review is being done to build consensus in the community, to identify issues such as the one that the member has identified and to come to grips with the best way for government to protect children and support families. That is the very work that is underway by this government.

A. Cowie: My question to the minister is a friendly short question regarding seniors. As we move on in the next ten years there will be, as we all know, a higher percentage of seniors. In my particular riding we have an excellent facility -- the Kerrisdale Community Centre. I don't know if the minister has visited that centre, but it's a very fine example of what can be done in a community. It operates through the Vancouver Parks B

[ Page 682 ]

oard with only one staff person. It mostly works on a volunteer basis. In fact, the volunteer system is one that is very successful in Vancouver as a whole, and without volunteers you just simply cannot operate these systems.

There is another model facility in the adjoining riding of Vancouver-Langara -- the riding of my friend behind me -- and that's Marpole Place. It has more staff and is operated by the city jointly with the province. Both of these facilities rely a great deal on grants, at least to get them built and then to have some ongoing operation. These facilities serve as a centre for people in the neighbourhood, so that you can get seniors who can share facilities. I've often thought that in Vancouver, where you have a lot of seniors living alone in homes....

During the election I went to the door and found someone in their nineties coming to the door. I'm sure that these people would be happy sharing their homes with other seniors, so that you could have three or four seniors living together. There has to be some method of bringing that together.

When you're younger, you can share a home. The hon. Minister of Agriculture's daughter and my daughter live in a shared home of young adults. By doing that, they can get the kind of family relationship they want in an urban setting. It gives a great deal of freedom. Younger people can do that, and I'm sure we've all done that when we were younger. I think you can also do that when you're older.

My question is a very simple one. I wonder if the ministry is doing anything to work toward encouraging seniors to stay in their homes and share -- it's less costly -- and then they can use centres such as the two I mentioned as a way of coming together.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like to thank the member for acknowledging the good work that is done in senior centres and the good volunteer work that supports those senior centres. I agree with him; there is very good work being done. To recognize that work in some fashion, we've announced today that there is an increase in the budget, and through that increase we will be able to provide 17 new senior counsellors where they are most needed throughout the province. There's already a network of senior counsellors who do excellent work in providing information, counselling and advocacy for seniors.

I'd also like to bring another fact to the members' attention. As we're going through our estimates, I'm constantly reminded of the past history of this ministry. I recognize -- and certainly agree with a number of members who have spoken already -- that we need to be forward-looking. We need to look at the good work that we're engaged in now and will be for the next year. I spoke about that in my initial comments. But you know, when I acknowledge what we have to work with, it can do nothing more than reflect the previous administration. We all agree on the good work done at senior centres. I don't know if the member is aware that during the '82-83 political direction of the previous administration, they cut all funding to senior centres -- that was one of the cuts. So we are in a tremendous deficit situation in this province as far as social infrastructure goes, because previous governments have not lived up to their responsibility to the people of this province -- to the seniors, to the families, to the children, to individuals. That is one of the reasons why we see these increasing caseloads: because they have undermined the infrastructure; they have not supported the good work being done in communities.

One of the things I've asked for is a comparative figure, just so that the members can understand more fully what we're dealing with, not only.... I mean, it's fairly graphic for us to see the lineups at the food banks. It's very graphic for us to hear from teachers about children who are so hungry they can't study at school. It's fairly graphic for us to look at the number of seniors who find themselves, instead of being supported in their homes by good community projects, ill and dependent on medical services.

Those examples are very graphic, but it's a little more difficult for us to understand why we're in this situation and to develop a strategy to change it, to turn the ship around, to recognize the work that we've been talking about and support that work. Government has a role and a responsibility to do that, not only because it is good work but also because it's fiscally responsible for us to do that. By supporting that good work, it's a lot cheaper. If there is no other theme, I want the House to recognize that by supporting that good work, by the community's desire to be healthy and to be recognized in their strengths, we are saving taxpayers' dollars, because it keeps seniors out of hospitals; it keeps kids out of protection; it keeps people in the workforce, participating and contributing to the province.

I recognize the comments that my critic made. It is recognition of those strengths that is going to make the difference to this ministry's budget in the future years, as well as support for good projects like that.

As I said, there have been increases in a number of areas; but it's not enough. I'll say it right now: it's not enough, and the reason it's not enough is that we have had ten years of wrong thinking and poor leadership from the previous administration. I want to make it very clear that the anger I feel about the deficit that was created has nothing to do with partisan bickering. It has to do with the respect for the work that community groups are doing and the total lack of respect and support that was provided by the previous government.

V. Anderson: In respect to your last comments, it was because of the decisions made by the government in 1981-82 that I got involved formally in politics in the first place. I just had to respond to what was happening to the services being provided in the community. So I am very much aware of the drastic implications of what happened in those years to many of our services.

Also, I believe the minister will realize that many of the people on this side, as they've already indicated by their questions, are facing many concerns in their own ridings, which they're bringing here to share. I very much appreciate them doing that.

At the same time, hon. minister, I would like to raise a question with you. One of the disadvantages we have 

[ Page 683 ]

at the moment -- which is structural, no doubt -- is that the last annual report of the ministry we have is 1989-90. In trying to understand where we're at, we've had to go through other resources as well to get caught up. So we're hoping that we'll do that as we go through the report.

Two of the things I looked at, to give a basis from which we're working, were the 1991-92 business plan of April 1991, prepared by the Ministry of Social Services and Housing -- as it was then -- and also the mission statement paper on the orientation of the Ministry of Social Services. Both of those have set out strategic planning goals for the ministry. They are somewhat different, but in many ways they relate. I'm wondering if those are an adequate representation of your goals at the moment. Or are there some significant changes in the presentation of goals that will be coming out as you make the next report or as you do the next outline of the prospects -- whether it's under the title "Business Plan" or not? As I reflected, I wasn't sure whether that's a good title. I know the intent was there, anyway. I'm wondering about the basic goals and values which are in both these statements, so we might understand whether we're working with ones similar to what's there or whether there have been significant changes. As we go on in the review of the estimates, we'll know the background and context in which we're asking these questions.

Hon. J. Smallwood: In my earlier comments I laid out a number of principles which are important to me and will be guiding me in the work that I do in the next year. Two questions, and then I want to follow up on my previous intervention.

I'm going to share some numbers with this House. I found them so staggering that I have been sharing them wherever I have an opportunity. In 1981-82 the community grants budget for this ministry was $8.6 million, and for 1991-92 it was $5.3 million. Those are not constant dollars. To use comparative figures, in '91-92 we would have to be spending over $15 million to be equal with 1981-82.

[12:45]

That's a graphic reflection of how the social infrastucture in this province has been undermined in the community grants program, in the support for the community programs that we were talking about -- whether they're for seniors or the umbrella organizations providing the front-line services. That is the wrong-headed, false direction that the previous government took this province in. That is why we are seeing an increase in the costs of protection.

If a family is not healthy and strong and supported by a broad community-support infrastructure -- the family places and seniors' drop-ins -- the ability of a family, when things are getting just too tough to deal with, to go down the street to a community centre and sit with other parents and share their lives and the situations that they face.... If they don't have that community support, then it continues to deteriorate until families break up, until the province finds itself in a situation of dealing with protection budgets like we are dealing with today. That shows, as an example, the kinds of decisions that were made that this government has to deal with, that we have to start to turn around. But it will cost money. Because of the initiatives of the federal government, because of them shirking their responsibility and downloading their deficit and their poor management onto this province, because of the deficit situation in services that we find ourselves in, it will be a time for healing and for recovery, and we won't be able to do it in one year. But I believe that this budget indicates our commitment and our new direction to address that deficit.

V. Anderson: It's very important that we are able to get those comparisons, because we do need to be able to see, in context, where we are, and those comparisons are very helpful to us as we review the past and look to the future.

One of the questions that has been raised -- maybe we could clarify it, as well, so that everybody is sure -- is that the ministry is operating under certain requirements of certain acts that they are administering and governing. She has indicated, at least, that some of the acts are being reviewed. Perhaps you would be kind enough to say specifically which acts the ministry is bound by, at the moment, and what kind of review is underway with each of those acts and the relationships between them?

Hon. J. Smallwood: It is fair to say that each one of our programs, as well as legislation, is currently under review.

I realized after I sat down that I did not speak to the member's question around the 1989-90 annual report and the mission statement that corresponds with that report. The reason the report was only tabled in the House this year is, once again, because the previous administration was too busy with their own crisis management to fulfil their responsibilities, and that's why the report is late coming into the House.

As far as the mission statement goes, we are in a process now of re-evaluating the mission statement and direction, because we are looking for a systematic way to deliver on the government's commitment to a new way of doing things. In developing that new mission statement, we will be relying very heavily on community groups, advocacy groups and families in this province to help guide our work. We have, in a number of different areas, put in place vehicles for the community to come to the table with us, whether it's the family and children's services review or the review around the GAIN legislation and regulations. Those are the two major pieces of legislation that govern this ministry. The review of family and children's services may also impact the Adoption Act.

Hon. A. Edwards: I would now move that the committee rise and report progress.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

[ Page 684 ]

The Speaker: On Friday last, the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove sought to raise a matter of privilege in the Legislative Assembly. The essence of his allegation was that the Attorney General had seen and admitted having seen a copy of a draft report of the constitution committee prior to presentation in the House of the final report. The member quoted the following comments of the Attorney General -- "Some members may know I was the Deputy Chair of the constitution committee in the previous parliament, and as a result of the preliminary work we did last year, I sure have a sense of how difficult a task it was for members of this committee. I read that report yesterday. I thought it was an absolutely outstanding report." It is important in this case to take note of the facts which may be gathered from the Journals and records of the House.

Firstly, this House appointed a committee during the previous session, prior to the election, which was called the Select Standing Committee on Constitutional Matters and Intergovernmental Relations. The Attorney General was the Deputy Chair. That committee held numerous meetings and hearings during the period prior to the election and, in fact, tabled a preliminary report with the Clerk of the House on August 15, 1991, after the House had adjourned. That report urged that the committee's work be contined.

Secondly, after the election, by consent of all parties, a Members' Committee on the Constitution was formed and held a variety of hearings prior to the commencement of this session, and tabled an interim report with the Clerk of the House on February 18, 1992.

Thirdly, the Special Committee on Constitutional Matters, appointed on opening day, then proceeded to hold numerous hearings and tabled a final report on April 2. It is important to note that the final report incorporated the results of hearings held over the past year, and the Chair can see no reason why the Attorney General, who was in part responsible for its content, should not in fact have received a draft of the report.

The greater issue raised by the alleged breach of privilege, however, relates to access to draft reports of committees. It has been the practice in this House that members of the House may see material presented to committees and may also see draft reports prior to their presentation in the House.

The restraint on the member is that the member not publish or repeat the contents of such material before the committee has actually reported to the House. Parliament has exercised its right to bar preliminary publication of reports on the grounds that such preliminary publication would tend to impair the work of the committee. It is important to note the distinction between the bar on preliminary publication to the public and the receipt by a member of the House of a copy of a report prior to its presentation in the House.

Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, twentieth edition, pages 153-4, indicates that with respect to publication of evidence, the rule was not usually enforced where presented at public meetings. However, the publication or disclosure of proceedings of committees closed to the public or of draft reports of committees before they had been reported to the House would constitute a breach of privilege or a contempt.

The Chair observes that the Attorney General's comments were made some two hours after the report was presented in the House. For these reasons, I must accordingly find that there is no breach of privilege.

Hon. A. Edwards moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:58 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada